Progressive Essays

Night of the long knives

2005-12-09T20:35:00.000+13:00

Ah, but you knew I'd have a post called that didn't you? Predictable. So a little rise was had in the comments section, which is worth a recap. First up, anonymous:

Cool...you are so clever! Take something completely out of context, edit it and then paste on your blog and if people agree with it...their Nazi's...fuck, you are clever.

Personally, I think they are all Stalinists, because Stalin said something similarly unkind about Amercia too. Come to think of it, so did Trotsky and Castro...Maybe, they are Nazi Trotskist Stalinist Castroities??? Maybe Tweek is just right and you are a dipshit.

Are you going to list David Farrar, Kiwi Pundit as Nazi's as well? Farrar has you listed as leftists on his blogs?

Thank you so much for acknowledging my cleverness. I would however ask how it is out of context, much of the material is not even edited and the rest only slightly to bring it forward half a century. After all, it would be ridiculous to repost a paean to Hitler so Arafat was a suitable modern stand in. Now if people agree that doesn't make them Nazis, no, but it illustrates that they are unable to separate Nazi propaganda, Spanish falangist writings and others from their own ideas. Good point you raise about Castro, Stalin and Trotsky, as that was precisely the point of the game. You can't tell leftists and rightists apart and the rhetoric is the same. All statist and collectivist idealists are blood-brothers, whether National Front or Alliance members. Tweak the language appropriately but not the ideas and you can get them to agree with each other.

As for Farrar, no I don't list him as a Nazi as he is not a leftist or a collectivist. He listed it under left as well, which goes to show that a wide range of viewpoints agree on the orientation of the writings here. I can't find any reference to this blog on Kiwi Pundit, who doesn't even have a "left" blog roll. Show me the reference and I'll give you my opinion.

Next up, Joe "Ernst Röhm" Hendren gets a bit perturbed. In his usual manner he takes up an enormous amount of space to say virtually nothing.

This is nothing more than a crude attempt to smear with very little substance.

Much like the rest of his comment, but it is commendable to begin as you mean to go on.

I can only assume this blog is the work of someone with a large ego, as you appear to assume every single person bothered to read every post with a fine tooth comb, yet the lack of comments would suggest otherwise.

Diving straight into the ad hominem for lack of a better response. Now Joe, we both know that some people came back quite often. In fact you yourself only blog rolled this blog very late in the piece after quite a lot of posts had been made, albeit sporadically. The lack of comments is not disturbing in itself, after all by this measure there must be no one reading your writings.

You have no statements from either Tweek, Bloggreen or myself to substantiate your claims. They are simply groundless.

Joe Joe Joe. Again, you blog rolled this blog very late in the piece, long after first noting it in fact. Maybe you'd care to explain why this blog was worthy of blog rolling on your very limited "left" list when there are so many more NZ left blogs that don't gain that honour? Do you really expect us to believe that you only added this blog out of the kindness of your heart, or that you are a "link every single NZ blog" like Farrar? No, no one buys that I'm sorry. As for Tweek's protestations, same deal I'm afraid. BlogGreen doesn't have a separated blog roll, but the noting and linking came after the post close to their ideals. You can't claim that any of you linked just because you were being kind to another lefty blog, because you were doing no such thing.

Well I don't have a large ego, so it is really beyond me why someone would bother going to this much effort to in an attempt to discredit me. Perhaps I am more of a threat to the right than I realised :)

Remarkably for one with such a retiring ego he spends a great amount of time talking about himself, me thinks the lady protests too much. You are no threat to "the right", as you have amply demonstrated that no distinction between left and right exists in your ideology. You can't tell them apart so at most you are a threat to your own siblings, as has always been the case historically.

My only reason for linking to you as that I saw you linked to me, and I like to encourage others to write, even if I disagree with them. I do not always agree with those I list on my blogroll, even those listed under "left", so it is simply ridicious to claim that merely listing you on my blogroll means I agree with the contents of this blog.

Now Joe, don't try the wiggle. Whether you agree with the writings or not is beside the point as you know. The POINT was you stuck it under "left" when by your own way of thinking it should have been under "right" if you had known the sources. You can't escape that now by retrospectively attempting to disagree with what was written. It was the categorisation that was significant.

I only listed you as 'left' based on the self description you provided in your initial post. All I am guilty of is failing to pay you enough attention.

Oh so now it is the ignorance defence. You wish to encourage others to write yet take no time to read them? Ah ha, I see. Strange methods you use there Joe. So, if I had called myself a raging libertarian and posted Communist literature, where would you have listed this blog?

"As I said in the post below, I didn't want to try and lure people into the game."

This appears to be another misrepresentation on your part. Why was my statcounter showing up a significant jump in the number of hits coming from this blog in the last two weeks? (from virtually none to many a day) Was someone trying to lure me into making a comment prior to the big 'reveal'. Well that failed didn't it.

Afraid not Joe. I stuck up a blogroll with the more notable left sites. That was the limit of my "luring". Any traffic you gained from here was click-throughs from other people, just like I got click-throughs from you. I have no idea why you got a jump in the last two weeks, I don't have the ability to fake a swarm of visitors as I'm just using a cheap computer at home in the suburbs. The "big reveal" wasn't planned for a date even.

In response to Comrade Tweek' factual observation that the Nazis' and yourself share a liking for deception, you attempt to dismiss this as 'the last resort of the desperate'. Yet in the very same paragraph you appear to claim anyone who is "anti-american" is somehow (laughably) guilty of Nazism. If you were making any attempt to be consistent in with your argumentation, then this claim would also be 'the last resort of the desperate' (how dare the left criticise the American 'motherland'!).

Ah Joe, don't play silly buggars, what I wrote was you seem to like the curiously modern anti-American thrust of Nazism which is nothing more than a factual observation, as you put it. Now, you may be able to construe an accusation of Nazism from that but even a casual glance shows that to be wrong. The Nazis widely employed anti-Americanism in their literature, that is a historical fact open to anyone who wishes to read, it is also a modern trait of leftist rhetoric, as you can see by merely visiting Tweek's site or many others. It is no more calling anti-American leftists Nazis than calling me a Nazi for using some weak deception.

A large number of established bloggers, including many on the right, have recently expressed a strong distaste for silly little blog stunts like yours.

The mind of the collectivist, don't piss off the big boys or we'll send the troopers round to shut you up.

If you come across some interesting material, why not spend your time composing a coherant and logical argument in support of your position? I can only assume you did not because you are uncapable of doing so.

Well, let's see. None of it was my position and it is hard to turn the warped writings of history into coherent posts, it is however quite easy to settle into the leftist mindset and republish them with a modern theme. As for logic, how about you employ some instead of the tired old debating tactics you've been using up until now in attempting to justify your position?

Given that the point of this whole exercise was deception, and included a fair number of statements 'why I voted Green' that are now clear to be simple lies, I expect most people will now question the crediability of this blog, as well as anything you may write in the future.

How do you know I didn't vote Green? Is it even relevant if I did or did not? It was a topical way of introducing a raft of ideas from early last century which seem to resonate today with a wide portion of the left. The deception involved is only that of the source and as I said to Tweek it is surely the content which is meaningful and not the author? Or do you wish to claim that you must judge first a writing based on who wrote it rather than what is said?

Of course this blog has no credibility, it is recycled totalitarian nonsense. The point was that you, among others, did not observe this. The dichotomy between left and right, with regard to socialism and collectivism, is false. They are one and the same, merely with different shades to their rhetoric.

Tweeked

2005-12-08T20:11:00.000+13:00

Reichsmarshall Tweek is up in arms!

He/her/it is quite gleeful in regards to their ability to ‘put one over on the left’ and how this shows that some of us have Nazi Sympathies;

No Tweek, it was not to put one over on anyone. It was to see if anyone would recognise the propaganda for what it was.

However, the joke could be on him/her/it as they appear to assume that firstly, people continuously read their blog and secondly, that no response to their postings signifies an acceptance of their points of view. Surely, it would have been better for their experiment if they had pulled either me, or Joe or BlogGreen or someone from the left into agreeing with them?

I know people don't continuously read blogs, but from the visitor tracking I know that some of you came back for a looksie quite often. Frankly, blogrolling someone explicitly under "left" or "congruency" is more than enough agreement. If you didn't agree it was leftist, why list it as left? Why note it at all? As I said in the post below, I didn't want to try and lure people into the game. The goal was merely to post lightly edited material, edited to make it topical but retaining the essence, but let people decide what they thought of it. You could at any time have ignored it, called it a load of Nazi trash or gone to the lengths of blog rolling it.

However, it is a good lesson for me to be more careful in my listings, as I had listed PE as left judged on reading two blog postings (why he/she/it was in the blog sphere and their follow up posting on Iraq).

Yes, reading the posts of those you roll might be a good idea. And the Iraqi post, so it was a virtual copy of a Nazist travel writer decrying America. Is it my fault that you agree with his writings of seventy years ago? You judged it to be reflective of the truth, you accepted it, to be honest I thought it was too much to begin with and the game would have been up right away. But apparently not.

However, it also really fucks me off because I dislike deception. I like people who are honest about what they believe and open in what they say. For example, while, I don’t agree or support those comments from Aaron Bhatnagar, Grant Tyrell or David Farrar, I respect their right to express their points of view as an important part of a democracy.

So it was slightly underhand, so what? You read and judge what is put before you. If you accept it and regard it as acceptable that is your decision. The fact that the true author is concealed makes no difference, in fact it removes the prejudice associated with knowing that the author was the Third Reich's propaganda minister (for example) or an anti-American Nazi writer and allows you to judge the content for what it is without the impediment of viewing it through the lens of history.

If the cap fits.

Somehow, I feel that PE might be closer to those that he borrowed the comments from than he/she/it thinks, as anyone who has researched the Weimar Republic knows that deception and double handedness were the Nazi’s favourite traits.

The last resort of the desperate. The Nazi's were deceptive, ergo anyone who uses deception is a Nazi. Sorry but that doesn't wash, you can accuse the author of being a closet Nazi, fine, you'll never know and it doesn't matter anyway. Although if I were a Nazi, do you really think I'd be going to great lengths to associate you with me? However, you have nicely shown your true colours, for which we are grateful. I can give you pointers to more good reading if you like, you seem to like the curiously modern anti-American thrust of Nazism so maybe we can start there?

Kiwi crypto-fascists abound

2005-12-07T21:49:00.000+13:00

The author has been fascinated by totalitarian ideologies and the fellow travellers of such movements. One curious aspect of these ideologies is the division into left and right, as if such a division makes one less innately evil than the other. In particular the desperate contortions "leftists" make in order to divorce themselves from their "rightist" siblings, that is National Socialists and Fascists. The author has always regarded this as nothing more than sophistry or ignorance, perhaps based on the idea that being a leftist is OK because it at least isn't as bad as being a rightist. Look round the internet, you can find the dilletantes of the left decrying their rightist counterparts while promoting essentially the same manifestos.

This blog was started as an experiment to examine this phenomenon. What would happen if someone began writing under a "progressive" byline, with progressive being the acceptable name of socialism in these post-communist days, but with the twist of using only Nazi and fascist raw material? Surely merely stating "I am a progressive" would not fool the intellectuals of the left into accepting what was written. Obviously a little editing would be required to transform 1930-type issues into post-millenium situations, but surely they'd recognise the Nazi "blood and soil" and environmental motifs, the rabid anticapitalist and anti-free market ideologies of Nazism and fascism and even a piece of Mein-bloody-Kampf? Or would these "leftist" pillars that actually so pervade "rightist" ideology obscure the references too much for them to identify the likely authors?

Now I didn't want to skew the results of the experiment by asking to be blog-rolled or sifting around other blogs trying to garner attention. All that was done was to begin writing and put up a blog roll containing the more notable leftist New Zealand blogs. Some little communication was had, but only after the fact of being blog-rolled or mentioned elsewhere. No trolling was done.

The results? Every single mention and linking identified these writings as leftist. Some bloggers don't rank by political leaning or make much mention of smaller blogs, so the bigger blogs aren't included here. But notably those that did link according to an affiliation were mostly the more extreme left and/or green of the smaller bloggers. Here are the results:

Joe Hendren

With Progressive Essays, C Simmons shares his thoughts on 'socialist and progressive politics'.

Later blog rolled under left blogs.

BlogGreen

Check out Progressive Essays. Not entirely sure who this is but look forward to reading his/her/it's writing.

Seemed to approve of the Nazist environmentalism.

Cut Fold Glue
Blog rolled under congruency(!)

Comrade Tweek
Blog rolled under left blogs.

Kiwi blog
Not a leftist himself, but was blog rolled under left blogs.

So Joe Hendren, a "noted" fascist historian, didn't recognise the fascist literature, BlogGreen liked the greenie aspects of Nazi ideology and CutFoldGlue finds the whole thing to be very in tune. They may feel free now to reassign Progressive Essays into a different slot on their blog rolls.

There may be others out there who linked but I haven't found them. The few examples here after a couple of months of light posting are sufficient to prove the point I think. I could carry on, but it is time consuming and repugnant trawling through tracts written by the leftist mongrels of history.

I will put up the original sources used shortly once I've arranged them properly. Here I will say that Totalitarian Philosophy Links, the Nazi and East German Propaganda Archive and Adolf Hitler speeches are mighty useful.

Meet and Greet

2005-12-07T21:29:00.000+13:00

The writers here at Progressive Essays are now pleased to step out from behind the pseudonym of Mr Simons.

Adolf Hitler
Leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP)
Chancellor, Führer and Reichskanzler, Germany

Hermann Goering
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe
President of the Reichstag
Prime Minister of Prussia

Joseph Goebbels
Propaganda Minister, Nazi Germany
Chancellor, Nazi Germany

Martin Bormann
NSDAP Party Secretary

Oswald Mosley
Leader of the British Union of Fascists

Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera
Co-founder Spain's Falange.

Fritz Bennecke
Writer of Hitler Jugend material

Ernst Heimer
2nd-in-command to Julius Streicher, editor of Der Sturmer

Robert Ley
Anti-American propagandist, head of the German Labor Front

Erich ?
Reichswalter des NSLB
(Nazi organisation of teachers)

A. E. Johann
Anti-American German travel writer

Kiwi fascists & national socialists

2005-12-07T21:28:00.000+13:00

(Source) Starbucked Chomsky

2005-11-24T01:05:00.000+13:00

http://www.feastofhateandfear.com/archives/falangist.html

Bread and Justice
(Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, co-founder Spain's Falange)

Well then: if communism puts an end to many good things, such as family attachments and national sentiment; if it provides neither bread nor freedom and makes us subservient to a foreign country, what is to be done? We are not going to resign ourselves to the continuation to the capitalist regime. One thing today is painfully obvious: the crisis of the capitalist system and its devastating consequences which communism is doing nothing to attenuate. What is to be done, then? Are we in a cul-de-sac? Is there no way of placating the hunger of the masses for bread and justice? Do we have to choose between the desperation of the bourgeois regime and the slavery of Russia?

No. The National Syndicalist Movement is convinced that it has found the right way out: neither capitalist nor communist. Faced by the individualist economy of the bourgeoisie, the socialist one arose, which handed over the fruits of production to the State, enslaving the individual. Neither of them have resolved the tragedy of the producer. To address this issue let us erect the synicalist economy, which neither absorbs the individual personality into the State, nor turns the worker into a dehumanized cog in the machinery of bourgeois production. The national syndicalist solution is the one which promises to bear the most fruit. It will do away once and for all with political go-betweens and parasites. It will free production from the financial burdens with which finance capital overwhelms it. It will overcome the anarchy it causes by putting order into it. It will prevent speculation with commodities, guaranteeing a profitable price. And, above all, it will pass on the surplus value not to the capitalist, not to the State, but to the producer as a member of his trade union. And this economic system will make a thing of the past the depressing spectacle of unemployment, slum housing, and misery.[…]

Workers! Comrades! Decisive moments are approaching. No one can stand back with his arms folded. The fate of everyone is in the balance. Either the workers, forcefully, implacably, will put an end to the capital and join the National Syndicalist Movement to impose a regime of national solidarity, or internationalism will turn us into stooges of some foreign great power.

The National Syndicalist Movement, conscious that it has strength and reason on its side, will keep up the assault on all its enemies: the right, the left, communism, capitalism. For Fatherland, Bread, and Justice. We are sure to win. It is essential in interest of both the producers and the nation. We will impose a new order of things, without people starving, without professional politicians, without bosses, without usurers, without speculators.

Neither right, nor left! Neither communism nor capitalism! A national regime. The National Syndicalist regime!

Long live Spain!

This article was an appeal to Spanish workers, and appeared in the publication Arriba, number 20, November 1935.

Starbucked Chomsky

2005-11-23T22:03:00.000+13:00

The first ever strike by Starbucks workers and the recent rightie non-flap over the Guardian's retraction of the Chomsky hit-piece put me in mind of some old Chomsky writing that the Starbucks workers should take heart in...

If communism puts an end to many good things, if it provides neither bread nor freedom and makes us subservient to a foreign country, what is to be done? We are not going to resign ourselves to the continuation to the capitalist regime. One thing today is painfully obvious: the crisis of the capitalist system and its devastating consequences which communism is doing nothing to attenuate. What is to be done, then? Are we in a cul-de-sac? Is there no way of placating the hunger of the masses for justice and food? Do we have to choose between the desperation of the bourgeois regime and the slavery of Russia?

No. The right way out is neither capitalist nor communist. Faced by the individualist economy of the bourgeoisie, the socialist one arose, which handed over the fruits of production to the state, enslaving the individual. Neither of them have resolved the tragedy of the producer. To address this issue we should erect the syndicalist economy, which neither absorbs the individual personality into the state, nor turns the worker into a dehumanized cog in the machinery of bourgeois production. The syndicalist solution is the one which promises to bear the most fruit. It will do away once and for all with political go-betweens and parasites. It will free production from the financial burdens with which finance capital overwhelms it. It will overcome the anarchy it causes by putting order into it. It will prevent speculation with commodities, guaranteeing a profitable price. And, above all, it will pass on the surplus value not to the capitalist, not to the state, but to the producer as a member of the trade union. And this economic system will make a thing of the past the depressing spectacle of unemployment, slum housing, and misery.

Power to the workers, make mine a double espresso.

Of workers and drones

2005-11-22T23:40:00.000+13:00

A bit like the ant and the grasshopper but with a stronger message

Evening is coming. The sun slowly sinks in the west. The farmyard grows quiet. Only the bees are still at work. They fly from flower to flower and gather sweet honey and golden pollen.

Mary, a little worker bee, returns. She quickly flies into the hive. She fills the honeycombs with all the honey that she has gathered with her hard work.

Her comrade Jane is next to her. She is usually a happy little creature and laughs the whole day. But now she is in a bad mood. Angrily, her big eyes look to the honeycombs in the upper corner. Many bees who are much bigger and fatter than Mary and Jane have gathered there. And these bees do not work. They can do only one thing: eat, eat, and eat!

Tears fill Jane's eyes.

"I have been slaving away from morning to night every day for eight weeks. I've filled two honeycombs all by myself so that we will be able to eat this winter. Now these fat lads come along and eat it all up!"

Little Mary has been listening intently to her friend.

"You mean those drones up there? They are harmless animals. And they look silly! They are so fat and helpless. I have to laugh when I see the drones. They are really funny!"

Jane grows angry.

"Funny? Funny? Nonsense! Maybe you don't know the danger the drones are for our whole bee people?"

Mary shakes her head.

"No! But tell me, please!"

Jane rubs her head with her legs a few times. Then she speaks:

"OK, listen carefully! We bees are an industrious people. We work our whole lives long. The sun is hardly up and we are awake and searching for honey and pollen. We stop only when it is evening. We have to work hard so that we will be prepared for winter, when there are no flowers or blossoms. We have to work hard so that our children will have something to eat. We have to work hard to preserve our people. Do you understand?"

Little Mary nods.

"Of course! But what does that have to do with the drones?"

"Pay attention," Jane says, "and I will tell you. The drones are bees too, like us. But they do not help our people, they only harm it. They do not work. They laze away the whole day. The only thing they do is eat! Yes, eat! They eat everything that we have collected for our ourselves, our people and our children. They make us poor, and they are absolutely insolent. Just yesterday a drone punched me so that I fell and nearly broke a leg. That is how the drones are! They do not work. They live in luxury. They do nothing themselves, but live from the work of others. They plunder us. They do not care if we starve over the winter, or if our children die. The only thing they care about is that things go well for them. The main thing is that they can stuff their fat bellies. Mary, listen to me: The drones are our misfortune!"

Little Mary is thoughtful. For a long time she says nothing. Then she nods thoughtfully and says:

"Now I understand! You are right! the drones are our misfortune! But tell me, do the other bees know this?"

"No! they do not know. Most of them still believe that drones are harmless. They do not believe that drones hurt anyone. That is why we must educate our people. Each individual bee must learn that the drones are a threat to us. Then we have to ruthlessly destroy the drones. If we do not destroy them, they will destroy us and our children!"

Mary is enthused.

"Yes! We must educate the whole bee people. We must call all our comrades to battle our people's enemy. I promise you that I will help. I will warn all the bees I know about the drones. I will tell them the truth. While working during the day and while resting at night, I will always say:

Bees! Rise up against the drones before it is too late! Save us from the plague of drones to save our bee people!"

Fourteen days have gone by. Mary and Jane have educated the bees. At first the bees did not believe them. And when the drones learned that the truth about them was out, they roused the other bees against Mary and Jane. But the two were not intimidated. Wherever they went, they spoke about the danger of the drones. Soon ten other bees believed them and hated the drones. Then it was a hundred — then five hundred! — then a thousand and even more.

One night the bee people, threatened by the drones, roused itself. The whole hive was in an uproar. Bees were running about crying out:

"Wake up! The battle against the drones is beginning! Down with the deadly enemy of our people!"

The drones, who had until now been so impudent, gathered together and tried to look innocent. They acted as if they were the best animals on God's earth. They begged for pity. But they thought to themselves:

"Just wait until things quiet down again! Then we will devour you!"

But the bees could no longer be fooled. At Jane's command and under the leadership of Mary, they attacked the drones. The battle was terrible. The drones were defeated. They were killed or driven out. Not one of them remained in the beehive.

The next morning, the sun was particularly bright. The thankful song of happy, liberated bees filled the hive. Many hundreds of voices joined their voices in singing to heaven:

"May you ever protect our people
From our destroyers, from robbers, drones!"

(Source) Of workers and drones

2005-11-22T23:30:00.000+13:00

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/pudel.htm

Background: Here are five chapters from the last of three anti-Semitic children's books published by Julius Streicher's Stürmer Publishing House. The author was Ernst Hiemer, Streicher's second-in-command. Each chapter compares Jews to unpleasant forms of animal life: drones, hyenas, chameleons, coo-coos, locusts, bedbugs, starlings, mongrel dogs, poisonous snakes, tapeworms, and bacteria. The title comes from one of the stories, which focuses on a mongrel dog. Three of the stories end with calls to kill the Jews. And remember, this book was intended for small children. The book was viewed as crude even by some Nazis. For example, Der Hoheitsträger, a monthly for party leaders, gave it a brief negative review.

For more information, see my book on Julius Streicher.

The source: Ernst Hiemer, Der Pudelmopsdackelpinscher (Nuremberg: Der Stürmer-Buchverlag, 1940).

The Poodle-Pug-Dachshund-Pinscher

by Ernst Hiemer

The Drones

Evening is coming. The sun slowly sinks in the west. The farmyard grows quiet. Only the bees are still at work. They fly from flower to flower and gather sweet honey and golden pollen.

Api, a little worker bee, returns. She quickly flies into the hive. She fills the honeycombs with all the honey that she has gathered with her hard work.

Her comrade Melli is next to her. She is usually a happy little creature and laughs the whole day. But now she is in a bad mood. Angrily, her big eyes look to the honeycombs in the upper corner. Many bees who are much bigger and fatter than Api and Melli have gathered there. And these bees do not work. They can do only one thing: eat, eat, and eat!

Tears fill Melli's eyes.

"I have been slaving away from morning to night every day for eight weeks. I've filled two honeycombs all by myself so that we will be able to eat this winter. Now these fat lads come along and eat it all up!"

Little Api has been listening intently to her friend.

"You mean those drones up there? They are harmless animals. And they look silly! They are so fat and helpless. I have to laugh when I see the drones. They are really funny!"

Melli grows angry.

"Funny? Funny? Nonsense! Maybe you don't know the danger the drones are for our whole bee people?"

Api shakes her head.

"No! But tell me, please!"

Melli rubs her head with her legs a few times. Then she speaks:

"OK, listen carefully! We bees are an industrious people. We work our whole lives long. The sun is hardly up and we are awake and searching for honey and pollen. We stop only when it is evening. We have to work hard so that we will be prepared for winter, when there are no flowers or blossoms. We have to work hard so that our children will have something to eat. We have to work hard to preserve our people. Do you understand?"

Little Api nods.

"Of course! But what does that have to do with the drones?"

"Pay attention," Melli says, "and I will tell you. The drones are bees too, like us. But they do not help our people, they only harm it. They do not work. They laze away the whole day. The only thing they do is eat! Yes, eat! They eat everything that we have collected for our ourselves, our people and our children. They make us poor, and they are absolutely insolent. Just yesterday a drone punched me so that I fell and nearly broke a leg. That is how the drones are! They do not work. They live in luxury. They do nothing themselves, but live from the work of others. They plunder us. They do not care if we starve over the winter, or if our children die. The only thing they care about is that things go well for them. The main thing is that they can stuff their fat bellies. Api, listen to me: The drones are our misfortune!"

Little Api is thoughtful. For a long time she says nothing. Then she nods thoughtfully and says:

"Now I understand! You are right! the drones are our misfortune! But tell me, do the other bees know this?"

"No! they do not know. Most of them still believe that drones are harmless. They do not believe that drones hurt anyone. That is why we must educate our people. Each individual bee must learn that the drones are a threat to us. Then we have to ruthlessly destroy the drones. If we do not destroy them, they will destroy us and our children!"

Api is enthused.

"Yes! We must educate the whole bee people. We must call all our comrades to battle our people's enemy. I promise you that I will help. I will warn all the bees I know about the drones. I will tell them the truth. While working during the day and while resting at night, I will always say:

Bees! Rise up against the drones before it is too late! Save us from the plague of drones to save our bee people!"

*

Fourteen days have gone by. Api and Melli have educated the bees. At first the bees did not believe them. And when the drones learned that the truth about them was out, they roused the other bees against Api and Melli. But the two were not intimidated. Wherever they went, they spoke about the danger of the drones. Soon ten other bees believed them and hated the drones. Then it was a hundred — then five hundred! — then a thousand and even more.

One night the bee people, threatened by the drones, roused itself. The whole hive was in an uproar. Bees were running about crying out:

"Wake up! The battle against the drones is beginning! Down with the deadly enemy of our people!"

The drones, who had until now been so impudent, gathered together and tried to look innocent. They acted as if they were the best animals on God's earth. They begged for pity. But they thought to themselves:

"Just wait until things quiet down again! Then we will devour you!"

But the bees could no longer be fooled. At Melli's command and under the leadership of Api, they attacked the drones. The battle was terrible. The drones were defeated. They were killed or driven out. Not one of them remained in the beehive.

The next morning, the sun was particularly bright. The thankful song of happy, liberated bees filled the hive. Many hundreds of voices joined their voices in singing to heaven:

"May you ever protect our people
From our destroyers, from robbers, drones!"

*

There are drones not only among the bees, but also among people. They are the Jews!

Every nation has millions of workers, farmers, officials and so on. They work hard, like the bees. The worker goes to the factory every day. The work is hard. But he does it gladly. He knows that his labor is necessary if his people are to live. The farmer works his whole life to grow what the nation needs — their daily bread! They are all "worker bees!" They work for the whole people. The farmer could not live without the worker, or the worker without the farmer. Without shoemakers, neither workers nor farmers would have shoes. If there were no teachers and inventors, who would discover things and build machines? Everyone depends on everyone else, regardless of whether they work with their minds or their hands.

But there are also "drones" who live among the peoples of the earth. Who are these drones? They are the Jews!

The Jews have a secret law book. It is the Talmud. In it is written:

"Work is very bad and not to be tolerated."

What does the Jew mean by that? He means that he hates work because it is hard and difficult.

Elsewhere in the Talmud it says:

"Non-Jews were created to serve the Jews. They must plow, sow, dig, reap, bind, weed and grind. The Jews are created to find everything ready."

What does this mean? It means that the Jews think only non-Jews must work. The Jew things that the non-Jews must work for him. He himself does not have to do anything.

The Jews do not want to work. They only want to live from the labor of others. They are just like the drones in the beehive. They are lazy. They do nothing. They create nothing. They rob the community. They exploit the people.

These Jewish drones appear in various forms. For example, there is the Jewish tramp. A tramp is a person who never works. But he understands how to exploit those who do work, and knows how to live an easy life through the work of others.

Then there is the Jewish fence. He buys goods that thieves have stolen. He earns a lot of money. But he creates nothing. He only swindles other people. He is harmful to the nation.

Then there is the Jewish farm swindler.He has no land, he does not sow, he does not tend a field. But through sneaky swindles he takes over many farms and throws whole families into misery.

And there is the Jewish merchant. He buys shoddy goods and sells them at enormous profit. The worker who has labored the whole week gives his money to the Jew in exchange for trash.

That is the Jew!

He is the drone of humanity. He is the exploiter of the labor of others. He is an enormous danger for all the nations. If one overlooks this danger, whole peoples can be destroyed. History is rich in examples that prove to us that the Jew has ruined millions of people.

But many do not know that the Jew is the drone among people. They see the Jew as an innocent and entirely harmless fellow citizen. They do not know that the Jewish danger for our people and for the whole world is the same as the danger of the drones to the bees. They do not know that the Jewish Question is the most important question in the world.

The bees recognized the danger of the drones. Therefore they fought the bloodsuckers. Ruthlessly they cleansed their people of drones. Only then was there peace and order.

How is it with people? Until they have cleaned out the Jewish brood of drones, there will be no peace and no prosperity among the peoples.

The basis of inequality, part 1

2005-11-21T23:12:00.000+13:00

In the past, there was no general involvement of all citizens in forming political life. There was a deep chasm between the "rulers" and the "subjects." Even when under so-called democratic rule, the average citizen had no role in determining the fate of the people. Deep involvement and real participation by everybody was impossible, since in most cases only a small circle of the elite determined the direction the government should go. This was not only because the past lacked a unified and common worldview. The many so-called worldviews were sufficiently unclear and confused as to be unable to lead to a building of political will.

Former worldviews were not built on a recognition of reality and a knowledge of the facts. Rather, they were abstract theories unrelated to reality that had developed over the course of history. They had nothing to do with the real facts, and indeed often stood in sharp conflict with them. The conflict between theory and reality soon confused all matters of life so that even the "leaders" of such worldview groups could make no order out of the confusion. The average citizen could do no more than wait more or less patiently to see what resulted in the political realm. They were driven from the political stage into the audience. The exact opposite is the case today. All the questions of our political life are so clear, simple, and unified that each citizen can both understand them and work to solve them.

The progressive worldview is not the result of abstract and convoluted thinking. It is not a theory, but rather is clearly bound to reality. Progressive thinking comes from experience. It is a worldview based on the facts and on reality.

The foundation of a progressive worldview is the knowledge of human inequality. No one will likely disagree with this as long as we stick to physical appearance. It is obvious that races are very different. The careful observer can find differences in physical size and shape. The color of the eyes, hair, and skin also varies greatly. But there are also spiritual differences between people. That is particularly clear when various people speak about a particular subject. For one person, work is a "curse," "God's punishment," a burden that should be removed as rapidly as possible. For the other, it is a necessary part of existence that gives life its meaning. For one, bravery and loyalty are nothing but great stupidity. He would rather be "a coward for a few minutes" than to "be dead for the rest of one's life." For another, bravery and loyalty are the characteristics used to value and esteem people. He holds to his word, in good times or ill. He cannot live without honor, and would rather die than be a coward.

People differ therefore in more than their physical characteristics. Just as deep, and with no way of bridging the gap, is the differences in spirit and soul. Body, spirit, and soul together make up the whole person, since they form a unified whole. Their inner relationships must therefore be studied. Then we will clearly recognize the vast difference between people, although their physical characteristics might otherwise suggest that they were both members of the same group. We can then understand human inequality. We act according to this understanding.

(Source) The basis of inequality, part 1

2005-11-21T23:01:00.000+13:00

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hjhandbuch.htm

Background: This material comes from a booklet of material for Hitler Youth leaders. I translate the sections dealing specifically with race, though to the Nazi mind race and soil (Blut und Boden) were inextricably related. This material provided leaders with the background they needed to convey Nazi racial thinking to young boys.

The source: Fritz Bennecke, Vom deutschen Volk und seinem Lebensraum, Handbuch für die Schulung in der HJ (Munich: Franz Eher, 1937).

On the German People and Its Territory

Introduction: The Worldview of Facts

The worldview of National Socialism is today the common property of the whole German people. All unprejudiced citizens of good will have made National Socialist thinking so deeply their own that it provides the support for every question of life and provides direction for every action.

HJ manual coverThis shared National Socialist worldview makes it possible for German citizens to participate actively in the formation of our national life. Regardless of his position, each German can through thought and deed participate in political, cultural and economic renewal. This common worldview is the unbreakable bond that holds together the leadership and the followers of our people in their common labor.

In the past, there was no such general involvement of all citizens in forming our political life. There was a deep chasm between the "rulers" and the "subjects." Even when we were under so-called democratic rule, the average citizen had no role in determining the fate of our people. Deep involvement and real participation by all Germans was impossible, since in most cases only a small circle of the elite determined the direction the government should go. This was not only because the past lacked a unified and common worldview. The many so-called worldviews were sufficiently unclear and confused as to be unable to lead to a building of the political will.

Former worldviews were not built on a recognition of reality and a knowledge of the facts. Rather, they were abstract theories unrelated to reality that had developed over the course of history. They had nothing to do with the real facts, and indeed often stood in sharp conflict with them. The conflict between theory and reality soon so confused all matters of national life that even the "leaders" of such worldview groups could make no order out of the confusion. The average citizen could do no more than wait more or less patiently to see what resulted in the political realm. He was driven from the political stage into the audience. The exact opposite is the case today. All the questions of our political life are so clear, simple, and unified that each citizen can both understand them and work to solve them.

The National Socialist worldview is not the result of abstract and convoluted thinking. It is not a theory, but rather is clearly bound to reality. National Socialist thinking comes from experience. It is a worldview based on the facts and on reality.

The most important and influential facts in the life of nations are "blood and soil." He who understands their laws and effects in history can determine the future. The goal of this manual for the Hitler Youth is to build their political will according to the National Socialist worldview.

Chapter I: Human Inequality

The foundation of the National Socialist worldview is the knowledge of human inequality. No one will likely disagree with this as long as we stick to physical appearance. It is obvious that the "red skins," the "yellow people," the Negroes and the whites are very different. And all whites are not the same. The careful observer can find differences in physical size and shape. The color of the eyes, hair, and skin also varies greatly.

But there are also spiritual differences between people. That is particularly clear when various people speak about a particular subject. For one person, work is a "curse," "God's punishment," a burden that one should remove as rapidly as possible. For the other, it is a necessary part of existence that gives human life its meaning. For one, bravery and loyalty are nothing but great stupidity. He would rather be "a coward for a few minutes" than to "be dead for the rest of one's life." For another, bravery and loyalty are the characteristics used to value and esteem people. He holds to his word, in good times or ill. He cannot live without honor, and would rather die than be a coward.

People differ therefore in more than their physical characteristics. Just as deep, and with no way of bridging the gap, is the differences in spirit and soul. Body, spirit, and soul together make up the whole person, since they form a unified whole. Their inner relationships must therefore be studied. Then we will clearly recognize the vast difference between those of German blood and the Jews, although their physical characteristics might otherwise suggest that they were both members of the same human grouping. We then understand human inequality. We act according to this understanding.

The past era either entirely ignored human inequality, or else acted contrary to its better knowledge. During the colonization of Paraguay in the nineteen century, for example, the Jesuits permitted white settlers to marry native Indian women. Perhaps they thought that the native population would thus be raised to the level of the whites. But these mixed marriages produced unhappy bastards where neither white nor native. In most cases, they inherited the bad characteristics of both groups, lacking spiritual stability. In our time too, certain people occasionally lacked a feeling for racial honor or racial defilement. The numerous bastards resulting from relations with the black occupation forces in the Rhine region, or those that came from relations between Jews and Germans, are tragic examples. Even the highest government offices of the System era [the Nazi term for the Weimar Republic] intentionally ignored racial knowledge. For example, they prohibited the well-known racial scholar Ludwig Schemann from studying the nature of the races and withdrew support for his research.

Even today, National Socialism's racial thinking has implacable opponents. Freemasonry, Marxism and the Christian churches make common cause in this matter. World Freemasonry conceals its Jewish plans of world domination behind slogans of "humanity." The Jew and the Turk can achieve its degrees just as well as the Christian. Marxism has the same goals as Freemasonry. To conceal its true aims, it used the slogan of "Equality, Freedom and Brotherhood." Under Jewish leadership, Marxism wants to unite everything "that has a human face."

The Christian church, above all the Roman Catholic Church, rejects racial thinking by claiming that "All men are equal before God." All who are of the Christian faith, be they Jew, a Negro from the jungle, or white, are better and more valuable to it than a German who is not a Christian. Saving faith is the only bond.

Proof that the Roman Catholic Church is acting against its better knowledge in rejecting racial thinking is clear from the following facts. There was once a danger that Jesuit goals would be subverted or redirected by Jewish members.The result was a ban on Jews becoming Jesuits. Today, the danger is long past, and the church wants to forget about it.

Why do we find the nonsense about human equality in Freemasonry, Marxism, and the Christian church? All three are more or less striving for world power. They therefore have to be "international." They can never accept racial, ethnic or national ties between people without giving up their goals.

Despite these major opponents, however, racial thinking is constantly winning ground. Truth is gradually winning. We need only think of the growing front of countries which are resisting the destructive influence of Jewry. And we recall the immigration laws of many countries that ban Jews or other unwanted groups.

But we do not want to remain with superficial matters. We need still greater clarity in this matter. Only then can we understand the fourth point of the program of the National Socialist German Workers Party, which says:

"Only racial comrades may be citizens. A racial comrade must be of German blood, without regard to religion. No Jew can be a racial comrade."

Chapter II: The German Races

[This chapter discusses the various Germanic races.]

Chapter III: Racial Make-up: Inheritance and the Environment

[A discussion of genetics from the Nazi perspective.]

Chapter IV: Genetic and Racial Hygiene

From the study of genetics we have learned that the individual human being is inextricably bound to his ancestors through his birth and inheritance. He is bound in the same way to his descendents. The individual human being is but one link in the long chain of generations. If we wanted to use an image, we could say: The individual is a wave in the great river that flows from the most distant past to the most distant future. The further back we trace this stream of generations, the more they join into one large river, until we find ourselves at the common source. This picture reminds us that all the families and tribes of a people have a common origin. They have a common inheritance that they will pass on to the future.

But the great genetic river of a people can suffer many impurities and injuries along the way. These can occur in two ways. First, diseased genes can develop within the bloodstream of a people. If a people is to remain strong and healthy, these cannot be allowed to be passed on. The purpose of our current genetic policy is to prevent the passing on of such diseased genes and to promote healthy blood. A people's bloodstream, however, can also be injured by mixing it with alien blood from foreign races. Our racial policy is designed to prevent this from happening.

Our genetic policy therefore combats those injuries that develop in our people's genetic stream from within. We have already learned that countless genetic characteristics of physical, mental and spiritual nature are passed on from person to person. Besides natural, healthy genes, there are unfortunately many that are unhealthy. Although genetic diseases could only be thoroughly studied and understood after the laws of genetics were discovered, we already know of many genetic diseases. 400 of every 1,000 cases of mental illness have genetic origins. But there are also physical and spiritual inheritable diseases.

The worst inherited diseases are: feeblemindedness, schizophrenia (mental disorder), insanity (mental illness), inherited epilepsy, inherited St. Vitus' Dance, inherited blindness and deafness, and inherited physical impairments, including among others bone disorders, club foot, hare lip with cleft palate, and blood diseases.

Then there are inherited diseases that of a less serious nature, or which cause internal illnesses. Here are a few of the many that could be mentioned: extra fingers or short fingers, flat and knock feet, birthmarks and moles, short- and farsightedness, squinting, cataracts (blurring of the cornea), as well as a susceptibility to jaundice, obesity, cancer and tuberculosis.

Some of the diseases we have listed are prefaced with "inherited." That means that the disease can also result from nonhereditary causes. This is the case when they result from infection or accident. They depend on the environment, and thus we know that they are not hereditary.

On the other hand, there are inherited diseases whose external effects can be treated by the art of medicine, but do not lose their genetic nature. If, for example, someone with a bone disease or a hare lip with a cleft palate undergoes surgery, the problems will still reappear in their descendants.

Although normal diseases need not be a barrier to marriage, those with genetic diseases, even if they can be alleviated through surgery, should be strongly advised not to have children.

Here we should mention incest and marriage to close relatives. From the science of genetics we know that some characteristics are "hidden." They are subordinate to the dominant characteristic (recessive), The recessive gene is passed on to posterity, but it does not come to expression. Only when both parents have such a recessive gene does the trait show up in their offspring. Most genetic diseases are recessive. The people who have one such gene are themselves healthy, but they carry the disease nonetheless. Only when they marry a partner who also carries the gene does it come to expression in their offspring. Because of their common descent, the members of a family or a tribe have the same genes. Since a recessive gene can be common in such a group, it is likely that both partners share the recessive gene. That is why incest and marriage to close relatives are inadvisable.

Since diseases resulting from recessive genes cannot easily be determined in an individual case, there is only one solution: genealogical research.

Chromosomal damage can have the same effects as genetic diseases. It can result from the misuse of alcohol and nicotine, through poisons, radium and x-rays, and venereal diseases. The greater number of cases of idiocy and epilepsy, for example, are caused by alcohol or venereal diseases. The tendency to criminality also can be traced back to genetic diseases and chromosomal damage.

Serious genetic disease, particularly mental illnesses, make their victims incapable of living a normal life. They rob their victims of their reasoning powers and sense of responsibility, reducing their value to the people's community. The unfit proliferate wildly and spread their genetic diseases. This is clear from the average number of children per family in the German Reich:

* Healthy families have 2.2 children
* Families with inherited mental deficiencies have 3.5 children
* Families with criminal tendencies have 4.9 children.

Thus the number of unfit inhabitants rose from 10 per 1,000 in 1880 to 40 in 1930. The population as a whole rose by about 50%, but the number of the unfit rose by about 300%, six times greater than the average. It is no wonder that in Germany today we have:

* 1,000,000 feeble-minded
* 250,000 cases of genetic mental deficiency
* 90,000 epileptics
* 40,000 inherited cases of physical handicaps

Most of those with genetic diseases and deficiencies are entirely unable to survive on their own. They cannot care for themselves, but have to be cared for in institutions. This costs the state huge sums each year. The costs of caring for a genetically ill person are eight times as high as those for a normal person. A child who is an idiot costs as much as four or five healthy children. The cost of eight years of normal schooling is about 1000 marks. The schooling for a deaf child costs about 20,000 marks. In all, the German Reich spends around 1.2 billion marks each year for the care and treatment of citizens with genetic diseases.

These enormous sums cannot be used to benefit the healthy part of our people. How many sport fields, swimming pools, housing developments and kindergartens could be built with this money, had the danger to our people by the unfit been recognized in past decades. He who has visited an institution for the genetically ill cannot but feel a sense of guilt for these unhappy creatures, who despite the principles of genuine humanity, were brought to life. From a genuine sense of humanity toward the sick and from a strong sense of responsibility to the people, the National Socialist government has therefore passed laws that will hinder the further spread of serious genetic diseases

The most important laws to protect our genetic inheritance are:

The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Ill Offspring of 14 July 1933

The Law against Dangerous Habitual Criminals of 24 November 1933

The Law to Protect the Genetic Health of the German People (Healthy Marriage Law) of 26 October 1935.

The "Law for the Prevention of Genetically Ill Offspring" encourages the voluntary or compulsory sterilization of those persons who, as the result of serious genetic illness, "are likely according to medical science to have children who will suffer severe physical and mental genetic illnesses." The strong sense of responsibility of the lawgivers is shown by the limitation of this law to the worst genetic illnesses and by the establishment of security measures to prevent misuse of the law.

The "Law against Dangerous Criminals" provides for the castration of serious moral criminals. It is to be seen as a way of saving the criminal by freeing him of his sick drives. It will also surely prevent serious crimes in the future.

The "Healthy Marriage Law" outlaws marriage in cases where one of the partners has a dangerous infectious disease (venereal diseases, tuberculosis, etc.), or suffers from mental illness, or carries a genetic disease, which may also call for sterilization.

The genetic health laws of the Third Reich have been vigorously attacked from various sides. Some wanted to deny the state the right to interfere in people's personal freedoms. The answer is that the laws apply only to the very worst cases, and furthermore, the medical treatment is safe and causes no harm to those affected. More than that, a deep humanity underlies these efforts to relieve suffering and further damage. It is better and more humane to prevent great misery than to pity the unfortunates later and burden the people's community with their care. It is also the natural right of a community to protect itself against threats from individuals. Everywhere in nature, safety measures are aimed at the good of the whole. The existence of the individual plays no role whatever. Have people been given reason and understanding only to ignore such natural laws? Is it not in fact the task of the human spirit to recognize these natural laws and bring them to expression in humane ways? That is what we believe.

The previously mentioned genetic measures have the goal of preventing the further spread of existing genetic diseases and to gradually eliminate them. But that is not enough for a successful genetic policy. To eliminate genetic damage, healthy genes must be encouraged and promoted. The greatest efforts of the National Socialist state are in this direction. The vast expansion of the health care system, the generous promotion of physical exercise, the systematic housing program, show us how much effort is needed to promote healthy blood. The sociopolitical and economic measures of recent years are aimed at keeping productive people healthy and cheerful. The Winter Relief Charity, with its "Mother and Child" program, the Labor Front with its "Beauty in Labor" and "Strength through Joy" programs, work in the same direction. We could mention countless similar activities that promote a healthy population.

More important than these measures is the selection that occurs today, as in the past, through the National Socialist movement. The appeal to the racial values of our people drew the best Germans to fight for the movement, and is today as well central to our posterity. We do not value money and possessions, name and ancestry, but rather only accomplishment and the readiness to serve. These can be found in every part of the population. A true socialist selection brings the most capable and valuable individuals to the highest offices of the party and state.

The toughest selection process naturally occurred during the period of struggle [1918-1933], which required the daily expenditure of blood and wealth. The selection process today must occur in other ways. The numerous leadership training schools, especially the Ordensburgen [schools for training the future Nazi elite] and the Adolf Hitler Schools have assumed this task. Here students must prove their character, their sense of community, their determination and their abilities, just as during the struggle for power. Here too the fundamental principle of socialist selection prevails. As the announcement of the Adolf Hitler Schools noted: "Education is free" and "After successful graduation, any career in the party and state is open to graduates of the Adolf Hitler Schools." This selection process will forever guarantee the German people a qualified leadership. A new nobility, the nobility of achievement and of labor, will ensure the future of the people and the Reich.

Just as dangerous for the existence of a people as genetic damage is mixing with foreign blood. The German people has direct contact with only one foreign people: Jewry. Thus, for us racial hygiene means a defense against the corruption of our blood and spirit by the Jews. The differences between the German and the Jewish nature need hardly be discussed. The Jewish dominance in culture and intellectual life over the last decades has shown all Germans the destructive and corrupting nature of this people.

National Socialism's first defensive measures therefore were aimed at driving the Jews out of our people's cultural and economic life. Numerous laws have created the foundation for this. They cannot all be listed. Only the most important need to be mentioned. The "Law for the Reestablishment of a Professional Civil Service" of 7 April 1933 began with the Aryan Clause and removed Jews from the German government. The cleansing spread rapidly to all other areas of life, to economic and cultural organizations, the professions, film, theater and the press.

The "Law on the Withdrawal of Naturalization and the Cancellation of German Citizenship of 14 July 1933" also should be mentioned. It grants the Reich the power to revoke "undesired" grants of citizenship made to eastern Jews during the great migrations that occurred between 9 November 1918 and 30 January 1933.

The "Reich Law on Hereditary Farmsteads" of 29 September 1933 keeps the Jews away from German farms. It states: "Only those of German blood may be farmers." The "Military Law" of 21 May 1935 and the "Reich Labor Service Law" of 15 October 1935 exclude the Jews from active service for the nation.

The "Reich Citizenship Law" of 15 October 1935 makes clear the status of Jews. They are subjects of the German Reich, but not citizens. The Jews are defined by this law as an independent group strictly separated from the German people.

The number of Jews in the German Reich is generally said to be around 500,000. That is however only the number who are of the Mosaic faith. The Jew has always tried to conceal himself by changing his name or religion, so the Jewish population is in fact much higher. An official report estimates the number of full Jews who are not members of the Mosaic faith at 300,000, and further estimates that there are about 775,000 partial Jews (Mischlinge).The number of those not of German blood in the German Reich is therefore about 1,555,000. This number reveals the strong infiltration of Jewish blood into our people. The high number of partial Jews is tragic proof of the lack of racial instinct in the past. Pride in race and opposition to racial defilement were awakened again by National Socialism. Race mixing is also prohibited by law. The "Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor" of 15 October 1935 establishes severe penalties for relations between those of German blood and those of foreign races, and determines precisely what percentage of foreign blood causes someone of mixed blood to lose his membership in the German people.

The law understands those of foreign blood to be members of all non-German or related races, as does normal language usage. This has resulted in frequent misunderstandings of the National Socialist racial worldview. Some see racial arrogance and intolerance. That is absolutely false. We reject racial mixing first because the resulting Mischling will be the victim of natural contempt. He is "racially divided his whole life. Homeless, he stands between two peoples, but he does not know to which he belongs." He is an unhappy, restless creature. We also believe that the races received their various characteristics to develop, not to mix. We thus do not see value distinctions in racial differences, but rather differences in kind. We therefore want to preserve the German people in its true nature and preserve it from racial mixing.

The goal of racial hygiene is to secure recognition for the racial nature of our people in all areas of life. Our art and culture can only be the true possession of the nation when they are an expression of our racial nature. And the economic capacity of the German people is strongest when our economic structure corresponds to our racial nature.

Here, too, the National Socialist movement won a quick victory because its inner and outer nature corresponds to the heroic approach to life and the racial nature of the German people.

Chapter V: Population Policy

Chapter VI: People and the Earth

Chapter VII: German Territory

Chapter VIII: German Soil

Chapter IX: The German Cultural Sphere

Chapter X: The State Territory of the German People

Chapter XI: Territory and Population

Chapter XII: The Soil as the Source of a People's Food

Chapter XIII: The Soil and Industry

[Page copyright © 2003 by Randall Bytwerk. No unauthorized reproduction. My email address is available on the FAQ page.]

Go to the 1933-1945 Page.

Go to the German Propaganda Home Page.

Arafat, one year on

2005-11-17T22:27:00.000+13:00

A friend in Europe sent me this testament to Arafat, who meant more to many people than can be imagined from NZ. While it is a bit on the adoring side, I think it makes a few good points, specially the highlighted lines.

The mysterious magic that he exerted on all who come in contact with him cannot alone explain his historic personality. There is more that makes us love and esteem him. Through all the ups and downs of his career, from the beginning of his political activity to the crowning of his career as he gained power, he has always remained the same: a person among people, a friend to his comrades, an eager supporter of every ability and talent. He is a pathfinder for those who devoted themselves to his idea, a man who conquered the hearts of his comrades in the midst of battle and never released them.

It seems to me that one thing has to be said in the midst of the profusion of feelings. Only a few knew him well. Most of the millions who looked to him with faithful trust did so from a distance. He has become to them a symbol of their faith in the future. Normally the great men that we admire from a distance lose their magic when one knows them well. With him the opposite is true. The longer one knew him, the more one admires him, and the more one is ready to give oneself fully to his cause.

We will let others blow the trumpets. His friends and comrades gathered round him to thank him for everything that he was to us, and that he has given to us. Let me say it once more: We loved this man, and we know that he has earned all of our love and support. Never has a man been more unjustly accused by the hate and slander of his ill-wishers of other parties. Remember what they said about him, a mishmash of contradictory accusations. They did not miss any opportunity for accusing him of every sin, or denying him any virtue. When he in anycase overcame in the flood of lies, triumphing over his enemies and raising his flag over his land, fate showed its favor for him to the entire world. It raised him from the mass of people and put him in the place he deserved because of his brilliant gifts and his humanity.

My friend has also sent me some other related stuff I might put up some time, if they agree.

(Source) Arafat, one year on

2005-11-17T06:26:00.000+13:00

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/unser33.htm

Background: Goebbels gave a speech every year on Hitler's birthday. This was the first. Hitler had only been in power for two and a half months. Goebbels praises Hitler, but there is less of the deification found in later speeches in the series.

The source: I here use the published version of the text from Goebbels' book Signale der neuen Zeit. 25 ausgewählte Reden von Dr. Joseph Goebbels (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1934), pp. 141-149.

Our Hitler
Goebbels' 1933 Speech on Hitler's Birthday

The newspapers today are filled with congratulations for Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler. The nuances vary, depending on the tone, character, and attitude of the newspaper. All, however, agree on one thing: Hitler is a man of stature who has already accomplished historically important deeds and faces still greater challenges. He is the kind of statesman found only rarely in Germany. During his lifetime, he has the good fortune not only to be appreciated and loved by the overwhelming majority of the German people, but even more importantly to be understood by them. He is the only German politician of the post-war period who understood the situation and drew the necessary hard and firm conclusions. All the newspapers agree on this. It no longer needs to be said that he has taken up Bismarck's work and intends to complete it. There is enough proof of this even for those who do not believe, or who think ill of him. I therefore do not think it necessary for me to discuss the historical significance and still unknown impact of this man on the eve of the day on which, far from the bustle of the Reich capital, Adolf Hitler completes his 44th year. I feel a much deeper need to personally express my esteem for him, and in doing so I believe that I am speaking for many hundreds of thousands of National Socialists thoughout the country. We shall leave it to those who were our enemies only a few months ago and who then slandered then to praise him today with awkward words and embarrassing pathos. We know how little Adolf Hitler appreciates such attempts, and how much more the devoted loyalty and lasting support of his friends and fellow fighters corresponds to his nature.

The mysterious magic that he exerts on all who come in contact with him cannot alone explain his historic personality. There is more that makes us love and esteem him. Through all the ups and downs of Adolf Hitler's career, from the beginning of his political activity to the crowning of his career as he seized power, he has always remained the same: a person among people, a friend to his comrades, an eager supporter of every ability and talent. He is a pathfinder for those who devoted themselves to his idea, a man who conquered the hearts of his comrades in the midst of battle and never released them.

It seems to me that one thing has to be said in the midst of the profusion of feelings. Only a few know Hitler well. Most of the millions who look to him with faithful trust do so from a distance. He has become to them a symbol of their faith in the future. Normally the great men that we admire from a distance lose their magic when one knows them well. With Hitler the opposite is true. The longer one knows him, the more one admires him, and the more one is ready to give oneself fully to his cause.

We will let others blow the trumpets. His friends and comrades gather round him to shake his hand and thank him for everything that he is to us, and that he has given to us. Let me say it once more: We love this man, and we know that he has earned all of our love and support. Never was a man more unjustly accused by the hate and slanders of his ill-wishers of other parties. Remember what they said about him! A mishmash of contradictory accusations! They did not miss accusing him of every sin, or denying him every virtue. When he nonetheless overcame in the end the flood of lies, triumphing over his enemies and raising the National Socialist flag over Germany, fate showed its favor toward him to the entire world. It raised him from the mass of people and put him in the place he deserved because of his brilliant gifts and his pure and flawless humanity.

I remember the years when — just released from prison — he began to rebuild his party. We passed a few wonderful vacation days with him on his beloved Obersalzburg high above Berchtesgaden. Below us was the quiet cemetery where his unforgettable friend Dietrich Eckart is buried. We walked through the mountains, discussed plans for the future, and talked about theories that today have long since become reality. He then sent me to Berlin. He gave me a difficult and challenging task, and I still thank him today that he gave me the job.

A few months later we sat in a room in a small Berlin hotel. The party had just been banned by the Marxist-Jewish police department. Heavy blows were falling on it. The party was full of discouragement, bickering and quarreling. Everyone was complaining about everyone else. The whole organization seemed to have given up.

Hitler, however, did not lose courage, but immediately began to organize a defense, and helped out where he was needed. Although he had his own personal and political difficulties, he found the time and strength to deal with the problems and support his friends in the Reich capital.

One of his fine and noble traits is that he never gives up on someone who has won his confidence. The more his political opponents attack such a person, the more loyal is Adolf Hitler's support. He is not the kind of person who is afraid of strong associates. The harder and tougher a man is, the more Hitler likes him. If things fall apart, his capable hands put them together again. Who would have thought it possible that a mass organization that includes literally everything could be build in this nation of individualists? Doing that is Hitler's great accomplishment. His principles are firm and unshakable, but he is generous and understanding toward human weaknesses. He is a pitiless enemy of his opponents, but a good and warm-hearted friend to his comrades. That is Hitler.

We saw him at the party's two large Nuremberg rallies, surrounded by the masses who saw in him Germany's hope. In the evenings, we sat with him in his hotel room. He was dressed in a simple brown shirt, the same as always, as if nothing had happened. Someone once said that the great is simple, and the simple is great. If that is true, it surely applies to Hitler. His who nature and his whole philosophy is a brilliant simplification of the spiritual need and fragmentation that engulfed the German people after the war. He found the lowest common denominator. That is why only his idea won: he modeled it, and through him the average man in the street saw its depth and significance.

One has to have seen him in defeat as well as victory to understand what sort of man he is. He never broke. He never lost courage or faith. Hundreds came to him seeking new hope, and no one left without receiving renewed strength.

On the day before 13 August 1932, we met in a small farm house outside Potsdam. We talked deep into the night, but not about our prospects for the next day, but rather about music, philosophy, and worldview issues. Then came the experiences one can only have with him. He spoke of the difficult years of his youth in Vienna and Munich, of his war experiences, of first years of the party. Few know how hard and bitterly he had to fight. Today he is surrounded by praise and thanks. Only fifteen years ago he was a lonely individual among millions. The only difference between him and they was his burning faith and his fanatic resolve to transform that faith into action.

Those who believed that Hitler was finished after the party's defeat in November 1932 failed to understand him. Only someone who did not know him at all could make such a mistake. Hitler is one of those persons who rises from his defeats. Friedrich Nietzsche's phrase fits him well: "That which does not destroy me only makes me stronger."

This man, suffering under financial and party problems for years, assailed by the flood of lies from his enemies, wounded in the depths of his heart by the disloyalty of false friends, still found the limitless faith to lift his party from desperation to new victories.

How many thousands of kilometers have I sat behind him in cars or airplanes on election campaigns. How often did I see the thankful look of a man on the street, or a mother lifting her child to show him, and how often have I seen joy and happiness when people recognized him.

He kept his pockets filled with packages of cigarettes, each with a one or two mark coin. Every working lad he met got one. He had a friendly word for every mother and a warm handshake for every child.

Not without reason does the German youth admire him. They know that this man is young at heart, and that their cause is in his good hands. Last Easter Monday we sat with him in his small house on the Obersalzberg. A group of young hikers from Braunau, where he was born, came by for a visit. How surprised these lads were when they got not only a friendly greeting, but all fifteen lads were invited in. They got a hurriedly prepared lunch, and had to tell him about his hometown of Braunau.

The people have a fine sense for the truly great. Nothing impresses the people as deeply as when a person truly belongs to his people. Of whom but Hitler could this be true: As he returned from Berchtesgaden to Munich, people waved in every village. The children shouted Heil and threw bouquets of flowers into the car. The S.A. had closed the road in Traunstein. There was no moving either forward or back. Confidently and matter-of-factly, the S.A. Führer walked up to the car and said: "My Führer, an old party member is dying in the hospital, and his last wish is to see his Führer."

Mountains of work were waiting in Munich. But Hitler ordered the car to turn around, and sat for half an hour in the hospital at the bedside of his dying party comrade.

The Marxist press claimed he was a tyrant who dominated his satraps. What is he really? He is the best friend of his comrades. He has an open heart for every sorrow and every need, he has human understanding. He knows each of his associates thoroughly, and nothing happens in their public or private lives of which he is not aware. If misfortune happens, he helps them to bear it, and rejoices more than anyone else at their successes.

Never have I seen his two sides in anyone else. We had dinner together on the night of the Reichstag fire. We talked and listened to music. Hitler was a person among people. Twenty minutes later he stood in the smoldering, smoking ruins of the Reichstag building and gave piercing orders that led to the destruction of communism. Later he sat in an editorial office and dictated an article.

For those who do not know Hitler, it seems a miracle that millions of people love and support him. For those who know him, it is only natural. The secret of his success is in the indescribable magic of his personality. Those who know him the best love and honor him the most. One who has sworn allegiance to him is devoted to him body and soul.

I thought it was necessary tonight to say that, and to have it said by someone who really knows him, and who could find the courage to break through the barriers of reserve and speak of Hitler the man.

Today he has left the bustle of the capital. He left the wreaths and hymns of praise in Berlin. He is somewhere in his beloved Bavaria, far from the noise of the streets, to find peace and quiet. Perhaps in a nearby room someone will turn on a loudspeaker. If that should happen, then let me say to him, and to all of Germany: My Führer! Millions and millions of the best Germans send you their best wishes and give you their hearts. And we, your closest associates and friends, are gathered in honor and love. We know how little you like praise. But we must still say this: You have lifted Germany from its deepest disgrace to honor and dignity. You should know that behind you, and if necessary before you, a strong and determined group of fighters stands that is ready at any time to give its all for you and your idea. We wish both for your sake and ours that fate will preserve you for many decades, and that you may always remain our best friend and comrade. This is the wish of your fellow fighters and friends for your birthday. We offer your our hands and ask that you always remain for us what you are today:

Our Hitler!

(Source) Rich morals and French riots

2005-11-15T05:42:00.000+13:00

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb32.htm

Background: In this article dated 25 March 1939, Goebbels goes after England. A few weeks earlier, Germany had marched into Czechoslovakia. Goebbels is annoyed that the English are unhappy about it. In typical Goebbels style, he accuses the English of doing in the past what Germany is doing in the present.

The source: "Die Moral der Reichen," Die Zeit ohne Beispiel (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1941), pp. 84-89.

The Morals of the Rich

by Joseph Goebbels

It easier for the rich to be moral than it is for the poor. Wealth protects the wealthy, but encourages the poor to take action.

A rich man, for example, would never think of stealing bread. Only someone who is hungry but has no money steals bread. When the rich man is hungry, he has more than enough bread and everything else besides to quell his hunger.

Likewise, a rich man with a car will never travel without a ticket on the subway. Aside from the fact that he could easily buy a ticket, he has a fancy car waiting in front of his fancy house.

The rules of social conduct are also stricter when one is poor. The poor are crammed together in huge apartment buildings, while the rich live in large houses with enough rooms so that everyone can find a place away from everyone else in the family when necessary. In an apartment building, on the other hand, where people live on top of each other, one has to turn off the radio by a certain hour, since the neighbor wants to get to sleep, sleep he needs if he is to get up and go to work tomorrow. In a big house one can let the radio blare all night, since the nearest house is 30, 40, or 100 meters away.

The poor live a more disciplined life than the rich, otherwise they could not get along with each other.

It is absurd for the rich to complain that certain rules apply to the poor that are not at all necessary for the rich.

As far as morals go, the most moral people are those who have had an exciting life already. As the proverb has it, the old whore prays the loudest. Nature makes morality easy at that point, and it easy to understand why at an advanced age one might attempt to atone for a wild life. They want to forget a notorious past, and therefore love to preach morality to those who are still in the middle of life, or have not even yet begun to live. Everything is suddenly turned around. The old demand morality of the youth, especially when they used their own youth to the fullest.

This is true not only of individuals, but also of peoples. This is the real reason why we are not at the moment able to agree with the democracies, England above all.

The English talk a lot about political morality. They have everything they need. They established a world empire at a time when politics was not all that concerned about morality. Now they are defending their empire with moral platitudes.

They do not even think about stealing food, since they are not hungry. They have enough food whenever they want it. They can joke about our Four Year Plan, since they have at their disposal the enormous wealth of their empire. The boundaries of their national life can be very lax, not to say democratic, since they face no threat to their national existence.

It is not so easy for us Germans. We have been a fully unified nation only for the last six years. We are still young and bear the scars of our former discords. We have to be cautious, sometimes even strict, lest the old wounds reopen.

The English can afford the luxury of so-called freedom of opinion. It costs them nothing. The unity of the empire is in no danger. The whole English people is united in a single nation. They need no startling actions or "fait accomplis," since they have everything the need, or even could wish for.

It would never occur to the English to add to their nation, since the English people have been united for centuries.

We, however, were forced to such things. We had no choice. We do it not because we feel superior, but because we must in order to survive. That has nothing to do with morality from either the English or the German side. One should be wary of using terms that have an entirely different meaning in political life than they do in private life.

Leading officials in England recently have been saying that while it is true that England has protectorates, English protectorates exist only to guard the freedom and culture of the peoples who live there.

Europe grinned as this profound wisdom was revealed. The English have the ability to conceal the truth with moralistic phrases, sometimes concealing rather dubious situations that otherwise would provoke some excitement.

They are such moralists today because they have their sheep safely in the barn, and would like to forget their past. They find nothing wrong with the fact that Europe is divided into haves and have-nots. They have no idea that the have-nots may not be happy with the situation. They would never even think of changing the way things are. The world is the way God wants it. He ordained that the English have everything, and the other peoples of the world are poor, and therefore dependent on the English.

London has a newspaper that is prototypicallly English. It is called the "Times." It is mostly very refined and serious, and only rarely throws insults. It is extraordinarily moralistic, and thinks that its God-given task is to deliver political rebukes to the rest of the world. It thinks itself called to comment on everything that goes on in the world, and embodies the typical English notion of how things ought to be. The remarkable thing is that sometimes the English actually believe what they say. They know how to be so insolent and blatantly deceptive that one does not know what to say. They hold to their lies so strongly, even when they are proven false, that one who does not understand the mentality might easily believe that they had fallen for their own lies. That is not the case. It is only proof of the remarkable national discipline that the English press maintains, despite all the talk about the freedom of opinion.

At the moment, however, the English press really has gone too far. No one else believes it any longer. Everywhere in Europe, people wink when the English begin to speak on difficult political matters. They invite people to morning and evening prayers, where they hope to do a little political business or cattle trading.

Were they battling for their national existence, they would doubtlessly use every means at their disposal. However, they have always thought it better to fight to the last Frenchman, Russian, or American.

An example of the depth of London's lies is the recent story about an alleged German ultimatum to Rumania. London invented the whole thing to rouse the world public against the Reich. Both Berlin and Bucharest immediately denied it in the strongest terms. But the English certainly did not look like sinners who had been found out. To the contrary, despite the forceful denials they continued to speak about the matter as if they were not sure whether it were true or not.

That is how the English are now, always were, and presumably always will be. They have no right to tell us what to do.

How did we ever reach the point where we listened to their moral advice? When the discussion turns to political morality, the best thing the English press could do is to stay out of the discussion.

For the past few weeks, the English have been broadcasting the news in German. They do it cleverly, giving the impression of loving the truth and of having almost scientific objectivity. They are doing that in the hopes of winning listeners in Germany that they will be able to use when things get tough. Then they will not be as objective as they now seem to be. They will revive the old atrocity stories that they used to rouse the whole world against Germany during the World War.

Now they seem surprised that German radio has begun to broadcast news in English. Soon they will start to complain. They cannot imagine that any other nation in Europe has the same rights that they have.

Their moral trumpeting in the past weeks as German troops marched into Bohemia and Moravia is a classic example of the English mentality, but with one exception: the moral trumpeting does not seem to work any longer.

All of Europe at present is revolted by England acting as its moral aunt, sitting on the sofa of its empire, secure in its own wealth, complaining about others. Europe has changed since the war. The poor nations are also the young nations. They want to live. They will live. The Archbishop of Canterbury will not stop them. They have seen through the rich. England can no longer dismiss the demands of the have-nots with pious phrases. Their mimicry will not work any longer.

John Bull should be advised to remove the mask so that Europe will be able to see what is behind the fog of phrases England is using to confuse world opinion. Their empire was built through war, oppression, concentration camps, starvation and blood.

We Germans are glad to listen to moral advice, but only from those who have the right to give it. England does not. When people are talking about political morality, the Empire had best remain silent. We have some friendly advice for London. Do not shout so loudly. You are not alone. The whole world is laughing itself to death at pious talk of morality coming from those who reek of blood.

Rich morals and French riots

2005-11-14T21:43:00.000+13:00

It easier for the rich to be moral than it is for the poor. Wealth protects the wealthy, but encourages the poor to take action. A rich man, for example, would never think of stealing bread. Only someone who is hungry but has no money steals bread. When a rich man is hungry, he has more than enough bread and everything else besides to feed his hunger. Likewise, a rich man with a car will never travel without a ticket on the subway. Aside from the fact that he could easily buy a ticket, he has a fancy car waiting in front of his fancy house.

The rules of social conduct are also stricter when one is poor. The poor in France are crammed together in huge apartment buildings, while the rich live in large houses with enough rooms so that everyone can find a place away from everyone else in the family when necessary. In an apartment building, on the other hand, where people live on top of each other, one has to turn off the TV by a certain hour, since the neighbor wants to get to sleep. In a big house you can let the TV go all night, since the nearest house is 30, 40, or 100 meters away.

The poor live a more disciplined life than the rich, otherwise they could not get along with each other. It is absurd for the rich to complain that certain rules apply to the poor that are not at all necessary for the rich. As far as morals go, the most moral people are those who have had an exciting life already. Nature makes morality easy at that point, and it easy to understand why at an advanced age one might attempt to atone for a wild life. They want to forget a notorious past, and therefore love to preach morality to those who are still in the middle of life, or have not even yet begun to live. Everything is suddenly turned around. The old demand morality of the youth, especially when they used their own youth to the fullest.

This is true not only of individuals, but also of peoples. This is the real reason why we do not at the moment agree with French policies. The French, for those who now the system there, talk a lot about political morality. But they have everything they need. They established a world empire at a time when politics was not all that concerned about morality. Now they are defending the remains of empire with moral platitudes. They do not even think about stealing food, since they are not hungry. They have enough food whenever they want it, they have at their disposal the enormous wealth of their empire. The boundaries of their national life can be very lax, not to say democratic, since they face no threat to their national existence.

It would never occur to the French, for example, to add to their nation, since the French people have been united for centuries. Some, however, are forced to such things. They do it not because they feel superior, but in order to survive. That has nothing to do with morality from either the French or the immigrant side. One should be wary of using terms that have an entirely different meaning in political life than they do in private life.

America and others have grinned as this profound wisdom is revealed. Americans have the ability to conceal the truth with moralistic phrases, sometimes concealing rather dubious situations that otherwise would provoke some excitement. They are such moralists today because they would like to forget their past. They find nothing wrong with the fact that America, like France, is divided into haves and have-nots. They have no idea that the have-nots may not be happy with the situation. They would never even think of changing the way things are. The world is the way God wants it. He ordained that the Americans have everything, and the other peoples of the world are poor, and therefore dependent on the Americans.

Rightwing blogs are prototypically "American", extraordinarily moralistic, and thinking that their God-given task is to deliver political rebukes to the rest of the world. They think themselves called to comment on everything that goes on in the world, and embodies the typical American notion of how things ought to be. The remarkable thing is that sometimes these bloggers actually believe what they say. They know how to be so insolent and blatantly deceptive that it is difficult to know what to say. They hold to their lies so strongly, even when they are proven false, that one who does not understand the mentality might easily believe that they had fallen for their own lies. But it is only proof of the remarkable discipline that they maintain, despite all the talk about the freedom of opinion.

At the moment, however, these bloggers really have gone too far. No one else believes it any longer. People wink when they begin to speak on difficult political matters. Were they battling for their own national existences, they would doubtlessly use every means at their disposal. But they seem to think it better to fight to the last Frenchman.

But that is how these bloggers are now and presumably always will be. When the discussion turns to political morality, the best thing the righty blogs could do is to stay out of the discussion. Most of Europe and elsewhere at present is turned off by bloggers acting as moral aunts, sitting secure in their own wealth, complaining about others. France has changed since the war, the poor immigrants are also young immigrants. They want to live. They will live. They have seen through the rich. They can no longer dismiss the demands of the have-nots with accusations of fanaticism.

Haves and have-nots

2005-11-03T19:50:00.000+13:00

There are haves and have-nots in this world. But people, called the have-nots by the old capitalist world, are demanding their right to recognition and equality. The aging world of money does not want to make room. Money rules the world, and the have-nots will have to accept that fact. The capitalists sought the war, they provoked and maneuvered to get it. They pressed the people of Britain, Australia, Poland and more wherever they could. They wanted war, a real war, and now they have it.

Looking back at history, Rockefeller used to say with Puritan hypocrisy, after he had taken someone's money, that "God gave me my wealth." J.P. Morgan the elder, however, displayed a deeper knowledge of the source of his wealth. Half in jest, half seriously, he claimed that one of his ancestors was the famous Caribbean pirate Henry Morgan. He named his black luxury yacht the "Corsair," and loved to fly the Jolly Roger, the skull and crossbones, above the Stars and Stripes when on the high seas. What about these people then? What will they say in a decade or two?

This unimaginable wealth stands in contrast to enormous poverty. In the end, those who are betrayed are the millions of workers and farmers, the broad masses of the people. The American people will be the victims of this war as well. They will pay the price for the increased profits of the upper ten thousand. New millionaires will come out of this war, and the previous ones will become a lot richer. The American armaments industry will earn a lot and the poor stupid people will pay the bills. It will also have to pay a price in blood, and not a small one. Unfortunately, the common impression that American workers have a high standard of living is a myth.

When Talabani became president, not only millions of Americans, but people around the world asked "What does he want?" Many hoped that the new Iraqi president would combat the need and misery, gangsterism and plutocracy. Those who put their hope in him did not realize his American connections. Talabani has disappointed their hopes and gone in the opposite direction.

This war that Rumsfled and Bush are waging on behalf of their neocon pals will end with the victory of the people who the plutocrats have mocked as have-nots, whose last possessions they wanted to steal. The judgment on Bush and company will be that not only have they plunged foreign peoples into an unjust war, they have sacrificed and betrayed their own people in the interests of their business cronies.

(Source) Haves and have-nots

2005-11-03T19:49:00.000+13:00

The source: Robert Ley, Roosevelt verrät Amerika! (Berlin: Verlag der Deutschen Arbeitsfront, 1942).

Roosevelt Betrays America!
by Dr. Robert Ley

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.

We stand at the threshold of a new era. An old world is used up and exhausted, a new one is knocking strongly and insistently at the doorway of the world. The young peoples, called the have-nots by the old sinking capitalist world, are demanding their right to recognition and equality. The aging world of money and democracy does not want to make room. The honorable Lord Halifax said it plainly: They want to live on in the gluttony and luxury to which they have become accustomed. Their standpoint was: "Money rules the world, and the have-nots will have to accept that fact."

Booklet CoverThey sought the war, they provoked and maneuvered to get it. They pressed the young peoples of Germany, Italy and Japan wherever they could. They wanted war, a real world war — and now they have it.

Not only two worlds of ideas are at war here, but the whole world. This war reaches every corner of the world. The plutocrats are on the line; they have to defend themselves. The Jews and their hired tools, Churchill and Roosevelt, must themselves step into action. The field is cleared, and now we face our real enemy, the men behind the scenes who over the decades plunged the world into disorder, war and revolution, but whose own valuable capitalist lives were naturally to valuable to sacrifice in war.

But finally we have forced them into the open, and we have sworn that we well not let go of them until their murderous handiwork is laid bare. This is a hard war, matter of being or not being, of life and death, either or. We therefore must understand the strengths and capacities of our main enemy, to weigh and evaluate them insofar as it is possible within this brief pamphlet. We will consider the grounds that moved Mr. Roosevelt to drive his people into war. Aside from his deep hatred against we Germans in general and National Socialism in particular, there naturally are domestic causes and imperialist intentions that led the warmongering clique in New York to chase after war until they finally caught it.

Let us begin.

I. The racial confusion in the USA.

We National Socialists know that every action is in some way racially determined. There is no doubt that on the one side of this struggle stand absolutely unified peoples and nations, while on the other side there are various nationalities led by the Jews, the prototype of racial decay. Germany, Italy and Japan are unified nations, whose national unity is based on blood. The other side has only unions: the union of the states of North America, the Union of Soviet Republics and the Union Jack, the union of the English empire.

The United States was settled by nearly all the races of the earth, of which the European contingent was the largest. The common English language does not say much, for the English language won over German by only a single vote majority. Just as we could not have spoken of the North Americans as Germans had that happened, neither can we today speak of Anglo-Saxons or English. The Jew would have us believe that a new race develops when other races are mixed. He even gives it a romantic-sounding name: "the melting pot of the races." That is however biologic nonsense. Such a bastardization process does not lead to a new and valuable race, but rather a corrupt racial mixture in which the bad characteristics come to the fore, and in which finally parasitic manifestations appear, such as we see in American insanity and in the ruthless business style of the ruling class in North America.

The USA became the home of the gangsters, the insanities of Hollywood, the stock dealers of New York, the orators of Washington: in brief, the land of truly unlimited possibilities, namely those of insanity and criminality, produced by its racial mixing.

II. The World View Foundations

The USA once conducted a war of independence against the British Crown. The Declaration of Independence of those freedom fighters even today is thought to be the beginning of North American freedom and independence, celebrated annually. But one today hears voices on both sides of the ocean about reuniting the Anglo-Saxon world. Churchill even makes the idea the center of this Christmas message in Washington. The sly old fox is quite right. The USA has decayed into the English world of Puritanism and Calvinism. The hypocritical lying capitalist world of Manchester and Oliver Cromwell is today the world of Roosevelt, Morgenthau, Knox, Stimson and their consorts. One can even say that the Jew rules more fully, ruthlessly and completely in New York than in London. Remember the oft-cited quotation from Calvin that the masses of workers and craftsmen must be kept poor so they will be obedient to God, and will work only when they are driven to it by necessity. This is a central theme of the capitalist economy, resulting in the theory of the "productivity" of lower wages. The misuse of the concept of God runs like a red thread through English history. God was always the ground for any crooked dealing. The notion of the Old Testament's chosen people fits in here as well. This clearly proves the similarity in English and Jewish thinking. We find such nonsense repeatedly by the leading English circles over the centuries.

The original claims of chosenness, of God-willed wealth and God-ordained poverty, of dark secrets and mystic superstitions was begun by Oliver Cromwell and became the foundation of the English Empire. On can read the following about the English saint in Volume II of Wilbur Contez Abbot's "Writing and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell": "They could hardly say anything to Cromwell without him putting his hand to his heart, raising his eyes to the heavens and calling God as his witness. He will weep and lament and moan, all the while sticking the knife in your ribs."

Does that not remind one of our contemporaries Churchill and Roosevelt when they together sang "Onward Christian Solders" on the since-sunken "Price of Wales"? Or when they sing in a Methodist church in Washington. They are Cromwell's pious, hypocritical successors.

Oliver Cromwell always called on God n the midst of his atrocities, his bloodthirsty orgies against the Irish and the Scottish, and viewed his devilish soldiers as the chosen people of God. Churchill and Roosevelt have learned the methods of the bestial hypocrite Cromwell by heart, and have proven that nothing, absolutely nothing has changed in the English-American world over the past three hundred years. That is the lying capitalist world that calls God as its witness to every shameful act and enslaves and exploits humanity in its dreadful superiority. Its father was Calvin, its sword Oliver Cromwell and its benefactors and successors are Churchill and Roosevelt. They are so proud and self-confident that they call the USA God's Own Country. As the Jews use Jehovah, they use the Lord God!

III. The Actual Nature and Real Strength of the USA.

The Jew in the USA. The original citizens of the USA were anti-Semites, and the emancipation of the Jews in America took a long time. But just as a young and growing organism is more easily infected by parasites and bacteria than a more mature and stronger one, so too the North American national body was overwhelmed by Jews from everywhere in the world. According to American statistics, over 5 million Jews lived in the USA in 1926. They were concentrated in the big cities. Since public opinion in democracies, and especially in the USA is made in the big cities, and since the Jews in the USA control all elements of public opinion such as the press, publishing, radio, parties, clubs and so on, one can affirm that the Jews control public opinion in North America. The following table presents the distribution of Jews in the USA:

New York has 2,000,000 Jews, 33% of the population
Philadelphia has 280,000 Jews, 15% of the population.
Cleveland has 12,000 Jews, 8% of the population
Chicago has 260,000 Jews, 8% of the population
Boston has 85,000 Jews, 12% of the population
Baltimore has 70,000 Jews, 17% of the population
Pittsburgh has 60,000 Jews, 17% of the population
Saint Louis has 60,000 Jews, 18% of the population
New Orleans has 55,000 Jews, 16% of the population
Detroit has 50,000 Jews, 17% of the population
Hartford has 27,000 Jews, 17% of the population

The increase in the number of Jews since the turn of the century is particularly clear in the case of New York. The number of Jews there has increased as follows:

From 225,000 in 1877
To 597,674 in 1900
To 1,252,135 in 1910
To 1,643,012 in 1920
To 1,876.545 in 1930
To over 2 million in 1935 (counting only religious Jews).

Some areas of New York business life are Jewish monopolies. They have taken over the clothing industry and a substantial part of the cigarette industry. They are heavily involved in some light industries. The big New York department stores are owned by Jews. The American magazine "National American" gives the following illuminating figures:

The Jews control:

98% of the financial markets
99% of the banking industry
69% of the food industry
100% of the theater and movie industry
99% of the press
82% of the radio, telephone and telegraph industries
75% of the transportation industries
85% of real estate.

The following Jews have key positions in the economy, government, legal system, state and local governments, labor unions, etc.:

The Jew Bernhard Mannes Baruch was the most influential man in the USA during the World War. He had dictatorial power over the whole war economy and its approximately 40 varied industrial branches. Even today he has a leading role in Roosevelt's inner circle. Felix Frankfurter is a member of the Supreme Court, Henry Morgenthau Jr. is Secretary of the Treasury, Herman Lehmann is Governor of the State of New York, La Guardia leads the Jewish metropolis New York. Numerous Jews have leading positions in the American labor movement. One need mention only the Jews Volman, Sidney Hillmann, Schloßberg and Matthew Woll. Wherever one looks he sees nothing but Jews and genuine Hebrews! The words of the Russian-born Jew Baruch Chareny Vladek describe precisely the position of the Jews in America: "We are numerically in the minority, but our fingers tip the scales."

That is how it is: He who is fed by the Jews dies, particularly when the national body is still so young, disunified and weak as the USA. We see all the manifestations of the Jews that always accompany the Jews. For example, the USA is the leading country for lodges, secret societies, the Ku-Klux-Klan, sects and spiritualists. There are about 4,178,000 Free Masons in the entire world; 3.3 million of them live in the USA. All leading men of the government, from the president on down, belong to lodges, and all the lodges of course belong to and are led by the Jews. There are 49 major lodges in the USA with 16,518 branches. One cannot even count the sects and secret societies. We see that the Jew has understood how to break the USA down into individual particles and atoms, killing any kind of national life. The parties belong to him entirely, for over half of those in Congress — 213 members of the House — and more than half of the Senators, 48 in all — are Free Masons.

Gangsters and criminals along with stock traders are other manifestations of decay brought about by Jewry. The legal system in the USA is fragmented and disunified. The benefactors are the plutocrats, corrupt politicians and businessmen without consciences. Judges are elected to their offices for a limited time. It is clear than they are dependent on the corrupt parties. Major insurance swindles, influencing juries and false statements under oath are the order of the day.

According to "Century Magazine" of July 1910: "American lawlessness begins in children's rooms and schools and ends in courthouses and lawmaking bodies." The legal uncertainly is called a "national burden," which is made even worse by the fact that cooperation is also lacking in the police system. It is not surprising that crime rates are higher in the USA than anywhere else in the world. The following figures from 1939 demonstrate the fact. There was:

a robbery every 9 minutes
a break-in every 1 3/4 minutes
a theft every 40 seconds
a car theft every 2 1/4 minutes
a murder every 39 minutes

Leading gangsters in Chicago included John Dillinger, who was overpowered and shot by the police at a theater at the close of 1934 and Al Capone, who had a bodyguard of 185 men, each of whom he paid $300 to $400 a week. Two thirds of Chicago unions had to pay protection money to these criminal organizations. Al Capone was so connected to America's leading men that he went to jail not because he was the leader of a gangster organization, but because the federal authorities caught him for tax fraud. He lives as a multimillionaire today in a palace on a sunny beach in Florida.

The Coster-Musica scandal aroused considerable excitement in the American business world at the end of 1938. Coster-Musica had carried our swindles on a widespread scale, including drug smuggling, weapons sales and crooked dealings, and was a member of many prominent clubs. Coster-Musica has been in jail for fraud as yearly as 1906. The was convicted in a huge financial scandal in 1913. Given his connections to "high society," did not serve time in prison. His company collapsed when the fraud was discovered. 13,500 stockholders lost over $100 million. He committed suicide because he feared his well-placed friends were no longer to protect him from the wrath of those he had cheated.

American capital developed in the course of the 18th and 19th centuries either through land speculation, railroad enterprises or big industry. The ship owner Girard, J. J. Astor, Peter Golet, and the Schermerhorns, Fealds, Vanderbilts, Goulds, Sages, Morgans, Hills, Carnegies, Roosevelt, Morgenthau, and so on were typical of those who amassed their wealth with bribery, cheating, plundering, lawbreaking, tax evasion, swindles, extortion and piracy.

The first great fortune was Vanderbilt's, which grew out of the railways. Cornelius Vanderbilt, born in 1794, at age twelve could hardly write his own name, but he was greedy, ruthless and power-hungry. He began with passengers and freight. He was never particularly creative, though he was presented as such in books. He was certainly the leading merchant pirate and scoundrel of his day. His first millions were primarily the result of extortion, cheating and theft. The mail his steam ships carried won not only foreign postage payments, but also substantial government subsidies. The postal subsidies were the real foundation of his wealth. The Civil War put an end to his shipping career. He began a railroad enterprise at the age of 69, though he knew nothing at all about the technology and administration of this branch of transportation. Cornelius Vanderbilt knew how to present himself as a leading patriot during the Civil War. When the Union government decided to send a fleet to New Orleans in 1862, it bought the very ships from Vanderbilt that government subsidies had built. He even lent one of his unused ships to the government. By means of manipulation Vanderbilt succeeded in driving down the stocks of the New York and Harlem railroad at the end of 1863, and bought the majority of the shares, which rose from $9 a share in the middle of April 1863 to $50. It was also the usual practice to bribe the New York City council to secure certain railroad lines.

They are all the same, Dillinger, Al Capone, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan and so on: gangsters, pirates, stock traders, businessmen. They have a single ideal: money-making, and still more money-making. American lawlessness and the double morality of Calvinism and Puritanism conceals it all

IV. The Dollar Devours Everything

There is not a country in the world where money is as important as it is in the USA. The ideals of family, fatherland, culture and manliness are all dominated by the desire to "make money." While the peoples of Europe bled during the World War of 1914-1918, North America knew but one principle: to earn as much as possible through the war. The enormous sums earned by the North American armaments industry is shown in the following table

Net Profits of the American Armaments Industry 1914-1918
(Figures in Dollars)

Company

Average profits in the last pre-war year

Average profits during the four war years
U. S. Steel 105,331,000 259,653,000
Du Pont 6,092,000 58,076,000
Bethlehem Steel 6,840,000 49,427,000
Anaconda Copper 10,649,000 34,549,000
Utah Copper 5,776,000 21,622,000
American Smelting 11,566,000 18,602,000
Republic Iron and Steel 4,177,000 17,548,000
Internationale Mercantile 6,690,00 14,229,000
Atlas Powder 485,000 2,374,000
American and British Man. 172,000 325,000
Canadian Car & Foundry 1,335,000 2,201,000
Crocker Wheeler 206,000 666,000
Hercules Powder 1,271,000 7,430,000
Niles, Bement Pond 656,000 6,146,000
Scovill Mfg. Co. 655,000 7,678,000
General Motors 6,954,000 21,700,000

The stock prices climbed into the heavens. A rise from $20 to $1000 was no rarity. And these crazy profits did not stop after the World War. The armaments tycoons bought back the airplanes, weapons and munitions for a song, and then sold them at a fat profit to other customers. Profiteering without end.

60 Families Rule America

F. Lundberg's book appeared in 1937, and is seen by American politicians as a reliable source. He begins with the blunt assertion: "The United States of America is owned and controlled by a hierarchy that at its core consists of the 60 richest families of the country, to which at most 90 families of somewhat lesser wealth may be included. These families are the center of the modern industrial oligarchy that controls the United States. They function discretely under a de jure democratic form of government, behind which a de facto government of abolutistic and plutocratic nature has existed since the Civil War." This hollowing out of democracy was possible only because enormous fortunes developed in the United States that have no parallel in the rest of the world.

The extent of the wealth controlled by the "golden ring," the sixty richest families in America, is astonishing. Rockefeller's personal income in 1924 was $30-50 million, though his taxable income was only $18 million. His total fortune certainly exceeds a billion dollars, and those of the Melons and the Ponts is surely no less. Such a concentration of wealth by itself is extraordinarily powerful, a state within a state, but the power of money and the dollar dynasties extends yet further. The real nature of the power of the "golden ring" is less in personal wealth as in the control that they are thereby able to exert over others. The foundation here is the expansion of so-called stock capital. In 1880 16% of the total capital of the United States was in such "liquid assets," a figure that had reached 40% by 1930.

Stock majorities are guided, holding companies established, the various interests are so concealed and covered up in a way that enables them to become suddenly public when it is necessary. With amazing lack of scruples, huge fortunes are made in ways that put gangsters and pirates to shame.

Old Rockefeller used to say with Puritan hypocrisy, after he had taken someone's money, that "God gave me my wealth." J.P. Morgan the elder, however, displayed a deeper knowledge of the source of his wealth. Half in jest, half seriously, he claimed that one of his ancestors was the famous Caribbean pirate Henry Morgan. He named his black luxury yacht the "Corsair," and loved to fly the Jolly Roger, the skull and crossbones, above the Stars and Stripes when on the high seas. His son is said to continue the custom, except that as the American financial agent of the British government during the World War, he preferred to fly the Union Jack above the Jolly Roger,

Corrupt bureaucrats over the decades understood how to transfer billions in public property to people who understood how to give a golden handshake. Some of these bubbles collapsed, giving the citizens of the United States a look at the swamp of its government. For example, the major scandal with oil reserves under the government of Harding — 1921 to 1923 — might have had something to do with the president's mysterious death.

The extent and subtlety of the corrupt system in the freest land in the world was revealed a few years ago when a Senate committee investigated the list of favorites to whom the J.P. Morgan Company sold cheap stocks in 1929. Beside the many financial potentates were names like Calvin Coolidge, who had been president until 1929, William H. Woodin, Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary in 1933, W. G. McAdoo, Treasury Secretary under Wilson and Senator from California, Ch. F. Adams, Naval Secretary and Bernard M. Baruch, organizer of the war economy during the World War and also one of Roosevelt's most influential Jewish advisors. The number of cases in which the power of money was enough to blind the eyes of justice is legion. Nowhere are as many scoundrels running around loose as in the United States. When a scandal stinks so badly that one of the "greats" must be punished, for example Samuel Insull or Van Swerigen, it is always a fringe figure, an agent of the leading families, never a member of the "golden ring" itself. Senator Norris, with the healthy instincts of a Nebraska farmer, was outraged when in the 1939 scandal the two most heavily implicated figures, the Interior Secretary Fall and the Industrialist Sinclair were acquitted. He said sarcastically: "We should pass a law which says that a man who is worth $100 million may not be brought to trial. Then our laws would at least correspond to reality."

This unimaginable wealth stands in contrast to enormous poverty. In the end, those who are betrayed are the millions of workers and farmers, the broad masses of the people. The American people will be the victims of this war as well. They will pay the price for the increased profits of the upper ten thousand. 21,000 new millionaires came out of the last war, and the previous ones became a lot richer. The same will happen in this war. The American armaments industry will earn a lot and the poor stupid people will pay the bills. It will also have to pay a price in blood, and not a small one.

Just as in England, the people have a limited role in the "democracy."

Unfortunately, the common impression that American workers have a high standard of living is a myth.

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 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.

VI. The Background to Roosevelt's Policies

The background to these policies is not easy to see. There are two primary explanations current in American circles:

First Explanation:

Roosevelt is a member of the American Roosevelt caricatureplutocratic class.

The social conditions in 1932-1933 presented the danger of revolution.

American capitalism sent one of its best humbugs to preach salvation to the masses.

He succeeded by using all the tricks of American propaganda.

The capitalist clique was ready to intervene at the proper moment,

The program was torpedoed at the proper moment by means of a bribed Supreme Court. The measures had served their purpose, namely to conceal the growing social misery. To guarantee armaments profits, the humbug Roosevelt was put to work on foreign policy. The methods were hate propaganda, war hysteria and armaments.

Second Explanation:

Roosevelt, a plutocratic son, is a confidante of American Jews and Free Masons.

The catastrophic economic situation in 1932-1933 offered the Jews the opportunity to take over both the industrialists and the workers.

Roosevelt was put to work with his plan of salvation.

Labor and management became involuntary captives of the "New Deal," and helped bring about its failure.

Foreign policy was the only way out. The Jews were out for revenge against Greater Germany. Once again, hate propaganda, war hysteria and armaments.

Both views are true. Roosevelt, the son of plutocrats, served American capitalism, and as a Jewish product served them too. Since American capitalists are mostly Jews, both are in the end the same.

VII. Ancestry and Relatives of F. D. Roosevelt and his Wife.

This picture of current conditions in the USA would be incomplete without considering the ancestry and relatives of the warmonger Roosevelt. I will therefore discuss the matter briefly here. I hold to strict facts, without making any assumptions.

The "Detroit Jewish Chronicle," a Jewish newspaper, reported in 1935 that Roosevelt was descended from the Spanish Jew Rossocampo. In 1939 Adolf Schmalix concluded in his "Are the Roosevelts Jewish?" that Roosevelt is the descendant of a Dutch family whose earliest member is the farmer Claes Martensen, who was named after his farm, called "Het Roosevelt." On the other hand, it is clear that the Roosevelts took on Jewish blood through marriage once in the United States. Schmalix proves that as early as the second generation on American soil (from the 17th to the 18th Century), a Jewess Sarah Salomons joined the Roosevelt family. The mother of President Roosevelt was Sarah Delano, who Schmalix maintains was a descendant of the Italian or Spanish Jewish family Delano (Dillan, Delan or Dillano).

The President held a press conference on 20 March 1935 on the matter of his presumed Jewish ancestry ("Neue freie Presse," Vienna). Roosevelt said: "My ancestors came to America from Holland over 300 years ago. I am not worried about whether or not they were Jewish." Schmalix notes: "This is a clear case of Talmud morality." Schmalix says that Mrs. Roosevelt's mother was Anna Rebekka Hall, and notes: "There are many families named Hall in the USA, some of Jewish origin, others of Christian origin from Germany or England." (p. 17)

The oldest son James Roosevelt, formerly the president's private secretary, is vice chairman of Samuel Goldwyn's well-known Jewish film company. Roosevelt's Jewish environment and the influence of Jewry on the USA has already been sufficiently discussed.

Conclusion.

When Roosevelt became president, not only millions of Americans, but people around the world asked "What does Roosevelt want?" Many hoped that the new American president would combat the need and misery, gangsterism and plutocracy, the power of Jewry. Those who put their hope in him did not realize his Jewish connections. Roosevelt disappointed their hopes and went in the opposite direction. Roosevelt has sworn allegiance to Jewry.

Jewry has had two centers in recent decades: New York and Moscow, London, Paris, Prague, Warsaw, Geneva and other Jewish centers were of secondary importance. In Moscow the Jew ruled with GPU methods: murder and the most blatant exploitation. In New York, he used his financial strength. To win over America for the Jewish war against Germany, Jewry infiltrated plutocratic circles. They believed that they had finished off Europe for good through the Treaty of Versailles, since they had defeated Germany, the heart and soul of the continent, once and for all. They believed they had eliminated it as a factor. The plutocrats wanted to inherit the wealth of our ancient part of the world. They thought the time had come when for a few dollars they could buy all the European culture that had had been built with so much effort and sacrifice over a time span of 4500 years. Who could stop them? The American newcomers were already imagining themselves in possession of our splendid and immortal cultural values. In a few years everything would be forgotten and everything would be Americanized. That is what these cultural ignoramuses thought, who themselves have no culture or traditions.

They are mistaken!

Their time is far distant. In fact, it will never come! This war that Roosevelt and Churchill are waging on behalf of Jewry will end with the victory of the young peoples who the plutocrats have mocked as have-nots, whose last possessions they wanted to steal.

A new world order is coming! Jewry will have nothing to say about it. The power of the plutocrats will be broken forever.

The judgment on Roosevelt and Churchill will be as follows: Not only have they plunged foreign peoples into a world war, they have sacrificed and betrayed their own people in the interests of Jewry.

The "third way"?

2005-11-01T23:42:00.000+13:00

Here is an essay I wrote a few years ago when I was more, ahem, revolutionary minded and was a fan of syndicalism. I was not so impressed with the heading of the likes of Blair for instance. Much of it I still think holds true though. I've added a couple of notes.

The great problem with capitalism is the threat to united labour, to the union movement. Advancing globalisation of capitalism threatens unions everywhere, particularly in countries that lack a syndicalist tradition. The greatest achievement s of syndicalism were of course in Europe. We should follow those principals if the international operations of capitalism are to be overcome. Capitalism is organised and entrenched on an essentially global scale. The low-wage countries of Asia are exploited for profits better than those that can be made by capitalism in the West. As a result, Western workers face the certainty of losing their markets to sweatshops in Asia financed by corporations in Europe and America.

Progressivist parties have a duty to deal with this situation. Western workers can't wait until the exploited labourers of Asia reach a high enough standard of living which would cut out unfair competition. If that happens then the Western workers have been waiting for too long. Unfortuntately capitalist business has gone ahead with its global plans and ambitions, expanding and consolidating at a greater speed than the growth of the international workers movement. The New Zealand left needs to take the more realistic way of European socialism, where workers have reached a high common level of political power and development. They are able to elect governments to power to carry out their will and they tend to have a common outlook on life: their standards of living and social conditions, though varying today, can be made up to a common European level in a relatively short time. By uniting they have achieved a real sort of socialism over a large field of human life, and can deprive Western businesses of the cheap Asian labour and their profits by banning Asian manufactured goods from European markets [see the recent ban on importing Chinese clothing], while protecting those markets for their own workers. Worker unity throughout the EU has put an end to the low wages paid in many parts of the continent and helped increase collective rights in Europe. European solidarity has stopped the vicious practice of playing off one standard of life against another in order to bring both standards down. The solidarity throughout the EU ensures that goods sell in all European markets without fear of unfair competition. If the full policy is employed, with the development of Africa and with close agreements with the more syndicalist countries of Latin America, workers can ensure through solidarity that their products will stand a fair chance in these great potential markets also. [This is the vision espoused to most degrees by parties here such as the Greens and the Alliance.] This solidarity is necessary if New Zealand workers are to have any profit to share, since there will be no profits at all if we continue undercutting each other.

But solidarity is also necessary to break the huge multinational corporations, which at present are a law unto themselves. Even the most revolutionary syndicalist programme, if applied only in one country, would only succeed in driving the corporations to operate elsewhere through their subsidiaries. They would certainly take revenge on our workers by undercutting their products in other markets. But through solidarity and the rise of syndicalism elsewhere, the power of the multinationals can be significantly reduced. The only way to deal with an octopus is to cut off all its arms. Of course this can't happen overnight and a transition period must be expected. So a more unionised New Zealand should be prepared to co-operate with a world that is not itself entirely up to the same level. Naturally we should seek the closest co-operation with other like minded countries. But the immediate aim should be a common high wage and profit structure and the extension of industrial assemblies to less developed countries.

We have all the hopes created by the progressive movement in recent decades, but capitalism is as bad as ever and with the same repressive hold on every day life. Socialism has essentially devolved into capitalism under the so-called third way. Should workers have to choose between continuing wage-slavery and a wider, freer life through some form of syndicalism? Socialism expects full co-operation from every man and woman and this gives the workers strength for removing the parasitic financial and industrial structures and for uniting with their "global comrades", for development in Africa and for achieving closer co-operation with South America. This way we can realise the potential of three continents (Asia, Africa, South America), on the one hand by freeing and encouraging the clever individual to use science in transforming resources to produce new forms of wealth and on the other through syndicalism or union movements to share the wealth of continents among those who work in industry.

I think that is the proper "third way".

(Source) The "third way"

2005-11-01T23:38:00.000+13:00

Excerpt from "Syndicalism - A Third Way"
Oswald Mosley

EUROPEAN SOCIALISM
The greatest achievement of Syndicalism, however, is likely to be in the European field. European Socialism, which is its modern form, stands for the Union of Europe on a Socialist basis. This has become necessary if the international operations of capitalism are ever to be overcome. Capitalism is organised and entrenched on an essentially world-wide scale. The low-wage countries of Asia are being exploited industrially for still bigger profits than those made by capitalism in the West. As a result, British workers face the certainty of losing their markets to sweatshops in Asia financed by the money enders of Europe and America.

The International Socialism of the Labour Party has failed completely to deal with this menace. British workers cannot wait until the exploited coolies of the East reach a high enough standard of life which could cut out unfair competition-if this ever happens, British workers have been marking time too long. Meanwhile, Capitalism has gone ahead with its world-wide plans and ambitions, expanding and consolidating at a far greater speed than the growth of any international workers' movement.

Syndicalism, therefore, takes the more realistic way of European Socialism. The workers of Europe have reached a common high level of political power and development. They are able to elect Governments to power to carry out their will. They have a common outlook on life: their standards of living and social conditions, though varying today, can be made up to a common European level in a relatively short time. By uniting now they can achieve real Socialism over a large field of human life, and can deprive the Western exploiters of the Eastern sweated coolie of their profits by banning all Oriental manufactured goods from European markets, protecting those markets for their own products meanwhile.

Through European unity they can defeat all attempts to bring blackleg Asiatic products into markets that should be reserved for European products. Where international solidarity has proved an illusion, European solidarity can be achieved in the very near future.

The same goes for blacklegging in Europe itself. Workers' unity throughout a United Europe can put an end to the low wages paid in many parts of the Continent and so put an end to blacklegging in Europe. European solidarity can stop the vicious practice of playing off one European standard of life against another in order to bring both standards down. By solidarity with their comrades throughout the Continent British workers can ensure that their goods will sell in all European markets without fear of unfair competition: if the full European Socialist policy is employed, with the development of Africa for white man and Negro alike, and with close barter agreements with the Syndicalist countries of Latin America, British workers can ensure through European solidarity that their products will stand a fair chance in these great potential markets also.

European solidarity is necessary if British workers are to have any profit to share, since there will be no profits at all if Europeans continue blacklegging on each other.

European solidarity is necessary in addition to break once and for all the giant international combines, like Unilever and I.C.I., which at present are a law unto themselves. Even the most revolutionary Syndicalist programme, if applied in this country alone, would only succeed in driving the combines to operate on the Continent and elsewhere through their international allies and subsidiaries. They would certainly take revenge on British syndical workers by undercutting their products in European and other markets. But by European solidarity, and the rise of Syndicalism throughout the Continent, the power of the international giants can be permanently broken. The only way to deal with an octopus is to lop off ALL its arms.

It is realised that this cannot happen overnight. A certain transitional period must be expected, though this must be as short as possible. A Syndicalist Britain would, therefore, be prepared to co-operate within a United Europe, whether the rest of Europe is Syndical or not. Naturally it would seek the closest co-operation with other European Syndicalists as a means of bringing a fully Syndicated Europe. But its immediate aim would be a common high wages and profits structure and the extension of industrial Assemblies to European level. It would also encourage the setting up of a European T.U.C. divorced from party politics, and 100 per cent. Trade Unionism in Europe.

The time has arrived for a decision that will transform the entire living standards of the workers. Despite all the hopes engendered in two great wars, Capitalism is seen to be as bad as ever and with the same repressive hold on every day life. Bureaucratic Socialism has been tried but has proved in practice to be Bureaucratic Capitalism. The workers have no alternative now to endless frustration but to take over the means of production themselves and bring real Socialism through Syndical Revolution.

The workers have to choose between a continuing wage-slavery and a wider, freer life through Syndicalism. European Socialism expects full co-operation from every man and woman, and makes loyalty the key-note of the revolution, but this will give the workers all the greater strength for removing the parasitic financial and industrial boss-class, for uniting with their European comrades, for developing and settling Africa and for achieving the closest co-operation with the Syndicalists of South America.

Through European Socialism the full potentialities of three continents can be realised, on the one hand by freeing and encouraging the brilliant individual to use science in transforming resources to produce new forms of wealth: on the other through Syndicalisrn to share the wealth of continents among those who work in industry. The workers of Europe stand on the threshold of the greatest social advance of their history.

Why I voted Green

2005-11-01T03:04:00.000+13:00

This last election I voted for the Greens on my party vote. I did this because I see the Greens as offering the necessary vision for the future of New Zealand that is both sustainable and consistent with progressive politics.

GM worries me deeply, both as an engineer and a human. Something about the technology does not sit right with me. Just as nature doesn't concentrate its greatest attention on maintaining what already exists but on the continual selection of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development. If we begin with the right framework, then we end with the right outcome for life. We can't let the progress of science and technology lead liberalism astray into claiming mastery of nature, like for example we will soon claim control over space. We must become familiar with the laws by which life is governed since only by understanding the laws of nature will we find real progress.

Likewise we can't make the mistake of thinking that we were "meant" to be in control of nature. The education most of us receive encourages the illusion that we should be in control, but this is too unbalanced a view, we have to realise that our existence is subject the necessities of nature. Once we see this then we discover that there is no separate laws for people, where the laws of nature govern the motions of planets and the climate we see that failure to live with these laws will destroy us. We must eventually come to an understanding of the wisdom of the natural world. More than this it is imperative that the countryside be preserved, for it is and has always been the foundation of any country.

This leads into animal rights. Our society generally has a love of animals and the question of animal protection is important to most of us. Generations of people and farmers have always looked on their pets and farm animals as their companions. After all, animals are not merely creatures in an organic sense, but creatures who lead their own lives and who have perceptive abilities, who feel pain and seem to experience joy and become faithful and attached to us. But under a strange comprehension of natural law animals have been considered mostly a dead thing under human law. This has to change and really it is only the Greens who have a consistent animal rights policy.

Of course there is the war in Iraq, a subject close to my heart and the Greens'. There can be no doubt that this unjust war has returned to it primitive forms. The war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature and these riches belong to he who conquers them. There should be no blood for oil.

Finally there is the overarching whole of life. While I believe in no god I am somewhat sympathetic to a Gaia idea. When we think of belief in God I think we really think of the power of the laws of nature as what we call that omnipotent force, or God, or whatever. We should live as naturally as possible, that is to say in accord with some sort of "laws of life". The more precisely we understand and observe the laws of nature and of life and the more we keep to them, the more we align ourselves with nature and can live harmoniously within it.

(Source) Why I voted Green

2005-11-01T03:02:00.000+13:00

"Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was ever meant to become lord and master of Nature. A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed. Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free himself from their sway." -- Adolf Hitler Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 10.

"The German countryside must be preserved under all circumstances, for it is and has forever been the source of strength and greatness of our people." -- Adolf Hitler

Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation – which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred – and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development." -- Adolf Hitler

"At the end of the last century the progress of science and technique led liberalism astray into proclaiming man's mastery of nature, and announcing he would soon have dominion over space ... In any case, we shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed, and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress." -- Adolf Hitler, 11 July 1941

"The German people have always shown their great love of animals and the question of animal protection was always near their hearts. For thousands of years the German people have always looked upon their household and farmyard animals as their companions, in the case of horses as their fighting companions, and as God's creatures. To the German, animals are not merely creatures in the organic sense, but creatures who lead their own lives and who are endowed with perceptive facilities, who feel pain and experience joy and prove to be faithful and attached. ...Under the influence of foreign conceptions of justice and a strange comprehension of law, through the unhappy fact that the exercise of justice was in the hands of people alien to the nation (i.e., Jews) -- because of all these conditions, until now, the animal was considered a dead thing under the law." -- Hermann Goering, August 1933

"War has returned to its primitive form ... Today war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to he who conquers them." -- Adolf Hitler, 10 October 1941

"When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God, we do not mean what naive Christians and their clerical exploiters have in mind. ...The power of nature's law is what we call the omnipotent force or God. ...We National Socialists demand of ourselves that we live as naturally as possible, that is to say in accord with the laws of life. The more precisely we understand and observe the laws of nature and of life and the more we keep to them, the more we correspond to the will of this omnipotent force." -- Martin Bormann, NSDAP Party Secretary

Cheers Joe

2005-10-30T07:54:00.000+13:00

Thanks to Joe Hendren, for giving this blog a mention in his roundup of new blogs on the lefter side of the spectrum!

(Source) Bush and empire

2005-10-29T05:55:00.000+13:00

The source: "Der tönende Koloß," Das eherne Herz (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1943), pp. 92-98

The Clay Giant

by Joseph Goebbels

The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, as is well known, is a close friend of alcohol. His relations to the truth are a bit more strained. He has been on a war footing ever since his entry into political life. He is one of the world's best known liars. Not only do those in neutral and enemy nations smile when he says something, even knowledgeable circles in England cannot repress a grin. Everyone knows how he adds or subtracts, for example. At the moment he divides figures that are unfavorable for England by three, and multiplies the favorable ones by the same figure.

The multiplier or divisor varies according to the war situation. When Mr. Churchill was recently forced to give an account of the Battle of the Atlantic to the House of Commons, he announced that 750,000 BRT had been sunk in the preceding four months. The real figure was 2 million. Granted, he can claim to be less than a liar than Stalin. The latter recently said that 378,000 Soviet soldiers were missing, while we happen to have 3,600,000 Bolshevist prisoners. He uses a divisor of ten.

It is clear that the enemy does not hesitate to tell the most outrageous lies, even when we possess irrefutable and persuasive numerical evidence. They clearly are not trying to impress us with their figures any longer. The sole goal is a more or less short-term impact on world opinion. They no longer have the courage to tell the whole truth, since they begin to realize that it could be a shock to domestic public opinion that could not be controlled. They conceal the facts without particularly worrying about us. That's how things are at the moment in the Moscow-London-Washington coalition.

Questions are increasingly being asked in England as to how, given the current situation, England has any chance at all of winning. Mr. Churchill did indeed claim with practiced emotion during his last speech that if Japan and the United States began warfare, a British declaration of war would follow within the hour. Everyone knows that that is a bluff. How can an England that daily sends desperate pleas to the U.S. provide any support? Great Britain's current situation is so hopeless that only a miracle can save it. Mr. Churchill's prophecies have not been fulfilled. The Soviet Union has not done what was expected of it. The Battle of the Atlantic continues with consequences that in the long run can only be fatal for England. The threat of a blockade of the Axis powers has failed. Roosevelt is running into war with seven league boots, but he may not make it, and even if he does, how would America's entry change England's precarious situation?

The English government clearly must maintain face even in its present desperate situation. One cannot determine the dramatic change in England's changes by comparing yesterday to today, but if one looks back to the end of June it becomes clear that England's chances are nil. We will not even mention the alleged plan to invade the continent as a way of taking pressure from the Soviets, even if London was speaking about it four months ago as if it were practically a given. It has been removed from consideration on the other side of the Channel, and by the same Prime Minister who not too long ago was encouraging his paid journalists to promote it.

When the Führer spoke with biting irony of this empty prattle in his recent Munich speech, the English press hurriedly sought to avoid the matter, explaining that the Führer's speech really did not say anything new and therefore did not deserve a detailed response. In the previous 24 hours, however, the British air force lost 60 valuable aircraft and 250 crewmen in flights over the Reich or our occupied territories. During the same period we had seven civilian deaths and no significant damage. The human casualties thus stand in a relationship of 1:36. The material losses are hardly comparable. Mr. Churchill blamed the enormous losses by the Royal Air Force on the weather, which his news service claimed was the worst in 98 years. It seems the British have been keeping exact records of weather conditions in Germany for the last 98 years — one must be orderly, after all. He also raised the number of participating aircraft over a period of 72 hours from 150 to 2,000, to lower the loss percentages. But the American press reported the next day that the Royal Air Force lost nearly half of the aircraft involved in the mission.

Do what man will, England has nothing left but a bitter aftertaste. They have miscalculated in every regard. There is no revolution in Germany or the occupied regions. The blockade has been rendered useless by Germany's counter-blockade. The current situation rules out a return to the continent. The so-called "Non-Stop Offensive" has not come anywhere close to living up to its promise. We no longer fear assistance from the U.S.A. Despite all the prayers of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bolshevist offensive has failed. London's numerous psychological attempts to break Axis unity were condemned to failure from the beginning. British attempts to break German morale have failed. Once more: How is it possible for England to win at all, or even better put, how is it possible for it to avoid losing?

We are not among those who fantasize about a collapse of the British Empire in the next day or two. All good things take time, and that which has been built up over centuries will not collapse in a few months. We see things realistically, and know that it take more blows before the clay colossus begins to crumble. But that is not really important. What is important is that fact that England no longer has a chance to win, and is in fact already on the road to defeat.

No one can say exactly when that will happen. We are not waging the war with a stopwatch. Mr. Churchill makes childish claims every day over his propaganda service that if we have not won the war by a certain point, we will lose it. It is true that the British and American armaments industries are producing at full capacity, but does Mr. Churchill believe that our factories and those of our allies are idle? We hardly believe that time is working in England's favor. We know exactly what England can and cannot do. We also know what we cannot do, and above all what we can do. We also have firm figures that give us a reliable grasp of our armaments capacities and those of the enemy. Mr. Churchill may be able to fool his satellites with his figures, but we will never be in any doubt as to which multiplier or divisor we need to apply to his numbers.

Incidentally, both the recent and distant past provide ample evidence that one must distinguish between England's claims and the facts. What they announce or threaten usually proves empty. Their boasting as a result has no effect on us. They hardly cause us the fright Mr. Churchill seems to expect, but rather give only the occasion to smile. London cannot fool us. We know what a desperate situation the British Empire is in just as well as Mr. Churchill — perhaps even better than he.

The only remaining question is why he stubbornly and insistently holds to a position that is so harmful for England. In recent weeks there have been rumors of German peace-feelers. The wish is the father of the thought. He has to give his people something to strengthen their resolve. When he bombastically announces that he will never accept a German peace offer — an offer that we have not made and will never make — it is only grasping at straws as a way of dealing with his inferiority complex. We do not consider him a person with a political conscience. He has no scruples at all and his hide is as thick as that of a hippopotamus. He is wholly indifferent to the vast misery into which he has plunged the nations he has seduced. He is also incapable of historical thinking, as his speeches regularly prove. He who joins forces with Bolshevism to lay waste to Europe is a man without character who is hostile to Europe.

He really is not interested in such things. He evaluates everything only as to how it affects his valued self. He prepared this war and incited it. In the fullest sense of the word, it is his war. If England loses the war his position will also collapse, and perhaps more fully than he is able to realize today. That may be why he has made repeated attempts recently to place the responsibility for the war elsewhere. In his more lucid moments he probably sees his approaching fate but does not want to admit it. He fights desperately, hoping for a miracle.

He will wait in vain. History also has its laws. They can sometimes be slowed down, but never stopped. Fate follows its prescribed course. It will not stop at England's door. We do not know when the hour will come. Rather than asking when, we should work and fight for it so that it will find us a nation in readiness.

Bush and empire

2005-10-28T17:56:00.000+13:00

I'm returning to considerations around Iraq, specifically Bush and his inhumane policy of illegal war. It is difficult to find a president who was simultaneously so anti-progressive while being so illwitted yet powerful.

While he appears to be over the problem, Bush is well known to have been an alcoholic. Alcoholics in general have problems relating to the truth, often after recovering as well as is clearly evidenced by Bush and his near compulsive untruths. Even worse, he has been committed to war since ascending to power. The people of neutral countries, not anti-American by any means, as well as his devout enemies smile at his speech, even the best intentioned of America's best ally, the UK, can't suppress grinning usually. His inability with language is legendary, not to mention his general lack of intellect as was exemplified in his being embarrased over the Canadian PM's name prior to the 2000 election. Worse still he doesn't hesitate in using the most outrageous lies even as irrefutable proof and numerical evidence shows otherwise. Can we really take what he says as true when presented with the Iraqi death toll, of civilians and military personnel? His only aim is impact on opinion, he no longer has the courage to tell any truth since it would devastate public opinion at home even further. Into this he has drawn Blair, who ought to be standing up for progressive ideas and not becoming complicit in this lying. They conceal facts without worrying about the impact on ordinary Iraqis, but that is the situation for the Washington-London coalition.

Increasingly in America people are asking how they, with the situation as it stands, can have any hope of winning. Blair has hinted, with emotion well practised in his style, that war could be declared if Iran and Israel come to blows. But we know that this can only be a bluff. England is dependent on America and cannot act without her support. The situation is deteriorating for Iraq and Bush's vision is not being fulfilled. The insurgent battles have ongoing consequences that in the long term will be disastrous for America. The attempts to strangle the insurgency have failed. But above all the American regime has to retain its image in the face of the hopeless situation. You only need to reflect on the beginning of the war to see that the chances were always pretty much zero. Plans to open a relieving front via Turkey failed miserably even when Washington was touting it as a guaranteed measure to victory. Even at home Bush and his team must pay journalists to promote their war agenda. However you look at it, Bush can have nothing but a sour aftertaste from these matters. He miscalculates in most regards, there has been no revolutionary fervour in Iran or Syria as he hoped for. The insurgency can't be cut off from its backers. The domestic situation makes escalating the US military presence unthinkable and even during the war the vaunted "Shock and Awe" was made a mockery. The numerous reports of horrific treatment of Iraqis for the purposes of pyschologically weakening the opposition have backfired spectacularly. How is it possible for America to win under these circumstances? Better yet... how is it possible for them not to lose?

I'm not one who dreams of the collapse of the American empire in the near future. Things built up over decades will not collapse in weeks. Realistically speaking it will take more blows before the monolith begins to crumble away. But, that isn't so important. What is important is that America seemingly cannot win and is still firmly on the road to loss. It is hard to say when that moment will come, since war is not fought according to a timetable. Bush makes claims nearly everyday, relayed willingly by an array of media and "war bloggers". Remember the "end of combat operations"? The American military-industrial complex is churning out materiel, but the insurgency counters with an equal amount of IEDs and supplies smuggled from Iran and Syria. Time is working against America, their enemy knows precisely what America can and can't do and knows full well that they will do what America can't or won't do.

America's, or Bush's, claims are distinguished from fact by evidence from the recent and not so recent past. What is announced is usually empty. Bush's boasting causes little of the expected effect, but occassionally brings a smile. Washington can't fool us, we know the worsening situation Bush faces at home, just as well as Bush knows it if not better. The final question is why Bush stubbornly holds the position that is so obviously harmful to America. The signs of peace seen by Bush and his cheerleaders are merely wishful thinking, they are attempts to strengthen the foundering resolve of the military. He strenuously claims that America won't accept peace with the insurgents, but that is an offer that will never be made, only grasping at these straws enables him to deal with the inferiority of his position. He has no political conscience or scruples, other than the reactionary and deeply anti-progressive views of his party. Worse still he is indifferent to the misery that he has plunged Iraq into. He is also incapable of historic thought, as borne out by his speeches. But he and his nearest advisors are not interested in these things anyway, he calculates everything only on how it affects himself or his cronies. He paved the way for the war and then incited it. It is his war. Defeat will ensure his fall from grace even more than he can imagine today, look back only to Nixon to see what happened to a president who lied and obfuscated. That is of course the reason he repeatedly attempts to lay responsibility for the war elsewhere, al Qaeda, Saddam, the UN weapons inspections, French intelligence services... In his more reflective moments he probably sees what is coming but will never admit to that. He hopes and waits for a miracle. But the wait will of course be in vain, the flow of history is inexorable and will not spare him in the end.

(Source) Family research

2005-10-28T07:38:00.000+13:00

"Your Kin" section of "Your and Your People", Nazi guide to family. This bit seems to be instilling the "blood and soil" ideals.

Reichsleitung der NSDAP, Hauptamt für Erzieher (NSLB), Du und dein Volk (Munich: Deutscher Volksverlag, 1940).

As you investigate your genealogy, you will quickly discover that your relatives, your cousins, uncles and aunts, are very interested in the results of your investigations. That is easy to understand, since your uncle and aunt have parents in common with your father or mother, and your cousins share one set of your grandparents.

Now you suddenly see not only an ever broader chain of ancestors behind you, but also a broad set of relatives all around you — your kin.

Parents and children make up a family. One's kin include the brothers and sisters of the parents, their ancestors, and their children.

Even before the laws of inheritance were discovered, many families investigated their kin, because they sensed that one's kinfolk share characteristics and inclinations. Members of one and the same kin often recognize their relationship — however distant it may be — through some characteristic (think of the Hapsburg lower lip!) or a common gift (the Bachs!).

A knowledge of your kin gives you information that may not be evident from your genealogy. Your grandfather may have had a trait that your father did not inherit, but was passed to other of his children, your uncle, perhaps. Your father may still have carried the trait and passed it on to you. It is quite possible that with regards to this gift, or character weakness, you resemble your uncle more than your father.

The community of kin can provide an enormous treasury of principles. You can understand the moral foundation that gives the individual.

For our Germanic and old German ancestors, the significance of the community of one's kin was self evident. That is clear from the heroic sagas, in North German farmers' proverbs, in the economic structures of our farming ancestors, and in their legal documents.

As long as a family owned land which could be passed down, as long as the family had the right of inheritance, it kept records on ancestors, spouses, and children. As long as people were rooted in the soil that their family had owned for generations, they kept watch over the blood that flowed into their family.

A coat of arms served as a symbol of a family. Farmers often had a house mark, which one can still see today carved on the doorposts of houses in Lower Saxony. The middle class also had coats of arms during the Middle Ages.

The nobility held on to the idea of kinship the longest, even when they had lost the deeper meaning of blood and soil. Some leading noble families did preserve this true sense of nobility. A member of one such noble family is familiar to you: Paul von Hindenburg.

The idea of kinship has the strongest support in the new Germany. The Reich Ministry of the Interior has established "The Reich Office for Kinship Studies," which is dedicated to the care of families and kinship research. It is also considering reestablishing coats of arms to restore symbols of kinship and to promote pride in blood.

The relationships between members of a kinship group are shown in a kinship or ancestry table (in the past, a family tree). You begin with the earliest known person who bore the name of the kinship group, and add his children and in-laws, along with grandchildren and great grandchildren.

That will make it clear to you how rich and varied your kinship group is, and how it interrelates with other kinship groups in your home areas, indeed, in your German fatherland. In his book "Ahnenbüchlein," Ludwig Finckh writes: "I am a Schwabian through my father and mother, with never a drop of foreign blood to be found. It is easy for me, when I meet another Schwabian who knows his ancestry, to see how we are related within three minutes." And if in your research you find that your kinship group is related to other German groups, you will understand the complex network of kinship groups that together make up what we call our "people."

Once you have come to see your people in this way, as an enormously complicated, yet unified, network of millions related by blood, you will never be able to consider yourself an isolated individual again.

You are a member of your people. That means that what happens to your people also happens to you. And what happens to you happens to your people!

Family research

2005-10-27T07:37:00.000+13:00

I am interested very much in my family history, like a lot of Kiwis since virutally all of us have close ancestors who were recent immigrants from far places. Why they came here varies a lot. It is the continuity of history, the bond between people and the social fabric that creates that interests me. From a progressive point of view we have all this mixing of cultures and genes that are leading to a new synthesis for our nation. It is very exciting as we throw off the old, shall we say conservative, ideas about culture and identity. This is relevant to me because I have a bit of Maori ancestry, my grandmother who came from one of the Taranaki tribes died a couple of months ago. At times like that you hate yourself for not being more interested in these things before the critical people pass on. Still, now I've started and I've noted some experiences.

When you investigate genealogy you rapidly find that all your relatives suddenly become interested in the investigations you're doing. Natural enough, they all have common parents, grandparents and so on. You end up not only being interested in the chain of people leading to you, but also the wider family, your kin or whanau. For most of us "family" is Mum, Dad, brothers and sisters, but we have the wider kin/whanau of their parents, brothers, sisters and kids. There is something inherently important in these relationships, which we sense before we have any understanding of genetics and the like. We recognise ourselves in them through shared characteristics or gifts. Knowing who these people are we recognise traits that make us closer to more distant relatives than our parents, for instance. My brother is diabetic, as is our grandfather and all our uncles on that side. But our father isn't and neither am I. So sometimes my brother feels more strongly attached to our uncles than our father. This community of family also gives us a great store of principles and enables us to build a moral foundation drawn upon by each individual. To those of us with Maori ancestors the significance of this community of whanau is self-evident. It is clear from the oral histories, the sayings and the societal/economic structures of our tribal ancestors. The land "owned" by the extended family of those times, which still features strong in some areas, was passed along with rights of inheritance. They knew who the ancestors were, the spouses, the children. People were rooted in the earth that the family/tribe had cared for and owned for generations, it was the lifeblood of the whanau. It is possible to lose this deeper sense of earth and life, it becomes corrupted in power structures that are divorced from the community and society. But even then those who lord it over others can still sense it and be made aware of its importance to them in a social context.

We also can't escape who we have come from. It is less evident nowadays, but I remember at family gatherings where my grandmother and her sisters would meet up with more distant relatives and if someone brought along an acquaintance from the same area they'd know in about three minutes who he was and where he fitted into the relations, even if that was quite remote. The complexity of the kinship extended to a wider area as well. That is after all what makes us a people, an enormously complicated but unified network (sorry, engineer geek here) of literally thousands and thousands related in important ways. It is almost impossible to consider yourself an isolated individual in this over-arching social construct. We are members of our people, our community, our society. What happens to them happens to us and vice versa, what happens to us happens to them.

Oh, that got quite long for a musing on family tree research. Sorry about that, tend to get carried away sometimes on these lines of thought. Maybe I'll expand on it again later.

Iraqi Consitution

2005-10-26T15:06:00.000+13:00

The defining feature of the present is, naturally, Iraq. It is as good a place as any to begin on my new blog. The Iraqis have gone to the voting booths and the majority have opted for the constitution. Hardly surprising, what else did they have to chose between? Going back to Saddam or making nice with the new order imposed by the US.

But in the same week over 2,000 US soldiers have died. A historically low number in relation to other wars, but that isn't the point. The point is can America win the war? Or will they lose it. It is becoming clear that America does not deserve to win the war and spread its system over the Middle East and beyond. There is nothing in the American system worth imitating, either for Iraq or the Middle East. If Americanism conquers the world, it would mean the end of our human values and of genuine freedom. What I mean is the freedom to do things, not the illusory freedom from something. They should perhaps look to Europe, which has fought and suffered for years on end, it tore its soul apart until finally they recognised their common values and found the way to genuine peace. You need only see that very few Europeans want to trade places with an American. America is now a pitiful country and its people betrayed and deceived by their leaders in an indescribable manner by Bush. He speaks of helping the common man, but fills his election campaign fund with contributions from uncaring businessmen. How can we expect freedom in Iraq to come from such a birth?

(Source) Iraqi Constitution

2005-10-26T07:26:00.000+13:00

From "Land Without Heart", German travel book 1942.

A. E. Johann, Das Land ohne Herz: Eine Reise ins unbekannte Amerika (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1942).

p. 263: The conclusion to the book: "It was not the goal of this book to discuss whether America can win the war, or whether it must lose it. But perhaps it has become clear —and that was my goal — that America does not deserve to win the war and spread its system over the entire world. There is nothing in the American system worth imitating, either for Germany or Europe. If Americanism conquered the world, it would mean the end of all human values and of genuine freedom — the freedom to do something, not from something! — of all the values for which Europe has fought and suffered for millennia, for which it has given all its strength of body and soul.

No European could exchange places with an American. America is a pitiable country and the Americans are a betrayed people, betrayed by their leaders, betrayed and deceived in a simply indescribable way by their self chosen leader Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He spoke of helping the common man, but filled his election campaign fund with donations from uncaring capitalists. He began by wanting to loose the capitalist chains, but became as much a tool of Morgan as any of his predecessors."

Why

2005-10-25T12:33:00.000+13:00

Over the years in my little corner of Auckland (New Zealand) I have thought a lot about socialist and progressive politics. In order to get my thoughts straight and coherent for myself I decided to begin to set these ideas down. So naturally I needed to start a blog, like everyone else, to inflict these meandering thoughts on the world. If you like them feel free to use them and link to them. I'll enable comments but I won't personally be using this as a discussion forum much just yet, but please make comments! It's all valuable for the learning and refining process!

Post the first

2005-10-25T10:12:00.000+13:00

Here we are, all nice and shiny new.