book report: Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, Bullock
I am finally ready to continue my genocide and tyrant reading by touching the 3rd rail of Nazi Germany and Hitler. At the library I picked up the abridged version of this classic, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Abridged Edition, Alan Bullock, Harper Perennial, 1991, originally written in 1962.
This particular quote stood out to me in light of the all the press Ben Stein's documentary, Expelled is generating. Not only does Stein embarrass the Darwinian thought police of academia, but he also draws a connection between Darwinism and Hitler's "final solution". I don't know if anyone bloviating over this accusation has actually read Hitler's propaganda piece, My Struggle, or Mein Kampf. I haven't either. but this biography quotes from it not knowing that a documentary in 2008 would make such accusations. So consider this quote in the context of Hitler's anti-Semitism.
This particular quote stood out to me in light of the all the press Ben Stein's documentary, Expelled is generating. Not only does Stein embarrass the Darwinian thought police of academia, but he also draws a connection between Darwinism and Hitler's "final solution". I don't know if anyone bloviating over this accusation has actually read Hitler's propaganda piece, My Struggle, or Mein Kampf. I haven't either. but this biography quotes from it not knowing that a documentary in 2008 would make such accusations. So consider this quote in the context of Hitler's anti-Semitism.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “The idea of struggle is as old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle. … In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things. … It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle…. If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won.” (pp.11-12)He sounds Darwinian to me.
Comments
The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould's scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87).
Hitler's formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the "Nordics", a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel's position on the 'Judenfrage' was assimilation and Expelled-command from their university chairs, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?
In 1917 the immigration of "defective" groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the "nordic" balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).
Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the "yellow" group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.
Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century. And she went Full Monty.
pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm
PS. Here's the final chapter scanned from an evolutionist scholar D. Gasman from his The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (chapter 7, Gasman 1971)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
God is good
jpu
In contrast to UK, I consider the US White House Paper's 9.9.2001 outcry to search stem cells apart from human embryos as being a singularity of bioethics. Taking the current declassification of the World War II files into account, could George Walker Bush be the man to judge the present in the past context? The "gill slits", "fins", "furrows" and "tails" of human embryos justify the importance of being earnest. Is there an indirect price for the society for utilizing human embryos and their stem cells for economical reasons?
President George Walker Bush addressed his nation in the 9th of August, 2001, on the potential of some types of embryonic stem cells to lead to new and revolutionary therapies. In his speech, President Bush publicly commended and called for more federal funding of scientific research using stem cells from sources other than human embryos. Instead of federal funding for the embryonic stem cell research, focusing on the ~65 preliminary ebryonic stem cell lines, adult progenitor cells – and private companies in the wild market - was exhorted in the largest economy of the world.
The White House Paper can be reproached for using a double standard on ethics, regarding approval of the foreign ESC-lines that were already introduced and concerning the mere transfer of the embryonic utilization from the state to the private companies. Nevertheless, this statement seems to be the most wellknown attempt for a request of a time-up, and I consider this opinion as the singularity on the bioethics against the putative challenge to the Hippocratean research tradition. Next I try to shed light on the historical significance and the political repercussions behind the "White House Paper".
Now that the US archives of the WW II are being declassified by the Interagency Working Group, as appointed by William Clinton in 1995, extremely stringent questions have been asked regarding the civilian annihilation and the Western coalition (Jokisipilä 2001). Why did not the allies bombard the civilian destruction factories, or even their railway connections during their air reign, despite the fervent requests? Both London and Washington were aware, after all, of the destiny of the Jewish civilians, their co-victims, and their protectors, since the Barbarossa that began in June 1941. The number of broken messages 1941-42 was nearly two thousand. One burst could contain even 3000 casualities, and these "enigmas" were so congruent and monogenous that soon they were not even briefed to the British leaders etc. After the war, this information was hidden from the courts of war crimes. The cold war against the former Soviet Union began earlier than thought.
No Jew, as an indication, was handed Red Cross passport, whereas fugitive men like the commendant of Treblinka (Stangl), Death angel with his "mengelian genetics" (Mengele), the leader of the Gestapo in Poland (Kutschmann), and "The Butchler of Lyon" (Barbie) were allowed it - and even recruited for the western espionages in the last case, according to the most controversial intelligence surveys by Loftus and Aarons (1993, 1994). There were only a handful convicted men in Nürnberg, usually released a few years later. The bulk part of the race-breeders and, finally, civilian massmurderers, escaped via the "ratline" through Italy with the smuggled money stolen from the war victims. Despite the pious smoke screen after the shoa (unvoluntary holocaust), the economical collaboration and outright money laundring for Nazies in the west went largely untried, it seems.
Ethics in science means the study of morals, not moralizing as such. In contrast to the rhyme pecunia non olet (money does not smell), I think this is a most relevant issue because in the business the free act of choice is most emphasized.
This has nothing to do with the new ethics of modern bioscience, has it? It might have. As a result of the White House Paper, the scientific community in the Europe seems to have stood up to oppose the "banning politics" of George Bush Jr. in a nearly solid front. Why did the "president's men" call to Scandinavian professors (Outi Hovatta, personal communication) to home at the mid-night to ask the number of the existing embryonic stem cell lines, then?
George Bush Junior got both of his names from George Bush Senior - the second Vespasian-Titus relationship in the history of one of the world's oldest democracies. The father of George Bush Senior and the grandfather of George Bush Junior was the post-war senator Prescott Bush, from whom the two presidents inherited their family name. The grandfather of George Bush Senior and the great-grandfather of George Bush Junior was investor (and former heavyweight boxing champion) George Herbert Walker, from whom the two presidents inherited their first name. The second name of G. W. Bush denotes Walker, whereas the whole name of the Senior president is George Herbert Walker Bush.
Classified ones are not the files of choice as scientific references, but an introduction to the one of the most heated debates related to the motives behind the Bush'es seems not only justified, but a key insight, to me.
Among the most prominent authors linking the fathers of the Bush family directly to Nazi Germany is the former US Justice Department Nazi War Crimes Prosecutor John Loftus, mentioned above. As a prosecutor, Loftus had access to Top Secret files, and as a private attorney he has helped intelligence agents to obtain lawful permission to declassification. The research by Loftus and Aarons is severely biased in its topic, but it is their "license to leak" that has stirred up discussion to the point of open and public letters from organizations like Antifa to G.W. Bush.
The most controversial titles of Loftus and Aarons include Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis and the Swiss Banks (1993, 1998) and The Secret War against the Jews: How the Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People (1994).
Loftus and Aarons are one of the authors claiming that affiliates of Prescott Bush's company were under investigation for aiding the Nazis in the time of war. The accusations refer to I.G. Farben, well-known for its connection to German in provision of oil, chemicals, and munitions. The cartel is also mentioned in the context of building and operating slave labor factories and death camps after their scaling up from the euthanasia projects.
To make a long story on nihilism short: These cartels gave a totally new meaning for recycling, human transplants and Haeckelian term of ecology. The Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and the Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company located in a particularly well-known area in Poland. As far as the most recent accusations by Loftus go, the coal deposits could be processed into coal or additives for gasoline - in Auschwitz.
According to Loftus and Aarons, Prescott Bush became the national chairman of the United Service Organization's annual fund campaign, which raised $33 million 1942 to provide entertainment for Allied troops. That was also the year, when the 18-year old George Bush Senior abandoned his plans to enter Yale, and made the historical decision to volunteer in the war. Loftus and Aarons claim that while George Bush Sr. was in flight school preparing himself to save his family's reputation, the U.S. government charged his father with running Nazi front groups in the country.
"Under the sharing with the Enemy Act, all the shares of the Union Banking Corporation were seized, including those held by Prescott Bush as being held for enemy nationals… The U.S. government found that huge sections of Prescott Bush's empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort" (Loftus & Aarons 1994, p. 360-1).
As for George Walker, according to the accusations of Loftus and Aarons, at the time he did not yet directly benefit from financing Hitler. He invested.
"Walker was one of Hitler's most powerful financial supporters in the United States. The relationship went all the way back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler's infant Nazi party." (p. 358).
If true, Walker was supporting the movement in its most vulnerable and critical period. It was the period after the 1923 inflation, when Hitler was released from prison and the politics were brutalized and radicalized. The foreign currency prooved to be vital, when inflation raised the exchange rate fabulously high. (1.11.1923 one US dollar costed 130,000 million German marks, which consumed all of the savings of the middle class.)
SA troops (storm troopers) numbered 350,000 for many years when the correspondent ultra rightwing parties got only a few percentage of the votes in elections. Who paid these private arms, that were four times larger than the German army after the Versailles? SA did not manage its duties for charity and its troops were not considered "Altkämpfers", as the organization was dismantled after Hitler assumed power. Despite the title of Fritz Thyssen's (1873-1951) book "I paid Hitler" (1941) the sum of 1 million German marks displayed in it is not satisfactory. Fritz Thyssen fled from the Nazi-Germany after the invasion of Poland and died in a concentration camp in 1945. He did not acknowledge the authorship of the I paid Hitler, however. As a dilettant in the study, I feel temptation to ask, whether the book was a public cover?
To put things in perspective, again, the accusations of "sins of the fathers" in the "bushism" could be compared to the accusations against some neutral countries, such as in the case of the Swiss banks or Swedish industry. Esse non videri: In their The Art of Cloaking, Aalders and Wiebes present a case of even a closer link to the IG Farben (1989, 1996) in the case of the largest private bank in Sweden. If Joseph Stalin, in accords with his name, trusted in steel, see Fritz 1973 for a review of Swedish iron ore and German war industry.
Indeed, due to the many Swedish ESC-lines in the White House Paper, Sweden is called "the imperium of stem cells" in the Finnish press describing the economical promises in the field. Due to the pioneering position of Sweden in the popularization, especial openness to ethical scrutiny is required. In the lightly populated Sweden, the annual number of forced sterilization was at least 2000 even in 1948-49, just after the Word War II (Reilly 1991, pp. xiii). It is dramatical, that Simon Wiesenthal has lived nearly 100 years, after visiting his 44 kg. A rough estimation of the number of documents putting forward the heroic story of Raoul Wallenberg in the Swedish media is some three thousands. From the view point of the accusations against Raoul's two uncles, a document per 10-30 rescued Jews could righteously be called biased popularization. This pious smoke screen has indeed been noticed by the "Nazi-hunters".
We are living at the time of the declassification of files from the World War II, but privileged researchers would not have had to wait to check the roots of the brutalizing recapitulationary myth. The scientific references were never classified. Haeckel's bitter materialism culminated in the upper right panel of his most famous illustration: in the "earliest" stage of the human embryo.
What if president Bush tried to be earnest within this particular topic? What if he could have been precisely the man who should have been taken dead seriously? What if we would also consider judging the present in the past context, before the market forces break loose?
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (M.Sci. Master of Sciing)
I completely agree that the use of any ESC approved by Bush is a tragedy. The restrictions in the states have enabled breakthroughs in the use of adult stem cells which also have a lower cancer risk than ESC. I've been to presentations where scientists selling ASC's sneer that there are no ethical concerns with these cell lines but I sit in the audience and cheer quietly.
God is good
jpu
I actually stated that the White House paper has been, nevertheless, the most important single class of opposition to the lobby of the utilization of the human embryos. So I respect GW Bush for it. It is important to study especially the embryocarcinomas and spontaneously aborted fetuses in order to understand what causes diseases. But fertilization for mere research purpose is very very greedy.
I have, indeed, made some unorthodox remarks on the backrounf of his grandfather and Prescot Bush father in law from whom they inheritad their first name, George Herbert Walker:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Bushism_sins_of_the_fathers.htm
For those, you can take mere fibrablasts, skin cells, and when transfected with only three recombinant or extracted growth factors, they will behave with as high versatility as the blastocyst cell lines for which one has to destroy embryos. Besides, you can take those skin cells from the patient himself or herself! So no fear for rejection of graft versus host disease.
But usually you don\t hear about these from the daily news. Only the embryo discovieries seem to count. US has been the one of the most upright country in the West in this question, together with Germany and Poland. Sweden and England are very opportunistic.
You might like these figures:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckel_illustrations.html
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Kavalkadi.html