Paxton, looking at European fascisms, emphasizes the fear of a left-wing revolution. Certainly the United States experienced such a fear, the Red Scare that accompanied the postwar wave of strikes and of bombings. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer warned of potential Bolshevik plots to overthrow the government. In a 1920 article in The Forum magazine, he wrote:
My information showed that communism in this country was an organization of thousands of aliens who were direct allies of Trotzky. Aliens of the same misshapen caste of mind and indecencies of character, and it showed that they were making the same glittering promises of lawlessness, of criminal autocracy to Americans, that they had made to the Russian peasants. How the Department of Justice discovered upwards of 60,000 of these organized agitators of the Trotzky doctrine in the United States is the confidential information upon which the Government is now sweeping the nation clean of such alien filth. . . .
The Justice Department staged a nationwide series of raids on December 31, 1919 and arrested thousands of supposed revolutionaries. Most turned out to be innocent of anything worse than having a last name which suggested foreign birth. But Palmer did succeed in convincing many that a Bolshevik uprising was imminent. In this he had much help. Newspapers reported rumors as fact and editorialized stridently against "Reds" and "anarchists." Mayor Ole Hanson of Seattle annointed himself that city's savior when a five-day general strike ended, a strike he claimed was an initial step on the road to revolution. The leadership of William Z. Foster in the great Steel Strike of 1919 further impressed the image of Bolshevik-led revolution on the popular imagination.
Yet, through all of this, the Klan did not grow. The American Legion did. Legion members played active roles in breaking strikes in 1919-20; the Klan did not. It was after the left had been effectively demolished that the "Invisible Empire" came into its own. Again, this is not to suggest that Paxton is mistaken. He wishes to explain why some fascist movements succeeded in gaining power, something the KKK never even approached doing.
Paxton's analysis of European fascisms raises a related, and very important, question. Fascist movements in Europe fed off the perceived weakness of established conservative parties. Where those parties were strong, as in Great Britain, fascist movements did not attrack mass followings. In the United States, however, the Klan grew prodigiously despite the demonstrated ability of the Republican Party to govern according to a conservative agenda. This perceived strength of the Republicans, as I noted above, undoubtedly played a major role in preventing the Klan from establishing itself as a permanent part of the party system. But it does not appear to have inhibited its growth.
http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/1920s/Eugenics/Klan.html
Red Scare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term "Red Scare" has been retroactively applied to two distinct periods of strong anti-Communism in United States history: first from 1917 to 1920, and second from the late 1940s through the mid-1950s.
These periods were characterized by heightened suspicion of communists, the fear of widespread infiltration of communists in U.S. government and the fear of the influence of communists on U.S. society. Both periods occurred during times of war and national upheaval. The first 'Red Scare' began during World War I in which the United States fought from 1917-1918. This first 'Red Scare' also included fear of anarchists and aggressive labor unions who were inspired by the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and the ensuing Russian Civil War (1917-1923). The second 'Red Scare' coincided with increased fears of espionage by communists such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and heightened tension from the Soviet blockade of Berlin (1948-1949), Chinese communist revolution(1949), the civil war in Vietnam(1950-1972) and the war against communist forces in Korea (1950-1953).
These fears spurred aggressive investigation and (particularly during the first period) jailing of persons associated with communist and socialist ideology or political movements. The Constitutional right to free association in America makes it difficult to legally convict a citizen for simply belonging to a subversive group, or groups and individuals who sympathize with these groups. However, during that time, the Espionage Act was extended with the passing of the Sedition Act in 1918. The latter law made it illegal to speak out against the U.S. government as well as giving the Postmaster General power to deny mail of citizens suspected of being dissenters (i.e., censorship of communist, socialist, and anarchist related mail). While United States Congress later repealed the Sedition Act in 1921, major parts of the Espionage Act remain codified in law.
Origins
The Socialist Party of America and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) were strongly opposed to the First World War. Eugene Debs and other party leaders were prosecuted for giving speeches urging resistance to the draft. Postal inspectors refused to distribute materials deemed as subversive to the war effort. Many German-language and leftist papers were disrupted or closed as a consequence. Members of the Ghadar Party were also put on trial in the Hindu German Conspiracy Trial.
After the war, the investigations abated for a few months, but did not cease. They soon resumed in the context of Russian Revolution of 1917, the Russian Civil War and the Red Terror. To some Americans, this was a time of uncertainty and fear over the prospects of a socialist or communist revolution in the United States.
The "Red Summer"
Main article: Red Summer of 1919
A series of bombings in June of 1919 sparked the FBI to more aggressive actions. The mayor of Seattle received a homemade bomb in the mail on April 28, which was defused. Senator Thomas W. Hardwick received a bomb the next day, which blew off the hands of his servant who had discovered it, severely burning him and his wife. The following morning, a New York City postal worker discovered sixteen similar packages holding enough nitroglycerin to kill a man addressed to well-known people of the time, including oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller. There were 38 bombs in all, sent to prominent figures. On June 2, a bomb partially destroyed the front of Attorney-General A Mitchell Palmer's house (The bomber, Carlo Valdinoci, succeeded only in blowing himself up). On June 3, 1919 New York City Night Watchman William Boehner was killed by a bomb which had been placed at a judge's house.
On May 1, 1919, a May Day parade in Cleveland, Ohio, protesting the imprisonment of Eugene Debs erupted into the violent May Day Riots of 1919. Charles Ruthenberg, a prominent Socialist leader who organized the march, was arrested for "assault with intent to kill".
Labor actions, such as the Seattle general strike, the Boston police strike, and the organizing efforts of the Industrial Workers of the World, seemed to demonstrate the rise of radical labor unions. Furthermore, many of the organizations which supported the unions were not only associated with socialism or communism, but had already been persecuted for opposing World War I.
In the Wall Street bombing on September 16, 1920, 100 pounds (45 kg) of dynamite with 500 pounds (230 kg) of fragmented steel exploded in front of the offices of the J.P. Morgan Company, killing 38 people and injuring 300 others. Anarchists have long been suspected as initiating the attack, which followed a number of letter bombs that targeted Morgan himself. However, the identity of the bombers has never been determined.
Damage done by the bomb on Attorney-General A Mitchell Palmer's house
Reactions
In response to the bombings, the press, public, and prominent men of business and politics flared up in a surge of patriotism, often involving violent hatred of communists, radicals, and foreigners. Senator Kenneth D. McKellar proposed sending radicals to a penal colony in Guam; General Leonard Wood called to place them on "ships of stone with sails of lead"; evangelist Billy Sunday clamored to "stand [radicals] up before a firing squad and save space on our ships." In Centralia, Washington, a Wobblie {Wesley Everest} was dragged from a town jail and hanged.
The largest government action of the Red Scare was the Palmer Raids against anarchist, socialist, and communist groups. Left-wing activists, such as five-time Socialist presidential nominee Eugene V. Debs, were jailed by government officials using the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. Section Four of the Sedition act empowered Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson to slow or confiscate all Socialist material in the mail, a task that he took on readily. In a spectacle that exposed the paranoia, xenophobia, and fear of anarchism which much of the United States was experiencing, Sacco and Vanzetti, two suspected Italian anarchists, were executed for murder in a trial seen by many as unfair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
Red Summer of 1919
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Red Summer, coined by author James Weldon Johnson, is used to describe the summer and autumn of 1919. Race riots erupted in several cities in both the North and South of the United States. The three most violent episodes happened in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Elaine, Arkansas. These were part of a series of 20 or more race riots occurring in the U.S. where African Americans were the victims of hostile attacks, including:
1919 - Charleston Race riot, May 10, Charleston, South Carolina
1919 - Washington, DC Riot 1919, July 19, Washington, D.C.
1919 - Chicago Race Riot, July 27 - Aug. 2, Chicago, Illinois
1919 - Knoxville Race riot, Aug. 30, Knoxville, Tennessee
1919 - Longview Race Riot, Longview, Texas
1919 - Omaha Race riot, Sept. 28, Omaha, Nebraska
1919 - Elaine Race Riot, Oct. 1, Elaine, Arkansas
The riots were sparked by racism, unemployment and inflation. Rapid demobilization and a lack of price control had led to inflation and unemployment, which resulted in competition, especially between whites and blacks, for jobs. White workers did not want African Americans competing equally for jobs with them.
The unrest was intensified by the Red Scare; African Americans who wanted racial equality were branded as radicals. The Communist Jamaican poet Claude McKay wrote his poem "If We Must Die" in response to the situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer_of_1919
Labor Movement
After 1885, the first strong socialist labor movements emerged in America. Demands were made for higher wages, better working conditions and shorter hours, as part of a general reform of society. The emergence of militant and socialist trade unions resulted in unprecedented conflict between capital and labor; in 1886 and 1887 an estimated 3000 strikes took place in the United States.
A strike at the McCormick reaper works in Chicago spilled over into a serious riot known as the Haymarket Square Riot, putting the issue firmly on the national agenda. The most important strike was however that in 1894, of the employees of the Pullman Company, who were led by the American Railway Union. The strike was called to protest unfair working conditions at the Chicago-based Pullman Company, a manufacturer of railroad sleeping cars. It resulted in violence, the deaths of workers, and the destruction of property. Federal troops had to be deployed in Chicago to restore order.
Above: The burning of Cincinnati's Union Station marked the climax of the great strike of 1877, the first serious industrial conflict in the USA.
http://www.white-history.com/hwr54.htm
Race Riots
American society was almost torn apart from the south to the north in a series of race riots which were the most serious racial disturbances since the Reconstruction period, and would only be surpassed by the race riots of the 1960s and 1980s in that country.
The primary cause of the race riots was usually the result of a particular incident, most often a criminal act by members of one or another of the races. However, the sheer fact that such incidents could spark off massive riots was by itself an indication of the underlying racial tensions which boiled underneath the society at the time.
1898: Several Blacks and Whites die in racial riots in Wilmington, North Carolina;
1906: In a repeat of the incident in Wilmington, dozens of Blacks and Whites are killed in several days racial rioting in Atlanta, Georgia;
1908: A race riot occurs in Springfield, Illinois, the home of Abraham Lincoln. Two vicious Black on White murders spark off a White riot during which a White crowd kills two Blacks and burns down a crime infested Black suburb known as the "Badlands."
1917: A race riot occurs in St. Louis, Illinois; some 40 people, mainly Blacks, are killed in the violence;
1917: A Black army battalion goes amok in Houston, using firearms against White civilians. Two Blacks and eleven Whites are killed in the fighting. Some 63 Black soldiers are court marshaled and thirteen are hanged as a result;
1918: A Black riot in Chester, Pennsylvania, spreads out to attack White passersby: two Whites are killed and three Blacks are shot by police;
1918: The riot in Chester spreads to Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. One White is killed and three Blacks are shot by police;
1919: The first of the infamous "Red Summer" race riots occur. Eventually 26 different riots take place between April and October. These included disturbances in the following areas:
May - Charleston, South Carolina;
July - Gregg and Longview counties, Texas;
July - Washington, D. C.;
July - Chicago; this was the worst of the 1919 riots. Sparked off when some Whites threw a few stones at a Black swimming in Lake Michigan; the Black swimmer subsequently drowned. The police refused to arrest the stone throwers as there was no link between the stone throwing and the drowning. Dissatisfied, a Black mob then went on a rampage in Chicago for several days, resulting in 38 deaths;
July - Knoxville, Tennessee;
July - Omaha, Nebraska;
October 1-3 - Elaine and Phillips counties, Alabama;
1921: In June, a serious race riot occurs in Tulsa, Oklahoma, involving Whites and Blacks: 21 Whites and 60 Blacks are killed;
1943: Conflicts over housing and jobs develop between Black and White workers, breaking out into open racial conflict in Detroit, resulting in the deaths of 25 Blacks and nine Whites before federal troops restore order.
Below left: A tram on fire in central Detroit, 1943, set alight during the Black riots in that city. Below right: Police make some arrests in Detroit, 1943.
http://www.white-history.com/hwr54i.htm
Haymarket Riot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Haymarket Riot on May 4, 1886, in Chicago, Illinois is the origin of international May Day observances and in popular literature inspired the caricature of "a bomb-throwing anarchist." The causes of the incident are still controversial, although deeply polarized attitudes separating the business class and the working class in late 19th century Chicago are generally acknowledged as having precipitated the tragedy and its aftermath.
May Day parade and strikes
On May 1, 1886 (later known as May Day), labor unions organized a strike for an eight-hour work day in Chicago. Albert Parsons, head of the Chicago Knights of Labor, with his wife Lucy Parsons and two children, led 80,000 people down Michigan Avenue in what is regarded as the first May Day Parade. In the next few days they were joined nationwide by 350,000 workers, including 70,000 in Chicago, who went on strike at 1,200 factories.
On May 3 striking workers met near the McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. plant. A fight broke out on the picket lines, and Chicago police intervened and attacked the strikers, killing two, wounding several others and sparking outrage in the city's working community.
Local anarchists distributed fliers calling for a rally at Haymarket Square, then a bustling commercial center (also called the Haymarket) near the corner of Randolph Street and Desplaines Street in what was later called Chicago's west Loop. These fliers alleged police had murdered the strikers on behalf of business interests and urged workers to seek justice. In response to the McCormick killings, prominent anarchist August Spies published "Revenge! Workingmen to Arms!" This pamphlet urged workers to take action:
To arms we call you, to arms!
Rally at Haymarket Square
The rally began peacefully under a light rain on the evening of May 4. August Spies spoke to the large crowd while standing in an open wagon on a side street. According to many witnesses Spies said he was not there to incite anyone. Meanwhile a large number of on-duty police officers watched from nearby. The crowd was so calm that Mayor Carter Harrison, Sr., who had stopped by to watch, walked home early. Some time later the police ordered the rally to disperse and began marching in formation towards the speakers' wagon. A bomb was thrown at the police line and exploded, killing a policeman (see Mathias J. Degan); seven other policemen later died from their injuries. {See ODMP memorial} The police immediately opened fire on the crowd, injuring dozens. Many of the wounded were afraid to visit hospitals for fear of being arrested. A total of eleven people died.
This 19th century engraving showing exaggerated flames and smoke was published in popular newspapers and magazines during the days and weeks following the Haymarket riot. It also appeared in some history textbooks.
Trial, executions and pardons
Eight people connected directly or indirectly with the rally and its anarchist organisers were charged with Degan's murder: August Spies, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Louis Lingg, Michael Schwab, Samuel Fielden and Oscar Neebe. Five (Spies, Fischer, Engel, Lingg and Schwab) were German immigrants while a sixth, Neebe, was a U.S. citizen of German descent.
The trial was presided over by Judge Joseph Gary. The defense counsel included Sigmund Zeisler, William Perkins Black, William Foster, and Moses Salomon. The prosecution did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing, but argued that the person who had thrown the bomb had been incited to do so by the defendants, who as conspirators were equally responsible.
The jury returned guilty verdicts for all eight defendants, with death sentences for seven. Neebe (who seemed to have been almost forgotten by the prosecution) received a sentence of 15 years in prison. The sentencing sparked outrage from budding labor and workers movements, resulted in protests around the world, and made the defendants international political celebrities and heroes within labor and radical political circles. Meanwhile the press had published often sensationalized accounts and opinions about the incident, all of which tended to polarize public reaction.
For example, journalist George Frederic Parsons wrote a piece for the Atlantic Monthly articulating the fears of middle-class Americans concerning labor radicalism, asserting that workers had only themselves to blame for their troubles.
After the appeals had been exhausted, Illinois Governor Richard James Oglesby commuted Fielden's and Schwab's sentences to life in prison. On the eve of his scheduled execution, Lingg committed suicide in his cell, ironically using a smuggled dynamite cap, which he reportedly held in his mouth like a cigar (the blast blew off half his face and he survived in agony for several hours).
The next day, November 11, 1887, Spies, Parsons, Fischer, and Engel were hanged together before a public audience. Marched to the gallows in hoods, they sang the Marseillaise, the anthem of the international revolutionary movement. Family members including Lucy Parsons who attempted to see them for the last time were arrested and searched for bombs; none were found. August Spies was widely quoted as having shouted out, "The time will come when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you strangle today." Witnesses reported that the condemned did not die when they dropped, but strangled to death slowly, a sight which left the audience visibly shaken.[citation needed]
Lingg, Spies, Fischer, Engel and Parsons were buried at the German Waldheim Cemetery in Forest Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago (as were Schwab and Neebe when they died). In 1893 the Haymarket Martyrs Monument by sculptor Albert Weinert was raised at Waldheim. Over a century later it was designated a National Historic Landmark by the United States Department of the Interior (the only cemetery memorial to be noted as such).
On June 26, 1893, Illinois Governor John Peter Altgeld signed pardons for Fielden, Neebe, and Schwab after having concluded all eight defendants were innocent (the pardons signalled his own political end).
The police commander who ordered the dispersal was later convicted of unrelated corruption. The bomb thrower was never identified, although some anarchists privately indicated they had later learned his identity but kept quiet to protect him from prosecution. Some anarchists and members of the radical labor movements speculated that the the bomb thrower was an agent provocateur hired by the heads of the steel industry to discredit the labor movement. The trial is often referred to by scholars as one of the most serious miscarriages of justice in United States history.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Riot
Great railroad strike of 1877
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 began on July 14 in Martinsburg, West Virginia, and ended some 45 days later after it was put down by local and state militias, as well as by federal troops.
Economic Conditions in the 1870s
1873 saw a significant economic downturn in Europe. The effects of this downturn reached the US on September with the failure, on September 18, of banking firm Jay Cooke and Company. As Cooke was the country’s top investment banker, the principal backer of the Northern Pacific Railroad, (as well as a prime investor in other railroads) and had handled most of the government’s wartime loans, its failure was catastrophic. In response, the US economy sputtered and then collapsed. Shortly after Cooke’s demise, the New York Stock Exchange closed for 10 days, credit dried up, foreclosures and factory closings became common and other banks failed. Of the country's 364 railroads, 89 went bankrupt, over 18,000 businesses failed between 1873 and 1875 and unemployment reached 14 percent by 1876, while workers who kept their jobs were employed for a mere six months out of the year and suffered a 45% cut in their wages, or approximately one dollar per day.[1] This economic cataclysm is now referred to as the Panic of 1873.
While the public blamed President Ulysses S. Grant and Congress for mishandling the economy, in particular Grant's monetary policy of contracting the money supply, the causes were actually much deeper. With the end of the Civil War, the country experienced feverish, unregulated growth, especially in the railroad industry, with the government giving massive land grants and subsudies to railroads. Thus, the massive overbuilding of the nation’s railroads, and the overinvestment by bankers of depositors’ funds in the railroads laid the foundation for the Panic and the depression that followed. A full recovery was not seen until 1878-79.
Causes of the Strike
When the Civil War ended, a boom in railroad construction ensued, with roughly 35,000 miles of new track being laid from coast-to-coast between 1866 and 1873. The railroads, then the second largest employer outside of agriculture, required large amounts of money, and thus entailed massive financial risk. Speculators fed large amounts of money into the industry, causing abnormal growth and overexpansion. Cooke's firm, like many other banking firms, was investing a disproportionate share of depositors’ funds in the railroads, thus paving the way for the ensuing collapse.
In addition to Jay Cooke's direct infusion of capital in the railroads, the firm had become a federal agent for the government in the government’s direct financing of railroad construction. As building new track in areas where land had not yet been cleared or settled required land grants and loans that only the government could provide, the use of Jay Cooke’s firm as a conduit for federal funding worsened the effects that Cooke’s bankruptcy had on the nation’s economy.
In the wake of the Panic of 1873, a bitter antagonism between workers and the leaders of industry developed. By 1877, wage cuts, distrust of capitalists and poor working conditions led to a number of railroad strikes that prevented the trains from moving. This antagonism lingered well after the depression ended in 1878-79, eventually erupting into the labor unrest that marked the following decades and that eventually led to the birth of labor unions.
Additionally, the 1876 Presidential Election between Samuel J. Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes had been a clear victory for Tilden in the popular vote, but while Tilden had a plurality of electoral votes (184-165) he did not have a majority as is required by the Constitution. This sent the election to the House of Representatives who were unable to reach agreement. On January 29, 1877, the U.S. Congress passed a law forming a 15-member Electoral Commission to decide on a winner. Five members came from each house of the U.S. Congress, with the other five members coming from the Supreme Court. Thanks in part to a deal brokered by Thomas Scott (who will surface as a figure during the strike), the commission awarded the disputed electoral votes to Hayes. Thus, the mood of the country grew darker, as those who had voted for Tilden felt disenfranchised. [2]
The Strike
The great railroad strike of 1877 started on July 14 in Martinsburg, West Virginia, in response to the cutting of wages for the second time in a year by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. Striking workers would not allow any of the stock to roll until this second wage cut was revoked. The governor sent in state militia units to restore train service, but the soldiers refused to use force against the strikers and the governor called for federal troops. Meanwhile, the strike spread to Baltimore, causing violent street battles between the striking workers and the Maryland militia. When the outnumbered federal troops fired on an attacking crowd, they killed 11 and wounded 40. [3]
Pittsburgh, PA became the site of the worst violence. Thomas Alexander Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad, often considered one of the first robber barons, suggested that the strikers should be given "a rifle diet for a few days and see how they like that kind of bread."[4] However, local law enforcement officers refused to fire on the strikers. Nonetheless, his request came to pass on July 21, when militiamen bayoneted and fired on rock-throwing strikers, killing twenty people and wounding twenty-nine others.[5] Rather than quell the uprising however, this action merely infuriated the strikers who then forced the militiamen to take refuge in a railroad roundhouse, and then set fires that razed 39 buildings and destroyed 104 locomotives and 1,245 freight and passenger cars. On July 22, the militiamen mounted an assault on the strikers, shooting their way out of the roundhouse and killing 20 more people on their way out of the city. After over a month of constant rioting and bloodshed, President Rutherford B. Hayes sent in federal troops to end the strikes.
Three-hundred miles to the east, Philadelphia strikers battled local militia and set fire to much of Center City before federal troops intervened and put down the uprising.
The strike then spread to the American Midwest and Western, increasing in brutality and intensity. On July 21, disgruntled workers in East St. Louis, Illinois, halted all freight traffic, with the city remaining in the control of the strikers for almost a week. The strike was finally halted by a combination of military force, and an injunction that ordered workers not to interfere with railroad operations.
On July 24, rail traffic in Chicago was paralyzed when angry mobs of groups of unemployed citizens wreaked havoc in the rail yards, shutting down both the Baltimore and Ohio and the Illinois Central Railroads. Soon, other railroads were brought to a standstill, with demonstrators shutting down railroad traffic in Bloomington, Aurora, Peoria, Decatur, Urbana and other rail centers throughout Illinois. In sympathy, coal miners in the pits at Braidwood, LaSalle, Springfield, and Carbondale went on strike as well.
In Chicago, the Workingmen’s Party organized demonstrations that drew crowds of twenty thousand people. The mayor of Chicago, Monroe Heath, asked for five-thousand vigilantes to help restore order (they were partially successful), and shortly thereafter the National Guard and federal troops arrived. On July 25, violence between police and the mob erupted with events reaching a peak the following day. These blood-soaked confrontations between police and enraged mobs occurred at the Halsted Street viaduct, at nearby 16th Street, at Halsted and 12th, and on Canal Street. The headline of the Chicago Times screamed, "TERRORS REIGN, THE STREETS OF CHICAGO GIVEN OVER TO HOWLING MOBS OF THIEVES AND CUTTHROATS."[6] Order was finally restored, however, with the deaths of nearly 20 men and boys, the wounding of scores more, and the loss of property valued in the millions of dollars.
The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 began to lose momentum when President Hayes sent federal troops from city to city. These troops suppressed strike after strike, until at last, approximately 45 days after it had started, the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 was over.
Laying Blame
After the strike was over, blame for the strike and its repercussions was laid by Americans on a number of factors:
Marxism: Still others asserted that the Great Railroad Strike was due to Marxist influence. The New York World blamed "the hands of men dominated by the devilish spirit of Communism." Given that the Workingmen’s Party (WP) was a Socialist party, affiliated with the Marxist movement sweeping Europe, it is understandable to that this connection was made. However, it should be noted that the WP did not instigate the strike, rather it fanned its flames.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike
THE GREAT RAILROAD STRIKE OF 1877
By the spring of 1877 the United States was entering its fourth year of a depression closely related to a collapse in the railroad industry.
The railroads were the advance agents of industrialism, opening a national market for the first time and themselves providing a market for iron, steel, coal, and the products of related industries. Great wealth had been produced by the railroads in Illinois, and hundreds of thousands of people derived their support directly from the wages Paid employees. Illinois led the states in miles of track, and Chicago was the railroad center of the United States.
But by 1877 construction of new track and rolling stock had virtually halted, related industries were sagging, and wages were slashed for railroad workers. Newspapers began to report cases of starvation and suicide attributed directly to unemployment and despondency. Many men became tramps and roamed the state seeking the means of survival.
Premonitions of things to come had caused the state to awaken its military forces from their post-war lethargy. A "Military Code" had been approved by the General Assembly in May, 1877. By its terms the Militia officially became known as the National Guard, and the troops were armed with efficient weapons and trained in modem methods of riot control.
The anticipated labor disturbances began in West Virginia in July and spread westward, gaining in violence and intensity. Action began in Illinois on July 21 in East St. Louis, where resentful workers halted all freight traffic. Three days later on July 24, mobs in Chicago made up largely of nonlaboring gangs of ruffians roamed the railroad yards and shut down those of the Baltimore and Ohio and the Illinois Central. Other railroads followed suit. On the same day, strikers halted railroad traffic at Bloomington, Mattoon, Aurora, Effingham, Peoria, Galesburg, Monmouth, Decatur, Urbana, Carbondale, and other railroad centers throughout the state. Coal miners were already out of the pits at Braidwood, LaSalle, Springfield, Carbondale, and other mining towns.
The mayor of Chicago successfully called for 5000 vigilantes to help restore order; the National Guard and federal troops arrived. Some violence broke out on July 25 between police and the mob, but events reached a peak on the next day. Bloody encounters between police and enraged mobs occurred at the Halsted Street viaduct, at nearby 16th Street, at Halsted and 12th, and on Canal Street. The Chicago Times headlined "TERRORS REIGN, THE STREETS OF CHICAGO GIVEN OVER TO HOWLING MOBS OF THIEVES AND CUTTHROATS." Order was restored, however, at the cost of at least 18 men and boys dead, scores wounded, and millions of dollars of property lost.
In East St. Louis the strike was put down by combining military force with a blanket injunction ordering workers not to interfere with the operation of railroads and establishing a pattern of suppression used for a half-century. The National Guard had been dispatched to Chicago, Peoria, Galesburg, Decatur, East St. Louis, Braidwood, and LaSalle in the hot July of 1877.
After it was over, Illinoisans explained the upheavals in various ways. Fear of foreigners was a factor, and whenever possible violence was blamed on German and Bohemian agitators. On the other hand, Gov. Shelby Cullom believed that "the vagrant, the willfully idle, was the chief element in all these disturbances." The attitude was that if a man was unemployed, it was because he did not want a job, rather I than that there were no jobs available.
Others unrealistically attributed the Great Railroad Strike to Marxist influence and to the leadership of a handful of radicals throughout the state. More believed it was the fault of trade unions, and an anti-union attitude grew throughout Illinois.
While it has been labeled the first national strike, it is quite clear that trade unions were weak, small in numbers, and Cannot be held responsible. More realistically, it was called the first national holiday Of the slums, as those most directly affected by depression "pressed spontaneous discontent.
Whatever the reason, strikes continued throughout the 19th century as workers and industrialists attempted to adjust to a new era.
http://www.riverweb.uiuc.edu/IBEX/vignettes/1877_rr_strike.htm
Many skeptics say that a socialist society could never exist in America. They say that the working class and poor, who make up 90 percent of the country, are too fragmented. They say that Americans are greedy and unwilling to join together in common struggle. The constant oppression of the working class by the capitalists has shattered many people’s hopes for solidarity - or so they would like us to think! Every working class man and woman on this planet has had enough with the constant attacks from the ruling class - all it takes is one spark to ignite the fires of revolution. Some say human nature prevents a socialist system from ever being successful, but the truth is that it’s human nature to strike back against oppression and exploitation when men and women are pushed to the brink. Our own history is rich with examples of the heroism of the working class in their struggle for a better world.
Forty years before the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, the American people showed their solidarity and elan, and rose up against their capitalist masters. In September of 1873 a depression gripped the nation; layoffs, wage cuts, breadlines, and evictions increased; thousands and thousands suffered during the winter through 1874. In 1874, the unions tried to organize workers, demanding higher wages and shorter workdays but with little success. By 1877, roughly 3 million people were unemployed - an astounding 27 percent of the working population. Those who were able to keep a job worked six months a year and their wages were cut by about 45 percent, which works out to be roughly 1 dollar a day. A fixed political election plunged the country deeper into misery. Rutherford B Hayes, a Republican, was not the majority of the peoples’ choice for President, but 20 disputed electoral votes, some of which were from Florida (surprise!), brought the decision to the House of Representatives. A slick deal with Thomas Scott, of the PA railroad, gave Hayes the southern congressional votes in exchange for a bailout of failing investments in the Texas and Pacific railroads. As a special incentive, Republicans also promised to end reconstruction in the South, a smack in the face to African Americans.
The PA railroad began slashing wages, first 10 percent at the start of the year, then another 10 percent in June. They laid off workers, cut wages, and then announced they would increase their eastbound trains to Pittsburgh without hiring more crew. Furious workers took control of the switches and blocked the trains, igniting the spark. Around the same time, the Baltimore & Ohio cut wages, and reduced work weeks. On July 16, Brakemen and Fireman stopped working. The bosses attempted to hire scabs but the strikers blocked train movements in all directions. Word traveled fast through to Virginia where strikes also erupted. Trains stopped moving, and the bosses pleaded with the Governor to call in the militia. There was a battle between the strikers and the militia, but the strength and solidarity of the workers pushed back the militia, leaving the railroads to the workers, who were winning more and more support. The Governor then begged President Hayes for federal troops, which were quickly granted. The troops arrived in Martinsburg, VA heavily armed with rifles and gattling guns, and succeeded in breaking the strikes and getting the trains moving again. But this was just a small victory for the ruling class, for the strike had just begun! The strike-breakers could not extinguish the flames of revolt - when one battle was won, another popped up; they couldn’t keep up with the working classs determination.
Sympathy for the strikers grew strong all across the country, and in several cities workers protested the treatment of the strikers. The militia was constantly called in as strikebreakers; in Maryland the militia killed 10 protestors as they threw rocks and sticks. In Pittsburgh, the solidarity ran so high that the local police and militia sided with the workers. The President and the Governor were so furious they ordered Philadelphia troops sent in to try to defuse the situation. The Philadelphia Militia killed 20 men, women, and children as they arrived in Pittsburgh to put down the protests. As news spread of the carnage, miners, steelworkers, manufacturers, and mill workers rushed to the scene. They raided gun shops and seized any weapons they could find. The armed forces retreated as 20,000 angry workers poured into the city, 5,000 of them fully armed.
The crowd torched the railway station, roundhouse, company offices and several train cars, The New York World newspaper blamed "the hands of men dominated by the devilish spirit of Communism." President Hayes ordered all regiments in the state to convene in Pittsburgh to fight back any workers that would not disperse after 24 hours. In Harrisburg, the Philly militia shook hands with the strikers and surrendered their guns. They were fed and released to go home to their families. When looting began, citizens’ patrols were initiated to keep order. The strike soon spread through to Chicago. Fear gripped the country as the Chicago Times headlines read: "terrors reign, the streets of Chicago given over to howling mobs of thieves and cutthroats." This clearing shows the capitalists’ fears and outrage!
The Workingmen’s party in Chicago, which was connected to Marx’s First International, called a massive rally with six thousand people attending. They demanded the immediate nationalization of all railroads. The following day the police attacked a smaller group of teenage protestors for calling on railway, mill, and lumberyard workers to join them. Soon the US infantry, joining police and guardsmen arrived to "keep order" - meaning beatings and gunfire; 18 people were killed.
In St Louis, Missouri, the workers were exceptionally strong and united. The Workingmen’s party led the rebellion. The four organized sections, German, French, English, and Bohemian took ferries to the eastern shores of the Mississippi to meet with railroad workers. When the railroad workers declared themselves on strike they even had the support of the mayor, who had been an active revolutionary in his younger years. Mass meetings were held with thousands of attendees, calling for the nationalization of all industries within the cities. At another Workingmen’s meeting, writes Marike Van Ophem, "A black man was the voice for those who worked at the steamboats and levees." The man asked, "will you stand with us regardless of color?" The crowd replied by yelling, "We will!" St Louis’ entire industry was at a standstill, including breweries, trains, flour mills, banks, shops, etc.
The workers were trying desperately to take and hold power, and held numerous rallies and meetings. Socialist speakers told crowds: "The people are rising up in their might and declaring they will no longer submit to being oppressed by unproductive capital." St Louis was moving closer and closer towards workers’ control. The bosses in a fit of panic and rage sent in the US army and state militias. Strike leaders were jailed and the cities came under martial law. The workers were eventually "shot back to work" and the strikes slowly ended. David Burbank, writes in his book chronicling the events in St. Louis: "Only around St Louis did the original strike on the railroads expand into such a systematically organized and complete shut-down of all industry that the term general strike is fully justified. And only there did the socialists assume undisputed leadership… no American city has come so close to being ruled by a workers’ soviet, as we would call it, as St. Louis, Missouri, in the year 1877."
All in all, 100,000 workers went on strike joined by countless unemployed and homeless. Food was supplied to strikers by farmers showing the solidarity that arises every time average men and women are pushed to their limits. The strike even brought the attention of Marx and Engels who kept a close eye on the events as they unfolded. When the strike was finally crushed, over 100 people had been killed and 1,000 thrown in jail. In the end the gains were hardly even noticeable because the bosses strengthened the police presence in the workplaces and enforced an iron rule on the workers making it very difficult to organize.
As socialists, are inspired by the solidarity and show of strength of the working class. Some people may be discouraged by the defeats we have suffered throughout history in our struggle against capitalism. But even though the 1877 strikes were beaten back and workers reduced to their former lives of oppression and heartache, they all knew that struggle against the ruling class was possible. They used the experience gained in these historic strikes as building blocks for the struggles in the years to come, as we must do to prepare for the momentous events we will face in the near future. We must learn from the hard-earned experience of our class brothers and sisters throughout history and around the world in order to prepare for the overthrow of this exploitative system once and for all.
http://www.socialistappeal.org/content/view/135/55/
THE INTERNATIONAL JEW,
THE WORLD'S FOREMOST PROBLEM
Abridged from the original as published by the world renowned industrial leader,
HENRY FORD, SR.
Chapter 9. Bolshevism and Zionism
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/intern_jew.htm
Chapter 9.
BOLSHEVISM AND ZIONISM
Communism works in the United States through precisely the same channels as it used in Russia and through the same agents - Revolutionary and Predatory Unionism, as distinct from Business and Uplift Unionism, and Jewish agitators. When Martens, the so-called Soviet Ambassador, "left" the United States after being deported, he appointed as the representative of Communism in the United States one Charles Recht, a Jew, a lawyer by profession, who maintained an office in New York. This office was the rendezvous of all the Jewish labor union leaders in the city, many of the labor leaders throughout the country, and frequently of American government officials and other political leaders known to be the henchmen of Jewish aspirations in the United States and sympathizers with predatory radicalism. The organization has since spread from coast to coast, from north to south. The situation of Communist headquarters in New York was, and is, important because from that center lines of authority and action radiate to all the other cities of the Union. New York is the laboratory in which the emissaries of revolution learn their lesson, and their knowledge is daily increased by the counsel and experience of travelling delegates straight out of Russia.
American citizens do not realize that all the public disturbances, the labor differences, strikes and political confusions of which they read are not mere sudden outbreaks, but the deliberately planned movements of leaders who know exactly what they are doing.
Mobs are methodical; there is always an intelligent core which gets done under the appearance of excitement what has been planned beforehand. Up through the French Revolution, up through the German Revolution, up through the Russian Revolution, and the world disorders since, came the previously chosen men, and to this day the groups thus raised to power have not lessened their power - and they are Jewish groups. Russia is not more Jewish controlled than France; Germany tried in vain to loosen the grip of Judah from her throat. So it is in America.
The first step of the Jewish organizations supporting Communism in the United States was the control and expansion of the Hebrew labor movement among the millions of immigrants during 50 years; with the view to eventual Jewish control of all labor unions. The Jews have captured American trade union movements as completely as if they had stormed them with the bayonet.
There is a mass of moving literature (mostly written by Jews) pretending to describe the glowing hearts with which these alien throngs of liberty-loving-democrats, workers' comrades, look upon America, their intense longing for the "American way of life," their love of the people and American institutions. The actions of these people and the utterances of their leaders all too clearly give the lie to this fair picture which gullible American Gentiles would fain believe.
The resistance offered to the "American way of life," consisting in the limitations put on the Americanization program, has been sufficient to convince alert observers that, so far as the Jewish invasion is concerned, it is not their desire to go the way America is going, but to influence America to go the way they are going. They talk a great deal of what they bring to America but nothing at all of what they found there. America is presented to them as a big piece of putty to be moulded as they desire. "The Melting Pot," a term which the Jewish writer Zangwill gave currency, is not a dignified name for the Republic, and it is more and more challenged as descriptive of the process that goes on. There are some substances in the pot that will not melt; but more significant still, there are rapidly increasing influences who want to melt the pot!
The two divisions of Jewish wealth and political power are - first, German Jewish, represented by the Schiffs, the Speyers, the Warburgs, the Kahns, the Lewisohns and the Guggenheims. These play the game with the aid of the financial resources of the non-Jews. The other division is composed of the Russian and Polish Jews who monopolize the lower ranks of trade and industry. Between them their grip and influence is absolute. They may sometimes have internecine quarrels regarding the division of the spoils, and eager publicists may zealously call attention to these quarrels as evidence of the utter lack of unity among the Jews, but in the Kehillah and elsewhere they understand each other quite well, and on the question of Jew vs. "goy" they are indivisibly one.
There is a distinction between what this Jewish coalition would do and what it could do, but its will and power never so closely correspond as when the non-Jewish element in the nation is asleep. Never are Jewish will and power so widely divorced as when the non-Jewish mind is alert. The only thing to fear is not the alert Jew, but the consequences of sleepiness among the Gentiles. The Jewish program is checked the moment it is perceived and identified.
JEWISH-RED-LINKS
There are more Communists in the United States than there are in Soviet Russia. Their aim is the same and their racial character is the same. If they have not yet been able to do in America what they have done in Eastern Europe, it is because of the greater dissemination of information, the higher degree of intelligence, and particularly the wider diffusion of the agencies of government, than ever obtained in Russia and Eastern Europe. The power house of Communist influence and propaganda in the United States is in the Jewish trade unions which, almost without exception, adhere to a Bolshevik program for the respective industries and for the country as a whole. The fact proves most embarrassing to the Jewish leaders in the recognized political parties very frequently. It is bad enough that Russian Bolshevism, Communism, should be so predominantly Jewish, but to confront the same situation in the United States is a problem which Jewish leaders have to use much ingenuity and deception to explain away or avoid. Yet the International Jew of America cannot be absolved from bearing sole responsibility for it. Russian Bolshevism came out of the East Side of New York where it was fostered by the encouragement - the religious, moral and financial encouragement - of Jewish leaders.
Leon Trotsky (Braunstein) was an East Sider. The forces which fostered what he stood for centered in the Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee. Both were interested in the work he set out to do - the overthrow of an established government, one of the allies of the United States in World War One. Russian Bolshevism was helped to its objective by Jewish gold from the United States - and by the ignorance and indolence of the Gentile citizens of the United States whose crimes of omission are almost as grave as those of bolshevik commission.
Now that the influence of Communism is found to be numerically stronger here than in Russia, the fact causes no little embarrassment to "patriotic" Jews. The big Jewish labor organizations are the direct offspring of the Jewish Socialist Bund of Russia. Bundists swarmed to the United States after the abortive revolution of 1905 at which time they failed to put Bolshevism over in Russia, and these Bundists gave their time to the Bolshevising of the Hebrew Trade Unions in America. An Agitation Bureau was formed which propagated radical Socialism through the medium of the Yiddish language. The Bundists incorporated in 1905 in New York an organization known as "The Workmen's Circle" and "swelled the ranks of the Jewish trade unions," to quote the Kehillah's Register. After a brief attempt to propagate Socialism without reference to the Jewish Question, it was given up, and in 1913 a resolution was adopted declaring that the whole purpose of the work was Jewish. This is attributed, in the Kehillah record, to the spread of "the idea of Jewish nationalism."
What amazes the student of the Jewish Question in the United States is the stupidity which permitted Jewish Bolshevism to flaunt itself so openly. The only explanation that seems at all adequate is that the Jews never dreamed that the American people would become sufficiently awake to challenge them. The occasional exposure of Jewish tactics in America comes as a surprise to the Jewish leaders, and is accounted for because they are confident they have gained too strong a grip on the American mind to make such challenges possible.
But, the Jewish leaders must admit that the Jewish Question does not consist in American citizens uncovering the facts and helping other citizens to become aware of them; the Jewish Question inheres in the facts themselves and in Jewish responsibility for the facts.
If it is "anti-Semitism" to say that Communism in the United States is Jewish, so be it; but to the unprejudiced mind it will look very like Americanism.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/ij_ch9.htm
Great Depression
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn, starting in 1929 (although its effects were not fully felt until late in 1930) and lasting through most of the 1930s. It centered in North America and Europe, but had damaging effects around the world. The most industrialized countries were affected the worst, including the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Canada, and Australia. Cities around the world were hit hard, especially those based on heavy industry. lots of people lost their jobs and homes. Construction virtually halted in many countries. Farmers and rural areas suffered as prices for crops fell by 40-60% [1] Mining and logging areas were perhaps the hardest hit because demand fell sharply and there was little alternative economic activity. The Great Depression ended at different times in different countries; for subsequent history see Home front during World War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
Free Speech - February 2000 - Volume VI, Number 2
Reality Check
by Dr. William Pierce
It's time for a reality check. One of the ways in which I try to keep up with what's going on in the world is watching a couple of televised news programs every day. For week after week I've been saturated with Elian Gonzales, as if the business of deciding whether or not the boy goes back to his father in Cuba or stays with other relatives in Miami is the most important thing happening in the world today.
Now, I can understand that at least part of the reason for this saturation coverage of the Elian Gonzales situation is based on the mentality of the average television news viewer. The couch potatoes probably have nothing better to do than worry about where Elian ends up. They'd rather get the latest installment in the Elian soap opera than know what's really happening in the world.
I hope, however, that you'll pardon me for suspecting that in addition to the strictly commercial desire on the part of CNN and other news presenters to cater to the feminine tastes of the couch potatoes by larding their news heavily with this "human interest" mush, there's an intentional effort by the media bosses to distract the viewers and keep them from thinking too much about the real world and the real issues. Give them a steady diet of ball games and Elian Gonzales updates, and they won't ask too many questions about the important things.
Contrast the Elian Gonzales coverage with news about what's happening in Serbia's Kosovo province. The latest news from there is the rape and murder of an 11-year-old Albanian girl by one of Madeleine Albright's occupation soldiers. That's a terrible thing, but it's hardly the most terrible thing that's been happening in Kosovo since Madeleine sent the troops in. There's virtually no mention on network television news programs in America about the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Serbs by the Albanians under the cover of our occupation troops. Serb women are kidnapped, raped, and murdered every week by Albanians in Kosovo. There's a transparently deliberate effort on the part of the Albanians to terrorize the Serbs and drive them out of the province, with the help of Madeleine's troops. And we almost never hear about these anti-Serb activities from the mainstream media. It leads me to suspect, cynic that I am, that the news about the rape and murder of the Albanian girl by one of Albright's soldiers is being presented to us to allay our suspicions that what's happening in Kosovo province is being concealed from us. The media bosses can say, "Look, we told you about the murder of this Albanian girl, and it certainly wasn't in our interests to do so. It makes our fellow Jew Madeleine look bad. So you see, you can trust us. We tell you what's happening, whether it suits our own purpose or not."
But of course, as a rule they don't really tell us what's happening when it doesn't suit their purpose. And they do seem to be succeeding in keeping the couch potatoes distracted. What the Roman emperors learned 2,000 years ago about keeping the urban rabble from becoming restless by supplying them with lots of spectacles in the Colosseum still works. I get a lot of letters from listeners who are pretty good examples of this sort of thing: people who are so distracted by the unimportant things that they don't notice the important things. Many listeners tell me that I should comment on the efforts of the Blacks, Jews, and liberals to force the White citizens of South Carolina to abandon their flag. The Blacks and their boosters complain that the flag reminds them of the time in the not too distant past when Blacks in the United States were plantation slaves. The Whites reply, "No, no," it's just a reminder of our Southern heritage. "The flag isn't a racist symbol," they say.
Well, of course, I sympathize with the desire of anyone to preserve his heritage or to fly the flag of his choice, but this Confederate flag issue is as much a distraction as the Elian Gonzales issue. It's simply not important. And I say that as a true son of the South. My great-great-grandfather on my mother's side of the family was Thomas Hill Watts, attorney general of the Confederacy under Jefferson Davis and later governor of Alabama. His photograph is on the $10 Confederate bill. He also had been a member of the council of secession which voted for secession from the Union, and then he served as a colonel in the Confederate Army, commanding the 17th Alabama Infantry Regiment in the bloody battle of Corinth, Mississippi. But whether or not his flag continues to fly from various public buildings in the South is completely inconsequential in the face of other things which are happening in the South every day. And you don't have to live in the South to know what those things are; they're happening all over America. One White man murdered by Blacks, one White woman raped by Blacks, one White child terrorized in a school restroom by Blacks, one politician in Washington allowed to go unhanged is a greater tragedy than taking down the Confederate flag from any statehouse.
You know, the various organizations which are busy defending the Confederate flag today always assert that the flag is not a racist symbol. But of course, it is and always has been. My great-great-grandfather, Governor Watts, never heard the word "racist." The Jews hadn't invented it as a term of opprobrium yet. But by every common standard in use today he was a racist. Certainly not all, but many of his fellow Southerners did not approve of the institution of slavery. They would have been happy to be able to outlaw the institution and to ship every Negro and every mulatto and every quadroon to Africa and set them free. But to a man they were racists, by today's media standards. They were racists because they recognized the simple fact of racial differences. Most of them had no animosity toward Blacks before the war: before the Blacks were turned loose to terrorize White Southerners. But if my great-great-grandfather or any other Southern gentleman had seen a Black male put his hands on a White woman or make a suggestive remark to a White woman, he would have drawn his sidearm and put a quick end to that Black without giving the matter a second thought. Of course, Northerners pretty well felt the same way about things. They were as much racists as the Southerners. There just weren't any Southern gentlemen in the North -- or many gentlemen of any sort -- to keep things in order.
If we could use a time machine and go back in time 140 or 150 years and take with us a VCR and a monitor and a few video cassettes of recent Hollywood films or television shows or even news programs with street scenes in Montgomery and Atlanta and Richmond today and play them for my great-great-grandfather and a hundred or so of his most influential friends and explain to them that this is what the Jews would be saturating the consciousness of White Americans with in the future . . . well, if we could do that, they simply wouldn't believe us. They wouldn't believe that their descendants could become so degraded in a mere four or five generations as to permit such things to happen: so degraded as to acquiesce in such things. But if we somehow could convince them that our videotapes weren't fraudulent, they would have understood that much more was at stake than political independence for the South. They would have understood that survival of the race was at stake, and they would have fought even harder and more valiantly than they did, because in those days there was no shame in fighting for one's people, for one's race. Anyway, I bring this up just as a reminder that we aren't the only ones who have failed to focus on the really important issues at hand. Throughout history our people have been distracted by inconsequential issues and have neglected the crucial ones.
So what's more important today than the latest ball game and what happens to Elian Gonzales? Really, it's exactly what was important 140 years ago. My great-great-grandfather and the other leaders of the South should have been concerned first and foremost about the racial issue -- not about economic issues or political issues or anything else. There was a disagreement between the North and the South on the issue of slavery, of course, but there was plenty of common ground on the racial issue. Before the war neither Northerners nor Southerners wanted racial mixing. If it hadn't been for the economic aspects of slavery, an agreement very likely could have been reached to send all Blacks back to Africa. President Lincoln looked favorably on such a plan even after the war.
Without the slavery issue, the warmongers probably wouldn't have been able to get a war started. But Southerners who wanted to keep the institution of slavery for purely economic reasons put these economic reasons ahead of the racial interests of their people. They didn't understand the degree to which their racial interests were threatened. And so we had a bloody and destructive civil war, and even worse -- much worse -- we failed to solve the racial problem when it might have been solved with relatively little trauma.
So today we have a racial catastrophe in both the North and the South, and the Jews are pumping their lies and filth into all of us every day. And instead of focusing on these real problems, most of us let ourselves be distracted by utterly inconsequential issues such as Elian Gonzales and where the Confederate flag can be flown.
I'll go over that again: reality is that we are being pushed rapidly toward racial extinction. Reality is that the Jews are controlling the minds of a majority of our people for the specific purpose of keeping us headed toward extinction. Those are the real problems which we must deal with. Forget about Elian Gonzales and Fidel Castro and the Confederate flag. Forget about ball games and the economy and whether a Democratic crook or a Republican crook should be elected later this year. Think about racial survival and racial freedom; that's all that matters. Really, nothing else counts in the least.
That's why you hear some repetition if you listen to many of my broadcasts. I keep coming back to the important things over and over again. Of course, I do talk about many inconsequential things as well. I use them as illustrations, as examples, which help us understand better the important things. And I also talk about unimportant things because I must consider my audience. I must talk about the things the members of my audience believe to be important so that I can catch their interest and then lead them to the truly important things.
Here's an example which ties in again to the Civil War. A lot of men -- overaged kids, really -- like to play soldier. They like to reenact various historic battles, and Civil War battles are among their favorites. They like to get out on the battlefield and pretend that they are members of real military units of the past -- such as my great-great-grandfather's 17th Alabama Infantry Regiment -- and then they fire blanks at each other and maneuver around as they imagine it actually happened. They pride themselves greatly on the authenticity of their uniforms and equipment. They will spend thousands of dollars for various bits and pieces of uniforms, and they will pore over old dispatches and memoirs to make sure that they've got all of the details right -- all of the details except one, that is: the mindset of the soldiers who actually fought the real battles. Talk to one of these Confederate make-believe soldiers sometime. The first thing he will assure you is that the fact he likes to play soldier in a Confederate uniform doesn't mean he is a racist. No, no, no! Far from it! In fact, he will try to persuade you that the real Confederate soldiers weren't racists either, but instead were models of Political Correctness. Fake ammunition and fake beliefs. No more integrity or honesty than most of the supporters of the Confederate flag. They cling to the trivial and deny the important.
I really have to hold my tongue when I talk with these people. But I do talk with them. An interest in history certainly is a healthier sign than no interest in history. So I talk with some of these make-believe soldiers about military history, and sometimes the conversation can be steered into more important matters.
I believe that one of our biggest problems today is that our comfort level does not match our situation. We are far, far more comfortable than we ought to be, considering our situation. As a race teetering on the brink of extinction, we should be naked, starving, freezing, and covered with painful sores from head to foot. We should be miserable, frightened, and desperate. Then perhaps we would be better able to understand what is important and what is not. But when we spend our time chatting on our cell phones while tooling around in our BMWs, we have a hard time keeping our priorities right.
Of course, back in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, many Americans were uncomfortable. They had lost their farms, their homes, their businesses. They couldn't feed their families. They stood in breadlines. They were cold and miserable. But they still let themselves be tricked into turning to Franklin Roosevelt and being led into the cruelest, bloodiest and most destructive war in the history of the world, a war to save communism and the Jews from the Germans. So what that tells us is that being uncomfortable is not in itself enough. We need to have leaders whose priorities are right, and those leaders need to have open lines of communication to the mass of people, and then the people need to become uncomfortable enough pay attention to what's happening. When the right message can be gotten to the people, that's when they need to be hit hard on the side of the head with a two-by-four to catch their attention.
Well, the discomfort is coming, believe me, and it's going to be a lot more painful than being hit with a two-by-four. That's good. That's necessary. But will we be ready to benefit from the discomfort? At the end of the Civil War my great-great-grandfather got a good dose of discomfort. He was kicked out of his job as governor by an enemy army, He was treated as a war criminal, because he had made the mistake of being on the losing side. His plantation was burned, along with a huge warehouse full of baled cotton, which represented most of his actual wealth. He was no longer a rich and powerful man, no longer a member of the Southern aristocracy. He was ripe for getting his thinking straightened out. But of course, it was too late for him to benefit from a new understanding. If he had understood before the war what he understood after the war, I am sure that he would have tried to persuade his fellow Southerners to adopt a wiser course than secession. Or failing that, he would have fought with more desperation at the battle of Corinth and perhaps turned that into a Southern victory instead of a Southern defeat.
What happened to the South reminds me of what happened nearly 130 years later to the people of South Africa. In the 1970s and 1980s they were fat and happy. They had built a rich, White country in the southern part of the African continent. They had wonderfully productive farms, industries, mines. They had gleaming cities of glass and steel. And they had lots of cheap, Black labor, which was making the richest South Africans even richer. But even the ordinary South Africans with whom I spoke had Black gardeners and Black cooks and Black cleaning women and Black baby-sitters. And they weren't concerned at all about the future. Black terrorism was simply keeping them on their toes a bit, giving their superb armed forces a little realistic training. They even had nuclear weapons.
I told them, get rid of your Black workers. Do your own dirty work. Accept a lower standard of living for a while by depending entirely on the White labor force. Don't trust your Christian churches and Christian ministers: they will turn on you. And understand that it is not the Soviet Union which is your mortal enemy, but the United States. Communism has infected your Black masses, but White South Africans are in no danger of becoming infected by it. It is greedy capitalism, which puts profit and comfort ahead of race, which you must beware of. And above all, beware of the Jews.
And of course, they were sure that they knew better. They were offended by my warnings about their church. There was a special bond between church and people in South Africa, they assured me. The church supported apartheid. The Dutch Reformed Church would always stand by White South Africans. As for the Jews, they were God's Chosen People -- the Bible says so -- and besides their interests were the same as those of the Whites. The only Jews who were hostile to White South Africans were ones like Harry Oppenheimer, Helen Suzman, Joe Slovo, and a few other Jew communists, I was told. And as for getting rid of their Black workers, that was ridiculous. They could keep their Blacks under control, they assured me. Blacks are like children. They need the White man to tell them what to do. They know that they could never run the country by themselves. And so on.
So now the South Africans have lost their country. Their church betrayed them. Shortly before the vote to end White rule, the church had a revelation from on high and announced that it had been wrong in supporting apartheid. Apartheid was not the Christian way, the church announced. Today the Dutch Reformed Church even accepts Black members. The White South Africans were right about one thing, however. Blacks are like children, and they cannot run the country. That's why it is sinking rapidly into barbarism and anarchy under Black rule today.
The White South African population as a whole has undergone the equivalent of being whopped hard on the side of the head with a two-by-four. Their farmers are being murdered on a regular basis. Their women are being gang-raped by Blacks on an unprecedented scale, and a gang-rape by Blacks is almost equivalent to a death sentence, because of the prevalence of HIV infection among South African Blacks. Many White South Africans, who used to be assured of good employment and a high standard of living are now unemployed and destitute, without even enough money to leave the country. The ones who still have good employment huddle in walled compounds patrolled by armed guards and ringed with razor wire. In some areas they will venture out only in convoys. Johannesburg, which used to be a clean, decent, and safe city, now has the highest murder rate in the world.
All of this has done wonders to make White South Africans receptive to truth and to open their eyes to reality. But, just as in the case of my great-great-grandfather and the other Southern gentlemen of his era, it's really too late for the truth to be helpful to them.
What about White Americans? When will they understand that what happens to Elian Gonzalez and to the Confederate flag and whether the Democrats or the Republicans win this year are totally and completely unimportant? When will they understand that the only important things now are the fact that America is being overrun by non-Whites and the fact that the Jews control the organs of public opinion?
I don't know whether it will be too late or not. About all we can do now is try to hit as many of them as we can on the side of the head with a two-by-four.
http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs002d.html
Of course, back in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, many Americans were uncomfortable. They had lost their farms, their homes, their businesses. They couldn't feed their families. They stood in breadlines. They were cold and miserable. But they still let themselves be tricked into turning to Franklin Roosevelt and being led into the cruelest, bloodiest and most destructive war in the history of the world, a war to save communism and the Jews from the Germans. So what that tells us is that being uncomfortable is not in itself enough. We need to have leaders whose priorities are right, and those leaders need to have open lines of communication to the mass of people, and then the people need to become uncomfortable enough pay attention to what's happening. When the right message can be gotten to the people, that's when they need to be hit hard on the side of the head with a two-by-four to catch their attention.
Babylon's Money
By: Bertrand comparet
Because we people are the Children of Yahweh, we want to know what our Father's will is. Then we want to live according to His will. It is no news to you that we have reached this particular point in history. We are in the end times, the last days. We are at the point where we can already see the rapid approach of the complete collapse of our civilization.
I have no optimistic message that if we just close our eyes it will go away, it won't. We have already shut our eyes for so many generations, we are now going to have to open them and face the facts. We are at the point of the collapse and destruction of our civilization, because there is no evil being done today that we did not permit. Our leaders have betrayed us. Not the least of those, in this corrupt betrayal, have been those in the organized church system. These false clergymen have led the betrayal.
Somebody once asked Satan, "What are you going to do when you run up against the great truth? This truth is so plain and clear, you can't refute it and you can't twist it." Satan replied, "Oh. I'll just organize it."
This is the way it has happened. We have let Satan do the organizing and you see what we are coming to. Today we see ourselves threatened, not by one dangerous evil, but by many. They are all coming together at once, just like the spokes of a wheel. These evils start out at different points on the rim and they run in different directions. However, they all come together at the same place, at the hub. They are all part of the Babylonian system, which we were warned to get out of. "Come out of her My people, lest you be partakers of her sins and suffer your part in her plagues."
Today I wish to teach you about Babylon's money. The enemy, the children of Satan, have tried repeatedly in the past to overcome and destroy us by force and by military attack. This has always failed because there were enough of us, true to Yahweh, that Yahweh always came to our defense and destroyed the enemy army. The enemy has learned if they can control our money system, they can enslave us more completely than they could by military force. What is more, they can make you pay the cost of your own enslavement. They don't have to spend a penny of it out of their own pockets.
The liberals have preached to us, for a long time, that the only function of government is to tax its unfortunate citizens into such a state of destitution; they become dependant on the government for a handout, for their living. Then these destitute people can be sternly warned, unless you vote this same administration back into power, your welfare check is going to be cut down. This has been done to perpetuate our own slavery.
The other function of the government, of maintaining peace, should be abdicated in favor of allowing riots to go on. This is because the rioters provide one of those minority groups that help to rule and keep the majority under control. One, if not the most important function of government, is issuance of money.
All the money there was, in the original thirteen colonies, wouldn't be nearly enough to carry on the daily business of the one city of Bellflower, California in these days. As our nation expands, with more people carrying on more business, it becomes necessary to have more money in circulation.
One of the great economists of our day, F.W. Taussig of Harvard, states the quantity theory of money in the following way. "If it is to function as money as a medium of exchange, which it is supposed to do, there must be in existence, in circulation, one dollar in money of every dollar's worth of property of any kind, capable of being purchased with money."
If you are a homeowner, you may some day want to sell your home. However, you can't sell your home unless there is enough money, some place, with which someone can buy it from you. If you happen to be a merchant with a big, well-stocked store, you can't sell an article in it unless there is money somewhere in existence, with which a buyer may come and purchase your products. I'm sure you get the picture.
We only have a fraction of one percent of enough money to meet this need. This has compelled us, for lack of money, to do business on bank credit, which costs us extra for interest (usury).
I am not making a general attack upon your local banker. In allowing the Babylonian economic system to take our money issuance over, we have made the bank a necessity. If we were under the laws of Yahweh, we wouldn't need as large a police force as we need now, because there isn't enough money so people will steal to survive. We ought to be under the laws of Yahweh and then we would have economic freedom.
I don't go around crusading to fire half the police force now. I wish we had more police, not less, as long as we insist on staying under the Babylonian system, instead of Yahweh's laws. Neither am I conducting a crusade to abolish the local banking system. This cannot be done until we set up Yahweh's economic laws in total.
If you have a dollar in money, you can spend one hundred cents of it. But, if you have to go out and borrow the money, you can probably spend only a portion of it because you have to pay interest. Today the interest is taken out in advance before the bankers even let you have the money. This means that you can put less and less money back into circulation. This is why the laws of Yahweh forbid any interest to be charged on money.
It is not only that your purchases are cut down, but also since you can't spend as much, the merchant can't sell as much. Because of this the merchant can't hire more employees, he can't pay more or higher wages, so this becomes a vicious circle. This is only a minor part of it.
The local bank starts with so many millions of dollars in capital. This has been obtained by the bank selling stock or part ownership, so this is the amount of money they have to loan out. Then the depositors put their money in the bank so this adds to the lendable funds. However, the bankers have discovered, by many generations of experience, that a bank can lend many times more dollars than it has recorded on its books.
The bankers will loan out ten dollars for every dollar they have. The reason they can do this is because very few people ask for their money in cash.
We go to the bank and borrow a thousand dollars. The banker doesn't count out and give you ten one hundred dollar bills. We are given a little passbook with the figure $1,000 written in it. You write a check that is a down payment on a TV set, then you draw a check for a new set of tires, and so on. The merchants don't take these checks in and get cash; they just deposit these checks in the bank. All the bank does is make bookkeeping entries, changing the money from your account to the merchant's account. All this time the bank hasn't had to pay out any cash.
Once in awhile, we go to a bank and cash a $25.00 check for pocket money. Remember, one-tenth of the amount the bank has in reserves is enough to take care of these small amounts. Eventually it reaches the point where the bank has loaned out ten dollars for every dollar it has. As you will learn, there is a more sinister entity lurking in the background.
The bank ought to be able to take a mortgage on your home, which is perfectly good security, and sell it to somebody else. This would give the bank more money to continue functioning as a bank. This is the theory upon which a larger organization, the Federal Reserve System, was organized. But the trouble with theory is the old one, "Figures don't lie but liars do figure". The bankers don't run the banks according to theory. This larger, central organization, is falsely named because it isn't federal at all, it is purely a private banking institution.
Our congress has given this private banking corporation the absolute power, in its uncontrolled discretion, to create panic and depressions, any time it sees fit, just by cutting off the money supply. The Federal Reserve can shut down any and all activities of the banks.
As you probably know, most merchants don't have enough money to buy new stock for their business. They finance this new stock through the banks paying interest. Many farmers need a loan each year to tide them over until their crops go to market.
These farmers have to have bank credit, because of the system we are under. Under the Federal Reserve system, disaster has been brought upon us time and time again.
Many farmers were financially ruined and small town banks were wiped out in 1921. This was done by the deliberate and knowing action of the Federal Reserve system. The Federal Reserve bankers brought about the great crash of 1929. These are examples of what great power having control of the money supply gives. This is a power which no private man or group of men should possess. This power was given, by our elected congress and senate, to the directors of this private banking institution.
Now we are getting to the next step, which is the worst of all. Each year our nation and its business should be expanding. Therefore, with more business to be conducted, more money is needed. But when you don't have enough money on which to conduct the present, existing businesses, and the government extorts money from the unfortunate taxpayers, the government is not doing anything to help the situation, they are making things worse.
The government, not the private bankers, should be issuing more money, to keep up with the expanding needs of the nation's economy. This way the people would benefit, not the private international banksters. With the government issuing the money, there would be no national debt and no need for any kind of an income tax.
To add insult to injury, the Federal Reserve isn't even owned by Americans, it is owned by the international Jewish bankers.
Let us now suppose, in order to keep things easier, instead of a 180 billion dollar budget for the following year, as President Johnson wanted, let's call it 100 billion dollars. Then let's suppose the experts in the Department of Commerce figured out that the following year, to keep business humming on a level of prosperity for everybody, there should be 15 billion more dollars in circulation than there was. The government would then issue 15 billion dollars in new money, which the government would then use to pay government expenses with. This would leave only 85 billion dollars to be raised by taxing the people.
The government, between the new money issued and the taxes received, would get the money it needs. But, instead of us having to pay 100 billion dollars in taxes, we would only have to pay 85 billion dollars, so we taxpayers would have 15 billion dollars of our own money that we wouldn't have otherwise. Part of it could be put into savings, so we wouldn't be paupers and destitute in our old age, depending on government handouts merely to eat. Part of it we could spend for the things we cannot afford now. Spending this money into circulation would create jobs and help the prosperity of the nation.
This is the way things ought to be, but this is the way it isn't. This is because corrupt men, with corrupt purposes corrupted the law. Nobody has had the courage to challenge this enslavement of our nation, since the Federal Reserve came into being by chicanery.
I don't have to start in at the beginning and explain to you who the devil's children are, you know this already. One of them that came to the United States in 1902 was Paul M. Warburg a German citizen, a member of the German banking family, which owned the House of M. M. Warburg Company. They are the big German banking firm with headquarters in Hamburg and Amsterdam. They are the chief representatives of the banking firm the House of Rothschild.
This Jew, who came over here from Germany, never did learn to speak English very well. He came over here to tell us how to run our money system, not for our profit but for his. He succeeded in getting through our congress the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
In 1912, with money put up by the members of the Jewish banking firm of Kuhn Loeb and Company, a Marrano Jew calling himself Woodrow Wilson, was elected president of the United States. When Wilson's family lived in Germany and were openly Jewish, they spelled their name Wolfson. When they moved to England, they followed the Jewish custom of changing their name and they became Wohlson. When this family then moved to the United States they changed their name again and became Wilson.
Like most democratic politicians, Wilson was touted as being a representative of the people and against the great financial interests. Instead Wilson was the banker's hireling, they owned him like you own your dog. He came to heel just as obediently as a dog, and helped these Jewish international bankers get the Federal Reserve Bank Act passed through the congress of the United States.
First these Jews tried to set up one central bank for the entire country, however we had managed to stop this several times. We fought off a central bank in the early days too. Andrew Jackson succeeded in defeating it once and we stopped it again during the Civil War. Finally these Jews went through the formality of setting up a system of twelve banks, in twelve of the major cities of the United States. The only one that has much money in it is the New York Federal Reserve Bank. So, New York runs our money system and as you know, there are more Jews in New York City than there are in Palestine.
It was claimed the Federal Reserve Bank would strengthen the banking system and consequently there would be no more bank failures. But the Federal Reserve really wasn't established to help the banking system at all. In fact, there have been more bank failures since we adopted the Federal Reserve System than there had been in all our recorded history before this time.
Between December of 1913, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed and May of 1929, which was five months before the crash came in October of 1929, under the Federal Reserve system there were 4,500 bank failures in the United States. History records how the banks crashed, on a wholesale scale, under the Roosevelt administration. Franklin D. Roosevelt was another Marrano Jew.
The Jew bankers set up this Federal Reserve System to obtain the right to issue the money for the United States. There is no more excuse for any banking institution to have the right to issue money than there is for any private institution to take over the entire Defense Department and have the right to determine whether we fight for our liberty, or whether we surrender and let ourselves be butchered. The issuance of money is a government function, pure and simple. Turning this function over to any private organization is totally indefensible.
Are you wondering what all this has to do with religion and the laws of Yahweh? I intend to teach you the laws of Yahweh that we have violated. I also want you to learn the consequences of violating these laws.
The Jews are mastermind manipulators. Remember, most of the psychiatrists are Jews and the advertising business is mostly Jewish. They convinced the gullible and the stupid that if the government issues its own money, other than metallic coinage, which was valuable for the gold or silver in it, this would be inflationary. These Jews put on a campaign to convince people of this saying; there would be nothing behind the money as security except the good faith of the government and its taxing power.
In other words, we might have to turn our paper money into gold or silver. If we wanted to go abroad and buy something, the people abroad might not want to take our paper money if it only has the good faith of the government and its ability to raise money by taxation, as a guarantee that this paper money would be redeemed. These Jews said that banker's money is different, it isn't inflationary because it has security back of it, it has government bonds backing it.
Let's study this situation a little bit. Let's consider the way it should work under the theory of the Federal Reserve Act. We will see that the people who run the Federal Reserve System don't even live up to their own theory. Let's say the Treasury Department has a billion dollars in U.S. government bonds and the Federal Reserve has a billion dollars in money. Then the Federal Reserve Bank takes the billion dollars in money to the Treasury Department. The Federal Reserve Bank then buys the billion dollars worth of bonds with this freshly printed money. Everything looks even, doesn't it?
According to the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Reserve Bank now owns a billion dollars in bonds, on which we now pay interest. This hasn't cost them anything except the cost of printing the money. The government charges the Federal Reserve $1.25 per thousand bills printed. If it is 1,000 one-dollar bills, they pay $1.25. If it is 1,000 one hundred dollar bills the cost for this $100,000.00 is $1.25. What a racket! When a counterfeiter prints money, at least he doesn't charge us interest on it. Then the Federal Reserve pays for the printing with a check on an account, which doesn't even exist.
Then the Federal Reserve doesn't take the bonds and put them in their vaults, they leave them in the vaults of the Treasury Department as security for the Federal Reserve note money. This is certainly more security than as if our government issued money with the backing of the government, sure it is!
A government bond has nothing backing it except the good faith of the government and its ability to raise money to pay it off by taxing we poor suckers, the taxpayer. These international Jewish bankers told us, the good faith of the government wasn't good enough to guarantee the value of the government's money. But there is nothing more than this to guarantee the value of the banker's money. Therefore government issued money is no more inflationary than banker issued money. This is one of the reasons President Kennedy was murdered; he had started issuing debt free money, not paying usury to the Jewish bankers. Stay with us, we are just getting started.
The Federal Reserve now owns these bonds, which cost them nothing, and we are now paying interest on them. Eventually these bonds mature, after the bankers have received untold billions in interest. Then we pay them the face amount of these bonds.
At this point it sounds as though the Federal Reserve has at least given the U.S. government some cash. Hold on, you are in for another surprise! Some of you may remember the infamous days of the Roosevelt New Deal administration. There was an important man in the New Deal organization named Mariner Eccles. Among other things, he was appointed to be a member of the board of the governors of the Federal Bank system. He knew from the inside what was going on so when he testified, under oath, before a congressional investigating committee, he knew what he was talking about.
Mr. Eccles testified that the Federal Reserve Bank does not pay money to the federal government to buy the bonds. He testified, "We just create it by an entry in our books." All the Federal Reserve does is make a bookkeeping entry in their ledgers, on pages devoted to the federal government. This drop of ink it takes to write this entry is their total investment in the purchase of billions of dollars of bonds, upon which we pay interest in perpetuity. This happens again and again.
It is true the government gets to draw checks on this account, just as we would if we borrowed money from the bank and they gave us a passbook with figures written in it. However, the government doesn't take this money out all at once, it takes it out in dribs and drabs. The banks then have the use of this money, most of the year until the government uses it, thus making more interest by lending it out.
If the bankers lend out the same dollar to ten different people at the same time, which is standard banking practice, then they charge, let's say 6% interest a year; this comes out to 60% per year interest they are making. Stay with me, the story gets even worse. These banksters are even greedier than this, there is worse yet to come.
The following is the way many business transactions are financed. Let's say you are a merchant and you order a carload of goods from a manufacturer. In some instances you buy on an open account, you don't pay in advance. The manufacturer ships the merchandise to you and sends you a bill. As a general rule, payment within thirty days is regarded as cash and you receive a 2% discount. If you don't pay within thirty days, you pay the full amount. But if you take sixty or ninety days or more, you begin paying interest.
Perhaps the manufacturer wants his money quicker than this, so you send a signed promissory note or contract to the manufacturer for the amount of your purchase. If the manufacturer endorses it, so he guarantees the payment of it, he can take it to the bank and sell the note to them.
The banks usually won't pay face value for the note. On a note for $1,000.00 perhaps the bank will pay 85% or 90%. The manufacturer is willing to take a discount in order to get his money right away. Because of this he makes up for this discount by raising his price to you, on the merchandise he sold to you. The bank is getting interest on the full amount of the note even though they didn't pay the face amount. However, the bank isn't taking any chances just on the buyer's solvency, they also have the manufacturer's signature on it, guaranteeing the payment.
This paper is called a trade acceptance and the banks buy a lot of them. The Federal Reserve law provides that if the Federal Reserve Bank uses U.S. government bonds as security, they get back Federal Reserve notes equal to one hundred cents on the dollar. If they use trade acceptances, they receive Federal Reserve notes equal to not more than ninety cents on the dollar. Maybe these acceptances get paid off and maybe they don't. In the meantime the Federal Reserve Bank is getting back its money, which it loans again, ten times over, at interest. All this time they are drawing interest from the federal government on the bonds that didn't actually cost them anything.
Just consider the complete control over your entire economic life that the Federal Reserve has. This privately, Jewish owned, corporation can bring your local banking business grinding to a halt anytime it desires. Do you remember reading in the papers a little while back that the directors of the Federal Reserve System thought we were getting a little too prosperous and it was time to slow down the economy? The Federal Reserve then raised the rediscount rate.
The local banks, in order to keep an adequate money supply available, have to be able to cash in a lot of these mortgages, and notes etc. they have accumulated. The local bank takes these different instruments of debt, to the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank buys them, but they charge the banks this discount rate. By raising the discount rate to the point where your bank cannot pay it, and still be able to lend the money to you at a rate you can afford to pay, the Federal Reserve in effect shuts off the supply of money. Without this money the business of the community cannot be conducted.
The Federal Reserve can absolutely refuse to release any money, but it doesn't have to do this. It can do what it has done sometimes in the past, just raise the discount rate to an impossible figure.
In 1920 the Federal Reserve bankers decided to break the farmers. During World War I the farmers were encouraged to raise as much wheat as possible and buy more land for this purpose. The government kept telling these farmers it was their patriotic duty to do this. We will show you how money was made easy to borrow to buy land with. The farmers mortgaged the land they already owned, plus the land they were going to buy. To raise the money for this land, they borrowed from their local, small town banks. These banks weren't under the thumb of the Federal Reserve they were independent local banks.
During World War I the factories had been so busy, and the workers drawing high pay, there was a lot of money put into circulation. Only two times in its existence has the Federal Reserve Bank allowed the supply of money to be expanded so the community could do business. This was during World Wars I and II. Other than these two times, the Federal Reserve has kept the money supply shut down to the point where not money, but credit, with interest due, was the only thing available to do business with. This gave them the strangle hold on our windpipe against which we had no defense.
The time came when these banksters decided to take back all the money that had been put into circulation. It was time to drive the farmers off the land; furthermore, labor in the cities was getting pretty independent. The unions were getting strong so it was becoming time to break them also. This was accomplished by these desperate farmers, being driven off the land and migrating to the cities looking for work. These displaced farmers were willing to do any work for any wage, they had to feed and take care of their families.
The Federal Reserve brought on the depression of 1921 by simply shutting off the supply of money for agricultural operations and farm loans. This also drove most of the small town banks out of business, breaking many of them, leaving the banking system of the country largely in the hands of this one big sinister corporation, the Federal Reserve Bank system.
Why do we have the Federal Reserve banking system at all? We can go back, read the leading magazines from around 1900 on, and read in them exactly what I am telling you now. Some people were worried about the possible outbreak of a large scale war in Europe, because so many nations were maintaining large scale armies and navies. There was bitter trade rivalry between Jew dominated England and Germany. People were afraid it was going to develop into a real shooting war. All the leading economists said this was impossible because the nations of Europe couldn't finance a war.
In order to get the white Christian nations to kill each other and destroy each other's nations for the benefit of the Jews, and in order to pour billions of dollars into the coffers of the big Jewish banking houses, it was necessary to bring about a war and to find a means of financing it. The European branches of the House of Rothschild were capable of financing one side of such a war, but not both sides. Consequently, these bankers had to mobilize the financial resources of the United States to finance the other side, otherwise there could be no war with huge profits for these Jewish bankers.
The war was held off until they got the Federal Reserve System set up in this country in 1913, and then they started their war in 1914. The big banking houses affiliated with the House of Rothschild were J.P. Morgan and Kuhn Loeb and Company, among others. These American banking houses bought enormous issues of British and French bonds. They were able to get the money to buy these bonds through the Federal Reserve System. It began to look as though Britain and France would lose the war and be unable to pay off the big Jewish banks on these bonds. There was no way they could get the United States government to pay off French and British bonds except to get the United States into the war.
Woodrow Wilson (Wohlson) ran for his second term in office on the platform, "He kept us out of war" this was 1916. Wilson had already pledged the international bankers to get us into the war. This was Wilson's definite commitment to the Jewish bankers who put up the money to elect and own him. Yes, this is a characteristic of these democratic saviors of the people.
Franklin D. Roosevelt promised, "I hate wahr. I promise you, as I have said ovah and ovah again, your sons will nevah be sent ovahseas to fight a foreign wahr." This was when he had already sold us out and had already made the commitment to get us into the war. Do any politicians tell the truth?
Well, these Jewish bankers got us into the war. We financed the entire Allied side of it and the big Jewish banking houses made a great many billions. Out of the war profits, Jacob Schiff sent some twenty million dollars to the Bolshevik Jews, to finance the communist Jewish revolution in Russia. These Jews discovered they hadn't totally destroyed the Christian powers; they had to have a second world war for this.
So they got the Second World War started, which almost completed their control. Now they are getting ready for a third world war, to complete the job. This is the octopus, which has this strangle hold upon our financial system.
In 1913 the Federal Reserve bank was started with 143 million dollars, this is how much the stockholders paid into it. Its assets today are hundreds of billions or maybe even trillions of dollars, and they haven't produced a thing. This all came directly or indirectly out of the suckers, the poor hard working citizens of this country. Now let's take a look at where this has been leading.
Yahweh promised us we would have prosperity if we would obey His laws. During the last 100 years, the federal tax rate per capita, this includes newborns as well, was $8.49 a year. Today the federal taxes take over 32% of income just for federal taxes. Then there are all the state and local taxes. There is no known instance in history, where any nation survived very long after the total taxes passed the 30% mark. Our federal taxes alone are beyond this percentage.
If you think your income tax isn't that high, the fact is the income tax is only part of the picture. A large part of the federal tax system consists of excise taxes collected from the manufacturer. These taxes become a part of the price of the goods that are sold. When we buy a loaf of bread, we are paying not only for the cost of wheat and the labor to mill and bake it, we are also paying many other hidden taxes that have been levied on the product. These taxes start from the time the wheat was grown and the labor of milling and baking it, and so on.
We are paying over fourteen different taxes that have been levied on a loaf of bread, from the time it was grown on the farmer's land, until the time you get it in the store. This doesn't include the extra cost of the taxes the people pay that produce the product. This is what brings the total of federal taxes up to a very high level. These taxes aren't obvious so we don't see them as taxes and therefore we are not conscious of how much in taxes we are really paying.
We complain about the cost of living going up because of how much the merchant charges for everything he sells. Prices seem to be going up all the time. The merchant raises his prices in order to buy the goods to put on his shelves. The retail merchant has to pay the cost of the goods plus all the accumulated excise taxes that have been levied along the way. Then on top of all this, there are the state and local sales and other taxes to be paid.
Let's look and see where all of this has been leading us. This pernicious system of conducting practically all business on borrowed money, with interest continually siphoned into the coffers of the banks. This was designed to fleece us for billions of dollars in taxes to pay interest on all this borrowed money. There is no way it can ever be paid off unless the government declares bankruptcy. There is another way; the Federal Reserve banks can be bought back. This would eliminate practically all debt.
At the end of 1930, the United States public debt was 16 billion; 185 million dollars and this included the unpaid balance of our World War I debt. At the end of 1940, after two terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt being president, plus several years of frantic buying of war materials, the debt had risen to 48 billion, 497 million dollars. The Jews were preparing to get us into World War II, as this would increase our debt and increase the interest paid to them.
At the end of 1945, after we had paid all of our own expenses plus nearly all the expenses of the Allied side against Germany, the total federal government debt was 259 billion, 115 million dollars. How well the Jews were succeeding in getting us to borrow our own money from them. By the end of 1948, even under Harry Truman, the debt was reduced to 252 billion, 366 million. This would never do to have the debt paid down, so along came the Korean War, excuse me, Korean police action, war was never declared. By the end of this latest war, the national debt was up to 286 billion, 471 million dollars.
At the end of 1967 the congress set a debt ceiling of 358 billion. However, whenever more money was wanted for whatever reason, congress just raised the debt ceiling. The Federal Reserve isn't the only one that holds U.S. government bonds and gets interest on them but, the Federal Reserve System is the only one that can obtain such bonds for nothing and receive interest.
Let's look now at the government budget, this is what the federal government pays out. In 1915 the budget was 746 million dollars. This included pretty heavy expenditures that Woodrow Wilson was pushing, getting the country armed and ready to get into World War I. Up to this time the country had never had a billion dollar budget, not even one billion.
In 1935, in the midst of the Roosevelt spending mania, the budget rose to 6 billion, 497 million. How the banksters loved Roosevelt (Rosenfelt). In 1940 the federal budget was 9 billion, 55 million dollars. This is all of the federal government expenses for everything. This also included Roosevelt's feverish arming, getting ready to get us into World War II.
This figure of 9 billion, 55 million should stand out in our minds, it was less than 10 billion for the grand total of all federal government expenses, including the building of an enormous army, and navy. I want you to compare this with the fact that last year we paid 13.5 billion just for interest alone. (Now just the interest is well over 200 billion dollars. How well the Jew bankers have done their job.) President Johnson said our total budget, for the year, had to be 186 billion dollars.
When we fought World War II, to destroy Christian civilization in Europe, we didn't pull our punches; we didn't say anything about not wanting to win this war. We didn't say we just wanted to get the Germans to the bargaining table. When we were fighting Germany, we didn't utter any pious platitudes about not bombing the enemy's factories because they were in cities where people lived and some of these people might get killed.
The worst things that Hitler was ever accused of doing, and they were lies, weren't half as bad as what we did as a matter of government policy. We talked about the unconditional surrender of Germany as being our only policy.
Our government deliberately ordered the bombing of residential areas in German cities. There weren't any factories and there weren't any anti aircraft guns or anything else, to make them legitimate targets. In Hamburg and Dresden our bombers turned whole cities into a solid sheet of fire, deliberately burning to death the civilian population of old men, women and children. Dresden had been declared an open city so it was crowded with refugees. It was also one of the great art centers of Europe, comparable to Paris. But now we are too noble to bomb Hanoi, lest perhaps some of the commies get hurt in the process. What is the difference?
Our government kept the Korean War going year after year, when we had the power to win it in a month. Every general that ever commanded in Korea, when he returned testified before congress he could have won it crushingly, in a brief period, but he wasn't allowed to do so. It wasn't just General MacArthur; everyone who had command in Korea gave the same testimony. Look at the war now going on in Vietnam; it has been going on for years. We are feeding the best youth of the nation into the meat grinder, destroying our best breeding heritage.
Our own government has officially declared that they see no prospect for ending this war in less than twenty-five years. It isn't just our sons who are going to be murdered by the treachery and betrayal of our own government it is also our grandsons. They won't even have to start a new war to decimate our descendants; the communists will be murdering them in the same old war in Vietnam. We could win this war and no communist would dare speak a word in opposition to winning. We could win this war in three weeks, with the weapons that our country has developed.
Remember, through Johnson, and through Dean Rusk the government has said, "It is not our policy to win the war in Vietnam". Through our ambassador to the United Nations we said, "We don't want to win the war, we just want to bring them to the bargaining table". For this they are butchering our sons over there, forbidding them to win the war.
After we told the people of South Vietnam, "We could win this war for you in three weeks, but we are going to be here devastating your land with continuous warfare, having your sons killed with ours, for twenty-five years." Is it any wonder that the South Vietnamese are beginning to say, "We could get better terms than this from the communists.”
Let's go back to the Federal Reserve System again. We spent more money on the Korean War, year for year, than we did on World War II. We spent more money on the Vietnam War, year for year, than we did on World War II. How we are managing to spend all this money, without getting any results, is one of the unexplained mysteries of the age. Our soldiers don't even have enough ammunition and other necessary equipment.
Our government leaders have explained to us that because we don't have bombs enough to load the airplanes with a full load, we have to send them out with only quarter loads. Therefore every pilot has to fly through anti-aircraft fire four times, in order to deliver the equivalent of one normal load of bombs.
Our government is stripping the defense materials we have in Europe, supposedly for their defense. We have pretty much stripped Europe of helicopters, to send them to Vietnam, because Mr. McNamara saw to it we didn't have enough. We ran out of bombs so we had to go to Europe to get more of these also.
We have heard of the troubles we have had getting just basic equipment for our troops in Vietnam. We have heard about our soldiers in Vietnam writing home in desperation, asking parents and friends here to buy them cleaning rods for their rifles, and mail it to them, because the government didn't have any to issue to them. Oh yes, that is Mr. McNamara's triumph. As President Roosevelt used to say, "We planned it that way". Nothing happens by accident.
However, somehow the money got spent and nobody knows where the money went. Because we were spending so much more money than taxation could provide, we had to keep issuing bonds and asking the Federal Reserve System to buy them, then we gave the Federal Reserve system the money to buy them with. We won't be selling so many bonds, or rather; we won't be giving so many bonds to the Federal Reserve Bank when the war ends. Can you add two and two together and arrive at some number that is a little short of eleven as the proper total? This is what happens when we turn our backs on Yahweh.
The laws of Yahweh are natural laws, as much so as the law of gravity and they are every bit as self enforcing. If you jump out of an eighth story window, you do not violate the law of gravity, you obey it. You come down, but you obey the law of gravity the hard way and you pay the penalty. If you ride down the elevator, you obey the law of gravity the easy way and get the benefit. Every law of Yahweh's, His economic laws, dietary laws and all the others, are just as much natural laws as the law of gravity. If you violate these laws they enforce themselves with the same bitter penalty.
The wages of sin are death. Our sons are dying over there in the mud of Vietnam, because here in this country we allow the laws of Yahweh to be violated. Remember, Yahweh said that if you obey His laws, five of us will chase a hundred of the enemy, and a hundred of us shall put ten thousand to flight. We would win our wars crushingly, with no loss to ourselves.
Yahweh also said, "You are my battle axe and weapons of war, for with thee will I overthrow nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms." This means that we have a job to do. We have a choice; either do this job in obedience to Yahweh's laws and do it with little monetary cost and very little loss of life. Or we do the job in a way that violates Yahweh's laws and pay the heavy, bitter penalty, and you have to do the job anyway.
You know what the Jews want to do to Christian civilization, I don't have to give an hour's sermon on that subject, and you should know these facts by now. We have allowed these Jews to get this power over us. Yahweh warned us never to let a Jew live in our land. I will say this for Hitler, if he did what he is accused of doing; he wasn't doing anything wrong at all. He was obeying the laws of Yahweh when he started cleaning these blood-sucking parasites out of Germany.
Do you know why we got into World War II against Germany? It wasn't because of fictitious atrocities, those were used as a propaganda justification for our involvement later. Hitler didn't have any Jews in concentration camps until after the war had started. He had allowed the Jews who wished to leave, to get out. After the war had started, Hitler rounded up these communist Jews and put them in concentration camps.
If this was so terrible that Hitler put his enemies in concentration camps, what did we do the Japanese in California and to many Germans all over the United States, after we got into the war? We did the same thing it is only common sense.
All during this time, some of the Jews were running around loose in Germany, the rest were leaving the country. They were trying to decide whether they were going to later charge that Hitler killed ten times as many Jews as there were in all of Europe or just ten times as many Jews as there were in Germany. The Jews were getting us into World War II and Roosevelt had given his pledge to them that we would enter it on the side of the Allies.
The only reason the Jews hated Hitler was because he saw what the Jewish economic and banking systems had done to Germany. He was determined to break the Jewish power, so they had to get rid of him. At this time, the communist Jews had control of approximately 50% of Germany.
Germany is a nation, which, like England, does not have within its own borders all the things it needs in the way of raw materials. Germany has to import raw materials, and to buy them, they have to export some of their finished products. This is the same thing Britain has been doing for a century and a half, and Germany had to do the same thing to survive.
As a means of strangling Germany and destroying her economically, the Jews started a worldwide boycott of German products. As you must be aware of by now, the Jews control the commerce in all the nations of the world. This boycott was a declaration of war, as Samuel Untermeyer said himself. The Jews declared a holy war against Germany. Organized Jewry conducted this war here in the United States, against Germany, several years before the actual war started in Europe.
Hitler was starting to put into operation some of the laws of Yahweh and he was proving that, in spite of this Jewish boycott, Germany could become prosperous, by going back to the economic laws of Yahweh. The Jews couldn't let this happen because other nations might follow his example and break the Jews strangle hold on the economic and banking systems of the world.
Against all the efforts of the devil's children the Jews, to strangle and destroy her, Germany was becoming prosperous by going back to the economic laws of Yahweh. This had to be stopped, no matter how many Christians were butchered in accomplishing this goal. This is why World War II was started and why we were dragged into it.
Woodrow Wilson, sometime in 1919, testified before a congressional committee that the cause of World War I was economic rivalry. We were told it was because of those phony atrocities that Germans were supposed to have committed. Then the congress asked Wilson, "Do you believe, if Germany had never committed any atrocities, nor anything that we could call an act of war against us, that we would have gone to war against Germany anyway?" Wilson's reply was, "Yes, I do believe so."
If Franklin Roosevelt had ever spoken a truthful word in his life, he could have testified to the same thing about World War II.
What should we have done? The taking of interest, which in the King James Bible is call usury, is forbidden in the Bible. Today just about any interest rate is accepted. Pawnbroker’s charge 42% and more, you know who they generally are. The meaning of the word usury is anything paid for the use of something, which has been loaned. If it is a billionth of one percent per century, it is still usury. One cent compounded yearly at 6%, at the time of Christ, would be more than all the money that is in the world today.
Exodus 22:25 warns us, "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury." Leviticus 25:35-37 reminds us, "And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." It didn't matter whether you loaned him the food to eat or the money to buy it, you could make no charge for the loan.
These economic laws were for one Israelite dealing with another. It wasn't the intention of Yahweh for all the other races that hate us, to come in and enrich themselves at our expense, by borrowing from us and paying nothing for it. Deuteronomy 23:19-20 tells us, "Thou shalt not lend upon usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent up usury: unto a stranger (here the word is nokriy, an alien of another race) thou mayest lend upon usury but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury...."
We admittedly have a U.S. public debt of around 358 billion dollars. (How far we have fallen). Since this was written our debt has now increased to about 5 trillion dollars. There are some estimates that the real debt may be as high as 17 trillion dollars. This debt fluctuates a little above and a little below this amount. But this isn't all of the U.S. public debt; this is only the bonded part of it. We aren't talking about the state bond issues and the irrigation district bond issues and the rest of the bond issues, we are talking just about the federal government debt.
There is a vast hoard of federal government civil service employees who have the right to retire after awhile, upon their civil service pension. A certain amount of this is deducted from their wages while they work; the U.S. government has a part they contribute also. The government has promised that when these workers retire, they will receive a pension from the federal government for the rest of their lives. The money the federal government is going to have to put in, to pay that pension, is a government debt just as truly as a debt for which they issue a bond.
The same thing is true of the military retirement pensions. Then with Social Security, the government must also pay a heavy share of what the person on Social Security is going to receive during the rest of his life. When we add the money for these retirement pensions etc., to the recognized debt of the U.S. bonds and notes, we get a total federal debt of a trillion dollars or more. This is obviously unpayable. (I wonder what Mr. Comparet would think of our present day debt.)
When this all comes due and we can't pay it, what is going to happen to our economic system? Remember why Yahweh warned us not to get into this trap in the first place, and then He said to come out of this Babylonian system, lest ye be partaker of her sins and ye receive her plagues. We think we are smarter than Yahweh, we aren't, and we are just greedy that's all.
The only thing that gets a mouse into a trap to get caught, is his greed to get that piece of cheese the trap is baited with. We aren't a bit smarter than a mouse; it is one of those traits we inherited from Adam.
Under the laws of Yahweh, the burden of unpayable debts had to be relieved. If you borrow anything, you were under a moral obligation to do everything you reasonably could to pay it off. It wasn't simply a means whereby you could fleece your creditors. There would be, for many people, a situation where the debt had become unpayable. Things hadn't worked out well and the debtor couldn't pay off the debt. Every seventh year the burden of unpayable debt was to be released.
Deuteronomy 15:1-3 tells us, "At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbor shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbor, or of his brother; because it is called Yahweh's release. Of a foreigner (nokriy, alien) thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release."
Yahweh promised, "If you will do this, I will give you such prosperity that you will be better off, having canceled the debt, than you would have been had you required payment of it."
We haven't been willing to follow this law voluntarily but you will involuntarily obey the laws of Yahweh while you pay the penalty, if you refuse to obey it voluntarily and receive the benefit. An unpayable debt can be canceled involuntarily. Your debtor may go through bankruptcy in federal court and get his release this way. The debtor is broke anyway and there is no point in throwing away good money after bad in a lawsuit, when he has no assets, which you could seize and convert into cash.
Time passes until the statute of limitation wipes out the debt, and thereafter you can't sue him because the time is up. So, his debt is canceled just as effectively as it would have been by bankruptcy.
A while back, whenever the bankers precipitated a disaster by calling in the money supply, shutting off credit, we used to call it a panic. Then after these bankers got us organized, so it was to be perpetual, as you can't stay in a panic for an entire generation or more, they changed the name to a depression, but it is the same thing.
I haven't bothered to trace these panics or depressions back a few thousand years but let's go back as far as any of the oldest of us can remember. Note the timing, 1893, 1900, and 1907. The next panic was due in 1914 and disastrous symptoms of this impending panic were showing up in 1913. 1914 had been set as the year for the next Jewish instigated war. They had to keep from getting us into a disaster, if they were going to finance the war that was to destroy Christian civilization.
So selling war supplies to the British, at highly inflated prices, staved off the panic that was due in 1914. This provided huge profits to the big Jewish owned corporations. They were able to pay high wages to the men who worked in those war plants and we had a phony prosperity. You know how rich you can get, killing people and destroying cities.
Still keeping the seven-year rhythm, the next panic was due in 1921 and it came on schedule. Incidentally, the Federal Reserve Bank brought it on. The next panic was due in 1928 and it had already hit Europe in 1928, but in this country we kidded ourselves out of it until 1929. We were already having trouble, unemployment was at a high rate and all the danger signals were out. But, look at all the corporation stocks we had bought, paying five times as much as they were worth. Surely there would be some sucker around to buy them from us for ten times what they were worth. We were getting rich, weren't we? Then the crash came and we weren't getting rich at all, all of a sudden we were poor.
1935 was the next time a depression was due, on the seven-year cycle. In the midst of the Roosevelt depression, there was an even lower spot in 1935. Then 1942 was the next time a panic was due. Remember, the Jews had to keep us prosperous so we could complete the destruction of Christian civilization. They wanted to make certain that the laws of Yahweh would never be put into effect by any nation, to provide an example for the world to follow, the way Germany was doing. We then got an artificial prosperity. Remember how rich we got, by issuing all those bonds to the Jews who didn't have to pay for them anyway? Or did we really get rich? Now we have to pay for those bonds out of our hard earned money.
A depression was due again in 1949, and we had a low spot then the same thing happened in 1956 and then in 1963. And it continues.
Do the laws of Yahweh work or don't they? Isn't it just possible that the Creator of the universe and everything in it, knows what His own laws will do? Isn't it time we got wise to this and started following these laws? It is high time we obeyed these monetary and other laws, now that we see what is happening to Babylon's money. There isn't any government money from the size of a dollar and up, all this money is borrowed into circulation. The only money our government now produces is the coinage. Even making pennies out of copper is now too expensive, so they are only copper on the outside. There is no money put into circulation today that has any intrinsic value and the majority of it is borrowed into circulation.
No nation in history has been able to debase their money and escape the consequences. The money becomes worth less and les, this is called inflation.
We can't get a paper dollar that is anything except Babylon's money, the Federal Reserve note. There isn't any paper government money it is bank money. There is no way the "borrowed" money can ever be repaid. For example, if there is one billion dollars borrowed into circulation and we have to pay 6% interest, where does the interest come from, more borrowed money?
When more money is needed for the economy to function, the government cannot issue it. The government goes in debt to the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve issues the money for their own profit. Any time these Jews want to pull the plug on this scam, our economy will go down the drain. All they have to do is tighten the money supply. They know this and it will be part of the general attack. They will use this just before they spring the military attack on us.
In 1998 all the top people in our defense department and foreign relations are all Jews. The degenerate President Clinton has appointed more Jews than any other president in history.
With financial disaster comes the closing of the factories and the throwing into the streets millions of unemployed people. These people can be led into riots and revolution, like the Negroes. These Jewish bankers can tell us to finance our own defense because we are broke and in a depression.
First these banksters took all our gold, now they have also taken our silver. They have left us with worthless paper and they will laugh at us. We will be told our paper money is nothing but worthless IOUs of a private banking corporation. We don't have anything to pay you with except more paper IOUs, what are you going to spend them on? Who will accept this worthless paper? It will be just like Germany when it took a bushel basket full of money just to buy a loaf of bread.
Then these Jewish bankers will gloat that they have all our gold and silver. This is the real money with intrinsic value.
Ezekiel 7:19 promises, "They shall cast their silver in the streets and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them to the day of the wrath of Yahweh: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumbling block of their iniquity."
James 5:3 says, "Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you..." Something that is kept in use is not the thing that rusts. It is the thing that is set away and idle that rusts out. These Canaanite banksters are taking the gold and silver away, so it can't be used as our money. Instead they are going to use this silver and gold to destroy us. Yahweh warns us in James 5:3, "The rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days."
Yes, the Bible reveals that these children of the devil are coming to their final doom, for having done this to us. However, you must remember that as long as we are in the same boat with them, the process of sinking that boat is going to be rough on us also. Isn't it about time we came out of the Babylonian system? We can't get out of any of this trouble until we get out of the system of Babylon's money.
http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/comparet/babylons-money.html
Background: This is a translation of a pamphlet titled "America and Europe. Failures in Building an American People." It was published by Robert Ley's Reichsorganisationsleitung der NSDAP around mid-1942. It was intended for those making propaganda. The first page notes that "Reprinting or giving to those who are unauthorized is not allowed." However, it contains nothing particularly confidential. It is an interesting application of Nazi racial theories to the United States.
The source: "Europe und Amerika. Fehlerquellen im Aufbau des amerikanischen Volkstums," Schulungs-Unterlage Nr. 18 (Der Reichsorganisationsleitung der NSDAP., Hauptschulungsamt, 1942).
The population, however, did put one limitation on the melting pot thesis. Mixing with Blacks was out of the question. Even today 30 states have strict laws against intermarriage with Negroes. (Naturally, that has nothing to do with illegitimate relations between Blacks and Whites; the estimates are that 20,000 mixed-race children are born annually.) The Negro problem, indeed the racial problem in general, is viewed differently in the industrialized North than in the more agricultural South, which had drawn a sharp line for centuries between the Colored and Whites. The limited penetration of the Jews in the South can also be noted. The Jew has an interest in eliminating racial boundaries and therefore always makes common cause with the Blacks. (The Jewish element in Roosevelt's ancestry or the White House's dependence on the Jews may be responsible for his attitude toward the Negro question. The president's wife in particular takes pleasure in ignoring all racial boundaries. Political calculations also play a role — there are around 12 million Negroes in the USA. They have an important influence in elections. Despite all efforts by Roosevelt and his Jewish men behind the scenes, the melting pot theory does have its limits. This is one of the biggest problems in the domestic developments of the union. Time will tell if the growing demands for emancipation by the Black element, which in some Southern states comprises over half of the population, will succeed. That might eventually lead to a dissolution of an American state.)
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hsa02.htm
Background: This is a translation of a 22-page pamphlet from 1942 titled Roosevelt Betrays America! The author is Robert Ley, head of the German Labor Front, though I rather suspect he had help. It is a good example of anti-American propaganda at the beginning of the war. I include some, but not all, of the accompanying illustrations as well. I assume this pamphlet was widely distributed by the DAF.
The source: Robert Ley, Roosevelt verrät Amerika! (Berlin: Verlag der Deutschen Arbeitsfront, 1942).
Roosevelt Betrays America!
by Dr. Robert Ley
A Third of the Population Lives in Poverty
Roosevelt himself saw himself forced after his second election to tell Congress: "I see several tens of millions of our citizens — a significant part of our population — who even today lack much of what we consider the absolute minimum necessities of life. I see millions of families who must live with an income so modest that the pale of family disaster hangs over them day by day. I see millions in the cities and the countryside whose live under conditions that a so-called decent society would have termed indecent even fifty years ago. I see millions to whom education, recreation and the possibility of improving their lives and those of their children are denied. I see millions who lack the means to buy the products of our factories and farms, and who through their poverty deny work and productivity to millions of others."
Roosevelt's words clearly show the results of his efforts at "reconstruction." And he was by no means painting too dark a picture. His statements are supported by numerous reports and statistics from official sources that prove conclusively that the common European idea of the comfortable life of the American worker is in no way accurate. That is also clear to anyone who walks through the numerous side streets in New York and Brooklyn, or who visits a sharecropper in the "cotton belt."
Unemployment is unimaginable. Despite the New Deal and the Social Security Administration, despite the land's riches of every variety, despite vast and fruitful soil, despite technology and the much-praised American progress, Roosevelt has not succeeded in reducing the numing it unnecessary to discuss it here. Capitalist greed has leveled the forests and produced drought and wind storms. Everything has become desert, and whole regions have been ruined. The world knows that the misery of the American farmer is a catastrophe that the government is unable to do anything about,
American workers know nothing about such social benefits as old age care, care for the handicapped or accident and health insurance. Roosevelt's New Deal has attempted to copy the German model. The copy is a bad one. The renowned social apostle is bluffing here as everywhere else. Despite complicated regulations, only a small number of workers enjoy a decent retirement. Insurance against accidents, industries mishaps,and illness simply does not exist.
Women, children and young people are exploited in the most shameless fashion in "God's own country." To give only one example, girls in the tobacco industry in Ohio still work unlimited hours under dangerous conditions for $10 a week. After four or five years, most are sick with tuberculosis and are thrown out on the street because the owner would otherwise have to pay unemployment insurance. Thousands of new and cheap workers are waiting at the door, willing to sacrifice their health for low wages.
The best Americans, such as the famed American political philosopher Daniel Webster, the theoretician of the Whig Party, predicted the effects of a similarly deficient social system in these words: "The freest government will not long survive if wealth is concentrated in a few hands while the great masses of the people become dependent and poverty-stricken."
V. Franklin D. Roosevelt's Complete Bankruptcy
Everything that Daniel Webster feared and despised has come to pass in the USA. Even worse! The idiocy and criminality have increased, and no one sees a way out. Franklin D. Roosevelt proclaimed a New Deal in 1933 as a way to end the misery. Since this invention of Mr. Roosevelt's Brain Trust has caused so much confusion, I wish here to briefly summarize it and comment critically on it.
The New Deal is a collection of economic policy measures that Roosevelt implemented from 1933 to 1935, of which recent measures are a continuation.
The central points are:
Measures to increase purchasing power: (Farm Credit Act, protection of bankruptcy, public and private jobs, increased and stabilized wages, repricing of agricultural products and raw materials, devaluation to increase exports);
Establishing Unified Labor Legislation: (universal labor conditions, working hours, pay, right to organize, mediation system);
Introducing Social Security Measures: (unemployment compensation, workmen's compensation, Social Security).
The "New Deal" presumes cooperation between employers, workers and the government. This could only result because of the severity of the crisis, and the traditional American individualism immediately sabotaged it as soon as enormous public expenditures seemed to lead to improvements in some areas.
The "New Deal" was an expression of federal economic leadership. But it lacked the necessary bureaucracy, which had until then not existed in the USA.
The political conditions necessary for the "New Deal" economic policies were also lacking. The party and Congressional systems remained unchanged, as did the other institutions (the Supreme Court), which meant that business and labor circles influenced the legislative process.
The "New Deal" tried to have a planned economy without effective planning. The various measures were not coordinated with each other. The result: bureaucratic infighting, the influence of political moods, the pressures of election propaganda, the power of unemployed voters, the misuse of tax moneys for these purposes, "the use of social misery for electoral purposes." The "New Deal" was thus a confused liberal system. "The capitalists presented themselves as socialist!"
Fact: Roosevelt amassed $40 billion in debt prior to the beginning of the war.
The number of unemployed rose, after initial declines from 1938-1939, significantly, until the unimaginable figure of 11,300,000 was reached.
Roosevelt's policies have failed utterly.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ley1.htm
Unemployment is unimaginable. Despite the New Deal and the Social Security Administration, despite the land's riches of every variety, despite vast and fruitful soil, despite technology and the much-praised American progress, Roosevelt has not succeeded in reducing the numing it unnecessary to discuss it here. Capitalist greed has leveled the forests and produced drought and wind storms. Everything has become desert, and whole regions have been ruined. The world knows that the misery of the American farmer is a catastrophe that the government is unable to do anything about,
A Photo Essay on the Great Depression
Note: This page in very graphics heavy and will take several moments to load depending on the speed of your connection.
Young boys waiting in kitchen of city mission for soup which is given out nightly. Dubuque, Iowa. April 1940. Photographer: John Vachon. For millions, soup kitchens offered the only food they would eat.
Upstairs bedroom of family on relief, Chicago, Illinois. April 1941. Photographer: Russell Lee.
Man in hobo jungle killing turtle to make soup, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Sept. 1939. Photographer: John Vachon.
Power farming displaces tenants. Texas panhandle, 1938. Photographer: Dorothea Lange.
Members of the picket line at King Farm strike. Morrisville, Pennsylvania. August 1938. Photographer: John Vachon. In contrast to a frequently racist society, several unions were militantly integrationist.
People living in miserable poverty, Elm Grove, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. August 1936. Photographer: Dorothea Lange.
Part of an impoverished family of nine on a New Mexico highway. Depression refugees from Iowa. Left Iowa in 1932 because of father's ill health. Father an auto mechanic laborer, painter by trade, tubercular. Family has been on relief in Arizona but refused entry on relief roles in Iowa to which state they wish to return. Nine children including a sick four-month-old baby. No money at all. About to sell their belongings and trailer for money to buy food. "We don't want to go where we'll be a nuisance to anybody." Children of migrant workers typically had no way to attend school. By the end of 1930 some 3 million children had abandoned school. Thousands of schools had closed or were operating on reduced hours. At least 200,000 children took to the roads on their own. Summer 1936. Photographer: Dorothea Lange.
Gellert, Hugo, 1924. Vote Communist poster. During the 1920s the American Communist Party was often a victim at once of government oppression and of its own sectarian struggles, but in the mid-1930s it adopted a "popular front" policy of alliances with liberal organizations. Its membership tripled, but more important still were the thousands of sympathizers who endorsed party-supported causes.
Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother," destitute in a pea picker's camp, because of the failure of the early pea crop. These people had just sold their tent in order to buy food. Most of the 2,500 people in this camp were destitute. By the end of the decade there were still 4 million migrants on the road.
The photograph that has become known as "Migrant Mother" is one of a series of photographs that Dorothea Lange made in February or March of 1936 in Nipomo, California. Lange was concluding a month's trip photographing migratory farm labor around the state for what was then the Resettlement Administration. In 1960, Lange gave this account of the experience:
I saw and approached the hungry and desperate mother, as if drawn by a magnet. I do not remember how I explained my presence or my camera to her, but I do remember she asked me no questions. I made five exposures, working closer and closer from the same direction. I did not ask her name or her history. She told me her age, that she was thirty-two. She said that they had been living on frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields, and birds that the children killed. She had just sold the tires from her car to buy food. There she sat in that lean- to tent with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me. There was a sort of equality about it. (From: Popular Photography, Feb. 1960).
Farmer and sons, dust storm, Cimarron County, Oklahoma, 1936. Photographer: Arthur Rothstein.
The drought that helped cripple agriculture in the Great Depression was the worst in the climatological history of the country. By 1934 it had dessicated the Great Plains, from North Dakota to Texas, from the Mississippi River Valley to the Rockies. Vast dust storms swept the region.
Bud Fields and his family. Alabama. 1935 or 1936. Photographer: Walker Evans.
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/depression/photoessay.htm
National Socialist Germany
This page contains copies of articles by three different authors—two Germans (Schmidt and Kurreck) and a Belgian (Leon Degrelle)—who were alive during the 1933 thru 1945 period, and directly experienced life in National Socialist Germany. These three articles are:
Living in Hitler’s Germany
by Hans Schmidt
Living In Hitler’s Germany
A letter from Hans Schmidt of GANPAC
Published in the Hoskins Report, Dec. 1993
Richard Kelly Hoskins, publisher
Dear Dick: You asked for someone who had lived in Hitler’s Germany to tell what it was like. Permit me, someone who lived under the Swastika flag from 1935, when the Saar was reunited with Germany, to 1945, to give a short answer.
To be a boy or girl at that time was wonderful. In the Hitler Youth the differences between Christian denominations or the different German states didn’t count. We all truly felt that we were members of one body of people – one nation. Youth hostels were opened all over the Reich, enabling us to hike from one beautiful town to another seeing our fatherland. Every effort was made to strengthen our minds and bodies. Contrary to what is said today, we were encouraged to become free in spirit, and not to succumb to peer (or authority) pressure. In peacetime, NO military training was allowed by the Hitler Youth leadership; scouting yes. Incidentally, to “snitch on our parents” was frowned upon.
At the very time when America’s allies, the Soviets, destroyed most of the Christian churches in Russia and Ukraine, about 2500 new churches were built in Germany. NOT ONE Christian church was closed. It was the law that school and church had priority over service in the Hitler Youth. As late as the fall of 1944, the Waffen SS barracks in Breslau supplied two buses to take youth to either the nearest Catholic or Protestant church every Sunday. To be a registered member of a Christian church did not prevent advancement in the National Socialist Party.
Germany was National Socialist, but free enterprise flourished during the entire Hitler years. No company was nationalized. No small businessman was stopped from opening up his own store. I myself worked during the war for a company that can only be called part of international capitalism. If you owned shares, nobody confiscated them, like the allies did in 1945.
The accomplishments of the ‘Nazis’ were incredible. Starting without money and with six million unemployed (a third of the workforce), they constructed the entire German Autobahn road network in a short span of 6 years – almost without corruption – while seeing to it that the new road system did not unnecessarily destroy either the German landscape, or wildlife habitats and forests. Two years after the NS [National Socialists] were elected to power, conditions were so improved that workers had to be hired in nearby friendly countries to help alleviate the worker’s shortage in Germany. Germany was booming while Britain, France and the US were in the depths of depression.
http://www.johmann.net/commentary/national-socialist-germany.html
The accomplishments of the ‘Nazis’ were incredible. Starting without money and with six million unemployed (a third of the workforce), they constructed the entire German Autobahn road network in a short span of 6 years – almost without corruption – while seeing to it that the new road system did not unnecessarily destroy either the German landscape, or wildlife habitats and forests. Two years after the NS [National Socialists] were elected to power, conditions were so improved that workers had to be hired in nearby friendly countries to help alleviate the worker’s shortage in Germany. Germany was booming while Britain, France and the US were in the depths of depression.
Dust Bowl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Dust Bowl was a series of dust storms in the central United States and Canada in the mid to late 1930s, caused by a massive drought and decades of inappropriate farming techniques. The fertile soil of the Great Plains was exposed through removal of grass during plowing. During the drought, the soil dried out, became dust, and blew away. The wind blew the dust to the east in very large black clouds. The clouds made the sky appear black all the way to Chicago. Eventually the soil was completely lost when it blew out to the Atlantic Ocean. Beginning in 1934 and lasting until 1939, this ecological disaster caused an exodus from Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and the surrounding Great Plains, in which over 500,000 Americans were homeless.[1] Topsoil across millions of acres was blown away because the indigenous sod had been broken for wheat farming and the vast herds of buffalo were no longer fertilizing the rest of the indigenous grasses. It covered parts of Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and New Mexico. Many of these homeless migrated west looking for work. "Okie" became a generic term for members of this mass migration.
Background
Dust storm in Spearman, Texas, April 14, 1935.
It is well known that there was economic instability in agriculture during the 1920s, due to overproduction following World War I. National and international market forces during the war had caused farmers to push the agricultural frontier beyond its natural limits. Increasingly, marginal land that would now be considered unsuitable for use was developed to capture profits from the war. After the land had been stripped of its natural vegetation, the ecological balance of the plains was destroyed, leaving nothing to hold the soil when the rains dried up and the winds came in the 1930s.
With their crops ruined, lands barren and dry, and homes foreclosed for unpayable debts, many farm families gave up and left. Many of the displaced were from Oklahoma, where 15% of the state's population left. The migrants were called "Okies," whether or not they were from Oklahoma. High-end estimates for the number of displaced Americans are as high as 2.5 million, but the lower value of 300,000 to 400,000 is more probable based upon the 2.3 million population of Oklahoma at the time.
Buried machinery in barn lot. Dallas, South Dakota, May 1936
On November 11, 1933, a very strong dust storm stripped topsoil from desiccated South Dakota farmlands in just one of a series of disastrous dust storms that year. Then on May 11, 1934, a strong two-day dust storm removed massive amounts of Great Plains topsoil in one of the worst such storms of the Dust Bowl. The dust clouds blew all the way to Chicago where filth fell like snow, dumping the equivalent of four pounds of debris per person on the city. Several days later, the same storm reached cities in the east, such as Buffalo, Boston, New York City, and Washington, D.C.. That winter, red snow fell on New England.
On April 14, 1935 known as "Black Sunday", one of the worst "Black Blizzards" occurred throughout the dustbowl, causing extensive damage, turning the day to night. Witnesses reported that they could not see five feet in front of them at certain points.
During President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first 100 days, governmental programs to restore the ecologic balance of the nation were implemented. The U.S. Government was to form the Soil Conservation Service, now the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
The human crisis was documented by photographers from the Farm Security Administration; among which the most famous was Dorothea Lange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
The Dust Bowl was a series of dust storms in the central United States and Canada in the mid to late 1930s, caused by a massive drought and decades of inappropriate farming techniques. The fertile soil of the Great Plains was exposed through removal of grass during plowing. During the drought, the soil dried out, became dust, and blew away. The wind blew the dust to the east in very large black clouds. The clouds made the sky appear black all the way to Chicago. Eventually the soil was completely lost when it blew out to the Atlantic Ocean. Beginning in 1934 and lasting until 1939, this ecological disaster caused an exodus from Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and the surrounding Great Plains, in which over 500,000 Americans were homeless.[1] Topsoil across millions of acres was blown away because the indigenous sod had been broken for wheat farming and the vast herds of buffalo were no longer fertilizing the rest of the indigenous grasses. It covered parts of Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and New Mexico. Many of these homeless migrated west looking for work. "Okie" became a generic term for members of this mass migration.
The German American Bund
By Mr. Gustave Neuss
November, 2002
This notorious period in the history of Yaphank began in early 1935. The Coombes property on Mill Road west of the upper dam of the Carmens River, and immediately north of the John Jones farm, was purchased by the German American Settlement League. Initially the change in ownership was felt to be a boon to the community. Jim Coombes had always been a 100% flag waving American. The prospective users of the property of German ancestry were initially assumed to be loyal Americans of the sort Jim Coombes would approve. Later events were to put the lie to this.
Ernst Mueller, head of the German American Settlement League, upon completion of the property transfer prepared a letter that was sent to members of the League, the German American Bund and other organizations of German Americans, inviting all to visit this beautiful lakeside property. They could get away from the big city and enjoy the fresh country air. The members of the various societies were post World War 1 immigrants then living in the New York City area. The letter included instructions on how to reach the camp by automobile and advised that a Long Island Railroad special train would leave the Flatbush Ave., Brooklyn, station on that Sunday morning to bring members to Yaphank.
In November, 1933 Gustave Neuss, Sr. ran on the Democratic ticket for a seat on the Brookhaven Town Board. Since the Township and Suffolk County were Republican strongholds under the leadership of W. Kingsland, {“King”} Macy, it was rare for a Democrat to be elected to any political office. In 1933 dissension in the Republican ranks resulted in Gustave Neuss, Sr. being elected to the Brookhaven Town Board for a four year term. He would serve as Judge Neuss from January 1, 1934 to December 31, 1937. His initial reaction to the arrival of the German-Americans was one of welcoming. His parents were both born in Germany, arriving in the United States in the late 1840’s. He spoke German fluently. Until he found out the true purpose of the Yaphank, Camp Siegfried groups, he was a friend of the organizations. As they displayed their pro-Hitler, anti Semitic leanings he became their nemesis.
Judge Gustave Neuss
In 1936 Hitler invaded the Rhineland and the Sudetenland. He also accelerated his persecution of the non-Aryans in Germany. Fritz Kuhn, the head of the German-American Bund, visited Hitler in Germany that same year. Upon his return to this country the weekend meetings at Camp Siegfried repeated the anti-Semitic and anti-Communist and anti-Labor Union tirades. A boycott of Jewish merchants was initiated and all German-Americans were encouraged to patronize merchants displaying the D.K.V. sign indicating that merchant was a member of the pro-German merchants. The Jewish responded with a boycott of all German operated shops. There was some confusion at the start as some of the vendors supplying the Camp Siegfried restaurant were of the Jewish persuasion.
Judge Neuss, after observing the bias created by the weekly meetings at the Camp, changed his position to one that was anti-Hitler. What was originally thought to be a friendly and wholesome group of new visitors to the community became instead a faction whose ideas and actions were alien to our American traditions. The Sunday morning parades from the railroad station to Camp Siegfried by uniformed Brown Shirts, similar to Hitler’s Nazis, singing German marching songs as they moved along Main Street, identified the participants as anti-American. Hitler and Mussolini formed their Rome-Berlin axis about this time. On more than one Sunday parading with the Brown Shirts were a group of Black Shirts, pro-Italian Fascists. At this time the American flag and the German swastika were flying side by side at the Camp and at least one building displayed the swastika in the shingles of the roof. At the base of the flagpole near the restaurant building was a circular flower bed of swastika design.
There was an enormous animosity on the part of the Bundists against the Jews. I found this first hand on a visit one night to the Lakeview Inn, adjacent to the upper lake. It was operated by Herman Bohlsen a friendly member of the Bund. While sipping a beer, {I rarely drank}, I was approached by an older German-American who I will call Karl. Our conversation is as follows.
Karl: Gus you know what Hitler is doing in Germany is a good thing.
Gus: I don’t understand, please explain?
Karl: It’s the Jews. They ran all the banks, controlled all the money, what with Rothchild and the others like him. They ran all the businesses. Hitler changed all that and put the Germans in charge.
Gus: You think this is good?
Karl: Yes, and the same thing is happening in this country. The Jews control the banks and most of the businesses and are telling those in Washington how to run the country. Roosevelt is one of them. His name is not Roosevelt, it is Rosenfeld.
http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/history/yaphank/german_american_bund.htm
German-American Bund
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The German-American Bund or German American Federation was an American Nazi organization established in the 1930s. Formed from the merger of two 1920s organizations, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) and the Free Society of Teutonia, which were small groups with only a few hundred members. NSDAP member Heinz Sponknobel eventually consolidated the two groups into the Friends of New Germany. Its main goal was promoting peace and friendship between the United States and Germany, and preventing another war.
Soon after their formation, the Friends came under attack from two fronts. The first was a Jewish boycott of German goods in the heavily German neighborhood of Yorkville on the Upper East Side of New York City. The second problem for the German-American Bund came from Jewish Congressman Samuel Dickstein (D-N.Y.), who headed an investigation against them.
The Friends tried to counter this boycott with their own propaganda . An internal battle was fought for control of the Friends in 1934 and Sponknobel was ousted from the leadership. At the same time, the Dickstein investigation concluded that the Friends supported a branch of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party in America.
After the investigation, Hitler advised all German nationals to withdraw from the Friends. On March 19, 1936, Hitler placed US citizen Fritz Kuhn at the head of the party, hoping to gain some degree of American favor. The Friends' name was then changed to the German-American Bund.
After taking over in 1936, Kuhn started to attract attention to the Bund through propaganda film strips which outlined the Bund's views. Later that year, Kuhn with some 50 fellow Nazis boarded a boat to Germany, hoping to receive official recognition from Hitler during the Berlin Olympics. Unfortunately for Kuhn, he was probably the last person Hitler wanted to meet, because Hitler wanted them to remain non-aggressive and work quietly. Kuhn did not receive the recognition from Hitler he wanted. The Bund enjoyed the climax of its influence in February 1939, when its members gathered at Madison Square Garden on the premise of celebrating George Washington's birthday. 20,000 members attended. Despite the high number, estimates of its total membership never exceeded 25,000.
The Bund was one of many German American heritage groups, however, it was one of the few to express Nazi ideals. As a result, many considered the group anti-American. In 1939, a New York tax investigation determined that Kuhn had embezzled money from the Bund. The Bund operated on the theory that the leader's powers were absolute, and therefore did not push prosecution.
However, in an attempt to cripple the Bund, the New York district attorney prosecuted Kuhn. New Bund leaders would replace Kuhn, most notably with Gerhard Kunze, but these were only brief stints. Martin Dies and the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) were very active in denying any Nazi-sympathetic organization the ability to operate in the U.S. during World War II.
With the start of World War II most of the Bund's members were placed in internment camps, and some were deported at the end of the war. The Bund itself failed to become a major force in American politics and eventually died out. However, its influence is still felt in a number of American neo-Nazi groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-American_Bund
Fritz Kuhn, head of the antisemitic and pro-Nazi German American Bund, speaks at a rally. United States, between 1936 and 1939.
See more photographs
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005684
Fritz Kuhn, head of the antisemitic and pro-Nazi German American Bund, speaks at a rally. United States, between 1936 and 1939.
See more photographs
German-American Bund Movement
The horrid National Socialist German Workers' Party was inspired by German-Americans who were already national socialists in the United States. Many of them joined the German American Bund movement (Deutsch-Amerikanischer Volksbund) to support national socialists in Germany before WWII. The bund began as the Friends of New Germany in Chicago in 1933. This group traced its roots to the Teutonia Society and National Socialist Party, both active in the USA during the 1920s.
It is important to remember that during all that time the group's members, like most U.S. citizens, attended racist and segregated government schools and saluted with a straight-arm salute toward the U.S. flag, as written by the self-proclaimed national socialist Francis Bellamy, long before the adoption of the salute by the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
As with all Bellamy national socialists, this organization claimed to be "100% American" and to support the Constitution, the flag and a "truly free America." The Bund held large and popular rallies throughout the United States, and ran summer camps for youths which were modeled upon the camps of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
In 1936 Hitler invaded the Rhineland and the Sudetenland. National Socialism had grown so much in the USA that Fritz Kuhn, the head of the German-American Bund, and a few of his followers, visited Germany that same year in Berlin for the 1936 Summer Olympics. During his visit Kuhn was offered to come to the Reichs chancellery and have his picture taken with the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
The straight-armed salute of the National Socialist German Workers Party came from the original pledge of allegiance to the U.S. flag as first published in the magazine "Youth's Companion" in 1892 by the self-proclaimed national socialist Francis Bellamy. Francis Bellamy, and his also-famous cousin Edward Bellamy, supported a government takeover of all schools, and a flag over every school, in order to promote national socialism. Those views resulted in nationwide government policies of racism and segregation. Children used the “sieg heil” gesture for flags flying over racist government schools through the rise of Nazism (the hand-over-the-heart spread in 1942). The bizarre practices served as an example for three decades before they were adopted by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The U.S. practice of segregation even outlasted the horrid party, into the 1960's and beyond. That is why the Bellamys are known as the “American Hitlers” and as the first “American Nazis.” http://rexcurry.net/pledge1.html
Germans learned bad American behavior via old films, via WWI, and via the widespread use of the straight-arm salute by German-American groups in the USA, that led to its adoption later by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party).
Most articles about the German-American Bund contain the idiotic remark that the Bund had rallies filled with "Nazi salutes." They are completely ignorant of the fact that the original pledge of allegiance at that time used the straight-armed salute. There is only one website with articles about the Bund that doesn't suffer from that rampant ignorance: http://rexcurry.net/pledgebund.html
The History Channel shows the documentary "Nazi America: A Secret History." It tells the story of German-Americans who supported the National Socialist German Workers' Party and tried to organize support within the U.S.A before WWII in a group known as the German-American Bund.
The documentary is supposed to be factual but suffers from many deficiencies:
The full phrase "National Socialist German Workers' Party" was apparently never mentioned, definitely not discussed. They constantly use the hackneyed abbreviation, as if they don't want you to know the true full phrase.
The film mentions that the bund opposed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and then notes that the bund disbanded not long after the start of WWII. The film does not mention that the National Socialist German Workers' Party joined as allies with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to invade Poland in 1939, in a pact to divide up Europe.
The film shows Bund gatherings where Bund members display the flag of the National Socialist German Workers' Party alongside the flag of the U.S. and the Bund members salute with a straight-arm salute using the right arm. The documentary never explains that the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag at that time used a straight-arm salute like that of the National Socialist GermanWorkers' Party, and such had been the case for three decades before the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The documentary does not explain whether the Bund members are pledging allegiance to the U.S. flag or saluting the flag of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, or saluting the U.S. flag, or trying to do both at the same time. If the producers of the documentary knew that the straight-arm salute was used for the U.S. flag, then the question is raised whether the segment was designed to deliberately mislead viewers. If the producers of the documentary did not know, then one can imagine their ignorant exclamation as they selected the archive film footage, "Those daft German-Americans are saluting the U.S. flag with the Nazi salute!" It would have been more accurate to exclaim "Those daft German National Socialists are saluting the German flag with the U.S. salute, created by an American National Socialist!" http://rexcurry.net/pledge1.html
The documentary never explains that the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag was written by a socialist in the nationalism movement in the U.S. and he was a bigot and he promoted the idea of an "industrial army" run by the government, and he did so three decades before the National Socialist German Workers' Party. http://rexcurry.net/pledge_military.html
http://rexcurry.net/pledgebund.html
Fritz Kuhn (Nazi)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fritz Julius Kuhn (May 15, 1896–December 14, 1951), son of Georg Kuhn and Julia Justyna Kuhn (born Beuth), was the controversial leader of the German-American Bund, prior to World War II. He was a naturalized citizen of the United States and a loyal supporter of the German government led by Adolf Hitler.
During World War I, Kuhn earned an Iron Cross as an infantry lieutenant. After the war, he graduated from the University of Munich with a masters degree in chemical engineering. In the 1920s, Kuhn moved to Mexico. In 1928, he moved to the United States and, in 1934 he became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
As head of the Bund he was considered the "American Führer". In 1939, seeking to cripple the Bund, New York City mayor Fiorello La Guardia had the city investigate the Bund's taxes. It found that Kuhn had embezzled over $14,000 from the Bund, spending part of that money on a mistress. District Attorney Thomas E. Dewey pressed charges and won a conviction against Kuhn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Kuhn_%28Nazi%29
My political testament.
More than thirty years have passed since 1914 when I made my modest contribution as a volunteer in the First World War, which was forced upon the Reich.
In these three decades love and loyalty to my people have guided all my thoughts, actions and my life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions ever to confront mortal man. In these three decades I have spent my strength and my health.
It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not be cowardly enough always to disregard, for responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be placed on me. Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America. Centuries will go by, but from the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible will always grow anew against the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and its henchmen.
Only three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I proposed a solution of the German-Polish problem to the British Ambassador in Berlin - international control as in the case of the Saar. This offer, too, cannot be lied away. It was only rejected because the ruling clique in England wanted war, partly for commercial reasons and partly because it was influenced by the propaganda put out by international Jewry.
I have left no one in doubt that if the people of Europe are once more treated as mere blocks of shares in the hands of these international money and finance conspirators, then the sole responsibility for the massacre must be borne by the true culprits: the Jews. Nor have I left anyone in doubt that this time millions of European children of Aryan descent will starve to death, millions of men will die in battle, and hundreds of thousands of women and children will be burned or bombed to death in our cities without the true culprits being held to account, albeit more humanely.
After six years of war which, despite all setbacks, will one day go down in history as the most glorious and heroic manifestation of the struggle for existence of a nation, I cannot abandon the city which is the capital of this Reich. Since our forces are too meager to withstand the enemy's attack and since our resistance is being debased by creatures who are as blind as they are lacking in character, I wish to share my fate with that which millions of others have also taken upon themselves by remaining in this city. Further, I shall not fall into the hands of the enemy who requires a new spectacle, presented by the Jews, for the diversion of the hysterical masses.
I have therefore decided to stay in Berlin and there to choose death voluntarily when I determine that the position of the Fuhrer and the Chancellery itself can no longer be maintained. I die with a joyful heart in the knowledge of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our peasants and workers and of a contribution unique in the history of our youth which bears my name.
That I am deeply grateful to them all is as self-evident as is my wish that they do not abandon the struggle but that, no matter where, they continue to fight the enemies of the Fatherland, faithful to the ideals of the great Clausewitz. Through the sacrifices of our soldiers and my own fellowship with them unto death, a seed has been sown in German history that will one day grow to usher in the glorious rebirth of the National Socialist movement in a truly united nation.
Many of our bravest men and women have sworn to bind their lives to mine to the end. I have begged, and finally ordered, them not to do so but to play their part in the further struggle of the nation. I ask the leaders of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force to strengthen the National Socialist spirit of resistance of our soldiers by all possible means, with special emphasis on the fact that I myself, as the founder and creator of this movement, prefer death to cowardly resignation or even to capitulation.
May it become a point of honor of future German army officers, as it is already in our Navy, that the surrender of a district or town is out of the question and that, above everything else, the commanders must set a shining example of faithful devotion to duty unto death.
Before my death, I expel former Reichs-Marshal Hermann Goring from the party and withdraw from him all the rights that were conferred upon him by the decree of 29 June, 1941 and by my Reichstag statement of 1 September, 1939. In his place I appoint Admiral Donitz as President of the Reich and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.
Before my death, I expel the former Reichsfuhrer of the S.S. and the Minister of the Interior Heinrich Himmler from the party and from all his state officers. In his place I appoint Gauleiter Karl Hanke as Reichsfuhrer of the S.S. and Head of the German Police, and Gauleiter Paul Giesler as Minister of the Interior.
Apart altogether from their disloyalty to me, Goring and Himmler have brought irreparable shame on the whole nation by secretly negotiating with my enemy without my knowledge and against my will, and also by attempting illegally to seize control of the State.
In order to provide the German people with a government of honorable men who will fulfill the task of continuing the war will all the means at their disposal, I, as Fuhrer of the nation, appoint the following members of the new cabinet:
President of the Reich: Donitz
Chancellor of the Reich: Dr Goebbels
Party Minister: Bormann
Foreign Minister: Seyss-Inquart
Minister of the Interior: Gauleiter Giesler
Minister of War: Donitz
Supreme Commander of the Army: Schorner
Supreme Commander of the Navy: Donitz
Supreme Commander of the Air Force: Greim
Reichsfuhrer of the S.S. and Head of the German Police: Gauleiter Hanke
Trade: Funk
Agriculture: Backe
Justice: Thierack
Culture: Dr Scheel
Propaganda: Dr Naumann
Finance: Schwerin-Crossigk
Labor: Dr Hupfauer
Munitions: Saur
Leader of the German Labor Front and Minister without Portfolio: Dr Ley.
Although a number of these men, including Martin Bormann, Dr Goebbels and others together with their wives have joined me of their own free will, not wishing to leave the capital under any circumstances and prepared to die with me, I implore them to grant my request that they place the welfare of the nation above their own feelings. By their work and loyal companionship they will remain as close to me after my death as I hope my spirit will continue to dwell among them and accompany them always. Let them be severe but never unjust and let them never, above all, allow fear to preside over their actions, placing the honor of the nation above everything that exists on earth. May they, finally, always remember that our task, the consolidation of a National Socialist state, represents the work of centuries to come, so that every individual must subordinate his own interest to the common good. I ask of all Germans, of all National Socialists, men and women and all soldiers of the Wehrmacht, that they remain faithful and obedient unto death to the new government and its President.
Above all, I enjoin the government and the people to uphold the race laws to the limit and to resist mercilessly the poisoner of all nations, international Jewry.
Berlin, 29 April, 1945, 4 a.m.
Adolf Hitler
Witnesses:
Dr Joseph Goebbels Wilhelm Burgdorf
Martin Bormann Hans Krebs
http://www.hitler.org/writings/last_testament/
THE POLITICAL TESTAMENT OF ADOLF HITLER
The Hitler-Bormann Documents
February-April 1945
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Testament/00000001.htm
14
The tragedy of war with America - Contribution by Germans to America's greatness - The failure of the New Deal and the war -Possibility of peaceful co-existence between Germany and U.S.A - The Americans will become anti-Jew - Roosevelt, a false idol -No colonial ventures, but a grand Continental policy
24th February 1945
This war against America is a tragedy. It is illogical and devoid of any foundation of reality.
It is one of those queer twists of history that just as I was assuming power in Germany, Roosevelt, the elect of the Jews, was taking command in the United States. Without the Jews and without this lackey of theirs, things could have been quite different. For from every point of view Germany and the United States should have been able, if not to understand each other and sympathize with each other, then at least to support each other without undue strain on either of them. Germany, remember, has made a massive contribution to the peopling of America. It is we Germans who have made by far the greatest contribution of nordic blood to the United States. And it is also a fact that Steuben played a part which decided the issue in the War of Independence.
The last great economic crisis struck Germany and the United States at more or less the same time and with the same force. Both countries rode the storm in much the same way. The operation, though extremely difficult, was crowned with success on our side. In America, where, after all, it presented no difficulty at all, the operation achieved only a very mediocre success under the guidance of Roosevelt and his Jewish advisers. The failure of the New Deal is responsible in no small measure for their war fever. The United States as a matter of fact could survive and prosper in a state of economic isolation; for us, that is a dream which we would love to see come true. They have at their disposal a vast territory, ample to absorb the energies of all their people. As far as Germany is concerned, my hope is one day to ensure for her complete economic independence inside a territory of a size compatible with her population. A great people has need of broad acres.
Germany expects nothing from the United States, and the latter have nothing to fear from Germany. Everything combines to ensure the possibility of peaceful co-existence, each in his own country and all in perfect harmony. Unfortunately, the whole business is ruined by the fact that world Jewry has chosen just that country in which to set up its most powerful bastion. That, and that alone, has altered the relations between us and has poisoned everything.
I am prepared to wager that well within twenty-five years the Americans themselves will have realized what a handicap has been imposed upon them by this parasitic Jewry, clamped fast to their flesh and nourishing itself on their life-blood. It is this Jewry that is dragging them into adventures which, when all is said and done, are no concern of theirs and in which the interests at stake are of no importance to them. What possible reason can the non-Jewish Americans have for sharing the hatreds of the Jews and following meekly in their footsteps? One thing is quite certain - within a quarter of a century the Americans will either have become violently anti-semitic or they will be devoured by Jewry.
If we should lose this war, it will mean that we have been defeated by the Jews. Their victory will then be complete. But let me hasten to add that it will only be very temporary. It will certainly not be Europe which takes up the struggle again against them, but it certainly will be the United States. The latter is a country still too young to have acquired the maturity conferred by age and exaggeratedly lacking in political sense. For the Americans, everything has so far been ridiculously easy. But experience and difficulties will perhaps cause them to mature. Just think for a moment what they were when their country was born - a group of individuals come from all corners of the earth hastening forward in pursuit of fortune and finding at their disposal a vast continent to appease their hunger and all theirs for the taking. National conscience is a thing which develops very gradually, especially in vast territories such as these. Nor must it be forgotten that these individuals had been drawn from a variety of races and had not yet been fused by the bonds of a national spirit. What an easy prey for the Jews!
The excesses in which the Jews indulged in our country are as nothing in comparison with the excesses in which they have indulged and in which they will continue to indulge in ever increasing measure on their new hunting grounds. It will `not be very long before the Americans realize that the Roosevelt whom they have adored is an idol with feet of clay and that this Jew-ridden man is in reality a malefactor - both from the point of view of the United States and of humanity as a whole. He has dragged them along a path on which they had no business to be, and in particular he has forced them to take an active part in a conflict that does not concern them at all. Had they possessed even a minimum of political instinct they would have remained in their splendid isolation, content in this conflict to play the role of arbiter. Had they been a little more mature and a little more experienced, they would doubtless have realized that their best course in their own major interests would have been to have entrenched themselves firmly with their faces towards a shattered Europe and in an attitude of vigilant neutrality. By intervening they have once again played into the hands of their Jewish exploiters; and the latter are worldly wise and know exactly what they are doing - but, of course, from their own particular Jewish point of view.
Had Fate so willed that the President of the United States during this critical period were someone other than Roosevelt, he might well have been a man capable of adapting the American economy to the needs of the twentieth century and of becoming the greatest President since Lincoln. The 1930 crisis was brought on by growing pains - but on a world-wide scale. Economic liberalism showed that it was nothing more than an out-dated catch-phrase. Once the signification and the potentialities of the crisis had been appreciated, all that was required was the discovery of appropriate remedies. That is the task on which a great President would have concentrated, and by so doing he would have placed his country in an unassailable place in the world. Naturally a wise President should have fostered among his countrymen an interest in international affairs and should have encouraged them to turn their eyes to the great world at large; but to have flung them into the middle of a dog fight, as this criminal, Roosevelt, has done, was sheer lunacy. He, of course, has quite cynically taken advantage of their ignorance, their naïveté and their credulity. He has made them see the world through the eye of Jewry, and he has set them on a path which will lead them to utter disaster, if they do not pull themselves together in time.
American affairs are no business of ours, and I should be completely indifferent to what happens to them, but for the fact that their attitude has direct repercussions on our destiny and on that of Europe.
The fact that neither we nor they have any colonial policy is yet another characteristic which should unite us. The Germans have never really felt the imperialist urge.
I regard the efforts made at the end of the nineteenth century as a fortuitous accident in our history. Our defeat in I9I8 had at least the fortunate consequences that it stopped us from pursuing the course into which the Germans had foolishly allowed themselves to be led, influenced by the example of the French and the British and jealous of ä success which they had not the wit to realize was purely transitory.
It is to the credit of the Third Reich that we did not look back with any nostalgia to a past that we have discarded. We have on the contrary turned our eyes resolutely and bravely towards the future, towards the creation of great homogeneous entities and a great Continental policy. It is, incidentally, a policy on all fours with the traditional American policy of not meddling in the affairs of other continents and forbidding others to meddle in the affairs of the New World.
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Testament/00000024.htm
Eventually Hitler would reveal the full extent of his reservations about fighting the United States. "This war against America is a tragedy," he told Martin Bormann, the Nazi party secretary. "Germany and the United States should have been able to support each other without undue strain on either of them."
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Stadium/6712/warONamerica.htm
President Proclaims German-American Day
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Each year, on October 6, we recognize German Americans for their many contributions to our Nation. From the first German immigrants who accompanied Captain John Smith to Jamestown more than 300 years ago to the more than 7 million Germans who have since followed them to our shores, Americans of German descent have played a vital role in establishing the strength of our country's democratic spirit. Throughout our history, German Americans have contributed to every facet of the American experience.
German-American soldiers valiantly served our country during the American Revolution. General Frederick Wilhelm von Steuben helped train the Continental Army at Valley Forge; and General Nicholas Herkimer led German settlers in New York's Mohawk Valley in one of the war's bloodiest battles. German Americans also have influenced greatly our artistic heritage. Emanuel Leutze's 1851 painting, "Washington Crossing the Delaware River," remains a cherished and recognized symbol of American courage and determination.
German Americans advanced our civic liberties through their strong support for freedom of the press. As publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, John Peter Zenger championed the rights of citizens to criticize elected officials in print. The German-language newspaper Pennsylvania Staatsbote published the first printed copy of the Declaration of Independence. And in directing The New York Times through modernization in the early 20th century, Adolph Ochs helped set a new standard for balanced and innovative reporting.
Many German Americans who settled here brought with them values that enhanced and developed the American commitment to freedom. A considerable number of these immigrants joined other freedom loving Americans in becoming leaders in the anti-slavery movement. And thousands of German Americans volunteered to fight for the Union in the Civil War.
On this day, Americans of all backgrounds commemorate our Nation's close relationship with Germany. German Americans have influenced our history, strengthened our ideals, and enriched our culture, and, in the years ahead, they will continue their noble role in helping to ensure the vitality of our democracy.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 6, 2001, as German-American Day. I encourage all Americans to recognize the contributions of our citizens of German descent to the liberty and prosperity of the United States, and to celebrate our close ties to the people of Germany.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.
GEORGE W. BUSH
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011005-15.html
Dampfschiff General von Steuben
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Dampfschiff (DS) General von Steuben[1] (formerly called the München (after Munich), but renamed in 1938) was a German luxury passenger ship which was turned into an armed transport ship in World War II. She was named after Baron Friedrich Wilhelm Augustus Steuben, a famous German officer from the 18th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dampfschiff_General_von_Steuben
Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friedrich Wilhelm Rudolf Gerhard August von Steuben, Freiherr von Steuben, (en: Frederick William Rudolph Gerald Augustus von Steuben, Baron von Steuben), (September 17, 1730 – November 28, 1794) was a Prussian army officer who served with George Washington in the American Revolutionary War and is credited with teaching American troops the essentials of military drill and discipline.
Early life
Steuben was born at Magdeburg, Prussia, the son of Wilhelm Augustine Steuben (1699-1783), a lieutenant of engineers. He accompanied his father to the Russian Empire when Frederick William I, King of Prussia and Elector of Brandenburg, ordered Wilhelm into the service of Tsarina Anna I of Russia. After the accession of Frederick II of Prussia to the throne, Steuben returned to Germany with his father in 1740.
Most of his adolescent years were spent in Russia, but the family returned to the Holy Roman Empire when he was 10. He was schooled in Breslau by Jesuits and by the age of 17 was a Prussian officer in the military. He was a member of an infantry unit and a staff officer in the Seven Years' War, and was later made a member of the General Staff, serving periodically in Russia. His service was commendable enough that he was eventually given an assignment with Frederick the Great's headquarters. His experiences as a General Staff member in the Prussian Army gave him a wealth of knowledge that heretofore was unheard of, even in the British and French armies of the period. His training would eventually bring to the American soldiers the technical knowledge necessary to create an Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben
History of Soviet espionage in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browder, Golos and Peters
By the mid to late 1920s, there were three elements of Soviet power operating in the United States, despite the absence of formal diplomatic relations, the Comintern, military intelligence or GRU, and the forerunner of the KGB, the GPU. The Comintern was the dominant arm, though it was not unusual for officers and agents to switch from one service to another.
During the 1920s the focus was on industry, specifically aircraft and munitions industries, and penetrating the mainline federal government bureaucracies, such as the Department of State and War Department. A front organization created in 1928 for the infiltratation and placement of scientists into industry and government was the Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Techinicians (FAECT).
Formal diplomatic recognition was granted to the U.S.S.R. on 16 November 1933, a condition of which was a pledge to refrain "from interfering in any manner in the internal affairs of the United States." Soviet intelligence now operates under "legal" cover through embassy and consulates. That same year however, a Comintern affiliate organization, the American League Against War and Fascism, had already been established. Followed by the American Youth Congress in 1934; the League of American Writers in 1935; the National Negro Congress in 1936. In 1937 the American League Against War and Fascism changed its name to the American League for Peace and Democracy. Between 1937 and 1938 the Abraham Lincoln Brigade had been established with numerous affiliates and sent hundreds of non-governmental combatants to Spain despite the League of Nations Non-Intervention Committee ban on foreign "volunteers". In 1939 the American Congress for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom, and numerous other affiliate organizations had been created.
As in any target country, the KGB and GRU ran parallel "legal" and "illegal" operations groups. "Legal" networks are run by Soviet Case Ofiicers holding legal visas, usually working in diplomatic missions and official trade organizations. The operational station is called a "rezidency" headed by a station chief, or "rezident". The "illegal" networks are headed by an "illegal rezident", usually a soviet national citizen operating under deep cover with no apparent connection to Soviet organizations. Thus, if diplomatic relations are broken, an espionage organization remains in place, and there is no need to rebuild it from scratch, which could take decades.
One chief aim was the infiltration, placement, and subversion of American political life at all levels of society. Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) from 1930 until 1945 said "by the mid-thirties, the Party was not putting its principal emphasis on recruiting members. Out of Moscow came a new set of instructions, comrades were to cooperate with all others Socialists and New Dealers, believers and atheists, workers and bosses, who would help resist the rising tide of fascism that appeared to threaten the security of the Soviet Union. This lead to the emergence of a new strategy, that of the United Front."
Secret apparatus
In the 1930s CPUSA membership became largely native-born, and more educated people joined, including many scientific and technically trained professionals. American Communists considered the 'capitalist' corporations which employed them as morally illegitimate institutions. When Soviet intelligence officers approached and asked that the scientific secrets of these corporations be shared with the Soviet Union, few had moral objections.
Soviet intelligence agencies were able to use over 400 American citizens during the 1930s and up to 1946. The CPUSA was not just a recruiting ground for Soviet intelligence, it functioned within Soviet espionage as an auxiliary organization. Earl Browder, with the active assistance of a dozen high-level CPUSA officials, and numerous rank-and-file members, supervised CPUSA cooperation with the OGPU and GRU. Browder was given personal credit for recruitment of eighteen agents in a 1946 OGPU memo.
In the 1930s, the chief Soviet espionage organization operating in the U.S. became the GRU. J. Peters headed the secret apparatus that supplied internal government documents from the Ware group to the GRU. Browder assisted Peters in building a network of operatives in the Roosevelt administration. This group included Alger Hiss, John Abt, and Lee Pressman. Courier for the group at the time was Whittaker Chambers. Browder oversaw the efforts of Jacob Golos and his girlfriend, Elizabeth Bentley, whose network of agents and sources included two key figures at the Department of Treasury, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster and Harry Dexter White.
By the end of 1936 at least four mid-level State Department officials were delivering information to Soviet intelligence: Alger Hiss, assistant to Assistant Secretary of State Francis Sayre; Julian Wadleigh, economist in the Trade Agreements Section; Laurence Duggan, Latin American division; and Noel Field, West European division. Chambers told how a tank design by C.W. Christie was procured, and was put into production in the Soviet Union as the Mark BT.
In the late 1930s and 1940 the OGPU, known as the Political Directorate, used the U.S. as one of several staging areas for multiple OGPU plots to murder exiled Soviet leader Leon Trotsky, then living in Mexico City. It was American Communists who infiltrated Trotsky’s killer into his own household . They were also central to the NKVD's unsuccessful efforts to free the killer from a Mexican prison. In the late 1930s Soviet agents sought to provide Moscow with a wide range of information on high-performance aircraft, battleships, cruisers, armor, navigation equipment, tank engines, and armaments from key U.S. defense contractors, including Northrop, Douglas, and Marietta. The operations were run by Soviet Case Officers working under the cover of Amtorg Trading Corporation, the Soviet Society of the Red Cross, TASS, Sovfil'meksporta and some other establishments.
By 1940 Soviet interest was focused on atomic energy and other scientific developments, with some emphasis also being given to infiltration of Trotskyite and White Russian activities.
After the German invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, and American entry into the war in December, the USSR became a major recipient of American military aid. Thousands of Soviet military officers and technicians entered the U.S. Scores of Soviet intelligence officers were among those arriving in America. These Case Officers, with the assitance of American citizens, waged a successful unrestrained espionage campaign against the United States, from 1942 to late 1945.
General Secretary Josef Stalin of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), directed Soviet intelligence officers to collect information in four main areas. Pavel Fitin, the 34-year-old chief of the KGB First Directorate, was directed to seek American intelligence concerning Hitler's plans for the war in Russia; secret war aims of London and Washington, particularly with regard to planning for Operation Overlord, the second front in Europe; any indications the Western allies might be willing to make a separate peace with Hitler; and American scientific and technological progress, particularly in the development of an atomic weapon.
Soviet recruitment of sources within American intelligence agencies, particularly within the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency was impressive. The highest ranking recruit was Duncan Lee, counsel to General William Donovan, OSS head. Lee, however, was extremely cautious and less productive than other OPGU sources, like Maurice Halperin, or Donald Wheeler, in the OSS Research and Analysis division. At least fifteen Soviet agents penetrated the OSS, with the actual number more likely around twenty.
The Soviets also developed about twenty sources within the U.S. State Department and other wartime foreign relations agencies. The two most senior Soviet operatives had been active in the 1930s, Alger Hiss and Laurence Duggan. A number of other Soviet infiltrators connections to American diplomacy have only been identified by code-names in the Venona project materials. Some of these identities have not been determined. Some most likely continued to operate in the post-war period. American counter-intelligence officials spent decades interviewing and examining the backgrounds of hundreds of American diplomatic personnel attempting to attach an identity to the code-name of many of these known operatives.
Silvermaster network
The United States Treasury hosted nearly a dozen Soviet sources, including one of the most important, Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the treasury and the second most influential official in the department. In Late May 1941 Vitaly Pavlov, a 25 years old NKVD officer, approached White and attempted to secure his assistance to influence U.S. policy with towards Japan. White agreed to assist Soviet intelligence in any way he could. The principle function of White was to aid in the infiltration and placement of Soviet operatives within the government, and protecting sources. When security concerns arose around Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, White protected him in his sensitive position at the Board of Economic Warfare. White likewise was a purveyor of information and resources to assist Soviet aims.
Silvermaster denied any links with agents of a foreign power and appealed to Under Secretary of War Robert Patterson to overrule the security officials. Harry Dexter White contacted Patterson and told him suspicions about Silvermaster were baseless. Lauchlin Currie, a presidential aide who also cooperated with Soviet intelligence, personally phoned Patterson and urged a reconsideration of Silvermaster’s case. Patterson accepted these highly placed sources and overruled military counterintelligence. This decision facilitated the work of one of the most productive Soviet espionage rings, and provided substance for the postwar partisan charge that high officials in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations aided Soviet espionage against the United States.
Stalin publicly disbanded the Comintern in 1943. A Moscow OGPU message to all stations on 12 September 1943 detailed instructions for handling intelligence sources within the CPUSA after the disestablishment of the Comintern.
In late 1944 two senior OGPU officers, Stephan Apresyan of the New York rezidentura, and Vladimir Pravdin, a OGPU officer working out of Washington D.C., sent cables to Moscow criticizing each other’s performance, but also disagreeing over OGPU tactics. Apresyan denounced Pravdin for believing that “without the help of the ... secret appartus we are completely powerless.” Apresyan argued that “it is ... untrue that without ... Browder we are ‘powerless.’” While “we shall have to have recourse to the ... secret appartus ... they ought not to be the one and only base especially if you take into account the fact that in the event of ... Thomas Dewey’s being elected President, this source may dry up.” Apresyan lost that particular argument. Thomas Dewey was not elected in 1944, and the OGPU was able to continue to use the CPUSA as an auxiliary, but the reprieve ended in 1945.
Many of the OGPU’s sources in this period regarded themselves to be under CPUSA as well as Soviet direction. In early 1945, Ishkak Akhmerov, the KGB illegal officer, sent a long cable to Moscow discussing the Silvermaster group. Akhmerov noted that “it is doubtful whether ... the OGPU could get the same results as ... Silvermaster.” He told Moscow that “it costs ... Silvermaster great pains to keep ... [the American sources] in line. ... Silvermaster being their leader in the CPUSA line helps him give them orders”, and added, “that our ... OGPU officers would not manage to work with the same success under the CPUSA flag.” The productivity of the secret apparatus networks supervised by Akhmerov is illustrated by OGPU records of the numbers of reels of microfilm of United States Government documents delivered to Moscow via Akhmerov: 59 roles in 1942, 211 in 1943, 600 in 1944, and 1,896 in 1945.
In the 1930s and early 1940s there was only limited “compartmentalization” between the CPUSA and Soviet espionage. The organizational blending of these different aspects of the Communist movement allowed the Soviet Union to maximize its return on the assets it possessed. [citation needed] But after World War II when American authorities belatedly paid attention, and the FBI began an aggressive investigation, the vulnerability of this arrangement also became clear. An organization as large as the CPUSA had too many areas of weakness. Many party-linked espionage operations were exposed and neutralized by American counterintelligence in the late 1940s and 1950s. And the CPUSA itself became tainted with disloyalty.
In August 1945 Elizabeth Bentley turned herself in to the government. Afterward, the Soviets quickly closed down the networks with which she had contact and recalled to Moscow those OGPU officers whom Bentley could identify. Shortly after Bentley’s defection came Igor Gouzenko, a GRU cipher clerk at the Soviet embassy in Canada who disclosed information about Soviet espionage both in Canada and the U.S and Soviet codes.
The first Soviet atomic bomb in 1949 was a virtual carbon copy of “Fat Man,” the implosion-type plutonium weapon the United States dropped on Nagasaki four years earlier.
The latter 1940s and early ’50s were a time of tense, explosive conflict, in the world at large and in American politics. Soviet expansionism in Europe, the Chinese Civil War, and the 1950 outbreak of the Korean War shattered the dreams of post-war cooperation with the Soviet Union. American policy dealing with this rapidly changing scene was often confused, naive, slow to respond, and contradictory.
Infiltration
Infiltrating the United Nations organization became a priority in the wake of the disbanding of the Comintern, the death of Golos which led to the ultimate breakdown in security, and the end of the War. Hiss was influential in the employment of 494 persons by the United Nations on its initial staff.
Gradually it became apparent that the objectives of World War II for which the United States and others made tremendous sacrifices were not fully realized, and there remained in the world a force presenting even greater dangers to world peace than the Nazi militarists and Japanese warlords. Consequently, the United States made the decision in the Spring of 1947 to assist Greece and Turkey with a view to protecting their sovereignties, which were threatened by direct or instigated activities of the Soviet Union.
President Truman's Executive Order 9835 of 22 March 1947 tightened protections against subversive infiltration of the US Government, defining disloyalty as membership on a list of subversive organizations maintained by the Attorney General.
Truman’s denunciations of the charges against Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and others, all of whom appear under covernames in decrypted messages translated before Truman left office, suggest that Truman was never briefed on the Venona program, or if he was briefed, did not grasp its significance. Truman insisted Republicans trumped up the loyalty issue, and that wartime espionage had been insignificant and well contained by counterintelligence agencies.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Chairman of the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy wrote in 1997, "President Truman was almost willfully obtuse as regards American Communism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States
Chinese Civil War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Chinese Civil War (Traditional Chinese: 國共内戰; Simplified Chinese: 国共内战; pinyin: guógòng neìzhàn; literally "Nationalist-Communist Civil War") was a conflict in China between the Kuomintang (The Chinese Nationalist Party or KMT) and the Communist Party of China (CPC). It began in 1927 after the Northern Expedition when the right-wing faction of the KMT, led by Chiang Kai-shek, purged the Communists from a KMT-CPC alliance. The primary conflict ended in 1950 with an unofficial cessation of major hostilities, with the Communists controlling mainland China (including Hainan Island) and the Nationalists restricted to their remaining territories of Taiwan, Penghu, and several outlying Fujianese islands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War
Chinese Civil War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Chinese Civil War (Traditional Chinese: 國共内戰; Simplified Chinese: 国共内战; pinyin: guógòng neìzhàn; literally "Nationalist-Communist Civil War") was a conflict in China between the Kuomintang (The Chinese Nationalist Party or KMT) and the Communist Party of China (CPC). It began in 1927 after the Northern Expedition when the right-wing faction of the KMT, led by Chiang Kai-shek, purged the Communists from a KMT-CPC alliance. The primary conflict ended in 1950 with an unofficial cessation of major hostilities, with the Communists controlling mainland China (including Hainan Island) and the Nationalists restricted to their remaining territories of Taiwan, Penghu, and several outlying Fujianese islands.
Emanuel Leutze
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze (May 24, 1816 – July 18, 1868) was a German-born American history painter. Leutze was born in Schwäbisch Gmünd, Württemberg, Germany, was brought to America as a child, and then returned to Germany as an adult. He is perhaps best-known for his painting Washington Crossing the Delaware. It is owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York.
At the age of twenty-five he had earned enough to take himself to Düsseldorf for a course of art study at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts. Almost immediately he began painting historical subjects; his first work, Columbus before the Council of Salamanca was purchased by the Düsseldorf Art Union. A strong supporter of Europe's Revolutions of 1848, Leutze decided to paint an image that would encourage Europe's liberal reformers with the example of the American Revolution. Using American tourists and art students as models and assistants, Leutze finished Washington Crossing the Delaware in 1850.
In 1859, Leutze painted a portrait of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney which hangs in the Harvard Law School. In a 1992 opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia described the portrait of Taney, made two years after Taney's infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, as showing Taney "in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep-set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment."
In 1860 Leutze was commissioned by the U.S. Congress to decorate a stairway in the Capitol Building in Washington, DC, for which he painted a large composition, Westward the Course of Empire takes its Way.
Late in life, he became a member of the National Academy of Design.
He died in Washington, D.C. in his 53rd year.
Leutze's portraits are known less for their artistic quality than for their patriotic emotionalism. Both named works firmly rank among the American national iconography, and are thus often charicatured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Leutze
Washington Crossing the Delaware
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Washington Crossing the Delaware is an 1851 oil-on-canvas painting by Emanuel Leutze. It is in commemoration of Washington's crossing of the Delaware on December 25, 1776 during the American Revolutionary War, the first move in a surprise attack against the Hessian forces at Trenton, New Jersey in the Battle of Trenton.
As of 2004, it is part of the permanent collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Emanuel Leutze, Washington Crossing the Delaware, 1851, oil on canvas, 378.5 × 647.7 cm (149 × 255 in.), New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
History
German-born Emanuel Leutze grew up in America, then returned to Germany as an adult, where he conceived the idea for this painting during the Revolutions of 1848. Hoping to encourage Europe's liberal reformers through the example of the American Revolution, and using American tourists and art students as models and assistants, Leutze finished the first painting in 1850. Just after it was completed, the first version was damaged by fire in his studio, subsequently restored, and acquired by the Kunsthalle Bremen. In 1942, during the Second World War, it was destroyed in a bombing raid by the British Royal Air Force (which has lead to a persistent joke that the raid was Britain's final retaliation for the American Revolution).
The second painting, a full-sized copy of the first, was begun in 1850 and placed on exhibition in New York in October, 1851. More than 50,000 people viewed it, including an 8-year-old Henry James, who later recalled that he "gaped responsive at every item" in "the epoch-making masterpiece." It was originally bought by Marshall O. Roberts for $10,000 (at the time, an enormous sum). After changing ownership several times, it was finally donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1897. It remains on exhibition there as of 2006.
In January 2003, the painting was defaced when a former Metropolitan Museum of Art guard glued a picture of the September 11 attacks to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware
German American Day! October 6th
German-American Day
A Proclamation
By the President of the United States of America
The White House
October 5, 2001
Each year, on October 6, we recognize German Americans for their many contributions to our Nation. From the first German immigrants who accompanied Captain John Smith to Jamestown more than 300 years ago to the more than 7 million Germans who have since followed them to our shores, Americans of German descent have played a vital role in establishing the strength of our country's democratic spirit. Throughout our history, German Americans have contributed to every facet of the American experience.
German-American soldiers valiantly served our country during the American Revolution. General Frederick Wilhelm von Steuben helped train the Continental Army at Valley Forge; and General Nicholas Herkimer led German settlers in New York's Mohawk Valley in one of the war's bloodiest battles. German Americans also have influenced greatly our artistic heritage. Emanuel Leutze's 1851 painting, "Washington Crossing the Delaware River," remains a cherished and recognized symbol of American courage and determination.
German Americans advanced our civic liberties through their strong support for freedom of the press. As publisher of the New York Weekly Journal, John Peter Zenger championed the rights of citizens to criticize elected officials in print. The German-language newspaper Pennsylvania Staatsbote published the first printed copy of the Declaration of Independence. And in directing The New York Times through modernization in the early 20th century, Adolph Ochs helped set a new standard for balanced and innovative reporting.
Many German Americans who settled here brought with them values that enhanced and developed the American commitment to freedom. A considerable number of these immigrants joined other freedom loving Americans in becoming leaders in the anti-slavery movement. And thousands of German Americans volunteered to fight for the Union in the Civil War.
On this day, Americans of all backgrounds commemorate our Nation's close relationship with Germany. German Americans have influenced our history, strengthened our ideals, and enriched our culture, and, in the years ahead, they will continue their noble role in helping to ensure the vitality of our democracy.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 6, 2001, as German-American Day. I encourage all Americans to recognize the contributions of our citizens of German descent to the liberty and prosperity of the United States, and to celebrate our close ties to the people of Germany.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.
GEORGE W. BUSH
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=38728
German-American Day, 1996
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Germans were among the first settlers of the United States. They, like other immigrants to our country, came to America seeking a better life for themselves and their families. In building this better life, they have immeasurably enriched the lives of their fellow Americans. From the beginning of the colonial period and throughout the history of our republic, German Americans have contributed their intellect, wealth, and culture to building, defending, and improving American life. Organized settlement in America by Germans began as early as 1683, with the arrival of German Mennonites in Pennsylvania at the invitation of William Penn. Pennsylvania soon became the center and stronghold of German settlement throughout colonial times as small, vigorous communities spread to Maryland and the other colonies. Today, robust German-American communities can be found throughout the United States.
The strength of character and personal honor so important in the German culture tradition have also found their way into the core values of American society. More U.S. citizens can claim German heritage than that of any other national group. And every successive generation of German Americans seems to produce new heroes and heroines who earn the admiration of a grateful world.
For example, Carl Schurz served as a Union General in the Civil War and later rose to become a distinguished American statesman, both as Senator from Missouri and as Secretary of the Interior. Johann Peter Zenger, the publisher of the New York Weekly Journal in the early 18th century, was an early and vigorous champion of the free press in America. And German-born Albert Einstein made monumental and historic contributions to our understanding of the universe.
Our culture has also benefited abundantly from German-American women. Anna Ottendorfer was a talented newspaper publisher and philanthropist. The four Klumpke sisters enriched American life with their contributions to art, medicine, music, and astronomy, while Lillian Blauvelt and Fannie Bloomfield Zeisler enhanced American music.
America has welcomed Germans in search of civic freedoms, and their idealism has reinforced what was best in their new country. German-American men and women have contributed immensely to the fabric of our Nation, and it is appropriate that we pause to honor their important role in building our country.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, October 6, 1996, as German-American Day. I encourage Americans everywhere to recognize and celebrate the contributions that millions of people of German ancestry have made to our Nation's liberty, democracy, and prosperity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of October, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-first.
Signed Bill Clinton
http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/96gaday.htm
Nicholas Herkimer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nicholas Herkimer (c. 1728 – August 16, 1777) was a militia general in the American Revolutionary War, who died of wounds after the Battle of Oriskany. He was the son of immigrants Catherine and Johan Jost Herchheimer (one of various spellings) from the German Palatinate living in German Flatts in the Mohawk Valley of New York State. He had served as a militia captain in the French and Indian War.
In 1775 he headed the Tryon County Committee of Safety, and became Colonel of the county militia. After the split in which loyalist militia members from the area withdrew to Canada, he became a Brigadier General in the State militia. When he learned of the siege of Fort Stanwix to the west in late July of 1777, he ordered the county militia to assemble at Fort Dayton.
He then marched them out to relieve Fort Stanwix, about 28 miles to the west. His force was ambushed on August 6 by a mixed force of British regulars, Tory Militia rangers, and Mohawk Indians in the Battle of Oriskany. Herkimer's horse was shot, and he was seriously wounded. In spite of his injuries, he sat propped against a tree and lit his pipe. He rallied his men to avoid two panicked retreats, and when they withdrew they carried him home. His leg was amputated, but the operation went poorly and he died of the injury on August 16 at age 49.
His home, in what is now Danube, New York, is preserved as a state historical park. Herkimer County, New York was named in his honor. His nephew John Herkimer later became a U.S. Congressman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Herkimer
Herkimer at the Battle of Oriskany, August 6, 1777.
America’s policy of insisting on neutral rights while also trying to broker a peace resulted in tensions with both Berlin and London. When a German U-boat sank the Lusitania in 1915, a large passenger line with 128 Americans aboard, Wilson vowed "America was too proud to fight," and demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied. Wilson tried to mediate a compromise settlement; yet no compromise was discovered. Wilson also repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare because it violated America's rights. However, in January 1917 the Germans announced they would resume unrestricted submarine warfare. Berlin's proposal to Mexico to join the war as Germany's ally against the U.S. was exposed in February, angering American opinion. (see Zimmermann Telegram). After German submarines attacked several American merchant ships, sinking three, Wilson requested that Congress declare war on Germany, which it did on April 6, 1917.[12] The U.S. House of Representatives approved the war resolution 373-50, the U.S. Senate 82-6, with opposition coming especially from German American districts such as Wisconsin. The U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December 1917.
President Wilson before Congress, announcing the break in official relations with Germany on February 3, 1917.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
13 May, 1915
The First Lusitania Note to Germany
Sent by the President of the United States, Mr. Woodrow Wilson.
United States, Foreign Relations of the United States, Washington, D.C., 1915, Supplement, pp. 393 ff.
The Cunard liner, Lusitania, was sunk by a German submarine on May 7,1915, with a loss of more than 1,100 passengers and crew, including 124 Americans.
The following note was sent by President Wilson under the signature of Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan.
Department of State,
Washington, May 13, 1915
To Ambassador Gerard:
Please call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and after reading to him this communication leave with him a copy.
In view of recent acts of the German authorities in violation of American rights on the high seas which culminated in the torpedoing and sinking of the British steamship Lusitania on May 7, 1915, by which over 100 American citizens lost their lives, it is clearly wise and desirable that the Government of the United States and the Imperial German Government should come to a clear and full understanding as to the grave situation which has resulted.
The sinking of the British passenger steamer Falaba by a German submarine on March 28, through which Leon C. Thrasher, an American citizen, was drowned; the attack on April 28 on the American vessel Cushing by a German aeroplane; the torpedoing on May 1 of the American vessel Gulflight by a German submarine, as a result of which two or more American citizens met their death and, finally, the torpedoing and sinking of the steamship Lusitania, constitute a series of events which the Government of the United States has observed with growing concern, distress, and amazement.
Recalling the humane and enlightened attitude hitherto assumed by the Imperial German Government in matters of international right, and particularly with regard to the freedom of the seas; having learned to recognize the German views and the German influence in the field of international obligation as always engaged upon the side of justice and humanity; and having understood the instructions of the Imperial German Government to its naval commanders to be upon the same plane of human action prescribed by the naval codes of other nations, the Government of the United States was loath to believe -- it cannot now bring itself to believe -- that these acts, so absolutely contrary to the rules, the practices, and the spirit of modern warfare, could have the countenance or sanction of that great Government. It feels it to be its duty, therefore, to address the Imperial German Government concerning them with the utmost frankness and in the earnest hope that it is not mistaken in expecting action on the part of the Imperial German Government which will correct the unfortunate impressions which have been created and vindicate once more the position of that Government with regard to the sacred freedom of the seas.
The Government of the United States has been apprised that the Imperial German Government considered themselves to be obliged by the extraordinary circumstances of the present war and the measures adopted by their adversaries in seeking to cut Germany off from all commerce, to adopt methods of retaliation which go much beyond the ordinary methods of warfare at sea, in the proclamation of a war zone from which they have warned neutral ships to keep away. This Government has already taken occasion to inform the Imperial German Government that it cannot admit the adoption of such measures or such a warning of danger to operate as in any degree an abbreviation of the rights of American shipmasters or of American citizens bound on lawful errands as passengers on merchant ships of belligerent nationality; and that it must hold the Imperial German Government to a strict accountability for any infringement of those rights, intentional or incidental....
The Government of the United States, therefore, desires to call the attention of the Imperial German Government with the utmost earnestness to the fact that the objection to their present method of attack against the trade of their enemies lies in the practical impossibility of employing submarines in the destruction of commerce without disregarding those rules of fairness, reason, justice, and humanity, which all modern opinion regards as imperative.... The Government and the people of the United States look to the Imperial German Government for just, prompt, and enlightened action in this vital matter with the greater confidence because the United States and Germany are bound together not only for special ties of friendship but also by the explicit stipulations of the treaty of 1828 between the United States and the Kingdom of Prussia.
Expressions of regret and offers of reparation in case of the destruction of neutral ships sunk by mistake, while they may satisfy international obligations, if no loss of life results, cannot justify or excuse a practice, the natural and necessary effect of which is to subject neutral nations and neutral persons to new and immeasurable risks.
The Imperial German Government will not expect the Government of the United States to omit any word or any act necessary to the performance of its sacred duty of maintaining the rights of the United States and its citizens and of safeguarding their free exercise and enjoyment.
BRYAN
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1915/lusitania1.html
World War One - USA NEUTRALITY BROKEN
The outbreak of World War One in 1914, saw the United States attempt to maintain a policy of neutrality: it was however difficult as both England and France, in the course of maintaining a blockade against Germany, interfered with American shipments to neutral nations.
The Germans for their part waged a submarine war against all ships in the sea around Britain and Ireland. Germany requested neutral nations to avoid the possibility of losing ships or lives by not sending their ships to Britain or Ireland. The Germans also urged nationals of foreign nations not to travel on British ships: a warning ignored by 128 American citizens who were traveling on the British passenger liner, the Lusitania, in May 1915, which was torpedoed after the Germans had established that it was carrying munitions for the British war effort.
The American public was outraged by the sinking, which helped to whip up anti-German feeling - difficult in a nation where nearly 60 percent of the White population had German roots. Germany then announced that it would henceforth give warnings to all passenger ships before sinking them, giving the passengers time to save themselves. This mollified American public opinion. President Woodrow Wilson was given the credit for this pledge, and he went on to win the presidential election that year on the basis of him having kept America out of the war.
Hostilities Erupt
At the end of January 1917, Germany however revoked its pledge by declaring unrestricted submarine warfare in a zone even larger than the one it had proclaimed in 1915. The war in Europe was reaching a critical point, and all sides were putting the maximum pressure they could on each other. President Wilson replied to this news by breaking off diplomatic relations with Germany and getting the U.S. Congress to agree to arm American merchant vessels.
Then a telegram from the German war office to the Mexican government was intercepted: in it proposals were made for an alliance of Germany, Mexico and Japan to take on America if that country should enter the European war. This served to heighten war fever in the United States, particularly as it was now associated with the one of the traditional enemies to the south, Mexico.
Balfour Declaration
In the interim, the leader of the world Zionist movement (a movement of nationalist Jews set up in Switzerland in the latter part of the 19th Century to promote the creation of a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine) one Chaim Weizmann, had persuaded the British government to issue the famous Balfour Declaration in December 1917. This declaration stated the intent to make Palestine into a Jewish homeland once the war was over - it was then under Turkish rule, an ally of Germany during the war. The quid quo pro for the declaration of support was Weizmann's assurance that the world Zionist movement would throw its full weight behind the Allied war effort.
As part of this effort, it was admitted in an official 1936 publication by the New Zionist Press in London, was that Zionism would use its influence in America to try and bring that country into the war on the Allied side, specifically against Turkey (with the intention of capturing Palestine) but also against Germany and Austria if need be.
While the full extent of the behind the scenes political machinations were never disclosed, it is so that the American president Wilson used the fairly flimsy excuse that the German preparations for an alliance against America if she entered the war, constituted an act of aggression, and persuaded the U.S. Congress to declare war on Germany on 6 April 1917.
This was in direct contradiction of his election manifesto of the previous year, but a special Sedition Act passed by the U.S. Congress in May 1918, made it illegal to criticize the intervention in the war - an amazing law in America, blatantly ignoring the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech.
http://www.white-history.com/hwr54.htm
Mexico - FESTERING SORE
Internal dissension in Mexico caused American troops to briefly occupy the Mexican city of Vera Cruz in 1914 , but an international conference organized by several Latin American states prevented a replay of the Mexican American war of 1846.
This was not for the lack of trying on the part of the Mexicans, who still harbored a grudge against the White gringos to the north. In 1916, a faction of militant Mexicans began a miniature race war against White America, invading the town of Columbus in New Mexico. The invaders killed 16 people and partly razed the town to the ground. An American army unit was sent into Mexico as a reprisal, but the guilty parties were never captured, and the expedition ended by returning to America empty handed.
The United States of America Enters the War
While the World Zionist Congress was actively working behind the scenes with the powerful Jewish lobby in the American government, the course of the war at sea presented the American president, Woodrow Wilson, with an opportunity to enter the war against Germany, despite his presidential election campaign having been specifically fought on a non-interventionist ticket.
In January 1917, Germany announced that it was resorting to unrestricted submarine warfare against all shipping to and from Britain - this in a renewed attempt to force the British to surrender by physically depriving them of necessary fuels and foodstuffs to keep going. The re-introduction of this policy brought about the excuse Wilson needed to bring America into the war.
In February 1917, the US broke off diplomatic relations with Germany and formally declared war in April. The timing of the US entry into the war - virtually simultaneously with the Balfour Declaration - is too good to be coincidental. By June 1917, more than 175,000 American troops were already in France; by the end of the war more than two million Americans had been deployed in France.
http://www.white-history.com/hwr59i.htm
RMS Lusitania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The RMS Lusitania was a British ocean liner owned by the Cunard Steamship Line Shipping Company, built by John Brown and Company of Clydebank, Scotland, and launched on June 6, 1906 She and her sister ship of RMS Mauretania were built to compete with and better the fast German liners of the time. Lusitania took back the Blue Riband in 1907 and she and the Mauretania were the fastest liners of their day.
On May 7, 1915 the Lusitania was torpedoed by a German submarine, the U-20. The Lusitania sank after a subsequent massive internal explosion blew out her starboard bow. The sinking galvanized American opinion against Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and played a role in the United States' later entry into World War I on April 17, 1917.
Last departure
The Lusitania departed Pier 54 in New York on May 1, 1915. Prior to departure on that very day, a secret warning was given to some of the ship's wealthiest passengers, advising them not to travel because of U-boat activity. The German Embassy in the U.S. also issued this warning on April 22, 1915 that was not published in newspapers until the day of departure.
NOTICE!
TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY,
Washington, D.C. April 22, 1915
This warning was printed right next to an ad for Lusitania's return voyage.
The warning led to some agitation in the press and worried the ship's passengers and crew, except for the captain, a crusty 58-year-old salt named William "Bowler Bill" Turner. Turner downplayed the concerns, and told one passenger that Lusitania was "safer than the trolley cars in New York City."
Lusitania steamed out of New York at noon that day, two hours behind schedule due to a transfer of passengers and crew from the recently requisitioned Cameronia. Shortly after departure, three German spies were found on board, arrested, and detained below decks.
Passengers
Lusitania carried 1,257 passengers on her last voyage. Those on board included British MP David Alfred Thomas and his daughter Margaret, Lady Mackworth, American architect Theodate Pope, Oxford professor and writer Ian Stoughton Holbourn, H. Montagu Allan's wife Marguerite and daughters Anna Marjory and Gwendolyn Evelyn, playwrights Justus Miles Forman and Charles Klein, American theatre impresario Charles Frohman, American philosopher and writer Elbert Hubbard and his second wife Alice, Roycroft founder, Elbert Hubbard and wife, American pianist Charles Harwood Knight, renowned Irish art collector Sir Hugh Lane, American engineer and entrepreneur Frederick Stark Pearson and his wife Mabel, genealogist Lothrop Withington, and sportsman, millionaire, and leader of the Vanderbilt family, Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania
Last voyage and sinking
Last departure
The Lusitania departed Pier 54 in New York on May 1, 1915. Prior to departure on that very day, a secret warning was given to some of the ship's wealthiest passengers, advising them not to travel because of U-boat activity. The German Embassy in the U.S. also issued this warning on April 22, 1915 that was not published in newspapers until the day of departure.
NOTICE!
TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY,
Washington, D.C. April 22, 1915
This warning was printed right next to an ad for Lusitania's return voyage.
The warning led to some agitation in the press and worried the ship's passengers and crew, except for the captain, a crusty 58-year-old salt named William "Bowler Bill" Turner. Turner downplayed the concerns, and told one passenger that Lusitania was "safer than the trolley cars in New York City."
Lusitania steamed out of New York at noon that day, two hours behind schedule due to a transfer of passengers and crew from the recently requisitioned Cameronia. Shortly after departure, three German spies were found on board, arrested, and detained below decks.
II. EUTHANASIA
The euthanasia program--which accounted for the deaths of perhaps as many as 80,000 people, largely institutionalized mental patients--has come to be confused with eugenics in the minds of many. The historian Joachim Remak, editor of The Nazi Years: A Documentary History, devoted his entire chapter on "eugenics" in the Third Reich to euthanasia. What are the facts?
In a secret order issued in September 1939, Adolf Hitler initiated a euthanasia program. The order was both simple and direct:
Reicheleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, MD, are herewith given full responsibility to enlarge the powers of certain specified doctors so that they can grant those who are by all human standards incurably ill a merciful death, after the most critical assessment possible of their medical condition (Irving 1977: 21).
The rationale for the issuance of this order seems clear:
The ostensible occasion for this formal decision was related to war needs. About a quarter of a million hospital beds were required for Germany's mental institutions; of Germany's disproportionately large insane population (a result of centuries of lax and indiscriminate marriage laws) of some seven or eight hundred thousand people all told, about 10 percent were permanently institutionalized. Others were in and out of hospitals. They occupied bed space and the attention of skilled medical personnel which Hitler now urgently needed for the treatment of the casualties of his coming campaigns . . . . . . Hitler instructed Dr. Conti that in view of the war, a program for the painless killing of the incurably insane should be initiated; this would release badly needed hospital beds and nursing facilities for patients with a greater national priority (Irving 1977: 20-21).
The Jewish historian Gitta Sereny, who discusses it at length, characterizes the euthanasia program as having been undertaken for "starkly economic" reasons (Sereny 1983: 50).
It is often contended that those at whom this order was directed composed a large segment of those considered unfit from a eugenic standpoint. In the quotation by Davidowicz cited in the introduction to this paper, she claims that euthanasia was somehow the extension of eugenic sterilization: "Negative eugenics was a program designed first to halt the procreation of persons . . . and then events to kill them [sic] . . ." Neither common sense nor the historical record provide any support for this notion. The interest of negative eugenics in cases of genetic defect is that they not reproduce, a purpose fully accomplished by sterilization or segregation. What eugenic purpose could possibly have been served by putting to death institutionalized patients who had no possibility of procreation whatsoever? None. The rationale behind euthanasia was pragmatic, not eugenic.
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/3rdreich.html
Present day death proponents of the "right-to-die" movement disavow any analogy between what they are selling and what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930's. And, if one does not examine the facts too closely, there appears to be none. After all, Hitler was bent on exterminating the Jews, even though he destroyed a few thousand others before he found his focus. His was a dictatorship, not a democratic nation. His agenda was political, not moral. He fed on hate, not compassion. And one could add to the list.
However, if we look back to German society of the twenties and thirties, we find a civilized culture not so unlike our own. As a nation, Germany took pride in its art, its culture, and its science. People engaged in business, went shopping, enjoyed their families, followed the news. Genocide did not seem a likely development. But the seeds had already sprouted, though few foresaw into what kind of twisting vines they would soon grow.
In 1920 was published a book titled The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life, by Alfred Hoche, M.D., a professor of psychiatry at the University of Freiburg, and Karl Binding, a professor of law from the University of Leipzig. They argued in their book that patients who ask for "death assistance" should, under very carefully controlled conditions, be able to obtain it from a physician. The conditions were spelled out, and included the submission of the request to a panel of three experts, the right of the patient to withdraw his request at any time, and the legal protection of the physicians who would help him terminate his life. Binding and Hoche explained how death assistance was congruent with the highest medical ethics and was essentially a compassionate solution to a painful problem.
Death assistance, according to the authors, was not to be limited to those who were able or even willing to ask for it. They would have such mercy extended as well to "empty shells of human beings" such as those with brain damage, some psychiatric conditions, and mental retardation, if by scientific criteria the "impossibility of improvement of a mentally dead person" could be proven. The benefits to society would be great, they said, as money previously devoted to the care of "meaningless life" would be channeled to those who most needed it, the socially and physically fit. Germans needed only to learn to evaluate the relative value of life in different individuals.
An opinion poll conducted in 1920 revealed that 73% of the parents and guardians of severely disabled children surveyed would approve of allowing physicians to end the lives of disabled children such as their own. Newspapers, journal articles, and movies joined in shaping the opinion of the German public. The Ministry of Justice described the proposal as one that would make it "possible for physicians to end the tortures of incurable patients, upon request, in the interests of true humanity" (reported in the N.Y. Times, 10/8/33, p. 1, col. 2). And the savings would redound to the German people if money was no longer thrown away on the disabled, the incurable, and "those on the threshold of old age."
A 1936 novel written by Helmut Unger, M.D., further assisted the German people in accepting the unthinkable. Dr. Unger told the story of a physician whose wife was disabled by multiple sclerosis. She asks him to help her die, and he complies. At his trial he pleads with the jurors to understand his honorable motive: "Would you, if you were a cripple, want to vegetate forever?" The jury acquit him in the novel. The book was subsequently made into a movie which, according to research by the SS Security Service, was "favorably received and discussed," even though some Germans were concerned about possible abuses.
With the public now assenting, the question turned from "whether" to "by whom" and "under what circumstances."
The first known case of the application of this now-acceptable proposal concerned "Baby Knauer." The child's father requested of Adolph Hitler himself that his son be allowed death because he was blind, retarded, and missing an arm and a leg. Surely, in his condition, he would be better off dead. Hitler turned the case over to his personal physician, Karl Brandt, and in 1938 the request was granted.
Over the next few months, a committee set out to establish practical means by which such "mercy deaths" could be granted to other children who had no prospect for meaningful life. The hospital at Eglfing-Haar, under the direction of Hermann Pfannmuller, M.D., slowly starved many of the disabled children in its care until they died of "natural causes." Other institutions followed suit, some depriving its small patients of heat rather than food. Medical personnel who were uncomfortable with what they were asked to do were told this was not killing: they were simply withholding treatment and "letting nature take its course."
Over time Pfannmuller set up Hungerhauser (starvation houses) for the elderly. By the end of 1941, euthanasia was simply "normal hospital routine."
In the meantime, no law had been passed permitting euthanasia. Rather, at the end of 1939, Hitler signed this letter:
"Reichleader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are responsibly commissioned to extend the authority of physicians to be designated by name so that a mercy death may be granted to patients who, according to human judgment, are incurably ill according to the most critical evaluation of the state of their disease."
Interestingly, physicians were not ordered to participate, but merely permitted to if they so wished. It was to be a private matter between the doctor and his patient (or the family if the patient was unable to speak for himself).
Brandt, testifying at his trial in Nuremburg after the war, insisted:
"The underlying motive was the desire to help individuals who could not help themselves and were thus prolonging their lives in torment. ... To quote Hippocrates today is to proclaim that invalids and persons in great pain should never be given poison. But any modern doctor who makes so rhetorical a declaration without qualification is either a liar or a hypocrite. ... I never intended anything more than or believed I was doing anything but abbreviating the tortured existence of such unhappy creatures."
Brandt's only regret was that the dead patients' relatives may have been caused pain. Yet he justified even that: "I am convinced that today they have overcome their distress and personally believe that the dead members of their families were given a happy release from their sufferings." (A. Mitcherlich & F. Mielke, The Death Doctors, pp. 264-265.)
Decide for yourselves whether parallels can be drawn between Germany in the thirties and forties and the world scene in the nineties.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/nazieuth.htm
In the meantime, no law had been passed permitting euthanasia. Rather, at the end of 1939, Hitler signed this letter:
"Reichleader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are responsibly commissioned to extend the authority of physicians to be designated by name so that a mercy death may be granted to patients who, according to human judgment, are incurably ill according to the most critical evaluation of the state of their disease."
Interestingly, physicians were not ordered to participate, but merely permitted to if they so wished. It was to be a private matter between the doctor and his patient (or the family if the patient was unable to speak for himself).
Brandt, testifying at his trial in Nuremburg after the war, insisted:
"The underlying motive was the desire to help individuals who could not help themselves and were thus prolonging their lives in torment. ... To quote Hippocrates today is to proclaim that invalids and persons in great pain should never be given poison. But any modern doctor who makes so rhetorical a declaration without qualification is either a liar or a hypocrite. ... I never intended anything more than or believed I was doing anything but abbreviating the tortured existence of such unhappy creatures."
Brandt's only regret was that the dead patients' relatives may have been caused pain. Yet he justified even that: "I am convinced that today they have overcome their distress and personally believe that the dead members of their families were given a happy release from their sufferings." (A. Mitcherlich & F. Mielke, The Death Doctors, pp. 264-265.)
The Eugenics of Communism
Dr. Ri Kwang-chol defected from North Korea and told a forum for human rights today that North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born. He said babies with physical defects are killed by the time they are infants in either hospitals or their homes, and quickly buried.
Dr. Ri said this practice in North Korea is encouraged by the state as a way of "purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered different."
Sound like Hitler's eugenics program?
China's one-child policy is the means for population control. China currently has 1.3 billion people. The policy consists of 3 main points:
advocating delayed marriage and delayed child bearing
advocating fewer and healthier births
enforcing one child per couple
This one-child policy requires forced abortions... and many Chinese allow their baby girls to be murdered so they can have a son. Now they have too many boys and not enough girls. Now there aren't enough children to replace and care for their aging parents. Good planning, communists.
Communism teaches evolution; evolution teaches survival of the fittest; the fittest end up not reproducing and eating their young. What a sad experiment Communism has been.
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/3/22/the-eugenics-of-communism.html
North Korea has no people with physical disabilitiestopic posted Wed, March 22, 2006 - 11:34 AM by Jon
North Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed
wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.
Ri Kwang-chol, who fled to the South last year, told a forum of rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread but denied he himself took part in it.
"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which groups local activists and North Korean refugees.
He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in infancy in hospitals or in homes and were quickly buried.
The practice is encouraged by the state, Ri said, as a way of purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered "different."
http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/87084214-08c7-4d29-a753-d405cbab7f99
Eugenics Wars
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Eugenics Wars are a backstory event in the Star Trek fictional universe. First mentioned in the TOS episode "Space Seed", in which it was stated that the Eugenics War was a global conflict that occurred during the mid to late 1990s. The progeny of a human genetic engineering project established themselves as supermen and attempted world domination. The most notable of them, Khan Noonien Singh, conquered a quarter of the planet, mostly Asia. They ended up fighting amongst themselves and were eventually overthrown due to their disunity. Khan, however, escaped into space with a group of his followers only to be encountered by the USS Enterprise after spending centuries in suspended animation. Much like the Butlerian Jihad in the Dune universe, the Eugenics Wars are the primary reason for the many restrictions and prohibitions on genetic manipulation within the Star Trek universe. This could be considered a plot device as to why human beings still resemble their mostly original morphology, and have not benefically altered their genome despite having access to technology easily capable of doing so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Wars
A few thousand years ago the Spartans used to throw their less-than-perfect babies off the cliffs into the sea.
And closer to our day and age, if I am not mistaken, sterilization of physically and mentally disabled people was used in the US before the death/concentration camps above (I presume you are referring to camps in Nazi Germany here?)
http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/87084214-08c7-4d29-a753-d405cbab7f99
Re: [Marxism] re-examining lysenko (book review)
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:22:50 -0400 Les Schaffer
writes:
> Nature 436, 1089-1090 (25 August 2005)
>
> Growth factors
>
> Garland E. Allen [1]
>
> Putting the ideas of Russian agronomist Trofim Lysenko into
> political
> and scientific context.
> BOOK REVIEWED - The Lysenko Effect: The Politics of Science
>
> by Nils Roll-Hansen
>
> Humanity Books: 2005. 335 pp. $25
>
>
>
> The problem with the traditional historiography of the Lysenko case
> is
> the view that Lysenko's science was bogus quackery from the
> beginning;
> that it was imposed from the top by Stalinist terror; and that
> biologists and agronomists in the Soviet Union were 'eliminated' if
> they
> voiced any criticism.
>
>
>
> The book is strongest in its analysis of the events and trends
> leading
> up to the Second World War; the post-war period and the final
> enshrinement of lysenkoism in 1948 are treated more sketchily.
> Roll-Hansen gives a prominent place to Marxist philosophy of science
> in
> framing debates about agricultural policy and practice. He shows
> convincingly that Marxist philosophy was not mere window-dressing
> for
> many biologists in the Soviet Union at the time, but represented a
> distinct world-view that many scientists tried to put into practice
> in
> their work. In this sense, Roll-Hansen follows and extends the
> earlier
> work of Loren Graham, who was one of the first Western historians to
> seriously explore the role of dialectical materialism in Soviet
> science.
> Ironically, it was Lysenko's failure to apply the dialectical method
> rigorously to his own work that ultimately led to his failure to
> revolutionize Soviet agriculture.
Both sides of the genetics debate in the Soviet Union
attempted to frame their arguments in terms of
dialectical materialism. This was true not just of
Lysenko and his followers but also of Vavilov and
the other Soviet Mendelians. Arguably, a case
can be made that Vavilov and his followers were
able to present a more dialectical understanding
of heredity, using Mendelian genetics, than did
the Lysenkoists.
>
>
> Roll-Hansen also emphasizes the controversies that existed within
> Soviet
> biology and agriculture about mendelian theory. As he points out,
> none
> of these issues was peculiar to Soviet biology. Many of Lysenko's
> ideas
> about phenotypic plasticity, the physiological aspects of
> development,
> and the over-simplicity of the atomistic mendelian gene were
> remarkably
> similar to those of Richard Goldschmidt in Germany, Ross Harrison in
> the
> United States and Albert Dalcq in Belgium. Similarly, neo-lamarckism
> retained a strong following in this period in France and Germany.
That's a point that often gets lost in Western writing on Lysenko.
When Lysenko was starting out, neo-Lamarckianism still
retained a modicum of respectability in the West, especially
in France. This had been the case ever since Darwin's time.
Indeed, Darwin himself, who lacked a compelling theory of
inheritance, found himself making use of certain Lamarckian
ideas to supplement his theory of natural selection. This
was apparent in the later editions of his *The Origin of
Species*.
> Even
> in the United States, where mendelian theory had been accepted early
> on,
> its application to agriculture had barely begun to yield results.
>
> Particularly problematic for Soviet geneticists was the association
> of
> mendelian theory in the West with opposition to the darwinian theory
> of
> natural selection and with eugenics. Darwinism, with its emphasis on
> variation and selection, had received strong support in Russia since
> the
> nineteenth century. Mendelian genetics, which emphasized the
> stability
> of the gene, and Wilhelm Johannsen's pure-line experiments, which
> showed
> the limits of selection, were seen as contradictions to Darwin that
> undermined its application to agriculture. The fact that many
> supporters
> of classical genetics had also supported eugenics did not place
> mendelian theory in a particularly favourable light: it was held up
> as
> an example of reductionistic, atomistic, bourgeois science.
Although it should be noted that eugenics was by no means
immediately rejected in the Soviet Union, following the
October Revolution. Indeed, many of the Bolsheviks
like Trotsky, for instance, were intrigued by eugenics ideas
which they saw as potentially useful for creating "socialist
man." Even under Stalin, eugenics retained some currency
for a while in the Soviet Union. For instance the American
geneticist, Herman Muller, not only promoted Mendelian
genetics research in the Soviet Union in conjunction
with Vavilov but he also attempted to persuade Stalin
to embrace eugenics. Vavilov and many of the other
Soviet Mendelians were also interested in eugenics
as Loren Graham has pointed out. Muller was
forced to leave the Soviet Union following the triumph
of the Lysenkoists.
Another intersting issue, not mentioned in the
Nature article is the effect that the adoption
of Lysenkoism as an orthodoxy in the late
1940s had on Communist parties in the
West. During the 1930s and 1940s, the
British biologist, JBS Haldane was one
of the most prominent academic members
of the CPGB. He wrote a popular science column
for the Daily Worker (UK). Indeed many people,
who were not all sympathetic with the CP,
subscribed to the paper, in order to read
his column. He was also a very popular
platform speaker for the Party too. In
biology, Haldane was a very prominent
Mendelian geneticist. He was one of
the founding fathers of population genetics
and was one of the architects of what is
known as the neo-Darwinian synthesis,
which reconciled and synthesized Darwinism
with Mendelian genetics.
The CPGB's succumbing to the Soviet
Union's adoption of Lysenkoism as
an orthodoxy went a long way to
making Haldane's continued membership
in the Party untenable.
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w34/msg00535.htm
Although it should be noted that eugenics was by no means
immediately rejected in the Soviet Union, following the
October Revolution. Indeed, many of the Bolsheviks
like Trotsky, for instance, were intrigued by eugenics ideas
which they saw as potentially useful for creating "socialist
man." Even under Stalin, eugenics retained some currency
for a while in the Soviet Union. For instance the American
geneticist, Herman Muller, not only promoted Mendelian
genetics research in the Soviet Union in conjunction
with Vavilov but he also attempted to persuade Stalin
to embrace eugenics. Vavilov and many of the other
Soviet Mendelians were also interested in eugenics
as Loren Graham has pointed out. Muller was
forced to leave the Soviet Union following the triumph
of the Lysenkoists.
Letters
People who condemn eugenics may be in minority now
EDITORIn concluding his article on eugenics, Kevles should not have used the words "History at the least has taught us ..." because they imply that most people condemn eugenics now.1 Those who condemn eugenics may actually be a minority. In China, where the population exceeds 1.2 billion, geneticists overwhelmingly support eugenics.2 India, Russia, and other populous countries share China's views on genetic issues.2
The social values that guided early Western eugenicists and still underlie Chinese eugenics "give greater importance to the well-being of social groups than that of the individual."3 By contrast, current Western values, concerned as they are with individual rights rather than with the common good,3 represent the exact opposite of both Chinese values and the social ethics that evolution fostered for millions of yearssocial ethics that proved to be the best ethics for ensuring the survival of social groups.4
Paraphrasing Kevles's words, I suggest that evolution should teach us that current Western values focusing on the good of the individual, not on the good of society, are both near sighted and intrinsically unethical, because they create more pain than they prevent. Those values, to spare a few individuals bearable sorrow, cause untold suffering to many people. In China the grief of those who are not allowed to procreate on eugenic grounds is unquestionably far less tragic than the perpetuated pain of their potential, numerous descendants.
Although Chinese eugenics has patently nothing whatever to do with the murders committed by Nazis, many Westerners condemn it because Hitler supported eugenics. As Nobel prizewinner James D Watson pointed out, however, "We must not fall into the absurd trap of being against everything Hitler was for. It was in no way evil for Hitler to regard mental disease as a scourge on society.... Because of Hitler's use of the term Master Race, we should not feel the need to say that we never want to use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today."5
Should Western countries espouse eugenics, they will hardly be condemned for it by future generations enjoying long and healthy lives. Conversely, if Westerners continue to disapprove of eugenics they will probably be hated by generations to come for not having avoided transmitting to them some conditions that can lead affected people to regret the day they were born.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7218/1196
The Persistence of Eugenics
From GenEthics News issue 22,
With the International Genetics Federation congress in Beijing looming, the issue of China's eugenics law is likely to be in the news again. A particularly sensitive issue is the relationship between genetics and eugenics. This article takes a look at the history of the relationship between genetics and eugenics, and in particular at the concept and practice of 'non-directive' genetic counselling.
David King
http://www.hgalert.org/topics/geneticSelection/eugenics.htm
Is China’s law eugenic?
China’s approach to family planning has been attacked in the West as authoritarian and an infringement on individual rights. Below, Chinese Academician Qiu Renzong rejects claims that his country’s Law on Maternal and Infant Health is eugenic. Overleaf, a German Sinologist challenges Qiu Renzong’s position.
© Hervé Pinel
If the twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create.
Francis Galton,
British scientist, initiator of the study of eugenics (1822-1911)
Points of law
The following are key excerpts from the official translation of China’s Maternal and Infant Health Care Law, which came into effect in 1995.
Article 8: The pre-marital physical check-up shall include the examination of the following diseases: (i) genetic diseases of a serious nature; (ii) target infectious diseases; and (iii) relevant mental disease.
Article 10: Physicians shall, after performing the pre-marital physical check-up, explain and give medical advice to both the male and the female who have been diagnosed with certain genetic disease of a serious nature which is considered to be inappropriate for child-bearing from a medical point of view; the two may be married only if both sides agree to take long-term contraceptive measures or to take ligation operation for sterility.
Article 16: If a physician detects or suspects that a married couple in their child-bearing age suffer from genetic disease of a serious nature, the physician shall give medical advice to the couple, and the couple in their child-bearing age shall take measures in accordance with the physician’s medical advice.
Article 18: The physician shall explain to the married couple and give them medical advice for a termination of pregnancy if one of the following cases is detected in the prenatal diagnosis: (i) the foetus is suffering from genetic disease of a serious nature; (ii) the foetus is with defect of a serious nature; and (iii) continued pregnancy may threaten the life and safety of the pregnant woman or seriously impair her health.
1. ‘A concern for collective good’
Qiu Renzong, Bioethics programme director, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing.
China’s Law on Maternal and Infant Health (see box opposite page) has attracted considerable criticism in the Western media and scientific circles. Some of the criticism is valid but some is based on misunderstandings caused by linguistic or cultural barriers. Much of the confusion revolves around the word yousheng, which repeatedly occurs in the legal text. A tricky word with dual meanings, it is commonly used to mean “healthy births” in association with child-rearing. However, yousheng can also be used to describe eugenic programmes such as that practised by the Nazis. Unfortunately, English translations of the law tend to reflect this latter
meaning.
Is the Maternal and Infant Health Law eugenic? I would argue that for a policy to be eugenic it must first reject individual consent and second, be based on racism. Neither of these conditions applies to China’s law. While doctors may advise two individuals at risk of passing on hereditary disease to refrain from marrying or to undergo sterilization, the ultimate decision is left to these adults. When prenatal testing reveals genetic disease, a doctor will offer advice—not a directive—concerning abortion.
The way to a higher domain
It is also crucial to recognize that the law is not motivated by racism but by a desire to reduce birth defects. Indeed, there is no racist tradition in China. The Chinese have been the victims of Western imperialism and Japanese militarism. They may have made grave mistakes, but they have never claimed superiority over another people, and their military actions have never been motivated by racism. Nor is racism part of China’s internal policies. The Han, China’s dominant ethnic group, do not claim superiority over China’s minorities.
Westerners are often shocked by Chinese attitudes to defective foetuses because they do not understand the cultural and economic factors involved. The great Confucianist Xun Zi (300-237 BC) said: “Birth is the beginning of a human being, and death is the end of a human being. A human being who has a good beginning and a good end fulfills the Tao [the Way to a higher spiritual domain].” Two major factors shaping genetic policy in China emerge from this Confucian view. First, abortion is morally and socially acceptable because life begins with birth. A foetus is not considered a human being. Second, congenital disease and deformity are considered a sign of sin committed by the parents or ancestors in their previous life. Given that a defective newborn child is traditionally called a “monster foetus”, it is not surprising to find little in the way of familial or social support. One of the parents of a deformed baby will usually have to stop working, and the costs of caring for such a child can amount to a third of an average worker’s salary.
Poverty
Changing these negative attitudes will take a great deal of time. There are now more than 50 million handicapped people, mostly living in poverty, and it is unreasonable to expect any major improvements in the treatment of handicapped children and their mothers in the near future. In this context, many feel that these children and their mothers would be better off if the handicapped had never been born. In fact, the Chinese Association of the Handicapped formally urged the government in 1989 to speed up legislation to prevent the birth of deformed babies, given their suffering and the burden they represent for society.
The concern for the collective good has at times led geneticists and others in China to infringe upon individual autonomy. They have confused what is technologically possible (genetic testing) with what is ethically permissible. However, I feel that the law is a positive step towards guaranteeing everyone access to genetic counselling and to prohibiting sex-selection. Chinese geneticists and bioethicists have criticized some articles of the law. Their suggestions include more explicit recognition of the principle of informed consent. Last year, the authorities consulted leading Chinese bioethicists and geneticists and will make the needed changes at an appropriate time. Meanwhile, I would ask Western colleagues to directly consult officials, geneticists and citizens instead of trying to sanction China, which may do more harm than good.
2. ‘The legislation imposes decisions’
Frank Dikötter, director, Contemporary China Institute, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Supporters of China’s Maternal and Infant Health Law often argue that the word yousheng is mistranslated as “eugenics”, instead of “healthy birth”. Besides the simple observation that a term has no given meaning outside the context in which it is used, it might be noted that in European languages the word “eugenics” also etymologically refers to “healthy birth” (Greek root meaning “good in birth”).
The term yousheng appeared in China during the 1920s when many publications on eugenics were translated or written in Chinese. The international eugenics movement, spanning from Sweden to Japan, was embraced by many intellectuals in China. Some openly praised Nazi racial policies, while others adopted a softer approach aimed at preventing “unfit” individuals from reproducing. While eugenics became taboo after the communist take-over in 1949—as it did elsewhere in the world given its association with Nazism—it reappeared as an intrinsic component of the one-child policy of 1978.
Today, large numbers of popular and scientific publications still hail the British scientist Francis Galton (1822-1911; Charles Darwin’s cousin, the founder of eugenics) as the father of yousheng which they clearly define as the science by which the state can improve the physical and mental features of its population by selective breeding.
The law’s supporters strongly emphasize its recognition of “individual consent”: but what real effect can “individual consent” have in a one-party state such as China, where political dissent is so often punished? These supporters tend not to mention the half a dozen provincial laws passed since 1988 which never mention individual wishes: in Gansu province, for instance, “idiots”, “cretins” and “imbeciles” (not defined in medical terms) are not allowed to marry unless they have been sterilized.
It is crucial to understand that racism is not a necessary component of eugenics. Thousands of individuals judged to be mentally impaired were forcibly sterilized in Scandinavian countries until the 1960s without being defined as “racially” different. To defend China’s law by arguing that the Han do not think of themselves as superior to “minorities” is seriously misleading. Why not ask ethnic Tibetans what they think about this?
An inalienable right
Eugenic laws in China fall largely on two groups: peasants (about 70 per cent of the population) and ethnic minorities, (55 groups comprising about eight per cent of the population). In specialist and popular publications, Chinese geneticists claim to find higher rates of mental and physical handicap among the peasantry than the urban population. They also claim that there are higher rates among at least some ethnic minorities in comparison to the majority Han. These geneticists maintain that the economic backwardness of these groups is reinforced by inbreeding. I would argue that this is no more than a scientized version of Han prejudice against minority endogamic practices.
“Confucian values” are also evoked to justify the 1995 law. China is not frozen in time. To invoke Xun Zi in the 1990s is as useful as referring to the Spartans to explain Nazi policies. Reproductive freedom is not the prerogative of a few privileged cultures, but an inalienable part of individual rights. Coercive methods of controlling population growth cannot be defended on cultural grounds. The sterilization programmes used in India during the “emergency period” in the 1970s, for example, were overwhelmingly rejected once general elections were held. Besides, research shows that in China and elsewhere individuals have very different views on the treatment of handicapped people. In surveys by Chinese researchers in the late 1980s, up to 25 per cent of those questioned considered life to be sacred in all circumstances. Serious birth defects are one of the most painful challenges any family can face, and all possible ethical considerations and medical options should be carefully considered and openly debated. The present eugenic legislation does not reflect this consensus-making process; it imposes decisions.
Even in democratic countries, marginalized people may be treated in a discriminatory way, as social prejudice and economic interest affect the nature of genetic information made available to families, employers, insurance companies or welfare states. In a one-party state like China, eugenic laws have been used to suppress rather than assist vulnerable people.
http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_09/uk/dossier/txt07.htm
Eugenics and the Third Reich
By Stephen B. Saetz
Originally published in The Eugenics Bulletin, Winter 1985
Paul Popenoe, one of the four most active figures in the early American eugenics movement, was asked in 1962 to account for the eclipse of the movement worldwide, and he replied: "The major factor in the decline of eugenics was undoubtedly Hitlerism" (letter of February 20, 1962 to Donald K. Pickens, in Pickens 1968: 99).
Ask almost anyone who has heard of eugenics which word comes to mind when "eugenics" is mentioned, and the answer will be "Nazis." This association provides a field day for misinformation and sensationalism. The following assertion by historian Lucy Davidowicz perhaps encapsulates the entire series of conceptions surrounding this matter:
Almost as soon as the Nazis came to power, they began to apply their racial ideology and enact these racial notions into law. The first step came with the law on compulsory sterilization, enacted July 14, 1933 . . . Thereafter the German dictatorship embarked on a program to carry out a policy of racial eugenics or, if you will, racial biology. That program had two aspects: positive eugenics and negative eugenics. Positive eugenics was a program designed to increase the population of persons who were regarded as racially pure "Aryans" (and good Nazis as well). Negative eugenics was a program designed first to halt the procreation of persons or categories of persons who did not meet the standards of racial purity through sterilization and then eventually to kill them and to kill those who were regarded as the racial enemy - - the Jews and the Gypsies ("Biomedical Ethics and the Shadow of Nazism. A Conference on the Proper Use of the Nazi Analog in Ethical Debate / April 8, 1976," p. 3).
A number of prominent contemporary eugenicists have themselves accepted some or all of these conceptions, so pervasive have the latter become. For example, Carl J. Bajema has said:
Does eugenics include brutal racist evolutionary practices such as those of Nazi Germany? The tragic history of Nazi Germany indicates that racism and man's attempts to influence his own genetic evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive modes of behavior . . . Eugenics includes such policies as those of Nazi Germany if eugenics is defined as the social control of human genetic evolution (Bajema 1976: 5).
C. P. Blacker has written: " . . . [the] principles [of eugenics] had been perverted by a detested political tyranny" (Blacker 1952: 144). Nathaniel Weyl and Stefan Possony have asserted: "Eugenics, through sterilization of the supposedly unfit . . . is a power subject to terrible abuses as the history of Nazi Germany reveals" (Weyl & Possony 1963: 250). Marian Van Court has stated:
Ironically, the Nazis' pseudoscientific perversion of the eugenics concept had the greatest influence on public opinion, promulgating the notion of eugenics as the ideology of racism and genocide. Largely because of this pernicious association, eugenics as a social movement has remained dormant since the end of World War II (Van Court 1982: 30).
Many other such examples could be cited.
Without a doubt, the link with atrocities committed during the Third Reich is the greatest cross which contemporary eugenics has to bear. Is this association fully or partially justified, or is it a case of guilt by association? Historical data can put this question into proper prospective.
A thorough analysis of the purported relationship between National Socialist policies and eugenics evinces four basic elements:
I. The attempted extermination of European Jewry
II. Euthanasia
III. Attempts to breed a biological elite through (a) Lebensborn, and (b) SS selection and marriage criteria
IV. Negative eugenics, which is claimed to have been quantitatively and not just quantitatively different from similar policies elsewhere in the world
How justifiable are these association? It is time the decks were cleared.
I. THE ATTEMPTED EXTERMINATION OF EUROPEAN JEWRY
There are two questions to be answered here. Did eugenics have anything to do with the motivation, advocacy, implementation, or justification of these actions? If not, what was the source?
Let the facts--the primary sources--speak for themselves.
Adolf Hitler's fundamental view of the Jews had been formed in late adolescence in Vienna, and it consisted of the following basic beliefs: that they constituted an unassimilable, ethnically alien State-within-a-State wherever they resided; that they pursued their own interests exclusively to the detriment of the non-Jewish peoples among whom they lived; that they lived a parasitical existence based upon the accumulation and manipulation of money for its own sake and even more as a source of power; that they were the creators and propagators of movements inimical to the spiritual and material welfare of European peoples, e.g., Bolshevism, Marxism, finance capitalism, Free Masonry, liberalism, egalitarianism, and Freudianism; that they acted as the bearers of the corrosion of national life, functioning as nihilistic agents of the dissolution of national and ethnic feeling and tradition and of all organic bonds, in the process setting various segments of the population against each other, e.g., capital and labor, in order to "divide and conquer"; that they were venal, materialistic, and totally devoid of idealism; that they were racially inferior; that they played a decisive role in manifestations of social degeneracy such as prostitution, usury, pornography, modern art, financial crimes, and the narcotics trade; that they possessed no ethics or morality as Europeans understood these terms; and that they had been engaged in a 4,000-year-old conspiracy to dominate the world pursuant to their view of themselves as the Chosen People. These characteristics and values he held to be rooted in the biology of the Jewish people, and therefore ineradicable (cf. generally Mein Kampf). In all this, Hitler was fully in the mainstream of European racial anti-Semitism which he had absorbed in Vienna.
From the time he came to power to the end of his life, Hitler was convinced that world Jewry was to blame, first for agitation abroad for war against Germany, and then for the outbreak of war itself and its extension into a world war. He asserted that important Jewish organizations and prominent Jewish spokesmen had stated explicitly that they would not rest until the openly anti-Semitic National Socialist regime was destroyed, even if it required war to do it; and that powerful Jewish figures in politics, the press, radio, and films - particularly in the U.S., Britain, and France were in the forefront of this agitation for war.
The policy of the German government prior to World War II had been to bring about complete social segregation, to deny Jews German citizenship, and to eliminate systematically Jewish influence in German life. Later in the prewar period - after November 1938 -punitive measures were instituted to force Jews to emigrate at a faster rate. By 1939 400,00 of the 600,00 Jews of pre-1938 Germany had departed. From the outbreak of the war until mid-1941, various plans were devised to resettle the Jews within the German sphere of control--in Madagascar, and later in Eastern Poland but these plans were abandoned for various reasons.
Hitler's first explicit threat to exterminate European Jewry was made in a famous speech before the Reichstag (Parliament) on January 30, 1939:
In the course of my life I have often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it . . . I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevisation of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation [Vernichtung] of the Jewish race in Europe (To1and 1977: 700).
This "prophesy" Hitler was to hark back to a number of times, for instance in a speech of January 30, 1942 in Berlin:
We realize that this war can only end either with the wiping out of the Germanic nations, or by the disappearance of Jewry from Europe. On September 3 [the actual date was January 30, 1939], I spoke in the Reichstag--and I dislike premature prophesies--and I said that this war would not end the way the Jews imagine, that is in the extermination of the European Aryan nations, but that the result of this war would be the destruction of Jewry. For the first time, it will not be others who will bleed to death, but for the first time the genuine ancient Jewish law, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," is being applied (Hitler 1944: 83)
He reiterated his intentions on February 24, 1942 in another speech: "My prophecy shall be fulfilled that this war will not destroy humanity but it will exterminate the Jew. Whatever the battle may bring in its course or however long it may last, that will be its final course" (Toland 1977: 969). On April 26, 1942 in Berlin he spoke clearly again on this matter: "Death will come to all liars, who, pretending to protect the world against domination by a foreign power, in reality are only endeavoring to save their own world domination" (Hitler 1944: 84). On September 30, 1942 he repeated his threat that if Jewry instigated "an international war to exterminate the Aryan peoples it would not be the Aryan peoples that would be annihilated but Jewry itself" (Toland 1977: 985). In his annual speech to Party veterans at Munich on November 8, 1942 he sounded the same note: "As a prophet they always laughed at me. But of those who laughed loudest then, countless laugh no longer today. Nor are those who are still laughing even now likely to laugh when the time comes" (Irving 1977: 12). Other pronouncements of the same sort can be culled from various of his speeches from 1941, 1943, and 1944.
In his table talk for February 13, 1945, close to the end of the war, he put the matter forcefully:
I have always been absolutely fair in my dealings with the Jews. On the eve of war, I gave them one final warning. I told them that, if they precipitated another war, they would not be spared and that I would exterminate the vermin throughout Europe, and this time once and for all. To this warning they retorted with a declaration of war and affirmed that wherever in the world there was a Jew, there, too, was an implacable enemy of National Socialist Germany.
Well, we have lanced the Jewish abscess; and the world of the future will be eternally grateful to us (Hitler 1961: 57).
Finally, in a retrospective attempt to justify his actions, he announced the following in his Political Testament, dictated on April 29,1945 the day before he committed suicide:
I have left no one in doubt that if the people of Europe are once more treated as mere blocks of shares in the hands of these international money and finance conspirators, then the sole responsibility for the massacre must be borne by the true culprits: Jewry. Nor have I left anyone in doubt that this time millions of European children of Aryan descent will starve to death, millions of men will die in battle, and hundreds of thousands of women and children will be burned or bombed to death in our cities without the true culprits being held to account, albeit more humanely (Hitler 1976: 346).
Paul Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda and Gauleiter (District Leader) of Berlin, and an anti-Semite as vociferous as Hitler himself, echoed these same sentiments. After a conference with the latter about the Jewish question on August 18, 1941, he wrote in his diary:
The Fuehrer is convinced that the prophesy he uttered in the Reichstag- that if the Jews once more succeeded in provoking a world war, it would end with the destruction of the Jews is coming true. It is coming true these weeks and months with a dread certainty that is almost uncanny. In the east the Jews will have to square accounts; they have already footed part of the bill in Germany and they will have to pay still more in the future. Their last refuge will be North America, and there too they will one day, sooner or later, end up footing the bill . . . In the coming world the Jews will have little cause for mirth . . (Irving 1977: 302-303).
On November 16, 1941, in a long editorial entitled "The Jews are to Blame!" in his prestigious weekly newspaper Das Reich, Goebbels wrote:
We are now witnessing the acid test of this prophesy, and thus Jewry is experiencing a fate which is hard but more than deserved. Pity or even regrets are entirely out of place here. World Jewry, in starting this war, made an entirely wrong estimate of the forces at its disposal, and is now suffering the same gradual process of destruction which it had planned for us, which it would apply without hesitation were it to possess the power to do so. It is in line with their own law, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," that the ruin of the Jews is now taking place . . .
The Jews are our destruction. They provoked and brought about this war. What they mean to achieve by it is to destroy the German state and nation . . . The treatment we give them does them no wrong. They have more than deserved it . . . (Remak 1969: 155, 156, 157).
In a lead article in Das Reich, Goebbels once more publicly enunciated these points: "In this war the Jews are playing their most criminal game, and they will have to pay for that with the extermination of their race in Europe and perhaps far beyond" (New York Times, June 12, 1942).
The Goebbels Diaries 1942-1943 contain further relevant material. The following is an entry for March 27, 1942:
A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophecy which the Fuehrer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us . . . there is nothing funny in it for the Jews, and the fact that Jewry's representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany must be paid for dearly by its representatives in Europe -and that's only right (Goebbels 1948: 148) .
Another entry for December 14, 1942 states:
The Jewish race has prepared this war; it is the spiritual originator of the whole misfortune that has overtaken humanity. Jewry must pay for its crime just as our Fuehrer prophesied in his speech to the Reichstag; namely, by wiping out the Jewish race in Europe and possibly in the entire world (Goebbels 1948: 243-244).
The official charged with carrying out the Find Solution was Heinrich Himmler, Reichafuehrer-(National Leader) SS and Chief of the German Police. In a speech made in Posen to the assembled Higher SS and Police Leaders on October 4, 1943, he spoke openly of the extermination of the Jews, and strove to justify it in these terms: ". . . We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to destroy this people [dieses Volk umzubringen] which wanted to destroy us" (Himmler, October 4, 1943). On October 6, 1943, in the same city, he reiterated the same points and admissions to the assembled Gauleiters and Reichsleiters, almost all of whom were hearing them for the first time, as Baldur van Schirach, Gauleiter of Vienna and former head of the Hitler Youth, relates (Schirach 1967).
The Final Solution was initiated with the commencement of the German-Soviet conflict in June 1941, and was terminated by unilateral order of Himm1er in October 1944. The extermination operations were carried out in maximum secrecy - particularly those in the camps - and with very few exceptions, only those directly involved were permitted knowledge of them. A larger group in the Party had suspicions, but only a small minority knew absolutely. Himmler drove home the need for secrecy, and spoke of the unawareness of the German people of this matter, in his speech to the Gauleiters and Reichsleiters in Posen. He concluded the part of the speech dealing with the Jewish question with these words:
You now know what is what and you must keep it to yourselves . . . Perhaps at a much later time we shall consider whether something about it can be told to the German people. But it is probably better to bear the responsibility on behalf of our people (a responsibility for the deed as well as for the idea) and take the secret with us into our graves (Toland 1977: 1052).
If the objection be raised that, in view of the unequivocal and repeated public pronouncements by Hitler and Goebbels previously cited, the German people must have been fully aware of what was transpiring, it must be emphasized that these and other similar statements were regarded as pure rhetoric by a people who had been well-accustomed to hearing the most radical rhetoric since 1920. In reality, the statements cited were not mere rhetoric, but were uttered in dead earnest, and were the external expressions of a criminal program with terrible consequences for the Jews, and also for traditional European values, raciology, nationalism, eugenics, and the German people.
Certainly social, economic, political, ideological, and racial-theory considerations (together with his personal experiences) account for Hitler's radical anti-Semitism. However, they do not account for the ultimate application of this anti-Semitism, the Final Solution. There was no necessary or logical causal relationship between the two. Milton Himmelfarb, a contributing editor to the prestigious Jewish cultural organ Commentary, and an editor of the American Jewish Year Book, makes this point clear:
Traditions, tendencies, ideas, myths - none of these made Hitler murder the Jews. All that history, all those forces and influences, could have been the same and Hitler could as easily, more easily, not have murdered the Jews. . .
Anti-Semitism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust, it was not a sufficient condition. Hitler was needed. Hitler murdered the Jews because he wanted to murder them . . . The obedience of Himmler and the SS was to Hitler, not to anti-Semitism . . .
That one man made so much difference may be even harder to accept emotionally than intellectually. The disproportionate frightens us. We need to believe that causes are proportionate to effects . . . We would rather talk about socioeconomic stresses and strains, political backwardness, group psychopathology, religious hatred, racism . . . (Himmelfarb 1984: 37, 38).
What did determine Hitler's choice of the Final Solution? Unlike many racial anti-Semites who hated Jewry in an abstract but non-personal sense, Hitler felt profound revulsion for individual Jews and for the collectively of Jewry at the physical and emotional levels. His high level of emotionality made him prone to view things in black and white terms, and therefore to incline to extreme solutions. Because of these factors, he was fully able to dehumanize them and view them in his own mind as "bacilli."
What clearly and consistently emerges is that the motivation behind his policy of extermination lay in Hitler's fanatical hatred of the Jews, and in his fixed conviction, shared by his associates, that the Jews were responsible for the origin, enlargement, and prolongation of World War II. This motivation on the part of Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, and others had absolutely nothing to do with eugenics, nor was it justified or implemented in terms of even pseudo-eugenic considerations.
II. EUTHANASIA
The euthanasia program--which accounted for the deaths of perhaps as many as 80,000 people, largely institutionalized mental patients--has come to be confused with eugenics in the minds of many. The historian Joachim Remak, editor of The Nazi Years: A Documentary History, devoted his entire chapter on "eugenics" in the Third Reich to euthanasia. What are the facts?
In a secret order issued in September 1939, Adolf Hitler initiated a euthanasia program. The order was both simple and direct:
Reicheleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, MD, are herewith given full responsibility to enlarge the powers of certain specified doctors so that they can grant those who are by all human standards incurably ill a merciful death, after the most critical assessment possible of their medical condition (Irving 1977: 21).
The rationale for the issuance of this order seems clear:
The ostensible occasion for this formal decision was related to war needs. About a quarter of a million hospital beds were required for Germany's mental institutions; of Germany's disproportionately large insane population (a result of centuries of lax and indiscriminate marriage laws) of some seven or eight hundred thousand people all told, about 10 percent were permanently institutionalized. Others were in and out of hospitals. They occupied bed space and the attention of skilled medical personnel which Hitler now urgently needed for the treatment of the casualties of his coming campaigns . . . . . . Hitler instructed Dr. Conti that in view of the war, a program for the painless killing of the incurably insane should be initiated; this would release badly needed hospital beds and nursing facilities for patients with a greater national priority (Irving 1977: 20-21).
The Jewish historian Gitta Sereny, who discusses it at length, characterizes the euthanasia program as having been undertaken for "starkly economic" reasons (Sereny 1983: 50).
It is often contended that those at whom this order was directed composed a large segment of those considered unfit from a eugenic standpoint. In the quotation by Davidowicz cited in the introduction to this paper, she claims that euthanasia was somehow the extension of eugenic sterilization: "Negative eugenics was a program designed first to halt the procreation of persons . . . and then events to kill them [sic] . . ." Neither common sense nor the historical record provide any support for this notion. The interest of negative eugenics in cases of genetic defect is that they not reproduce, a purpose fully accomplished by sterilization or segregation. What eugenic purpose could possibly have been served by putting to death institutionalized patients who had no possibility of procreation whatsoever? None. The rationale behind euthanasia was pragmatic, not eugenic.
CONCLUSION
The major conclusion to be drawn from the historical evidence presented in this paper is completely at variance with popular assumptions. Put simply, there was no barbaric abuse of eugenics in National Socialist Germany. The exterminations had nothing to do with eugenics--Hitler ordered the Jews destroyed because he held them responsible for World War II and despised them bitterly. The euthanasia program was instituted for pragmatic reasons which bore no relation to eugenics. The notion of Lebensborn as a "stud farm" is pure fiction. A few of the criteria for SS membership and marriage were eugenic, but most were not, and the aim of increasing the SS birthrate was never fulfilled. The eugenic marriage laws were not extraordinary. Finally, the sterilization program could in no sense be characterized as perverse or barbaric.
In response to the question posed in the introduction to this paper as to whether the main source of the opprobrium eugenics has suffered for forty years is "guilt by association," the answer must be an unequivocal "Yes." It is analogous to a man being convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime he never committed.
In view of the evidence presented, the reader might well wonder, "How did the false association between eugenics and atrocities committed in the third Reich ever come into being? And how has it managed to sustain itself all this time?" The explanatory factors include: the general confusion, intentional and unintentional misinformation, uncritical attitudes, and error which abound concerning this period; pure sensationalism - always lucrative, with Hitler an ideal subject; and conscious and unconscious perpetuation of this false association by such enemies of eugenics as liberals, Marxists, and other egalitarians.
It is incumbent upon us to devise and implement positive and negative eugenics programs, and they must be considered on their own merits, apart from sensational and false popular associations with exterminations, euthanasia, and so-called "stud farms." What the eminent Jewish political philosopher Leo Stress has called the "reductio ad Hitlerum argument" has done nothing more than obscure the real issues and postpone the day of reckoning when the most pressing problem confronting humanity must be faced.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Marian Van Court for her invaluable help and steadfastness in the preparation of this article.
Stephen B. Saetz holds an M.A. degree in physical anthropology from Rutgers University, and is going on to take his Ph.D. in a combination of physical anthropology and human behavioral genetics. He has also done extensive independent work on the history of the Third Reich.
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/3rdreich.html
did the NS execute "mercy killings?"
ive been looking and have not found a confirmed answer on this topic. did the nazis execute the mentally and physically disabled, for just that reason, or did they only execute those that they deemed death would be of charity? if any at all? i have also heard they would sterilize those types of people, but this story has escalated into just execution... please clear this for me. Thanks.
Re: did the NS execute "mercy killings?"
This is my understanding of what happened in Germany during the time that Hitler was in power. Disabled people were not killed as anti-German, anti-Hitler, anti-National Socialists try to make people believe. But at the same time disabled people weren't getting preferential treatment like they do in the U.S. today. Preferential treatment was reserved for the top racial specimens in German society. If a person had the potential to be a doctor he(or she) got preference and the energy of the state boosted them into a position where that could be achieved. But I think that there was an exception when it came to disabled people and that was those people who mentally and physically disabled to the point where it toke 3 or 4 people to care for them just for them to get through the day---those people were put to sleep. I am basing this on what I have heard over the years by people who seemed to be honest and objective. I wish I had a link.
Re: did the NS execute "mercy killings?"
I read this in David Irving's Hitler's War: When casualties were coming in from the War against the USSR, there was an urgent need for hospital beds. One source of beds was in long term care facilities for extreme cases of mental retardation (micro-cephalics and macro-cephalics) as well as others who were incurable and in extreme constant pain (cerebral palsy sufferers?). Hitler gave the order for their euthanization and took full responsibility for it.
Re: did the NS execute "mercy killings?"
I believe the mentally defective people were killed, quite possibly gassed with CO in centre's like the Stahlheim Institute, however this was a practical measure effected in the early days as a means of benefiting the German population as a whole (As Terry said; it was developed further later to make room/resources for the furtherance of the war aims). This worked by decreasing consumption and resource allocation to an effective sink hole for resources, with no tangible or intangible benefit associated with it for the German people who were not mentally defective.
It was similar in nature of programs effected in the 1920's and 1930's by a majority of other countries in Europe and North America, even to an extent in Oceania. That is to my why the Holohoax makes no sense, I've seen these chambers, which were well built and could very easily have been used for the purpose proposed. The complete opposite of the Holohoax gas chambers etc.
Also note, the people who designed and actioned the T4 programme, were supposed to have been the founders of the wider programme, and gave advice on 'how things should be done', especially once a wider policy was supposedly created.
So in essence, yes; the National Socialist State did carry out mercy killings, but did so as part of the wider trend in European thought, as part of what we call a 'negative' (or a eugenics programme targeting the less desirable elements of a population) Eugenics program, as opposed to the isolated 'mad men' case, that the Jewish media portrays it as.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=320647
Re: did the NS execute "mercy killings?"
I read this in David Irving's Hitler's War: When casualties were coming in from the War against the USSR, there was an urgent need for hospital beds. One source of beds was in long term care facilities for extreme cases of mental retardation (micro-cephalics and macro-cephalics) as well as others who were incurable and in extreme constant pain (cerebral palsy sufferers?). Hitler gave the order for their euthanization and took full responsibility for it.
A Challenge to David Irving
Robert Faurisson
At the time of the fifth international Revisionist Conference sponsored by the Institute for Historical Review, held in Los Angeles on 3-5 September 1983, I had the pleasure of meeting David Irving for the first time. Unfortunately, our meeting was too short. We had a brief conversation, and then I listened to his presentation. At the conclusion of his presentation, some of us were able to ask him questions or share with him our comments. There again the time was too short for me to bring up to him all that was on my mind. On the following day, before beginning my own paper, I briefly shared with the audience the questions and comments that I would have directed to David Irving. I expand upon them here. It will come as no surprise that they concern what is called the problem of genocide and the gas chambers.
How Does David Irving Know That Gypsies Were Exterminated?
On p. 56, Irving presents the physical liquidation of the Gypsies as an established fact. I do not know -- he doesn't tell us -- what evidence he has for that. Some Gypsies certainly were put into concentration camps, but there were still some troupes of Gypsies giving theatrical and circus performances in Germany even up to the very end. And above all I do not have the impression that the Gypsies are a race that has disappeared from continental Europe, or that by the end of the war they were a race on the way to extinction.
David Irving's Account of the Extermination: Too Much Metaphysics, Not Enough Materialism
Toward the latter part of his presentation Irving offered his version of the history of the extermination. Here are some extracts from his words (I have removed what seemed to me to be irrelevant commentary or digression, and I have emphasized certain words):
(pp. 48-49): ... whatever happened gained its own momentum deriving from atrocities which the Nazis did commit, for example, the euthanasia program... the killing of the mentally incurable, who occup[ied] the hospital beds that wartime Germany needed -- this was an operation that was carried out on Hitler's written instructions. And this generated a certain amount of expertise in killing, there's no question. And there is no question in my mind that some of the personnel who were operating on that program, the T-4 operation, the "Tiergartenstrasse" (the office from which it was conducted), were then automatically injected into the killing operations that a number of local police officials in my view on the Eastern Front in Germany, carried out against Jews and other people who just got in their way.
What Irving says is in agreement with the exterminationists' narrative. At one end of the chain we have the euthanasia program and, at the other end of the chain, we have a program for the extermination of the Jews and of other categories of possible victims. The object is to demonstrate that there is a sort of logical progression in it. That is hard to believe. To begin with, is a euthanasia program an atrocity or even a crime? I do not believe that one can say that. I notice that today people advocate euthanasia the way others advocate free abortion. The Germans' euthanasia program was back-dated to begin on the very same day (1 September 1939) on which broke out a terrible conflict that was going to cause horrible physical wounds. Therefore, perhaps it was an acute remembrance of the horrible spectacle of certain seriously wounded men from the First World War deprived of hospital beds that caused Hitler and his men to establish the possibility of putting an end to the intolerable or incurable sufferings not only of those who, just for a vegetable existence or worse, were taking up the valuable hospital space, but in some cases of the most severely, hopelessly wounded returning soldiers themselves. In any event, the matter was serious enough for Hitler personally to sign such an order. Certainly no secret about that could be maintained. The churches protested and the program was abandoned under their pressure and that of German public opinion. This is enough to let us say that when there was a decision of that kind to make, Hitler did not leave the responsibility to others, but took it himself. Moreover, he did so in writing -- he signed a document which then served as a point of reference for a mass of orders and measures to be taken as a result. I would add that when decisions were made, after a demanding medical and bureaucratic investigatory process, to put an incurable person out of his misery, the means of death was lethal injection. To convince oneself that there were never any homicidal gas chambers in German hospitals, it is sufficient to refer to the "testimonies" of those who claim that there were such gas chambers in such places. The narratives, uniformly idiotic, can be read, for example, in the recent work by Kogon, Langbein, Rueckerl, et. al., NS-Massentoetungen durch Giftgas: eine Dokumentation (Nazi Mass Killings by Poison Gas: A Documentation [Frankfurt a/M: S. Fischer Verlag, 1983], 350pp.). Besides, can we imagine the bed-ridden, people at death's door, some lacking arms or legs, gathering submissively at the entrance to a room where they would have then been left alone with one wash cloth each and a piece of soap ("Seife und Handtuecher," Kogon, et al., p. 48) -- this room that supposedly had been camouflaged as a shower (no doubt for the benefit of the blind)?
I do not know how the act of administering a euthanasiac injection to such persons could have "generated a certain amount of expertise in killing." I do not see how the existence of an order from Hitler regarding euthanasia would explain the absence of an order from the same Hitler regarding a gigantic undertaking of collective killings. I do not see how Hitler, recoiling before the consequences of his euthanasia order amongst the churches and in German public opinion, could have undertaken a program that would have been outrageously criminal and sure to alienate him from all the churches and all the people on earth, including his own. And, in the case of the Irving thesis (that the immense crime of the "Holocaust" was perpetrated without Hitler knowing about it), I can understand even less how Germans could have been found who would believe themselves to be so many times stronger and more authority-laden than their Führer as to allow them to carry out the following feat: serving their Führer without his knowledge or that of his police, without the knowledge of the public (beginning with those civilians in arms whom we call military men), without the knowledge of their hierarchical superiors as a whole; undertaking the most demented human effort that one could ever have imagined. Where Hitler had given up or feared to tread, these underlings would triumph on all levels? Does David Irving really expect anyone to believe this? Has Irving made an investigation that would allow him to state that "some of the personnel [from the euthanasia operation] were then automatically injected into the killing operations... on the Eastern Front in Germany"? What does "automatically injected" mean? Is there one piece of evidence, one service document, showing that "automatic injection"? What does "some" mean -- does it mean a significant number? What was the wording of the assignment-orders of those persons? To what exact area(s) did each of those persons go on that Eastern Front where nearly all the Germans of an age to serve the German armed forces or the German administration were already going? How would competence in handling a syringe provide competence in the handling of homicidal gas -- a job which, in the United States today, even requires experts who have at their disposal very sophisticated special installations, and must have very special and extensive training, this just in order to kill one single condemned man at a time? Would Irving refer back to Kriminaloberkommissar Christian Wirth and to the confused "confessions" of Kurt Gerstein? He is too wise, I think, to give any credence, even for a minute, to the content of such confessions.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p289_Faurisson.html
Tue, 09 May 2006 18:09:15 -0500
"Matt Nuenke"
There are a lot of syndromes that are also productive. Hitler had a war to wage, and made room for casualties by killing those that the Reich could no longer afford to keep alive.
Fri, 12 May 2006 17:04:44 -0500
"Matt Nuenke"
Psychopath is considered bad, but it can also lead to creativity. High IQ in Jews can be due to deleterious genes. There is no such thing as a perfect human. We all have deleterious genes--even Hitler. No, I doubt he would have cared one way or the other. Those killed to make room for the injured soldiers were incapable of living within society, they were institutionalized.
Private Message: Re: What did Adolf Hitler think of White Americans ?
04-15-2006, 12:06 PM
kludd
"Friend of Stormfront"
Sustaining Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,267
Re: What did Adolf Hitler think of White Americans ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteamericannationalist
Did he view, us as part of the, Aryan race ?
The American Bund was a liason with National Socialist Germany in the 1930's.
Private Message: Re: I have heard that the ku klux klan
04-16-2006, 10:55 AM
kludd
"Friend of Stormfront"
Sustaining Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,267
Re: I have heard that the ku klux klan
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteamericannationalist
had a alliance with, the german american bund is this true ? Also was the, german, american, bund started by Adolf, Hitler ?
It wasn't really that 'cut and dry'. I would use the word liason between the Bund and Germany as well as cooperation between the Klan and the Bund.
The Eugenics of Communism
Dr. Ri Kwang-chol defected from North Korea and told a forum for human rights today that North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born. He said babies with physical defects are killed by the time they are infants in either hospitals or their homes, and quickly buried.
Dr. Ri said this practice in North Korea is encouraged by the state as a way of "purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered different."
Sound like Hitler's eugenics program?
China's one-child policy is the means for population control. China currently has 1.3 billion people. The policy consists of 3 main points:
advocating delayed marriage and delayed child bearing
advocating fewer and healthier births
enforcing one child per couple
This one-child policy requires forced abortions... and many Chinese allow their baby girls to be murdered so they can have a son. Now they have too many boys and not enough girls. Now there aren't enough children to replace and care for their aging parents. Good planning, communists.
Communism teaches evolution; evolution teaches survival of the fittest; the fittest end up not reproducing and eating their young. What a sad experiment Communism has been.
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/3/22/the-eugenics-of-communism.html
North Korea has no people with physical disabilities
topic posted Wed, March 22, 2006 - 11:34 AM by Jon
North Korean defector says disabled newborns are killed
wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.
Ri Kwang-chol, who fled to the South last year, told a forum of rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread but denied he himself took part in it.
"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which groups local activists and North Korean refugees.
He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in infancy in hospitals or in homes and were quickly buried.
The practice is encouraged by the state, Ri said, as a way of purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered "different."
http://heateddebate.tribe.net/thread/87084214-08c7-4d29-a753-d405cbab7f99
North Korea: Physician Says Murder of Disabled Newborns is Widespread, Encouraged by Government
In the ancient world, execution of disabled newborns was not particularly uncommon. The Twelve Tables of Roman Law, which functioned as the constitution of Rome for over 1,000 years, mandated an order of the state that was probably seen as fairly mundane at the time, chilling though it is today: "Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto." ("A visibly deformed infant must be put to death.") But in present times, it is a far less common practice. The only postindustrial society to mandate the large-scale execution of disabled infants, to my knowledge, was that of Nazi Germany--which killed some 200,000 people on grounds of disability, and sterilized many more, as part of its T-4 "Euthanasia" Program.
Now comes news that the North Korean government may be encouraging the practice as part of a large-scale "purification" effort:
North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born, a physician who defected from the communist state said on Wednesday.
Ri Kwang-chol, who fled to the South last year, told a forum of rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread but denied he himself took part in it.
"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which groups local activists and North Korean refugees.
He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in infancy in hospitals or in homes and were quickly buried.
The practice is encouraged by the state, Ri said, as a way of purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered "different."
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/255118.htm
Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:16 a.m. EST
North Korea Kills Disabled Babies
North Korea has no people with birth defects because they are routinely slaughtered almost as soon as they are born, a defector said on Wednesday.
Ri Kwang-chol, a physician who fled to South Korea last year, told rights activists that the practice of killing newborns was widespread, but said he had no part in it.
"There are no people with physical defects in North Korea," Ri told members of the New Right Union, which aids North Korean refugees.
He said babies born with physical disabilities were killed in hospitals or in homes and quickly buried, Reuters reports.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/23/91944.shtml
Well, let's look at the topic throughout time. The concept is as old as sex, yet Eugenics is a field of biology and as such, being a real scientific field, it really only grew to importance and understanding in the late 1800s after Charles Darwin revolutionized science with the theory of evolution. Eugenics became a highly respected social goal for entire nations. Some European nations practiced legal sterilization programs up through the 1970s, which is only one part of Eugenics. China, on the other hand, just really started a national Eugenics program in 1992. That is good news for China and bad news for the White race.
http://www.natvan.com/adv/2005/12-31-05.html
Will Bush fund China's eugenics program?
Posted: February 28, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
The United States has been studying "birth defects and other reproductive and developmental outcomes" by cooperating with those charged with implementing China's controversial eugenics program – which has been linked to its brutal one-child policy. On Feb. 14, 2002, two congressional researchers stumbled on a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of $1,000,000 for Peking University Health Science Center through our Centers for Disease Control.
This award is part of a little known program that has been underway some 10 years. During that time, we have sent one or more of our scientists to the People's Republic of China to study "the promotion of optimal birth outcomes" at the National Center for Maternal and Infant Heath.
At this time, China is the only country in the world to officially promote eugenics: the improvement of a race by controlled selective breeding. After Hitler's attempt to create a "pure" line of Germans with the Nazi death camps and euthanasia centers, the practice was roundly condemned by all civilized societies.
However, China now has a Eugenics Society, which is dominated by high Communist Party officials. In 1995, two years after this CDC study was begun, the government imposed the Maternal and Child Health Law on its populace. Prospective brides and grooms must register for marriage and undergo rigorous physical examinations to determine their "fitness" for procreation. If a mental or physical disability is discovered, the couple may not be allowed to get married at all. Others are "encouraged" to be sterilized or to abort any pregnancy that may occur.
Bear in mind, in a totalitarian society the word "encourage" is open to interpretation. Pregnancies are closely monitored and if a defect of any kind is found the couple is "advised" to terminate. An application to terminate must be signed by the mother, but if the state says to sign, she will sign.
China is a brutal country with little or no regard for human life. Population Research Institute President Steven W. Mosher, who in 1979 was the first American social scientist to live in rural China, observed "first-hand" how the country was enforcing the one-child policy. It is a country where many female children simply have vanished and are presumed to have been abandoned or helped to die. Children born with abnormalities have suffered similar fates.
If you do not cooperate with the state, then the state can prevent you from "planning" another pregnancy. Mosher is one of the most outspoken critics of the government's eugenics program and says that breeding a better Chinese man and woman has been an integral part of the one-child policy from the beginning, comparing it to the genocidal program attempted by the Nazis. PRI says that ethnic minorities are a particular target. "Han geneticists claim that they find higher rates of 'cretins,' 'idiots,' and 'imbeciles' among minority populations like the Tibetans, and sterilize them in large numbers on eugenics grounds."
Western geneticists have been divided over how to handle the Chinese eugenics program. Many favor ostracism. Others maintain that scientific exchanges with China can encourage the country to abandon its coercive and racist practices.
The advantages of doing genetic research in China are undeniable. It's a perfectly controlled laboratory. The announcement in the Federal Register states: "China has a large, stable, and relatively homogeneous population, registration for marriage is required, and virtually all pregnancies are planned. Women who may be eligible to participate in clinical trials or other birth defects prevention programs can therefore be identified early, at the time of registration for marriage."
What the CDC doesn't say, however, speaks volumes: The women used in these studies are tools of the state. They are not free to voice their dissent and there is no such thing as a "voluntary" subject in a totalitarian society.
During the time of Hitler, it would have been easier for our scientists to conduct medical experiments at the concentration camps in Germany than it was here in this country, but it would have been wrong.
Likewise, it is wrong to fund any program in China that benefits directly or indirectly its brutal one-child policy. The Feb. 14 announcement states that this award "will begin on or about June 3, 2002, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to five years."
President Bush was right to put a hold on the $34 million slated for the United Nations Population Fund because of its involvement in China's coercive population control program. Now, he should be urged to end our cooperation with this research program.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26633
China's Eugenics Law on Maternal and Infant Health Care
Last year, China adopted a new law on maternal and infant health care. The law mandates that all persons have a premarital medical examination to detect serious genetic diseases, some infectious diseases, and "relevant" mental disorders. If a detected disorder is deemed serious, the couple is not permitted to marry without committing to contraception or tubal ligation. Prenatal testing is enforced, and pregnancy is terminated if the fetus has a serious genetic or somatic abnormality [1, 2].
A law "for prevention of progeny with hereditary defects" is not a Chinese invention. It was proclaimed in Germany in 1933 and enforced the sterilization of persons with "congenital mental defects, schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis, hereditary epilepsy ... and severe alcoholism" [3]. This law, endorsed by physicians, was a harbinger of one of the darkest episodes of modern history—the Holocaust [3].
In China, the ratio between male and female infants has increased to 1.1 because of prenatal sex selection (abortion of females) and (for lack of ultrasonography) the postnatal killing of females. Only one child per family is permitted, and male children are preferred for agricultural labor [4]. China's burgeoning population is unquestionably detrimental to its well-being, and a legitimate goal is fewer but healthier babies. Nonetheless, the compulsory exclusion of some parents and fetuses is unethical. No less disturbing is the impassive response by the world medical community. Although some have expressed contempt for China's eugenics law [1, 5], others justify a nonpartisan stance, claiming that "it is perilous to impose western morality on China" [2]. It is troubling that leading representatives of the medical community have not been at the forefront of protests against China's gross violation of medical ethics and human rights. The danger lies not in the imposition of Western morality on China but in silence, the equivalent of consent.
1. British scientists attack Chinese ‘eugenics law.’ The Times. 5 June 1995.
2. Western eyes on China's eugenics law [Editorial]. Lancet. 1995; 346:131.
3. Muller-Hill B. Murderous Science. Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies and Others, Germany 1933-1945. Translated by Fraser GR. Oxford: Oxford Univ Pr; 1988.
4. Qiu R. Medical ethics and Chinese culture. In: Pellegrino ED, Mazzarella P, Corsi P, eds. Transcultural Dimensions in Medical Ethics. Frederick, MD: University Pub Group; 1992:160.
5. Verrall M. Eugenics law puts Beijing meeting at risk [News]. Nature. 1994; 372:123.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/125/5/425-a
Quality babies. China's "eugenics" guidelines are as old as civilization.
[No authors listed]
PIP: Inaccurate translations inadvertently misrepresent policy directives from China. Professional moralizers respond to the new laws with indignation. For example, an editorial in a US newspaper said that Americans objected to China's eugenic guidelines to prevent inferior quality infants. Yet, in the US and other developed countries, parents, and adult siblings do no allow their mentally retarded family members to procreate. Quiet abortions occur. In the US, deformed newborns are classified as stillborns. In the 1950s in the US, state governments allowed sterilization of handicapped people and even alcoholics. The moralizers expect China to accomplish in 10 years what developed countries did in 100 years. China has a one-child policy to which many so-called human rights advocates object. Yet, China cannot sustain a population of 2 billion with the living standards to which it aspires. Granted, however, that China does create its own image problems. It needs to invest more in public relations, maybe employ image-building professionals from the US and Europe to circumvent the unintentional use of emotionally charged, historically loaded, or inappropriate terms and, therefore, to prevent the international media from overreacting. Nevertheless, moral dilemmas do exist with eugenics policies. Genetic markers can detect chromosomal abnormalities leading to mental retardation as well as later-life abnormalities; e.g., colon cancer. Markers may perhaps someday detect a propensity to criminal behavior, homosexuality, or alcoholism. Governments could forbid all genetic testing, resulting in families accepting whatever nature sends, but with the advancement of science, this is unrealistic. If it is banned in one country, people will go to a country where it is available. Since parents in both the US and China want healthy, good-looking and intelligent children US editorialists should not moralize about China while US couples have access to the most up-to-date genetic technology.
PMID: 12345828 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12345828&dopt=Abstract
People who condemn eugenics may be in minority now
In concluding his article on eugenics, Kevles should not have used the words "History at the least has taught us ..." because they imply that most people condemn eugenics now.1 Those who condemn eugenics may actually be a minority. In China, where the population exceeds 1.2 billion, geneticists overwhelmingly support eugenics.2 India, Russia, and other populous countries share China's views on genetic issues.2
The social values that guided early Western eugenicists and still underlie Chinese eugenics "give greater importance to the well-being of social groups than that of the individual."3 By contrast, current Western values, concerned as they are with individual rights rather than with the common good,3 represent the exact opposite of both Chinese values and the social ethics that evolution fostered for millions of years"social ethics that proved to be the best ethics for ensuring the survival of social groups.4
Paraphrasing Kevles's words, I suggest that evolution should teach us that current Western values focusing on the good of the individual, not on the good of society, are both near sighted and intrinsically unethical, because they create more pain than they prevent. Those values, to spare a few individuals bearable sorrow, cause untold suffering to many people. In China the grief of those who are not allowed to procreate on eugenic grounds is unquestionably far less tragic than the perpetuated pain of their potential, numerous descendants.
Although Chinese eugenics has patently nothing whatever to do with the murders committed by Nazis, many Westerners condemn it because Hitler supported eugenics. As Nobel prizewinner James D Watson pointed out, however, "We must not fall into the absurd trap of being against everything Hitler was for. It was in no way evil for Hitler to regard mental disease as a scourge on society.... Because of Hitler's use of the term Master Race, we should not feel the need to say that we never want to use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today."5
Should Western countries espouse eugenics, they will hardly be condemned for it by future generations enjoying long and healthy lives. Conversely, if Westerners continue to disapprove of eugenics they will probably be hated by generations to come for not having avoided transmitting to them some conditions that can lead affected people to regret the day they were born.
The Eugenics of Communism
Dr. Ri Kwang-chol defected from North Korea and told a forum for human rights today that North Korea has no people with physical disabilities because they are killed almost as soon as they are born. He said babies with physical defects are killed by the time they are infants in either hospitals or their homes, and quickly buried.
Dr. Ri said this practice in North Korea is encouraged by the state as a way of "purifying the masses and eliminating people who might be considered different."
Sound like Hitler's eugenics program?
China's one-child policy is the means for population control. China currently has 1.3 billion people. The policy consists of 3 main points:
advocating delayed marriage and delayed child bearing
advocating fewer and healthier births
enforcing one child per couple
This one-child policy requires forced abortions... and many Chinese allow their baby girls to be murdered so they can have a son. Now they have too many boys and not enough girls. Now there aren't enough children to replace and care for their aging parents. Good planning, communists.
Communism teaches evolution; evolution teaches survival of the fittest; the fittest end up not reproducing and eating their young. What a sad experiment Communism has been.
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/3/22/the-eugenics-of-communism.html
Communism teaches evolution; evolution teaches survival of the fittest; the fittest end up not reproducing and eating their young. What a sad experiment Communism has been.
posted by mike at 9:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home