Propaganda 101: What You Need to Know and Why or . . .

A poster child for propaganda . . .

The Word

by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

Originally, I drafted this article with a preface about the story Michael Hastings recently broke on BuzzFeed about an amendment to the latest defense authorization bill that would “legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences.” However, as I worked on it this morning, our very own poet laureate and research librarian extraordinaire Elaine Magliaro cut me off at the pass with her own excellent article on the subject.  So instead of repeating the points she makes which illustrate why understanding propaganda is important, I will refer you to her post “How about Some Government Propaganda for the People Paid for by the People Being Propagandized?

Now that the kid gloves have come off regarding the governmental efforts to control your mind by controlling both your information and how you receive it, let’s discuss the nature of propaganda. Now more than ever, it is important to know the basics of how propaganda works. Since words are the basic building block of the English language, we’ll start with asking what is propaganda, look at some general history of the practice, consider the importance of meaning of words, the ideas of connotation and denotation, and the process of selecting “value loaded” words.

What is propaganda? Webster’s defines the word as follows:

propaganda \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\, n.,

1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions (ed. note: Not relevant, but interesting.)

2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

But that’s not exactly what people feel when they hear the word, is it? Why do most people have a negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? After all, by definition, “propaganda” is much like the verb “to persuade” in meaning.

persuade \pər-ˈswād\, v., v.t.,

1: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action

2: to plead with : urge

Etymologically speaking, the word “propaganda” is fairly new as a political science term. “Propaganda” didn’t come into common use as a political science term until World War I. Even then it was not a pejorative in use like it is today. The word originated (some would say unsurprisingly so) as shorthand referring to the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregatio de Propaganda Fide or the “congregation for propagating the faith”. This committee of cardinals was established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions. The word “propaganda” is the feminine gerund of the Italian verb “propagando” which in turn is derived from the Latin verb prōpāgō, meaning “to propagate”.

propagate \ˈprä-pə-ˌgāt\, v., v.t.,

3a : to cause to spread out and affect a greater number or greater area : extend b : to foster growing knowledge of, familiarity with, or acceptance of (as an idea or belief) : publicize c : to transmit (as sound or light) through a medium

Clearly the largest distinction between persuasion and propaganda is that propaganda is a form of large scale persuasion. Persuasion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Changing someone’s mind is a better tactic than violence. Persuasion is at the heart of society’s pillar and replacement for self-help justice and dispute resolution, the adversarial court system. Persuasion is an alternative to coercion.

So what is propaganda? It’s a tool to change people’s minds. Like any tool, it is capable of beneficial use and horrific misuse. This makes understanding how the tool works critical if you want to recognize (and possibly work to prevent) its misuse.

If that is the case the word originally had no pejorative use, then why do most people have an automatic negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? This brings us to the ideas of connotation and denotation. Plainly put, denotation is a direct specific meaning; the literal meaning of a word and nothing more. Connotation is a “something” suggested by a word or thing; an implied meaning. I suggest the negative connotation for the word “propaganda” comes from both the negative denotation built in to the word itself (part of the definition is “for the purpose of helping or injuring” and injury carries the negative notion of harm to self and/or others) and the recent historical use of propaganda to dastardly ends culminating to create an implied negative meaning beyond the definition. The denotation of a word is not the direct province of the propagandist. They have to know what the words actually mean, but that is of limited value to them. The edge of the propagandist’s knife so to speak lies in the connotation of words. More on that topic as we move along. In the 20th Century, we have seen what truly evil injury propaganda is capable of inflicting on a society. To know how we got to today, it is important to have a bit of historical perspective.

Ramses II: Conqueror or Fibber?

Historically, the idea of propaganda has been around as long as there have been society and governments. For example, in ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh Ramses II claimed a great victory over the Hittites in the Battles of Kadesh (possibly the largest chariot battle in history). The two most common forms of Egyptian records of the battles are known as “The Poem” and “The Bulletin”. Both are found carved into multiple sites in Egypt, all built or expanded upon by Ramses II – one of the greatest builders of ancient Egypt. “The Bulletin” is found on seven different temples or monuments and eight total sites have “The Poem”. When you add numerous other references on papyrus and in tangentially related carvings, this makes the Battles of Kadesh one of the best recorded battles of antiquity. The tale told is of an overwhelming victory for Ramses II and Egypt.

There’s only one problem with that depiction.

It is most certainly a lie at worst and an exaggeration at best.

Hittite records, although not as numerous, all tell the tale of a Hittite victory. Archaeological evidence is inconclusive. One of the two parties is lying and possibly both. Most modern historians have come to the conclusion that the battle likely ended in a draw. Given that, why did Ramses II carve his non-existent victory into stone? Propaganda is the answer. Ramses II wanted the reputation as a strong military leader even if the reality wasn’t so glorious. So he fluffed the details and spread the word that “Ramses II Kicks Ass!” Unless you were at the Battles of Kadesh, who were you to argue with a Living God? Then realizing that his chances for immediate military exploits were practically nil, Ramses II did what any respectable Pharaoh would do and a secondary exercise in propaganda: he returned to the building spree he started as a young man. Some would say the greatest building spree in the history of the ancient Egypt. Just like the Romans after him, Ramses knew that impressive buildings were a kind of psychological warfare – non-verbal propaganda geared at projecting the power of the throne to the masses, but more on this at a later date. The focus here is language and the basics of propaganda.

In the beginning, there was the word. Those with the word were limited. If they could not speak directly, they were limited by how many manual physical copies they could get out to the masses and how many of the masses could read. Then came the printing press in the 15th Century. When Guttenberg invented it, one of the early adopters of the technology was the Holy Roman Empire. By the end of the Renaissance, book making was industrialized to the point that printer/binders could produce between three and four thousand pages per day: a hundred fold increase in production compared to the most prolific of scribes. Books and written material went from rare treasures to common items. As knowledge became democratized, the use of printed propaganda grew in unison: public notices, political flyers and proto-newspapers became cheap and abundant.

The 20th Century was in some ways a Golden Age for deploying propaganda. Unlike any previous age, the 20th Century was the age of mass communications. Industrial mass printing of newspapers, radio, television, telephones and the Internet radically changed the way humans communicate. The word became King and the picture became Queen. Even illiteracy wasn’t the barrier it had posed to the ancient world as the spoken word supplemented the written and the truism that “a picture is worth a thousand words” is a truism for a reason. Even physical handicap was less of a barrier to getting the message out as those blind to the printed word and picture and deaf to the spoken word now had the channel of communication created by the 19th Century invention of Braille. As propaganda is large scale persuasion, mass media provided a natural accelerant. What had previously been a candle of propaganda became a bonfire necessarily becoming a political science term in common usage. The 20th Century saw probably the most devastating use of propaganda to date on any population. Propaganda was instrumental to both the Nazi war effort and their social engineering that allowed them to industrially murder six million Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped. Propaganda was key to the crimes of the Khemer Rouge. Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Castro’s rise to power in Cuba. The wrongful, misguided and likely illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. These are a few of many examples where propaganda has been used to either garner public support for ethically wrong actions by government or obfuscate the truth to aid the guilty from being brought to justice. This point will be addressed further in a later column, but it goes a long way to explaining how a word of neutral value became a word of negative value due to recent history.

We are still left with the word. As far as the word “propaganda” proper, we know what it means. We know where it comes from. We know the goal of propaganda in general. That leaves us with word choice and the idea of “value loaded” word and how it relates to propaganda. What are words loaded with? They are loaded with implication. This is why connotation is the edge of the propagandist’s knife. Word choice is critical. As I noted earlier, the denotation of a word is not the direct province of the propagandist. The edge of the propagandist’s knife so to speak lies in the connotation of words. However, knowing the proper denotation of words – i.e. having a large vocabulary – puts one at a tactical advantage against the propagandist. If one knows the actual meaning of words, it becomes more difficult for the propagandist to use connotation against you.

For example, consider the use of media outlets like NPR that made a public and conscious decision to refrain from reporting on “torture” – a word with extremely negative denotation and connotation – and instead choosing to use the euphemistic language “enhanced interrogation”. Everyone with a conscience thinks torture is a bad thing and torturers are ethically abhorrent people. It’s not only a Federal crime, cruel and unusual punishment is specifically barred by the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. The word choice here is designed to clearly shift public attitudes from “those guys need to be prosecuted as criminals” to “maybe they aren’t so bad after all”. NPR (aided by the Bush Administration no doubt)  chose words with a neutral/positive value load compared to the word “torture”.  Connotation plays to your emotional response over your rational response.  When the word choice becomes more subtle, the damage of connotations can be even more insidious. Compare:

  • war – limited police action
  • conquest – liberation
  • famine – widespread hunger
  • pestilence – outbreak
  • death – casualties

Be aware and suspicious of word choice, certainly.  Especially when dealing with adjectives as they have by their nature a great capacity to carry connotation. However, it is equally important to consider the speaker. When evaluating something you suspect is propaganda, ask these questions:

  • Who is the speaker?
  • What does the speaker want from me?
  • What advantage does the speaker gain from my agreement or lose from my disagreement? And vice-versa?
  • Does the speaker represent other interests that may not be obvious?
  • Why is the speaker giving this message now?

What is your first line of defense against propaganda?

Be aware of the meaning and choice of words. To that end, work to strengthen your vocabulary. Buy a “Word A Day” calender or download an app for your phone, use a website or download a tickler program for your computer.

Always question the message and the messenger as well as any who may have sent the messenger. Practice reading with emotional detachment and a critical eye to not only what is said, but how it is said and by whom.

Keep in mind that propaganda is a tool. It is inherently neutral. The good or evil is found in the intent of the speaker and their desired actions and/or reactions on your part.

What is your first line of defense against propaganda?  You are. And that is my unhidden message to you: Wake up.  Civilization calls. The world is what we make it.

The next article in this series will address methodology, strategy and tactics in deploying propaganda.

~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

The Propaganda Series;

Propaganda 105: How to Spot a Liar

Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Streisand Effect and the Political Question

Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Sound of Silence

Propaganda 104: Magica Verba Est Scientia Et Ars Es

Propaganda 103: The Word Changes, The Word Remains The Same

Propaganda 102 Supplemental: Holly Would “Zero Dark Thirty”

Propaganda 102: Holly Would and the Power of Images

Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Child’s Play

Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Build It And They Will Come (Around)

Related articles of interest;

Mythology and the New Feudalism by Mike Spindell

How about Some Government Propaganda for the People Paid for by the People Being Propagandized? by Elaine Magliaro

343 thoughts on “Propaganda 101: What You Need to Know and Why or . . .

  1. An engaging article Gene, great work, and thought provoking. If you have the time or inclination to write about use of Allegory with propaganda I’m sure many will find it enjoyable. especially with regard to posters or imagry.

  2. Gene, good article on a subject of interest to me.

    Of course, we have been subject to various forms of propaganda since the day we were born. It is called “advertising” and “spin.” The specialty area of Industrial/Organizational Psychology is devoted to the study and implementation of this stuff.

    The late Dr. Frank Stanton was President of CBS from 1946-1971. It is no accident that Dr. Stanton was also a brilliant I/O psychologist. Dr. Frank Luntz has his Ph.D. in political science, but uses the techniques of I/O psychological research in his work. Luntz’ job title ought to be Minister of Propaganda for the GOP. His clever use of language and ability to enforce message discipline among rank and file Republicans would make Joseph Goebbels proud. If you remember, one Goebbels’ first official acts was to burn books that might undermine his planned propaganda.

    Anyway, a fascinating look at a subject that affects all of us in one way or another. The sad thing is that some it is so insidious we are not even aware of it.

  3. O.S.

    I notice you mention propaganda in connection with Republicans. Do you feel that the Democratic “leadership” is capable of propagandizing the US population or is it only Republicans who would engage in this? Do only Republicans get trapped by propaganda or are Democrats also subject to being taken in by it?

  4. Good work, Gene. Propaganda is the mother’s milk of all politics. Always has been; always will be. Here’s the master on the subject:

    All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
    ~Adolf Hitler

  5. A brilliant post Gene. Especially because of the accessibity of your presentation. This is where simplicity becomes elegance. I have more to say but I’m at the pool on a Kindle. We need to understand the nature of what we oppose or fall victim to it.

  6. Jill, Democrats, progressives and liberals tend to not herd very well. As Will Rogers observed, “I don’t belong to an organized political party. I am a Democrat.”

    There would be no way in hell to maintain discipline in the Democratic Party in the same way it is maintained by the Republicans. Democrats, as a group, have a strong tendency to rebel at being ordered to march in lockstep.

  7. Great job and history lesson Gene. You are correct with your closing statement. If the citizenry allows government and political parties to dumb us down, we are at fault for the loss of our civil rights.

  8. I was born in 1954 raised a catholic, in my youth I idolized John Wayne, accumulated those small plastic army men and tanks, my buddies and I had countless “wars” in our sand boxes. We killed half the population of the planet. Men were macho unforgiving and tough. I today regret the denigration of “others”, I and my peers promoted to simply to secure bonds of “manliness” and belonging, among our group.
    I believe my entire youth and environment occurred bathed in propaganda, the denoted style. I was exposed to enlightened and ignorant thought.
    Today I am master of my self. This is denoted fact. I don’t know everything, nor understand everything. In my youth I grabbed at propaganda to prove my knowledge and brilliance to others. (as a man should..snark).
    I struggle, because I’m human and alive. I am open to learning, because I can improve myself, I accept civil peaceful lifestyles in others contrary to mine, because civility and peace are core values and goals I want my children to have.
    This is my propaganda, the golden rule has proven itself a beacon to my growth. It is my golden rule. I do not need the company of others to fulfill it. I do not need the eternal stamp of Religion and righteousness to support it, nor a political party to speak of it for me.
    Perhaps the true core of negative propaganda is to overpower the individual, lessen ones intrinsic self worth, for the purpose of subjecting “us sheep” to the dictates of the manipulations of the propaganda wielders. Peace to us all in our own myriad of ways… with civility and respect for all.

  9. Excellent. A most needed article.

    “It’s not only a Federal crime, cruel and unusual punishment is specifically barred by the 8th Amendment of the Constitution.”
    But we had a post here leading to a video interview showing the little fat man (?) on SCOTUS saying: “it is not punishment, because they are not sentenced, only questioned. So punishment it is not. And I am always right. Paraphrased.

    Lasrly, OS said: “His clever use of language and ability to enforce message discipline among rank and file Republicans would make Joseph Goebbels proud.”

    I have always wondered how Republicans produce such insidious spin, and also how they have so fantastic control over the message within the party. (Death sentence figuratively speaking?).

    The Dems are like a farce without a script or a director. How they win elections amazes me.

  10. Democrats are very easily manipulated because it is a point of pride to them that they cannot be manipulated! Ego up, that’s what it’s called by interrogators!! Instead of falling for “ego up”, we should look at the Milgram experiments. Here ordinary people who never thought themselves capable of doing great harm, were willing to commit great harm.

    After this experiment many of these same people chose to learn something vital from their actions. That took a lot of courage on their part. They learned that almost anyone would do something harmful if they were approached and coached to do it in a certain way. They learned to recognize when they were being led to do something that was fundamentally against their value system. They found themselves able to resist injustice much more than prior to the experiment.

    I hope both Republicans and Democrats will come to recognize the many ways all of us can be manipulated. If we understand that almost anyone can be manipulated, to recognize the signs of that manipulation and how to stop it, we will all be better able to resist injustice. Pride will prevent learning every time.

  11. I think you can count on that ALL info fed to you is false, yes false. Because nobody pays for truth anymore—-if they ever did. Truthsayers, being honest and naive, usually prepare their info very poorly, if at all.
    This fives the falsesayers an open goal to shoot into.
    Plus of course, lots of money, and/or pówer to suppress the truth.

    Who aids NPR in their choices of words? Who are their sponsors.
    Who directs the messages coming from federal agencies. The various influencers, including bought bureaucrats, and the administration ie Obama et al, are the least among these. So beating Obama is actually naive. And MikeS said as much. CIC does not have the power, it lies in other hands (unspecified) Paraphrase by me.

    So starting position. All you read is a lie. First step: Find out who wins, as said above. And hope that somebody leaks the truth. It won’t be the ones cui bono or the hands in betweeen.

  12. Jill, I don’t know where you got the idea that Democrats think they cannot be manipulated. That is a nutty idea. Anybody can be manipulated. Political operatives and advertising types know it better than anyone, because that is how they make their living. Every party has political operatives, but keeping Democratic candidates and pundits toeing the line is worse than herding cats. Curiously, it is the people who believe in following an authoritarian leader who are most easily kept in line and on message. Well….maybe not so curiously.

  13. Once you have a good line that sells, and has sold before, the need to prove any part of it becomes moot. Your only problem with propaganda is getting over that first hump. The best WAY to get over it is by putting everyone into a state of fear or shock so they’re not thinking for a minute (except maybe thinking “uh oh”) and you crank up the volume, and say, “If you’re thinking ‘uh oh,’ you need to listen to THIS” and then you’re in.

  14. Gene,

    Well done! I think your post on propaganda is a perfect follow-up to mine. I guess we both felt writing about this issue was of great import. I look forward to your next article in the propaganda series.

  15. Here’s an idea. The fear industry has been around for a long time. It seems to need a refresher from time to time.

    Thanks Malisha for the reminder. My earlier thought todyar reemerges with your birthing efforts. Could you squeeze the Repugs back up where thay came from?

    My question for the day:

    When was the last time you read an unequivocal truth from a corporation or our “government”? “Let me count the days…..” No years or was it decades. Did anyone seriously believe anyone after MLKjr was killed? Except your mother, of course; except when she says it was your father who did it.

  16. Guestbloggers,

    You have this group convinced. How do we prevent our young from this mind fuzzing? The ALECs are working on that sector also. Teacher attrition makes for scared teachers, and they never were known for defending the truth. Poor them, poor kids.

    One thing at a time you say, Yes, true, but thay are outflanking us. Their agents are active at all levels.
    Damn their eyes.

    I asked myself 61 years ago, what can I believe.

    Meanwhile keep it up.

  17. Whenever the government invokes “national security” they’re telling you lies to shield themselves from oversight.

    As a general rule, the “enemy” always knows what we’re up to because they’re directly affected by it. It’s the American people who are kept in the dark about what’s being done in their name.

    Cambodians knew were were bombing them even when we didn’t. The Russians knew about the U2 spy plane even when we didn’t. The Germans knew about the Manhattan Project even when we didn’t. Castro knew we were antagonizing him even when we didn’t.

    Not isolated cases…

  18. “So what is propaganda? It’s a tool to change people’s minds. Like any tool, it is capable of beneficial use and horrific misuse. This makes understanding how the tool works critical if you want to recognize (and possibly work to prevent) its misuse.”

    Very, very true. Of course, people do tend to have wildly differing views of what use and misuse is, don’t they?

  19. From the opening two paragraphs of Democracy Incorporated, Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, by Sheldon S. Wolin:

    The Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl’s famous (or infamous) propaganda tribute to Hitler, memorialized the 1934 rally of the Nazi Party at Nuremberg. It begins with a dramatic, revelatory moment. The camera is trained on a densely clouded sky. Magically, the clouds suddenly part and a tiny plane glides through. It swoops down, lands, and The Leader, in uniform, emerges and strides triumphantly past the salutes of admiring throngs and the party faithful. As the film draws to a close, the camera becomes riveted on a seemingly endless parade, row on row, of uniformed Nazis, shoulder to shoulder, goose-stepping in the flickering torchlight. Even today it leaves an impression of iron determination, of power poised for conquest, of power resolute, mindless, its might wrapped in myth.

    On May 1, 2003, in another tightly orchestrated “documentary,” television viewers were given an American version of stern resolve and its embodiment in a leader. A military plane swoops from the sky and lands on an aircraft carrier. The camera creates the illusion of a warship far at sea, symbolizing power unconfined to its native land and able to project itself anywhere in the world. The leader emerges, not as a plain and democratic officeholder, but as one whose symbolic authority is antidemocratic. He strides resolutely, flight helmet tucked under his arm, outfitted in the gear of a military pilot. Above, the banner “Mission Accomplished.” He salutes a prearranged crowd of uniformed military personnel. Shortly thereafter, swaggering, he re-emerges in civilian garb but without discarding the aura of anti-civilian authority. He speaks magisterially from the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln, ow cleared with the military carefully ringed about him. He stands alone in the ritual circle expressive of a sacrament of leadership and obedience. They cheer and clap on cue. He invokes the blessing of a higher power. He, too, has promised a triumph of the will.

    Effective propaganda depends far more on carefully crafted imagery and tone of voice than on the analysis of spoken or written words in relation to each other and to the real world — unfortunately. Of course, propaganda aimed at a literate audience of readers requires a much more sophisticated understanding of language — especially rhetoric — but since that audience already knows how to ignore propaganda and/or cynically fashion it for the manipulation of others, the well-educated need not worry about it other than as a means of personal and professional aggrandizement.

  20. MM,

    “Effective propaganda depends far more on carefully crafted imagery and tone of voice than on the analysis of spoken or written words in relation to each other and to the real world — unfortunately.”

    A topic to be addressed at a later date.

    “Of course, propaganda aimed at a literate audience of readers requires a much more sophisticated understanding of language — especially rhetoric — but since that audience already knows how to ignore propaganda and/or cynically fashion it for the manipulation of others, the well-educated need not worry about it other than as a means of personal and professional aggrandizement.”

    Really. Education helps certainly, hence the admonishment to start the inoculation to propaganda by educating one’s self on the rudiments of language starting with vocabulary. However, the assertion that “the well-educated need not worry about it other than as a means of personal and professional aggrandizement” is utter nonsense.

    Firstly, it is a rare individual who is perfectly immune to suggestion. Almost everyone has a blind or weak spot, be it a form of message, a specific set of emotional and/or rational appeals or a preference for a messenger. Perfect immunity is a rare gift. It exists. Education helps. Immunity still remains a black pearl. In my experience, there are certain personality types that are naturally more resistant to suggestion than others. Innate intelligence and a large knowledge base are important, but no less important than an inquisitive, slightly rebellious and skeptical nature (perhaps even cut with a dash of cynicism). However, that being said, I know very well educated people – even some holders of graduate degrees – who are enormously susceptible to suggestion because they posses none of these other ancillary character traits. Well-educated is only a part of the puzzle.

    Secondly, try telling the well-educated Cambodians that were around before Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge that they “need not worry about” propaganda. Oh, that’s right. Them being dead and all on the Killing Fields sure puts a damper on their response time. The same can be said of the well educated Jews in pre-WWII Germany or the Americans of Japanese descent wrongfully sent to camps in that war. Propaganda need not be aimed directly for your consumption to be aimed squarely at your heart. When others are manipulating others, it should be a concern of everyone concerned about the health and well being of a society so that manipulation is not played to bad ends – especially in a democracy. Like any potential problem, the key to remedy, mitigation or counterstrike lies in being able to perceive the full nature of the issue, assess the level of threat and formulating an appropriate strategic and/or tactical response.

  21. To the other commentators,

    Thank you for your kind words and I hope you find this series to be of utility. As with all the guest bloggers, one lives to be of service.

    P.S. As always, I look forward to hearing your Gestalt informed further thoughts on this matter once you are away from the Kindle, Mike.

  22. Gene,
    Anyone who wants to truly understand the power of indirect suggestion should become familiar with the work of Milton Erickson. He revived hypnosis as a means of therapy after it fell dormant for a long time. Freud was a lousy hypnotist, and when he could not get it to work for him, he pronounced it as being useless. That left hypnosis an open field for quacks and entertainers for decades until Erickson came along. He spent a lifetime analyzing and using indirect suggestion. He was a master storyteller, but his stories always had a direction with many embedded suggestions in them. His skill would make the most sophisticated ad writer green with envy.

    This is powerful stuff and psychologically explosive in the hands of the unethical.

    A simple example of an indirect suggestion could be a gesture as simple as making a comment at the dinner table that I do not see the salt. You would pick up the salt shaker and hand it to me just as if I asked you directly to pass the salt.

  23. OS,

    As I work on the next part(s) of the series, I may be contacting both you and Mike offline for your professionally informed feedback. I’ll look in to Erickson though. His work is unfamiliar.

  24. Gene, ask away. I have been a student of Milton Erickson for a long time and have all his works, including some cassette tapes of him doing lectures and demonstrations.

  25. OS, when I was in college, we used to be able to earn money by participating in psych experiments, and it could be from $2 to $5, which was pretty good then, when I made 75 cents an hour in the snack-bar. So I showed up for a great experiment paying $5 but they ruled me out because they gave everyone a five-minute test to see if we could be hypnotized and I failed it! Never forgot that, still wish I had that $5.

    But years later, my mother was one of the first people in Columbia Presbyterian in NY to get into a cancer study of adjunct chemotherapy and there she was, early chemo, quite barbaric, and she had already had a leg amputated and was having phantom pain. None of the highly qualified staff could get anything done that would work for either the phantom pain or side effects of chemo and the thing was hellish. I started pestering folks and insisted on a psych consult. In that time period, they believed psychiatrists were only there to treat schizophrenics. Finally, however, I made some headway and although I can’t remember how, I got a psychiatrist in there who was board certified not just in psychiatry but also in anesthesia!

    He taught her self-hypnotism in three lessons! And it worked! I was a fan! and years later, I realized that it’s just what we do, and we can all do it, but we can’t all do it the same. I actually have never gone back to try to learn self-hypnotism, maybe because nobody will give me $5 to do it.

    Hypnotism by someone else, though — there’s the rub!

  26. Gene,
    Still on the Kindle after watching my favorote shows on AMC. It’s true also that while I know my stuff, OS has me beat. I do want to comment though on MM’s thought that better educated, more intelligent people are less susceptable to propaganda. Michael many of your comments are not only quite perceptive, but also very informative. I think this one missed the mark. On the emotional level at which effective propaganda is aimed we humans are receptive to that which flatters us, moves us and/or seems in tune with our self interests. I’ve known many very intelligent and well educated Right Wingers who have bought the Kool-Aid because it hit them on all three of the emotional points I’ve raised. We all like to think ourselves as immune from propaganda, but we aren’t. Admitting our lack of immunity is a good first step towards immunization.

  27. Mike, it does not really matter if you think you are immune or not. No one is completely free of suggestibility. No one. Suggestions can be verbal or non-verbal. I have had a lot of fun with the handshake technique which can leave the subject (or victim if you prefer) with a frozen catatonic arm, and not say a word to them other than to ask their name or just say hello.

    About 20% of the general population are really suggestible on formal suggestibility tests. About 20% on the other end of the spectrum are very difficult to hypnotize, and a few are so guarded it is a waste of time to try and work with them. Being a good subject has nothing to do with political persuasion, age, IQ or education. One of my best subjects is a lawyer who got all the way to doing his dissertation in psychology when he decided to switch majors and go to law school instead. He is a former F-4 Phantom fighter pilot. Despite all that, he is an excellent hypnotic subject for demonstrations in class.

  28. Gene,

    A series!! I’m hooked already.

    Please don’t forget Shakespeare’s history plays as tools for political propaganda and how easily these plays have been adapted to fit the propaganda needs of most any time. ( the hero king and the ultimate villain .. Richard III, of course, as a way of propping up the Tudors and Henry V down through history being set and adapted to fit various propaganda needs)

  29. Gene H,

    Thank you for your response. I will attempt to further clarify what I thought I had made perfectly clear: a point which you implicitly acknowledge when you propose that people (i.e, Americans) further educate themselves on the nature of linguistic propaganda (aimed at them in English) so that these Americans might achieve some immunity from propaganda’s insidious blandishments. I thought that I made it perfectly clear that persons so educated would possess a healthy degree of immunity to propaganda such as you claim to wish for them — except that your response indicates that you find that prospect of immunity “utter nonsense.” I think that you need to make up your mind whether or not you consider a literate education (in English) worth the effort (for Americans). Either you do or you don’t. I, for one, do.

    I have no idea where your references to Cambodia come from, and normally I would simply ignore this attempted digression from the topic of language and propaganda. After all, Americans and Cambodians speak mutually unintelligible languages and, therefore, whatever propaganda the Cambodians have to put up with from their own government (in Cambodian) concerns them and not English-speaking Americans who have more than enough shit on their own plates, so to speak. Somehow, you seem to have confused propaganda, or the linguistic manipulation of mass opinion, with B-52 saturation bombing campaigns, which aim to eliminate human populations, not simply persuade them to voluntarily alter their behavior through carefully crafted exposure to visual and auditory language. Here I think you have succumbed to the Fallacy of Confusing Cause and Effect. From T. Edward Damer’s Attacking Faulty Reasoning: a guide to fallacy-free arguments:

    “When the Scarecrow asks the Wizard of Oz for a brain, the Wizard answers that he cannot give him a brain, but that he can give him a diploma from the University of Kansas. The Wizard has confused the brain with the effect of the brain.

    Confusing propaganda (a cause) with saturation bombing (one effect of propaganda) does not help us analyze propaganda itself, especially since the propaganda (the cause) concerns Americans while the saturation bombing (one effect of propaganda aimed at Americans) concerns Cambodians.

    As Voltaire said: “Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities,” and so, yes, American believers in absurd American propaganda rather often cause the deaths and displacement of millions of foreigners without an ounce of regret or remorse, just as the Nazi Germans and Imperial Japanese did seventy years ago. However, if inoculating Americans against their own government’s propaganda will not serve to keep Americans from acting like homicidal maniacs, then nothing else — short of the World eliminating Americans first — will do so either. Americans cannot cure the world of all the world’s problems, certainly not with America’s behemoth, blundering military. Nonetheless, Americans could — if they so desired — cure themselves of succumbing blindly to their own government’s propaganda, thereby saving the World from its unnecessary and unrequested America Problem.

    Finally, I repeat that Americans will not likely find many useful lessons about how to analyze English-language propaganda in the (largely secret from Americans) bombing of Cambodia. However, your comments about America’s (ostensibly “covert”) bombing of Cambodia do raise another issue in regard to developing an immunity to propaganda: namely, personal experience with the subject matter. That discussion, though, will have to come later.

  30. As promised (or threatened):

    Certain comments above regarding America’s (secret to Americans) bombing of Cambodia (over a period of eleven years), although a digression from the topic of how to analyze linguistic propaganda, do provide an opportunity to introduce another source of immunity from propaganda: namely, personal experience with the subject matter. I, for one, never believed a single thing that the American government ever said about Cambodia once newspaper reports forced President Nixon to finally admit to Americans what most Cambodians — and a great many Americans serving in Vietnam — already knew: namely, that America had blasted the living shit out of that poor country for nearly eleven years, decimating the adult population and leaving behind a Lord-of-the-Flies generation of enraged orphan teenagers — all without bothering to inform the American Congress or people. Complete silence, in other words, can sometimes constitute the most effective form of propaganda imaginable. As American government propagandists figure it: What Americans don’t know won’t hurt many American officials, and if what Americans don’t know hurts millions of foreigners, well, who cares?

    I served in South Vietnam for a period of eighteen months from July of 1970 to January of 1972, over a year of that time spent as an interpreter/translator at a remote ATSB on the banks of a dirty brown river surrounded by defoliated jungle and craters still visible from devastating B-52 bombing runs years before. Early in my tour at Solid Anchor, I had to translate during a base transfer of command from us Americans to the South Vietnamese navy. While I spoke words unnecessary in either language, our American commander showed the new Vietnamese commander film of what the area had looked like before the Tet Offensive of early 1968 — when we classified the local villagers (a mix of Vietnamese and Cambodians) as “friendly” — and what the same area looked like afterwards — when we changed our classification of the identical villagers to “hostile.” The place looked like the surface of the moon, and just as uninhabitable. So I realize perfectly well what a simple substitution of one word for another — in English aimed at Americans — can mean to the unlucky inhabitants of some far-away place that Americans back home — where the official propaganda has its principal target — have never visited or even thought about.

    When I finally returned home from Vietnam in early 1972, however, I found an American population still mesmerized by one enormous lie after another — aimed at them in the form of moving pictures accompanied by English-language soundtracks. Just like today. Relatively few Americans actually served in Vietnam or Cambodia and even fewer serve in the U.S. military today, so personal inexperience with war — like declining literacy rates — consigns those persons immune-by-experience to even fewer numbers than those educated to simply analyze defective, shit-smelling propaganda from the get-go. It really should not have required personal experience in-or-near Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos or Iraq for Americans to realize that no Cambodians, Vietnamese, Laotians, or Iraqis had ever bombed America, and that therefore no American ever had any reason to bomb Cambodians, Vietnamese, Laotians, or Iraqis. Yet nothing even as simple and logical as this reasonable proposition ever penetrated the heavily propagandized American people. Not forty years ago. Not today.

    I introduce this subject of personal-experience-with-the-subject-matter as an antidote to propaganda not because I think many Americans will want to experience war just so that they will understand its hideous reality and therefore want nothing to do with it, but just as a passing thought — a true one, but not demographically significant. Experience with war has made me its obdurate and enduring enemy, and no amount of government propaganda, in any form whatsoever, can ever make me support it for one more instant of what little time remains to me on this earth. Now, back to those who, lacking experience in these matters, must rely for their sanity on education in the methods of linguistic analysis and simple common sense.

  31. I just couldn’t let this one pass, Gene:

    “Secondly, try telling the well-educated Cambodians that were around before Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge that they “need not worry about” propaganda. Oh, that’s right. Them being dead and all on the Killing Fields sure puts a damper on their response time.”

    As you would know if you knew anything about America’s devastation of Cambodia — which you don’t — the savage American carpet bombing over many years decimated so much of the adult population of Cambodia that armies of aimless, unguided youth emerged from their battered, impoverished countryside to terrorize what little remained of their society. A real-life Lord of the Flies, courtesy of the American Air Force. I saw a whole lot of that right next door in South Vietnam.

    Those well-educated Americans who could separate reality from propaganda — like Five Deferment Dick Cheney and most middle-class kids of my generation — managed to easily avoid conscription or any other nuisance interruption of their “other priorities” in life. My comments about the well-educated pertained to them, which you would have understood had you any relevant experience in these matters. You have certainly swallowed somebody’s propaganda, which fact, I suggest, should cause you to revisit your subject for clues as to how this could have happened.

    Those of us Americans who could not avoid conscription, or prison, or exile except by enlisting in the military when otherwise we would never have done so, just had to make the best of things. We never believed any trumped-up propaganda about Vietnamese, Cambodians, or Laotians, but we still had to somehow survive the madness inflicted upon us by our own government and heavily propagandized fellow citizens. My comments about the immunity to propaganda on the part of well-placed and well-educated Americans stem from my own personal experience at their self-interested hands. I know from whence I speak, and your clumsy attempts to make it sound like the American government somehow aimed its propaganda at well-educated Cambodians instead of sub-educated Americans betrays your infirm hold on a history you missed in more ways than one.

    Better stick to grappling with denotation and connotation. You have enough trouble with those linguistic concepts — although a close reading of S. I. Hayakawa’s Language in Thought and Action — particularly Chapter Four: “Contexts” — should help clear things up for you. Pay particular attention to the cartoon illustrations of “pointing at” versus “thinking something about.” Good luck with your research into this important, but not-widely understood topic.

  32. MM,

    Thank you for once again illustrating that you have a great love of straw men as well as some sort of reading comprehension problem.

    Did you experience brain lock when you read the word “Cambodia”? It was followed by the words “Pol Pot” and “Khmer Rouge”, not “covert American carpet bombing”. This marks the second time you have put words in my mouth that were not mine. Now as then, I don’t suffer that kind of foolishness.

    What I was referring to was the Khmer tactic of demonizing the educated in their campaign to institute Pol Pot’s retrograde polices. Polices that went so far as to execute those who looked like they were an intellectual by committing the heinous crime of needing to wear glasses. I did not mention American action in Cambodia at all.

    Commentator Indigo Jones did mention American action in Cambodia in passing and in proper context: namely U.S. propaganda that prevented most Americans from even being aware of those operations until well afterward. I am not, however, Indigo Jones. Coincidentally, I do admire his avatar.

    As to what you think Americans will learn or not learn from this and forthcoming exercises in propaganda education? That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. That has no impact whatsoever on my plans.

    I will say this: your “personal experience” with propaganda may or may not have immunized you from its effects, but it has apparently made you love the sound of your own voice and seemingly to the exclusion of all others since you insist on relying on your misrepresentations of others positions.

    As you say, sometimes silence can be a form of propaganda, but that isn’t the same thing as saying more with less. What is funny is that using straw men is indeed a favorite tactic among propagandists and will be discussed at a later date. I guess that personal experience of yours has also demonstrated that old habits die hard for some.

  33. MM,

    Oooo. I see your bag of pomposity was again opened up while I composed a response to your earlier drivel. Sorry! I know as much about the English language as anyone and more than most – including you – so your attempts to impugn me directly (after posing more straw men) has absolutely no effect at all. That is, however, another favorite tactic of the propagandist.

    You should really stick to writing your bad poetry.

    I’ll write my own pieces for this blog.

    Good luck on that poetry thing.

    You’re going to need it.

  34. The NAZI propaganda ministers are probably the most notorious propagandists of the 20th century, in British & American minds at least.

    It is little known that the NAZI propagandists idolized the premiere propagandist of the 20th Century, Edward L. Bernays, the nephew and follower of Sigmund Freud.

    He was an American who helped push WW I on the U.S. public, and who later wrote the book “Propaganda“:

    The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

    Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

    They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons — a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty [now 320] million — who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world … It is the purpose of this book to explain the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and to tell how it is manipulated by the special pleader who seeks to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. It will attempt at the same time to find the due place in the modern democratic scheme for this new propaganda and to suggest its gradually evolving code of ethics and practice.

    (The Ways of Bernays). Bernays named his book “Propaganda” because, as Gene H pointed out, he was one of those who felt that propaganda is good for the public.

    He invented, among a zillion other things, the notion of the press conference, an excellent propaganda device.

    Bernays instilled in both American government, and American business, the practice of deceiving the public “for their own good”:

    “One of the most important comments on deceit, I think, was made by Adam Smith. He pointed out that a major goal of business is to deceive and oppress the public.

    And one of the striking features of the modern period is the institutionalization of that process, so that we now have huge industries deceiving the public — and they’re very conscious about it, the public relations industry. Interestingly, this developed in the freest countries — in Britain and the US — roughly around time of WWI, when it was recognized that enough freedom had been won that people could no longer be controlled by force. So modes of deception and manipulation had to be developed in order to keep them under control”

    (ibid, quoting Chomsky). The exercise for one who does not want to have propaganda deep within, is to extract the deceit over time.

    Denial, based on the parent / child subconscious relationship to government which militates against thinking that the superior would do anything wrong to the inferior, is the first layer of the onion that must go.

  35. Mike Spindell 1, May 20, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    Gene,
    Still on the Kindle after watching my favorote shows on AMC. It’s true also that while I know my stuff, OS has me beat. I do want to comment though on MM’s thought that better educated, more intelligent people are less susceptable to propaganda. Michael many of your comments are not only quite perceptive, but also very informative. I think this one missed the mark. On the emotional level at which effective propaganda is aimed we humans are receptive to that which flatters us, moves us and/or seems in tune with our self interests. I’ve known many very intelligent and well educated Right Wingers who have bought the Kool-Aid because it hit them on all three of the emotional points I’ve raised. We all like to think ourselves as immune from propaganda, but we aren’t. Admitting our lack of immunity is a good first step towards immunization.
    ========================================
    Specifically:

    I do want to comment though on MM’s thought that better educated, more intelligent people are less susceptable to propaganda. Michael many of your comments are not only quite perceptive, but also very informative. I think this one missed the mark.

    The scholar, professor, author, and activist Noam Chomsky says this:

    Throughout history it’s been mostly the property holders or the educated classes who’ve tended to support power systems. And that’s a large part of what I think education is—it’s a form of indoctrination. You have to reconstruct a picture of the world in order to be conducive to the interests and concerns of the educated classes, and this involves a lot of self-deceit.

    (Discussion with Noam Chomsky and Robert Trivers). The powers that be as explained by Bernays, designed much of the institutionalization of propaganda through educational systems over time.

  36. Dredd, I can’t resist, and no, I will not read your contribution. Last time I followed your link for one reason only, I by now respond viscerally to Bernay’s name in your or similar contexts. I didn’t want to prejudge. After I read what you published, I didn’t know were to start. Full discovery, among other things I am a trained PR adviser.

    Big thank you to Gene Howington to do it for me today. It feels we share the love for words. Beyond that you solved my question. Ever heard of Karl Vienna artist and anti-journalist Karl Kraus, he struggled with media, somehow it feels, he saw it all coming. Brilliant, not that other’s here are less noteworthy.

  37. I brough up Cambodia (and Cuba, and the U2, and the Manhattan Project) to illustrate that “national security” is a form of propaganda aimed at US citizens with the goal of precluding oversight, and I point out that our “enemies” almost always know what’s being kept from us (i.e., the Cambodians knew full well that they were being bombed by us even thoughw e didn’t).

    Michael Murray seems to understand exactly why I brought this up, and that as he said, sometimes silence is the most effect form of propaganda.

  38. “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

    Dredd,

    Bernays thoughts were prescient but must be placed in context. He was coming from the then “Progressive” perspective exemplified by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Both those Presidents believed that “Democracy” required an elite to guide it. That elite was made up of both the wealthy and the educated classes. Progressive ideology believed that Anglo-Saxons represented the most advanced of the “races”, thus that there was such a thing as “the white man’s burden”. The ideology was imperialist in nature and paternalistic in practice. Thus to them propaganda as a product of “public relations” that Bernays fathered, was essential to keeping the unwashed masses in line.

  39. leander22 1, May 21, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Dredd, I can’t resist, and no, I will not read your contribution. Last time I followed your link for one reason only, I by now respond viscerally to Bernay’s name in your or similar contexts. I didn’t want to prejudge. After I read what you published, I didn’t know were to start. Full discovery, among other things I am a trained PR adviser.

    Big thank you to Gene Howington to do it for me today. It feels we share the love for words. Beyond that you solved my question. Ever heard of Karl Vienna artist and anti-journalist Karl Kraus, he struggled with media, somehow it feels, he saw it all coming. Brilliant, not that other’s here are less noteworthy.
    ===============================
    I can’t understand your comment. My bad.

  40. Mike Spindell 1, May 21, 2012 at 11:18 am

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

    Dredd,

    Bernays thoughts were prescient but must be placed in context.
    =========================================
    The context is social Darwinism and Eugenics of the turn of the century, coupled with the works of Freud.

    These things combined (fused by Bernays, while on government pay, into government propaganda) to produce the first world war in the belief of, among other things, survival of the fittest.

    The propaganda then, as now, is that “fittest” means the most successful bully, the greatest military.

    Thus, we spend more on militant machinations in the U.S.eh? than the rest of the relevant countries of the world combined.

    The religion of Darwin, which he did not begin (those who misunderstood him did), was social Darwinism, and was pure religious mythology.

    Scientists today, who have overcome some of the dogma and doctrine with sound science, still struggle with its die hards.

    Bernays was fundamentally antithetical to American constitutional values.

  41. Gene,

    What I think has gotten short shrift in the discussion that followed your blog was just how important it is that you made the distinction that propaganda is a concept that is quite ancient, which you illustrated by Ramses II and the Hittites. While Ramses II’s time was about 3,300 years ago, my suspicion which I advanced in a comment on another thread, is that propaganda developed in tandem with civilization. To govern one needs propaganda to ensure stability.

    Violence of course has worked well to keep populations governed, but it is essentially destabilizing, since it can be used in turn to overthrow. Propaganda, however, in convincing the populace of the leadership’s legitimacy and/or invincibility, can go a long way towards keeping the masses subdued and maintaining the power of an elite over time. It works well also on those who have rise above the mass, even if slightly, since because of their success they have an interest in maintaining the status quo. As history has shown most popular revolutions arise not from those miserably languishing on the bottom of society, since they have been beaten down and remain hopeless. Revolutions generally arise among those classes who are not in leadership, but whose lot is somewhat better than that of the masses. If the propaganda spin keeps them content and seems to reasonably represent their lives, than they accept whatever privations their middling status provides. However, if those in the middle are made to feel that their own prosperity is at stake, then they can be called to action.

    In America, with the promise of “The American Dream” our middle classes have been generally content because they believe that they have the opportunity to improve their lot further. This has bee the secret of America’s relative political stability vis-a-vis the rest of the world’s country’s. Now the “American Dream” represents propaganda at its most exquisite level. That it is illusory and provably untrue becomes irrelevant as long as it is widely believed.
    At various points though we see cracks in that propaganda which led to instability and opportunity for substantive change. 1929 brought in Roosevelt,
    certainly imperfect, but still allowed to make a huge step forward. Progressive philosophy began to transform under FDR, away from the elite knows best model, but Hitler’s rise did little to change its imperialist bent by making the notion of war perhaps more acceptable.

    From my perspective one cannot govern without some use of “propaganda” to ensure widespread support for the government’s policies. That is why the distinction you made and your precise defining of propaganda is critical. In a broad sense a government trying to build support for its programs is propaganda, where the distinction between whether propaganda is good or bad lies is in its honesty, or falsehood. Necessary too, is the availability of unbiased information on a given issue, so that decisions based on facts can be made by the public. As far as US Governmental propaganda goes we can see its potential for evil in the Iraq War and the concomitant assistance given in that propaganda drive by our media to build overwhelming support for what was essentially murder for oil profit.

  42. “The context is social Darwinism and Eugenics of the turn of the century, coupled with the works of Freud.”

    Dredd,

    I think you mix context with rationales. Those movements above provided the supposed scientific rationales for the Progressives. The context was the Progressive Movement, which was an “enlightened” segment of the nation’s elite, who were battling for supremacy with America’s “landed aristocracy”, which was generally opposed to internationalist expansion as typified by imperialism. Domestically, they were more or less indistinguishable in that both were for cheap labor, opposition to the union movement and the unfettered use of natural resources.

  43. One only needs to look at the origins of cannabis prohibition in this country, and the falsehoods and spin that went with it, to truly understand what good “propaganda” can do.

  44. Good exposition, and not to forget (or ‘omit/censor’) the vital counterpart to propaganda – “CENSORSHIP”. As noted by multi-award winning John Pilger and other great journos now mainstream marginalised, “What corrupt powers don’t want known in reports/trials etc, they often don’t actively CENSOR, they just leave it out.”

    For TRUTH about Megrahi & Pan AM 103, check: johnpilger.com/articles/lockerbie-megrahi-was-framed

  45. Tina,

    That topic will be addressed later with methodology, strategy and tactics. As already noted, propaganda is a tool that can be used for either good (spreading truthful beneficial information to benign or beneficial ends) or evil (spreading misinformation, outright lies and other form malignant information to destructive ends). One of the most potent form of lie is the lie of omission and as such guaranteed to be included. However, thank you for the reminder. It shows that you are already aware and vigilant.

  46. Mike,

    “While Ramses II’s time was about 3,300 years ago, my suspicion which I advanced in a comment on another thread, is that propaganda developed in tandem with civilization. To govern one needs propaganda to ensure stability. ”

    True enough, but the reason I didn’t go back further is I don’t know of any Sumerian examples of propaganda. :mrgreen:

  47. That Germans were the masters of propaganda, and that, as has occurred in both the essay and the comments here, Germany and/or the wars in Europe have been cited as exemplars of propaganda, are themselves tributes to the success of the real propagandists, the U.S. government and its zionist allies.
    re the first point, that Germany was NOT the master propagandist; in fact, according to the Institute for Propaganda, German propaganda failed to achieve its goals:

    “many analysts attribute the failure of German propaganda in America to the fact that it emphasized logic over passion. According to Count von Bernstorff, a German diplomat, “the outstanding characteristic of the average American is rather a great, though superficial, sentimentality,” and German press telegrams completely failed to grasp this fact. ” http://www.propagandacritic.com/

    That Turley chose to devote so much of the introduction to this topic to the Roman Catholic church and the fact that it has a ministry of propaganda is itself a biased approach to the true nature of the subject. The word ‘propaganda’ has been wrenched out of the meaning and use that the Church makes of it — “to teach, to educate & conduct ‘apologetics’ “– an (admittedly) biased defense of doctrines of Catholicism.

    The essence of propaganda as it is used today, and has been since ~1913, is the use of emotional appeal (not reason & doctrine, as employed by Germans and the Church) to **subvert** rationality in order to gain control over the masses.

    As propagandacritic.com describes, U.S. Creel commission was first to used propaganda to demonize Germany in order to stir Americans to assent to U.S. involvement in a war. Humans are by nature averse to killing another human; they can be ‘persuaded’ to do so only if and when the Other is dehumanized; that is the primary function of propaganda, and it is the tactic that CPI carried out masterfully. In addition to its government functionaries, CPI partnered with the then-new Hollywood film industry, primarily Warner Brothers, to conduct the campaign of demonization of “the Hun.” According to Richard Hawkins’ bio sketch of Samuel Untermyer, Warner brothers was underwritten by Wall Street financiers, the primary proponents and beneficiaries of the wars in Europe.

    Edward Bernays is the so-called father of contemporary propaganda; he based his public relations tactics on theories of his uncle, Sigmund Freud; Freud supplied the tactic to subvert rationality by appealing to emotion, primarily fear; Bernays employed the tactic to control masses. The opening graphs of Bernays’ “Propaganda:”

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

    “We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.” [Ch. 1, ‘Organizing Chaos’]

  48. “according to the Institute for Propaganda, German propaganda failed to achieve its goals: “many analysts attribute the failure of German propaganda in America to the fact that it emphasized logic over passion.”

    talkingbacktocspan,

    The effectiveness of German propaganda wasn’t cited about it directing it towards the US. It was extremely effective in Germany and that’s the context.
    How else do you explain that an ugly, itinerant, untalented artist, a bombastic speaker, foment-er of treason to the Republic, gaining only 34% of the popular vote, became Chancellor and then “Der Fuhrer”. How further did one of the most educated, sophisticated, modern and culturally diverse States in Europe go on to methodically murder 6,000,000 people with no real protest and much approval of the populace? Damned good propaganda.

  49. Mike S.,

    “The effectiveness of German propaganda wasn’t cited about it directing it towards the US. It was extremely effective in Germany and that’s the context.
    How else do you explain that an ugly, itinerant, untalented artist, a bombastic speaker, foment-er of treason to the Republic, gaining only 34% of the popular vote, became Chancellor and then “Der Fuhrer”. How further did one of the most educated, sophisticated, modern and culturally diverse States in Europe go on to methodically murder 6,000,000 people with no real protest and much approval of the populace? Damned good propaganda.”

    *****

    I agree–but I’d add that Hitler and his gang killed a lot more than 6,000,000 people.

  50. Sumerian examples of propaganda:
    Don’t know about Sumer/Akkad, but Cyrus produced the first Universal Declaration of Human Rights ~530 BC.

    It appears “civilization” is trending backward, perhaps begun when Esther killed off the ten sons of Cyrus’s successor/ruler and placed herself and her countryman, Mordecai, in charge.

    If your looking for deep roots of ancient propaganda, Abraham, Esther’s progenitor, could provide possibilities: about half of the world’s population claims to be proud to have ‘paternal’ connections to someone who smashed the icons of other peoples; got himself kicked out of Paradise; impregnated a concubine when his own wife was barren, cast off & abandoned that woman and her son when his own wife then conceived; asked his wife to deny that she was his wife so that he could gain commercial advantage with a competitor; taught his children that it was their right to take what did not belong to them, in the name of their god (see Deut 6); inculcated in his progeny/adherents the right to kill others in pursuit of their godly ‘dream.’

    THAT is effective propaganda.

  51. talkingbacktocspan,

    Where to begin . . .

    Let’s start with the straw man in the room.

    “That Germans were the masters of propaganda, and that, as has occurred in both the essay and the comments here, Germany and/or the wars in Europe have been cited as exemplars of propaganda, are themselves tributes to the success of the real propagandists, the U.S. government and its zionist allies.
    re the first point, that Germany was NOT the master propagandist; in fact, according to the Institute for Propaganda, German propaganda failed to achieve its goals:”

    No one claimed the Germans were “master propagandists” (although they utilized it extensively to mixed effect – one of their notable failures being the inability to use Positive Christianity to replace more traditional forms of Christianity). “Master propagandists?” Those would be your words, not mine.

    “That Turley chose to devote so much of the introduction to this topic to the Roman Catholic church and the fact that it has a ministry of propaganda is itself a biased approach to the true nature of the subject. The word ‘propaganda’ has been wrenched out of the meaning and use that the Church makes of it — “to teach, to educate & conduct ‘apologetics’ “– an (admittedly) biased defense of doctrines of Catholicism.”

    First, Turley didn’t write this piece. I did.

    Second, two sentences in an etymological analysis of the word “propaganda” is hardly devotion of “so much of the introduction”. The mention of the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide was the original ministry of propaganda and the origin of the usage of the word propaganda to describe the process. As noted, the word “propaganda” is the feminine gerund of the Italian verb “propagando” which in turn is derived from the Latin verb prōpāgō, meaning “to propagate”. If you wish to make up your own definition to the Italian word to be something RCC approved? The only bias showing here is yours.

    “As propagandacritic.com describes, U.S. Creel commission was first to used propaganda to demonize Germany in order to stir Americans to assent to U.S. involvement in a war.”

    Irrelevant to the fact Germany was using propaganda to fan nationalistic support for a war of aggression and to dehumanize the Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped as to create a rallying point for their domestic consolidation of power.

    “Humans are by nature averse to killing another human; they can be ‘persuaded’ to do so only if and when the Other is dehumanized; that is the primary function of propaganda, and it is the tactic that CPI carried out masterfully.”

    Again, also carried out by the Germans against the Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped as to create a rallying point for their domestic consolidation of power.

    So what upsets you most?

    That the RCC’s organization is where the modern term originated?

    Or that Germany – a well-known user of propaganda from ends that are without question evil – was attacked with propaganda itself?

    Either way, your outrage is disproportionate, more than slightly irrational and says far more about your agenda than it does about the nature of propaganda.

  52. Gene, what a bountiful and exposing discussion your blog has inspired, thank you. This is the greatest detailing of propaganda I have experienced. I am bookmarking this and will re-review it in the future.
    My suggestion that, simply following the golden rule can be a valuable tool in detecting propaganda, did not seem to attract the interest of the posters. Propaganda is the water we swim in daily, we can not remove ourselves from it, no more then a fish can drive a car in Manhatten. Understanding it, recognizing it, will clearly elevate ones self choices.
    Once I actively chose not to promote my self interest by degrading, harming, or stepping on the inherent self respect of my fellow planeteers, Life became simpler for me. I am equal because you are equal. Valuable because you are too…..My family is important and so is yours. etc. etc.
    Perhaps this is too simple. Perhaps too simple is really too complicated in a world full of propaganda that is devoted to dividing and conquering. Creating the straw men of them vs. us. Join JOIN JOIN US, become us or suffer THEM. People are People my friends. That’s all we are, treating each other as equals is simple, the tough part is realizing how truly common and frail life is….. and so each of us also. Peace is a good word and goal

  53. I responded to Elaine at 1:43. That comment is still ‘in moderation’ (the church bell is chiming 6:00).
    Upon finishing the response to Elaine, I began a response to your comment of 1:27. That is, I’ve spent >4 hours composing a compact, comprehensive response to your assertions.
    I will post it only after my comment to Elaine become accessible to other participants here. Unless, of course, you seek to mimic “Goebbels” in “burning books.” h/t Otteray

  54. ekeyra 1, May 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm
    =================================
    Thanks for the video. Here is another take on TV:

    The TV business is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the journalism industry, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs, for no good reason.

    (Hunter S. Thompson).

  55. Mike Spindell 1, May 21, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    “The context is social Darwinism and Eugenics of the turn of the century, coupled with the works of Freud.”

    Dredd,

    I think you mix context with rationales. Those movements above provided the supposed scientific rationales for the Progressives. The context was the Progressive Movement, which was an “enlightened” segment of the nation’s elite, who were battling for supremacy with America’s “landed aristocracy”, which was generally opposed to internationalist expansion as typified by imperialism. Domestically, they were more or less indistinguishable in that both were for cheap labor, opposition to the union movement and the unfettered use of natural resources.
    ==========================================
    That all comes to a head with the sainthood of Ayn Rand, fused with another religion.

  56. talkingbacktocspan,

    The reason your comment is in moderation is that it has too many links. Normally, no one here bothers with the moderation queue. It is effectively limbo.

    As to your childish threat? I don’t care if you post again or not.

  57. Gene H. 1, May 21, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Dredd,

    Do you want me to nuke that duplicate Thompson comment?
    =====================================
    Yes, I screwed up the first one.

    Thanks.

  58. David Blauw,

    “My suggestion that, simply following the golden rule can be a valuable tool in detecting propaganda, did not seem to attract the interest of the posters. Propaganda is the water we swim in daily, we can not remove ourselves from it, no more then a fish can drive a car in Manhatten. Understanding it, recognizing it, will clearly elevate ones self choices.”

    While I don’t think the Golden Rule is a valuable tool in detecting propaganda, I think it is a valuable tool for evaluating whether propaganda is beneficial or detrimental. If it doesn’t pass the reciprocal nature of the Golden Rule, that should be a good primary indication that something is probably wrong with the message. However wise I may personally find the Golden Rule, I leave such value judgments to the reader. My goal here is to help people learn the basics for detection purposes.

    And thanks!

  59. what’s with the attitude, Gene? A lot of work goes into writing comments, believe it or not. To spend 4 hrs in an attempt to be respectful, informative, persuasive, & have it end in limbo, is not childish, it’s wasteful.

    I’m aware that my views are outside the mainstream; that’s why I have to be certain to rely on the strongest sources possible, and present those sources for others to view & assess,

  60. David Blauw,

    In considering my response to you, I think I should clarify as to why I don’t think the GR is a valuable tool for detection. Really subtle propaganda can make an inequitable relationship appear equitable without further/deeper examination, especially when an appeal to emotion is the basis for the attempted persuasion.

    Consider for example (and in it’s most bare bones terms) the debate over abortion. The “pro-life” segment phrases their arguments in appeals to emotion because everyone allegedly loves babies. At the bottom of their argument though, they seek to ban a safe and legal medical procedure usually for religious reasons. The “pro-choice” segment phrases their arguments in a civil rights framework because of the 1st Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and your 4th Amendment rights to privacy in medical treatment. Although “It’s a baby, not a choice!” may sound equitable for the unborn baby, it is completely inequitable for the living woman who may or may not be bearing an unwanted or medically inadvisable child to term that she may or may not be able to care for. Laws are for the living, not the potentially living. To try to use the power of law to force a religious decision on others is plainly wrong. Legal abortions don’t equate to mandatory abortions. This is why “pro-choice” advocates use the label “pro-choice” – they aren’t for mandatory abortions or against babies. They are for women having the choice to get the procedure done safely with proper medical supervision according to the dictates of their own conscience. If you’ve known women who have had abortions, you’ll know that their reactions to their choice afterwards ranges from relief to regret, but the bottom line is to force them to endanger their lives to be able to make that choice is wrong but especially since the objections of others are based primarily in their religion of choice.

    That is why I’m pro-choice although personally I frown upon abortion and favor personal responsibility in sexual practice. Then again, it was drilled into my head from a very early age that if I ever got a girl pregnant while I was in high school, that there would be Hell to pay from my family for being too stupid to wear a condom.

    However, no matter your personal stance on abortion, I hope that illustrates why I think the GR is less useful for detection than for triage.

  61. talkingbacktocspan,

    It’s your time to waste. I told you why your comment was in moderation. I told you none of the editors here bother with the moderation queue for comments surpassing the link limit. That’s simply the way things work around here. Neither me nor the other guest bloggers are going to start babysitting the moderation queue just to please you. However, if you want to play the “release my comment or I’ll take my toys and go home” card? That simply merits indifference. I don’t care if you post again or not. If that creates a problem for you, I suggest that it is your problem.

  62. Mike Spindell 1, May 21, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    Gene,

    What I think has gotten short shrift in the discussion that followed your blog was just how important it is that you made the distinction that propaganda is a concept that is quite ancient …
    =======================================
    And you have probably noticed that I have not tortured him with any hypothesis that propaganda first originated in microbes a couple of billion years ago.

    He did a good job of setting the stage in a neutral, but compelling manner, so I am giving up “hijacking threads” for a week or so. ;)

  63. link free response to Elaine –

    1, May 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Elaine M, you are operating on propaganda, not facts and evidence. Suggest you take a peek at The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 by C Paul Vincent.
    added: The British gov’t archive discusses the situation. google ‘allied blockade.’ For a review of C Paul Vincent’s book, see libcom dot org slash files slash blockade%20Germany_0.pdf
    added: above, Murry mentions the reaction of Cambodians to having been bombed — young people turned into “Lord of the Flies”. One of the arguments Paul Vincent makes is that the deliberate starvation of German civilians that killed 800,000 also affected the survivors of famine.
    A 5-year old who was severely malnourished in 1919, and/or watched his family die of starvation, was permanently affected both physically & neurologically. Vincent wrote that a physician in charge of a kindergarten group in Germany observed that the children “consumed an incredible amount of bread and yet did not get any stronger. I found out that they hid all of the bread underneath their straw mattresses. The fear of hunger was so deeply rooted in the child that they collected stores instead of eating the food; a misguided animal instinct made the dread of hunger worse than the actual pangs. (p. 104)

    In 1933, this cadre was ~18-years old. Hitler actually achieved a great deal in having infused with national spirit a group of young people who could have become wildmen, and tackled the problems deliberately laid on Germany by negotiators at Versailles.

    On the other hand, the same partisans who “triumphed at Versailles” were determined to vanquish Germany. Reading Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement is quite revealing: He writes that going into 1933, the zionist project in Palestine was nearing bankruptcy; the provisions of the 1922 Churchill White Paper made it impossible for poor Jews to migrate to Palestine, and rich Jews, namely, German Jews, did not want to leave Germany for Palestine.
    Black also mentions that, “a fortnight after Hitler took power,” i.e. around Feb 14, 1933, Louis Brandeis told Rabbi Stephen Wise, a major figure in anti-German activities, that “All Jews must leave Germany. . . .I urge that Germany shall be free of Jews . . . No Jew must live in Germany.” (p. 78).
    By the first days of March, Jewish leaders from around the world met in Europe to decide the next move; on Mar 24, 1933 the London Daily Express blared the headline, “Judea Declares War on Germany; Jews of All the World Unite: Boycott of German Good.”
    In an article on Jewish Virtual Library, Edwin Black writes: “Rabbi Wise and the other boycott leaders were determined to form one cohesive international movement under the banner “Starve Germany into submission this winter.”

    Remember: the German people that Rabbi Wise and organized Jewry declared they intended to starve, had already experienced starvation.

    As part of their campaign to ‘scare Jews out of Germany’ and, with their wealth, into Palestine and the US, Rabbi Wise & his lobbies (which possibly included Benzion Netanyahu) organized protest marches and rallies at Madison Sq. Garden; conducted two mock trials of the German government; sought to shut down the viability of US diplomatic relations with Germany (much like AIPAC etc. are manipulating US Congress to shut down US relations with Iran).

    The Creel Commission (organized by Wilson in April 1917 to generate hatred of Germans toward WWI) had developed the “atrocity story,” which Wise & pals deployed to great effect against Hitler’s Germany.

    “A particularly effective strategy for demonizing Germans was the use of atrocity stories. “A handy rule for arousing hate,” said Lasswell “is, if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man.” Unlike the pacifist, who argues that all wars are brutal, the atrocity story implies that war is only brutal when practiced by the enemy. Certain members of the CPI were relatively cautious about repeating unsubstantiated allegations, but the committee’s publications often relied on dubious material.” see http www dot 100megspop3 dot com slash bark slash Propaganda dot html
    Hitler’s attention was committed to trying to salvage the German economy, beset by massive unemployment, and to rescuing Germany’s “Lord of the Flies” generation. The goal of Rabbi Wise & “international Jewry” was to further destabilize Germany in order to induce Jews to flee to Palestine, which needed their wealth.

    Those are the facts behind the propaganda, Elaine, from the pens of the people who deployed the propaganda tactics.

    Herbert Hoover toured Europe in 1938, met with Hitler, who thanked Hoover for his efforts in breaking the famine. Hoover came away convinced that Hitler’s agenda was NOT to in any way involve Western Europe; Hitler’s three-fold agenda was 1. to redress the injustices of Versailles; 2. to ensure that Germans never suffered starvation again; and 3. to destroy Bolshevic influence in Germany.

    The German government had long had deep relations with zionists who were colonizing Palestine, and those relations extended to the NSDAP. They worked closely to carry out the “final solution” that Louis Brandeis demanded: move Jews out of Germany and TO Palestine, or Madagascar, or Uganda, or Dominican Republic, or USA.

    For a slightly de-propagandized view of Hitler, try U.S. Navy Postgraduate professor R H S Stolfi’s Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny.
    This review is informative and balanced: http afri dot au dot af dot mil slash review_full.asp?id=295

    That so many persons who consider themselves well meaning and thoughtful reflexively cite Hitler, Nazism, and early 20th c. Germany as the paragons of evil, without, however, an awareness of the actual — not propagandized — context, or even of the holocaust endured by German civilians in both WWI (noted above) and WWII — see Jörg Friedrich, “The Fire: The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945, http www dot literaryreview dot co dot uk slash overy_03_07 dot html — is a tribute to the power of propaganda.

    As John Dower and Sanho Tree discussed in a conversation about Dower’s book, “Culture of War,” one major goal of propaganda is to demonize the Other. “Demonization destroys the ability to think critically.” Propaganda uses a very powerful emotion, fear, to engender hatred. Fear is so powerful and visceral that it is almost impossible to reverse fear-engendered hatred by means of rational argument.

    But UNLESS rational argument comes to the fore, the spiral of fear/hatred will perpetuate forever. Sorta the situation we are in today.

    For the sake of a better world, take the first step to interrupt the cycle, Elaine.

  64. Talkingbacktocspan,
    As you can see it was not the content of your comment being censored. We had all been waiting with bated breath for your revelations. I must say that it was a perfect deadpan parody of classic propaganda. Bravo!

  65. According to NIZKOR:
    “The American Hebrew, October 31, 1919, page 582:

    THE CRUCIFIXION OF JEWS MUST STOP!
    By MARTIN H. GLYNN
    (Former Governor of the State of N.Y.)

    From across the sea SIX MILLION men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread.

    […] These children, these men and women are our FELLOW-MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY, with the same claim on life as we, the same susceptibility to the winter’s cold, the same PROPENSITY TO DEATH before the fangs of hunger. Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in SIX MILLION human beings. WE MAY NOT BE THEIR KEEPERS BUT WE OUGHT TO BE THEIR HELPERS.

    […]

    IN THE FACE OF DEATH, IN THE THROES OF STARVATION there is no place for mental distinctions of creed, no place for physical differences of race. In this catastrophy, when SIX MILLION HUMAN BEINGS are being WHIRLED TOWARD THE GRAVE by a CRUEL AND RELENTLESS FATE, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand.

    SIX MILLION MEN AND WOMEN ARE DYING from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And THIS FATE is upon them through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a BIGOTED LUST FOR JEWISH BLOOD.
    = = = = =
    According to Edwin Black in The Transfer Agreement:

    “The deterioration of the once powerful German economy really began in World War I, when German military and political leaders simply did not calculate the economic effects of a prolonged war. The Allied Blockade cut off Germany’s harbors and most of her land trade routes. Trade was decimated. Industry couldn’t export. War materiel and civilian necessities, including food, could not be imported.

    Before the blockade was lifted, 800,000 malnourished German civilians perished. Actually, the blockade created less of a food shortage for Germany, which was 80 percent food self-sufficient before the war, than did the short-sighted policy of pulling Germany off the farms to fight without compensating for reduced food production. But the popular perception among Germans was that they had been starved into submission, defeated not on the battlefield but by political and economic warfare and connivance” (p. 21)

    = = = = =

    Churchill either did or did not say or act “starve Germans into submission.”
    http www scottmanning com content churchill-had-no-starvation-blockade/

    = = = = =

    According to author Edwin Black, “Rabbi Wise and the other boycott leaders were determined to form one cohesive international movement under the banner “Starve Germany into submission this winter.”
    http www jewishvirtuallibrary org slash jsource slash Holocaust slash Black dot html

    = = = = =
    http://libcom.org/files/blockade%20Germany_0.pdf
    The Social and Political
    Consequences of the Allied Food
    Blockade of Germany, 1918-19
    N. P. Howard (University of Shefield)

    “The Allied blockade policy against Germany continued after the signing of the armistice in November 1918. It had already contributed greatly to the reduction of the supplies of food from all sources of the Central Powers by over 50 per cent in the final year of the war. Its impact increased population loss and spread death and disease, as famine encroached upon the civilian populations of Central Europe. Its prolongation by the Allies after the ceasefire was intended as a strategy to prevent the resurgence of German military power and to suppress revolutionary upheavals in Germany and in the states of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire.
    The first official histories of the blockade, those of Professor A. C. Bell and Brigadier-General Sir James E. Edmonds,’ differed widely in their accounts of its effects upon German food supplies, before and after the armistice. . . .
    [I]n the period of demobilization from November 1918 to the official lifting of the blockade on 12 July 1919, its prolonged imposition was a major factor in the continuation of the widespread and severe malnutrition, and the consequent civilian deaths from hunger and deficiency diseases, that were a feature of the final year of the war.
    The impact of the continued food blockade upon Republican Germany’s embryonic institutions, in particular on the soldiers’ and workers’ Councils, is examined in the central section of this study.”
    = = = = =
    Questions:

    1. If “6 million Jews” “800,000 of them children” were about to starve to death in August 1919, why did Edwin Black write so dismissively of the starvation deaths of 800,000 Germans, but not mention how many of them were Jewish, nor how many were Jewish children? Was Glynn correct in his claims that “800,000 Jewish children” were threatened with starvation? How many Jews died of starvation? Why does Edwin Black fail to mention the “BIGOTED LUST FOR JEWISH BLOOD” that was causing the near-death starvation of 6 million Jews in Aug. 1919?

    2. Who should be believed, Nizkor, Pat Buchanan, Edwin Black, or N.P. Howard, an unknown academic?

    3. If Howard’s claims are true, that starvation affected the development of “Germany’s embryonic institutions,” then how might we assess the advisability of imposing a blockade, that is, sanctions, of ever increasing severity on Iran (intended to “cause Iran’s leaders to worry about how they will feed their 70 million people,” — Ephraim Sneh, June 2008, AIPAC conference) in order to “cause Iranian people to riot and overthrow their government (Congressman Ed Royce, Sept. 2007)?

    4. Was the blockade on Germany legal? Was it effective? Was it legal, moral, or wise to blockade a nation in order to force it to agree to an onerous treaty? What is the legality of treaties entered into under duress? What did the imposed starvation accomplish? What does the imposition of starvation on a civilian population tell us about the imposing nations?

    5. What are the sanctions on Iran intended to accomplish? Are they legal? Moral? Likely to be effective? Effective at what?

    6. This morning Hillary Clinton announced a program of Food Aid to states in Africa. According to a USAID spokesman, elimination of hunger contributes to political stability, and to the extent that US corporations invest in the elimination of hunger in foreign states, everybody gains by the increased stability and expanded markets.

    If this is so, then why does the same US State Department seek to de-stabilize Iran, a nation of 70 million dynamic and well-educated people? Wouldn’t it be wiser to seek to create a stable relationship with Iran?

  66. Gene, the GR has nothing to do with Reciprocity, it is simply my life and values I choose to express. If I were to expect reward or commendation for my “exemplary” lifestyle I would die waiting. I am frail and fallible….exactly as every poster here is …though in different ways I’m sure. (except death).
    That’s the “golden” ticket, I don’t act this way for your or “others” benefit.
    I do not give so I will receive. The late nite preachers do. I give because I am equal, I wear my shoes, others wear theirs. How many “other” shoes have you walked in Gene….or anyone else that may find this ponderable.
    My admission… I have been a letter carrier for 34 years in Roch. NY. walking outside everyday. I have had minimal control over my environment all those years. I have had to trust people and common sense for my security on many occasion.
    I believe – (as in neg) propaganda starts with Do not trust your fellow humans. We as in Gov. Religion, Ethnicity, etc. etc. will fend for you.
    Don’t trust “those or Them” I’m serious Gene. Divide and control. I have been privileged to cast my bones about unadorned, open to nature and the perogatives of humans daily. Yes I wore the “eagle”, when I began in 78 some old timers still had the horse!! The eagle did have some authoritative respect back then. (so did the statement”I;m getting in my jeep and leaving if you keep bugging me) :o) that’s true!!!! Again..People are People, the highest compliment given to any human is my trust….or your trust. Those that abuse it are sad figures in a sad life of their choosing. I have been burned….and I have been lucky, and I continue to value People more than money, color, creed, or whatever. This is just me Gene, if you read my comment about No. 8 (not the short and also true No. 5) (close enough for horseshoes) This is just me. In my ventures I have met a number of people that are just themselves. ….simple.. They I remember….They I admire … They I try to exemplarate (I may have made that word up..or spelled it wrong). Knowledge is great…the human condition is greater.- Propaganda works to subjugate humans for anothers benefit, if you know humans you will know -propaganda….. My opinion is equal to 7 billion others Gene….. So I have a need to be content within myself with mine.
    Ps. being an Atheist is tough…my only reward is my self respect while I am alive……….
    ,

  67. is anybody here disputing the fact that German civilians were deliberately starved to death in 1915-1919?

    Is anybody here disputing the fact that Jewish leaders deliberately set out to starve German civilians from 1933-1938?

    Can anybody present facts that demonstrate that Germans did anything to Jewish people that could be identified as a casus belli in response to which Jews “declared war on Germany” in March 1933?

    Does a non-state have the right to declare a war on a sovereign nation, and to implicate another nation — the United States — in the prosecution of that war?

    Are you all denying that newspapers headlines on March 24, 1933 stated, “Judea Declares War on Germany”?

  68. talkingback,
    Are you kidding or are you for real? the non-state of Judea declared war on Germany in 1933 so that is why Hitler exterminated millions of Jews?

  69. David Blauw,

    “Gene, the GR has nothing to do with Reciprocity, it is simply my life and values I choose to express. If I were to expect reward or commendation for my “exemplary” lifestyle I would die waiting. I am frail and fallible….exactly as every poster here is …though in different ways I’m sure. (except death).
    That’s the “golden” ticket, I don’t act this way for your or “others” benefit.”

    I think you are mistaking what I was saying about the dynamic nature of the GR for a motive in adopting it. The GR itself describes a reciprocal action. In fact, in the language of discussing ethics is it often called the ethic of reciprocity.

    One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

    Compare to this to the meaning of the verb “reciprocate”, meaning to give and take mutually or to return in kind or degree and the adjective “reciprocal”, meaning inversely related, shared, felt, or shown by both sides, serving to reciprocate mutually corresponding or marked by or based on reciprocity.

    Using the word “reciprocity” isn’t about the motive behind the action.

    It is simply a description of what the action’s relational dynamic.

    A reciprocal saw doesn’t follow the GR, but the action of the blade is still reciprocal (back and forth).

    That you follow the GR without expectation of outcome has no impact to the nature of the action. To practice it, regardless of motive, requires empathy. It requires you put yourself in another’s position or at a minimum acknowledge that they to are people.

    As to the rest of what you note about the nature of propaganda, I have no quibble with that other than to note you are talking about the pejorative form of the word “propaganda”; propaganda used for its worst end. Consider that the common workplace sign found in restaurants reading “All Employees Must Wash Hands Before Returning to Work” is just as much propaganda as “Jews are destroying Germany!”. The wash sign, however, isn’t about division of the other or destruction of the other but rather about personal hygiene and food safety. That’s an example of propaganda put to good use.

  70. I disapprove of propaganda, no matter what its ultimate goals, because it aims its appeal at The Crowd. Hence, I want as little part of it as I can manage. As beautifully explained by James Alexander, in Thought-Control in Everyday Life (1928):

    For the average man — the man with neither knowledge of Crowd Psychology, nor training in thought-control — one of the most difficult things in the world is to control his thoughts when he is a member of a crowd. For the crowd, no matter what its constitution may be, whether made up of men of good birth and education, or men with neither of these advantages, ranks as the lowest form of human association.

    The crowd is a collective mind with little intelligence, and is largely dominated by its instincts and emotions. Attend a congress of any body of men and women; observe them carefully, and you will note how large a part the instincts and emotions play, and the far from high quality of the display of intelligence. You will see highly intelligent men and women, whom you have heard about or read of, and you will go home with a quite different conception of them; for you will judge them by their actions and the part they play in the discussions. Most observers, in such conditions, will judge wrongly. For crowds are contagious, and, for the time being, every man and woman in a crowd is a very different individual from what he or she is in private and ordinary life. Any person who doubts this has only to make the experiment. Let him mix with any crowd where feeling runs high and opinions clash, and let him note the effect on his own mentality. One thing is sure to strike him when a member of such a crowd — the enormous power of suggestion and a weakening of his own strength to resist its influence.

    As George Orwell put it in 1984:

    The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in.

    Propaganda aims its insidious appeal at this Crowd: “the lowest form of human association,” composed of persons clearly obliged to play a part and incapable of not joining in the expected Crowd behavior. I want no part of any “communication” with this Crowd, especially of the one-way kind with me on the receiving end. I deeply suspect and resent “the enormous power of suggestion and weakening of our own strength to resist its influence” that propaganda’s proponents clearly wish to exploit for their own purposes, regardless of mine.

    Finally, If my pessimism regarding propaganda proves well-founded, then I will not experience the slightest disappointment; and if an occasional instance of benevolent propaganda should come to my attention, then i will gladly feel pleasantly surprised.

  71. What I think of “Hurry Up and Wait” American militarist propaganda, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to …

    Dead Metaphors

    We serve as a symbol to shield those who screw us
    The clueless, crass cretins who crap on our creed
    We perform the foul deeds they can only do through us
    Then lay ourselves down in the dark while we bleed

    Through cheap Sunday slogans they sought to imbue us
    With lust for limp legacy laughably lean
    Yet the Pyrrhic parade only served to undo us
    We die now for duty, not “honor” obscene

    We carried out plans that the lunatics drew us
    Their oil-spotted, fly paper, domino dream
    Then we fought for the leftover bones that they threw us
    While carpetbag contractors cleaned up the cream

    We stood at attention so they could review us
    Like bugs on display in a cage made of glass
    We hurried, then waited, so they could subdue us
    Yet somewhere inside something said: “kiss my ass.”

    We did the George Custer scene Rumsfeld gave to us
    We took ourselves targets to arrows and bows
    While the brass punched their tickets, the Indians slew us
    A “strategy” ranking with History’s lows

    When veterans balked they contrived to pooh-pooh us
    With sneers at our “syndrome” of Vietnam sick
    When that didn’t work they set out to voodoo us
    With sewer boat slanderers paid to be slick

    The wad-shooting gambler comes once more to woo us
    His PR team planning precise photo ops
    For to sell his used war he’ll have need to construe us
    As witless weak wallpaper campaign-ad props

    The nuts and the dolts in their suits really blew us
    They made our life’s meaning a dead metaphor
    Still, no matter how Furies and Fate may pursue us
    The Fig Leaf Contingent has been here before

    The years pass in darkness and graveyards accrue us
    As early returns on investments gone wrong
    So the next time “supporters” of troops ballyhoo us
    Remember to vomit in tune to this song

    Michael Murry, The Misfortune Teller, Copyright 2005

  72. rafflaw, 1. can you provide an answer to the question, Was there a casus belli underlying the Jewish declaration of war on Germany in March 1933?

    2. The Jewish declaration of war on Germany was not a mere publicity stunt, it was an “existential threat.” Edwin Black wrote:

    “The boycott unnerved the Nazis, who believed that Jews wielded supernatural international economic power. They knew that in the past Jews had used boycotts effectively . . . Whether or not this new boycott actually possessed the punishing power to crush the Reich economy was irrelevant; what mattered was that Germany perceived the Jewish-led boycott as the greatest threat to its survival. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Black.html

    As detailed elsewhere, Germans “believed” their survival was threatened because they had already suffered the starvation deaths of 800,000 of its citizens, and believed –correctly– that Jewish agents were instrumental in maintaining the blockade that denied food to their people even after armistice, in order to coerce Germany to sign the Versailles treaty whose terms benefited zionists but were onerous to Germans (as well as Italians, btw, which led to the rise of Mussolini).

    3. Even against this “threat to their survival,” Germans did NOT react viciously toward Jews.

    In his article, Gene wrote:
    “Propaganda was instrumental to both the Nazi war effort and their social engineering that allowed them to industrially murder six million Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped. Propaganda was key to the crimes of the Khemer Rouge. Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Castro’s rise to power in Cuba. The wrongful, misguided and likely illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq.”

    But Gene failed to mention how zionists used propaganda, and he failed to mention the Creel Commission/CPI, the first instance in history of the use of propaganda by a government to generate war fervor. This is a stunning oversight.

    As I noted elsewhere, zionists did use propaganda, in August 1919, in a publicity release that claimed that “6 million Jews” among them “800,000 Jewish children” were threatened with starvation in Germany, as a result of “BIGOTED LUST FOR JEWISH BLOOD.”

    First of all, we can infer from the fact that Edwin Black mentioned the starvation deaths of 800,000 Germans but did NOT complain of the deaths of Jewish people among them, that Jewish people did not suffer the travails that Gov. Glynn claimed. (It is not unlikely that German Jews, who were acknowledged to be wealthy, had access to blackmarket goods.)

    The facts of that situation are that Chaim Weizmann** and other zionists influencing and acting in concert with Winston Churchill and his successor war planners, and with Versailles negotiators, imposed and then maintained the blockade on German foodstuffs, causing starvation of Germans, even after the armistice, until, under duress, Germany signed the Versailles treaty that granted a homeland to Jews in Palestine. In other words, far from being the victims of “bigoted lust for Jewish blood,” Jews were among those who had caused the situation resulting in the deaths of non-Jewish Germans.

    4. Earlier, mention was made of Jorg Friedrich’s book “The Fire,” which documents the systematic firebombing of 150 German cities, by Allies, between 1940 and 1945. The stated aim of the firebombing was to terrorize German civilians, the second instance in which war had been deliberately waged on civilians/ (The first instance in which civilians had been the deliberate target of warfare was the starvation/blockade of Germany by the Allies in the first world war. see above)

    Erich Mendelsohn, known as “the Jewish architect,” a close friend of Chaim Weizmann and the architect of Weizmann institute and the “International style” that dominates architecture in Israel, worked with U.S. Air Force and chemical companies to design buildings in the Utah desert. The purpose for constructing “German village” was to replicate as closely as possible the materials and structure of working-class Germans, so that Allied bombers could most efficiently destroy the houses as well as create a firestorm that would spread to the entire town, imposing maximum loss of life and property. Six hundred thousand civilians were incinerated; millions were left homeless; 150 German cities were obliterated, taking with them Germany’s “cultural bridge to its ancient past.”
    Let me make this clear: a Jew who had been educated in his native Germany collaborated with U.S. forces to enact one of the greatest, and least acknowledged, war crimes of the century.

    As the 1919 Gov. Glynn letter, above, reveals, the meme of “6 million Jews threatened . . .result of bigoted lust for Jewish blood” was not just a propagandistic fraud, it was an inversion of the facts.

    Apply the pattern of the firebombing of German civilians to the last part of your statement, and draw your own conclusions.

    **We know this from, among other sources, Simon Winchester’s biography of the Atlantic ocean, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s book, “A Place Among the Nations.”

  73. Gene,

    I thought you might be interested in reading the following Mother Jones article. Adam Weinstein, the author of the piece, thinks that Juan Cole, I, and other progressives are worked up over nothing with regard to the Smith/Thornberry Amendment:

    Is Congress Really Authorizing US Propaganda at Home?
    Progressives are worked up over a new “brainwashing” law for misguided reasons.
    —By Adam Weinstein
    | Tue May. 22, 2012
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/congress-propaganda

  74. Elaine,

    Interesting article (and congrats on the shoutout), but the history it relays doesn’t present anything problematic for my purposes. That we are already propagandized (and not just by government) was indeed one of the touchstones I was going to make later. I had actually been thinking about starting this series for some time now (I had discussed the matter briefly with OS a couple of weeks before this all happened), but the Buzzfeed story seemed like a good impetus and tie in to start. As to what the article concluded? “[R]ather than acting shocked, shocked! to find that there’s government propagandizing going on in the media, perhaps progressives can keep doing what they’ve always done best: expose the pablum and its purveyors, and use the truth to put them in their place.” This dovetails nicely with where I was heading.

    Thanks for the link!

  75. Gene H:

    I forgot to compliment you on your most interesting article. It was very good.

    The info on ancient Egypt was fascinating and not at all surprising.

  76. “But Gene failed to mention how zionists used propaganda, and he failed to mention the Creel Commission/CPI, the first instance in history of the use of propaganda by a government to generate war fervor. This is a stunning oversight. ”

    I failed to mention it because it isn’t true.

    Even within the historical example of Ramses II, what you say isn’t true. The reason Ramses needed propaganda to show he was a successful military leader was to keep public support for any military adventure he should choose to engage. The Battles of Kadesh were not the only battles fought during his reign. The truth of the matter is that Ramses waged quite a few wars and the majority of them successfully. He fudged about Kadesh because he didn’t want to spoil the public perception of his winning record so the next time he decided to go to war, the people would still support his efforts. That’s what made the Poem and the Bulletin prime examples of the danger of propaganda being used to spread disinformation or lie.

    Much like the danger of the distortions and cherry picking you are engaging in right now in support of Nazi buddies.

    Unfortunately for you, you’ve chosen to defend a group of people – the Nazis – who proved without a doubt that they were evil incarnate in action.

    “But, but, but they were provoked! A non-existent state declared war on them!”

    Of course, that had nothing to do with the rising tide of antisemitism the Nazi party was using to build local support by laying all the problems Germany suffered at the end of WWI at the hands of the Allies at the feet of the Jews.

    Which, of course, brings up the topic of misdirection. The Creel Commission operated in WWI from April 13, 1917 to August 21, 1919. WWI by comparison lasted from July, 28 1914 and lasted until November 11, 1918. During that time, Jews were an integrated part of German society. In fact, Hitler himself served with Jewish soldiers and officers during “the Great War”. The CPI’s purpose was indeed to garner support for a war against Germany in support of American allies because at the time there was a significant isolationist movement within the country. While it is important to pick and choose as a nation when and where to engage in war, the isolationists were in fact quite unrealistic about the nature of diplomacy and foreign policy. Although the causes of WWI are complex and worthy of an article (or even the many books written on the subject), the conflict – ostensibly triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria – opened in earnest with the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia which was quickly followed by the German invasion of Belgium, Luxembourg and France. In other words, it was a war of aggression started by Germany and the Central Powers (although Italy abstained). America was late to coming to the war, but when they did, it was at the behest of their allies and in an effort to end the stalemate that had resulted on the Western Front.

    Your attempts to bring up the Creel Commission out of context as a rational for what the Nazis later did in WWII is simply misdirection.

  77. One problem I see with this is that the government could start ‘outsourcing’ to the free market with private contractors.
    Those private contractors will have an incredible advantage over others with no government contract.

    When dealing in widgets or hammers this may not make much difference but in ‘information’ it may make a huge difference.

  78. Elaine,

    Thanks for the additional link. :mrgreen:

    *********

    Shano,

    What do you think advertising paid for by groups like AEI are? They are propaganda by a group seeking to exercise control over both the government and the people. Of course they outsource propaganda services already. The change now is more symbolic in that they aren’t even going to pretend anymore that they are trying to control public opinion so they can do what they want. If you were wondering what symbol they are using precisely, it’s not the index finger or the ring finger but somewhere in between.

  79. Folks, somebody help me.

    I wandered over to this thread by mistake but then I saw a lot of capital “J” letters. I have an old habit: when I see capital “J” letters, I think, “hey maybe they’re talking about the Jews,” and I tune in. It’s that thing about how and where you put your attention; the psychologists use it to test people’s responses when they are not even aware of their own attitudes.

    Anyway, then I get this stuff about how the Jews declared war on Germany and starved the Germans into submission and stuff, and frankly, I didn’t have a whole lot of time to study it in-depth. But somebody bring me up to date, OK?

    Did six million Jews get convicted of war crimes during WWII, and is that why they were executed?

    I’m wondering because by now, some of the right-wing press has Trayvon Martin on death row (retroactively) for vicious unprovoked and unrelenting assault on George Zimmerman and if I need to change my whole view of the world and everything in it, I better hurry up, being an old lady in fragile health and all.

  80. Apropos of the subject of this discussion, a few words from the master:

    GOEBBELS’ PRINCIPLES OF PROPAGANDA
    by Leonard W. Doob (published in Public Opinion and Propaganda; A Book of Readings edited for The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.

    1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.

    2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.

    a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.

    b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.

    c. It must oversee other agencies’ activities which have propaganda consequences

    3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.

    4. Propaganda must affect the enemy’s policy and action.

    a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence

    b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions

    c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself

    d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity

    5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign

    6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.

    7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

    8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.

    9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.

    10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy’s prestige or lends support to the propagandist’s own objective.

    11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.

    12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.

    13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.

    a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.

    b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment

    c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness

    14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.

    a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses

    b. They must be capable of being easily learned

    c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations

    d. They must be boomerang-proof

    15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.

    16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.

    a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat

    b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves

    17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.

    a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated

    b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective

    18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.

    19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.

    Condensed and simplified for a televised Republican Party “town hall” audience on privatizing Social Security, delivered by President George W. Bush in May of 2005:

    In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again, for the truth to sink in, … to kind of catapult the propaganda.

    There we have the long and the short of it, so to speak.

  81. Shano,
    “shano 1, May 22, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    One problem I see with this is that the government could start ‘outsourcing’ to the free market with private contractors.”

    They are already doing it. The DoD has contractors creating their propaganda. How do we know? It was the contractors that created phony facebook accts and web sites for journalists who were asking too many questions.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-04-19/vanden-brook-locker-propaganda/54419654/1

  82. bettykath,

    I agree that the outsourcing of propaganda has already proceeded beyond recall and repair, but I think it has gone so far, over such a long period of time, that now we have an imperial military outsourcing its self-serving propaganda to the corporations that own the government that works for them.

    The old expression “hiding behind the troops” has acquired a whole new meaning when taken literally.

  83. Come to think of it, witnessing our government trying to amend the laws prohibiting the military from propagandizing the American people sounds a lot like the typical ex-post-facto decriminalization procedure normally followed by the Congress and Courts whenever the corporate/military elites have already broken the laws so egregiously that the laws must now change to claim that the law-breaking didn’t really happen — and can now proceed legally.

    As the Big Brother Party slogan has it: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

  84. Gene, Michael and bettykath have scared me off this thread. Just too damn scary for me.

    “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
    We are almost there, obviously…….

  85. Gene wrote both this: “Gene H. 1, May 22, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    “But Gene failed to mention how zionists used propaganda, and he failed to mention the Creel Commission/CPI, the first instance in history of the use of propaganda by a government to generate war fervor. This is a stunning oversight. ”

    I failed to mention it because it isn’t true”
    [. . .]

    and this:
    “.The Creel Commission operated in WWI from April 13, 1917 to August 21, 1919.”

    Which is it; the US govt did or did not use the Creel commission to create WWI propaganda?

  86. follow the evidence, Gene, not your emotions.

    Banner headlines in international newspapers, placed after a conference of Jewish representatives from at least half a dozen countries, followed by protest marches in New York City over which the mayor presided, followed on shortly by rallies at Madison Square Garden, several internationally broadcast radio addresses (by Sam Untermyer), and at least two mock trials of the German state does not seem like “cherry picking.”

    Perhaps it presents a body of evidence hitherto unknown, but the evidence is now readily accessible — see Erick Larson, “In the Garden of Beasts;” and below,

    Richard Hawkins, “Samuel Untermyer: Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,” —

    “What we are proposing and have already gone far toward doing, is
    to prosecute a purely defensive economic boycott that will
    undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their
    senses by destroying their export trade on which their very
    existence depends
    .”
    [Untermyer WABC radio address from NYC, Aug 6 1933]

    you wrote: “A non-existent state declared war on them!””

    exhibit 1 http www dot jewsagainstzionism dot com slash zionism slash jewishwar.cfm
    Did Jews declare war on Germany, yes or no?

    What casus belli supports this declaration of war?

    What right does a non-state have to impose an existential threat/declare a state of war, on another sovereign state?

    According to a Jewish chronicler of the events (Edwin Black), did the German people have reason to perceive the boycott as an ‘existential threat,’ yes or no?

    exhibit 2 http www dot jewishvirtuallibrary dot org/jsource/Holocaust/Black dot html

    “The anti-Hitler protest movement culminated in a gigantic rally at Madison Square Garden on March 27, 1933, organized by Rabbi Wise and the American Jewish Congress. More than 55,000 protesters crammed into the Garden and surrounding streets. Simultaneous rallies were held in 70 other metropolitan areas in the U.S. and in Europe. Radio hookups broadcast the New York event to hundreds of cities throughout the world.

    The boycott unnerved the Nazis, who believed that Jews wielded supernatural international economic power. They knew that in the past Jews had used boycotts effectively against Russian Czar Nicholas II to combat his persecution of Jews, and automaker Henry Ford to halt his anti-Semitic campaign. Whether or not this new boycott actually possessed the punishing power to crush the Reich economy was irrelevant; what mattered was that Germany perceived the Jewish-led boycott as the greatest threat to its survival–and reacted accordingly.

    Relentless in exploiting the Nazis’ vulnerability, Rabbi Wise and the other boycott leaders were determined to form one cohesive international movement under the banner “Starve Germany into submission this winter.”

    (the same point — that Germans had good reason to fear the crippling effectiveness of a boycott imposed by Jews — is elaborated in Edwin Black’s book, “The Transfer Agreement.”)

    3. Were the German people especially vulnerable to the ‘existential threat’ of a boycott, yes or no?

    exhibit 3.British Government reports on actions to impose a blockade; results of blockade:
    http www dot nationalarchives dot gov dot uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/blockade dot htm

    exhibit 4. The Politics of Hunger: Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919 by C. Paul Vincent, Ohio University Press.

    Emblematic study of the Allied blockade on Germany, including an argument supporting the thesis that malnourishment suffered by young children at the time of the blockade resulted in permanent physical and neurological deficits. Children who were ~6 years old during blockade were ~18 years old when Hitler came to power. The argument is that an entire cohort of young people were neurologically deficient, due to sustained malnourishment.
    The very least conclusion a rational person might reach is that starving a population is more likely to produce a chaotic and unstable outcome than a ‘democratic’ outcome. In a climate in which increasingly severe sanctions are being imposed on Iran, it is essential that decision makers consider past evidence of imposed starvation to predict the likely outcome of deliberately destabilising a population.

    exhibit 5. http libcom dot org/files/blockade%20Germany_0 dot pdf
    Academic study of the social and political impact of blockade on ability of Germany to form political institutions (among other things)

    “The Allied blockade policy against Germany continued after the signing of the armistice in November 1918. It had already contributed greatly to the reduction of the supplies of food from all sources of the Central Powers by over 50 per cent in the final year of the war. Its impact increased population loss and spread death and disease, as famine encroached upon the civilian populations of Central Europe. . . .From the end of the shooting war, which had
    claimed three million military lives in Central Europe to the conclusion of
    the state of hostilities, the continued food blockade brought about a quarter of a million additional deaths among the civilian population of Germany,within its post-1919 boundaries.”

  87. talkingbacktocspan,

    You seem to have mistaken me for someone who takes someone apologizing for Nazis seriously, talkingbacktocspan.

    However, the fact that you quote a von Mises publication in defending the Nazis is extremely funny to me. I’ve been saying for a long time that von Mises was an apologist for and promoter of corporatist fascism like the type practiced by Germany and Italy during WWII.

    “Which is it; the US govt did or did not use the Creel commission to create WWI propaganda?”

    Your question completely ignores the rest of my statement in another fine example of cherry picking. What I said was the CPI wasn’t the first time propaganda had been used by a government to stir up support for a war which contradicted your claim that it was.

    “Did Jews declare war on Germany, yes or no?”

    No. They declared an economic boycott on Germany, they being Rabbi Wise and the American Jewish Congress. You neglect to mention that this rally calling for an economic boycott was in direct response to Hitler being named Chancellor and was held over the express opposition of the State Department. Considering the antisemitic tide that the Nazis rode to power and the campaign of violence against German Jews, socialists, communists and other Nazi opponents that began in January of 1933 when Hitler took power and that on January 30, 1933 the Nazi regime declared a boycott on all Jewish businesses and products, it is hardly surprising that seven months later Jews might call for a boycott of German goods. However a boycott is not war and there was no Jewish state in 1933. Only states can declare war on other states. You are making a false equivalence. That is a logical fallacy and a form of lie.

    “What casus belli supports this declaration of war?”

    Moot. It wasn’t war. It was a boycott. That hyperbolic language may have been used is irrelevant. The AJC was not a state.

    “What right does a non-state have to impose an existential threat/declare a state of war, on another sovereign state?”

    If I ignore your loading the question with your false equivalence to war, a non-state group of people in this country have every right to call for an economic boycott of any damned country or organization they see fit. “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – that includes protesting and calling for boycotts. Deal with it.

    “According to a Jewish chronicler of the events (Edwin Black), did the German people have reason to perceive the boycott as an ‘existential threat,’ yes or no?”

    Do you still beat your wife? Loaded question and not worth addressing other than to note that Germany’s actual economic fear from a AJC boycott was only marginally more threatening than if the Boyscouts of America had boycotted Nazi Germany. The sanctions and embargo of the Allies were in place long before this ever happened and the proper cause of Germany’s economic malaise.

    “Were the German people especially vulnerable to the ‘existential threat’ of a boycott, yes or no?”

    No. What they were was capable of manipulation that a boycott was an actual threat due to the economic impoverishment they had endured in the intra-war period at the hands of the Allies sanctions. Again, Nazi propaganda at work demonizing “the Other” to justify their actions against Jews and other “undesirables”. The sanctions that caused Germany’s economic pain were caused by the Allied sanctions and blockade. Not the AJC. They were not signatories to the Treaty of Versailles.

    There is no excuse for that the Nazis did.

    None.

    They took conditions that were admittedly harsh and blamed them on the Jews when it was the Allies who were responsible for Germany’s inability to economically recover after WWI. It’s called scapegoating and the Nazis did it to consolidate their local power base by giving them a focus for the free floating anger in the German populace and to steal property and create slave labor to fund and fuel their expansionist war of aggression. Anyone who would try to defend the Nazis is simply evil. That does mean you, by the way.

    There are a couple of things you should know about me. I know the history leading up to both wars as well as the wars proper. Very well. I also personally know concentration camp survivors. I even had a relative who was part of the liberation force at Dachau. I learned my history not just from books but from people who were actually there. If you were actually in my house spouting this Nazi apologist nonsense of yours, I’d show you to the door and none too gently. Let me speak plainly so there is no misunderstanding. You might accidentally get your ass kicked on the way to curb.

    So how about you start talking to your TV again, Herr Goebbels.

    I’m not interested in anything you’re selling.

  88. talkingbacktocspan:

    so what you are saying is that getting rid of Hitler in 1933 was a bad idea?

    What kind of crap are you selling?

    So the boycott of Iran is not a good idea either? Are you a theocrat, a fascist or a national socialist?

    here is one for you:

  89. Gene H, I have to weigh in to thank you for a logical and rigorous dissection of the 65-year-old “self-defense” claim the Nazis tried to sell as they slunk away from the scene of their own destruction. It was all they had.

    I must say that Talkingback’s position on this thread is ironic!

    The way I see it:

    Aggressor marks target and carries on about how bad target is;

    Aggressor begins to threaten the ability of target to either live or escape;

    Target tries to escape, fight back, or call for help;

    Aggressor steps up the program while complaining about the behavior of the target, which Aggressor characterizes as a declaration of war or an attempt to kill Aggressor;

    Target steps up defense;

    Aggressor kills target, then complains that target made him do it by all that stepped-up resistance/defense/etc.

    Hmmmmmmm…reminds me of the Zimmerman/Martin case!

    Now perhaps I will better understand my responses to it. Thanks! [green smiley]

  90. My purpose is to put Hitler & Nazism in context. Nazism did not emerge out of the blue, and as R H S Stolfi argues compellingly, to merely label Hitler as “evil” and one dimensional is intellectually lazy, a mindless and visceral acceptance of propaganda rather than an objective assessment of the evidence and context.

    Nobody “got rid of Hitler” in 1933; your question is meaningless.

    As to your question, “So the boycott of Iran is not a good idea either?”
    please explain precisely what offense Iran has committed that it should be sanctioned, and by what right the US, the Israel lobby in US, and Israel seek to cause the economic collapse of Iran.

    Sanctions are economic warfare; the goal of sanctions on Iran is to so destabilize Iran’s civilian population that they will riot and overthrow their government.
    Ed Royce stated this plainly in Sept 2007;

    in June 2008, Ephraim Sneh told an AIPAC audience that “Iran’s nukes are not the problem, the regime is the problem. The Iranian people are incapable of changing the regime, so we must impose such harsh sanctions on Iran that its rulers will be forced to worry about how they will feed their 70 million people.”

    in Oct 2011 Sen Mark Kirk told a Chicago radio audience, “It is okay to take food out of the mouths of innocent Iranian citizens.”

    in Nov 2011 Rep Brad Sherman said, ““Critics [of the sanctions] argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.”

    On Nov 18 2011 Charlie Rose, interviewing Mohammed Javad Larijani, asked him how bad Iran’s economy was; “I understand the people are having a hard time getting food,” Rose said.

    in March 2012 Sanam Anderlini told a conference in Washington, DC that her relatives in Iran are suffering; children are unable to get the proper vitamins, and sick people are unable to get medicines that they need; shelves are bare in many place. She said “we Iranian Americans are frightened; you are the voice for 73 million people.”

    Nima Shirazi is a far better writer than I; here is his assessment of sanctions on Iran: http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2012/03/inhumanity-of-iran-threat-rhetoric.html

    The overall points I am trying to make are these:
    Blockades have been used by the United States & its allies, in contravention of international norms, for the deliberate purpose of causing the civilian population to suffer and die, (in contravention of UN Sanctions against genocide); that the history of blockades/sanctions objectively understood reveals that in the event the goal of the sanctioners — to destabilize and topple the government — is achieved, a sanctioned/starved population is less likely to be able to form robust democratic political institutions.
    I have been trying to demonstrate that such was the case in Germany; we know that was the case in Iraq; we are attempting to do the same thing to Iran.

    Sanctions are, and have been, probably since the time of Ramses, an act of war whether formally declared or not, or a prelude to war. In the WWI era Communists spoke of “propaganda of the deed” as a wave of assassinations swept Europe. The United States has devised a means of ‘propagandizing the masses’ — by starving them.

    Readers who are unwilling to consider the consequences of the starvation of 800,000 German civilians in 1915-1919 should at least call to mind that Americans deliberately caused the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, and we have our sights set on starving Iranians. It is immoral and illegal.

  91. Talkingback: Give it up. We’re as likely to listen to your apologist revisionist propaganda as CSPAN has been all these years.

    The question posed to you, by the way, was misunderstood by you. The question was whether you thought that GETTING RID OF HITLER in 1933 (which was the goal of the protesters) would have been a bad idea!

    Think about it. WOULD IT?

  92. shano,

    Please do not let a forthright examination of propaganda scare you away. Fear feeds on secrecy and ignorance. Dispel those, and fear vanishes, along with the propaganda apparatus that cannot function without this overpowering emotion to exploit. As Umberto Eco has written:

    Ur-[i.e., Eternal] Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, “I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares.” Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt’s words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: “If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land.” Freedom and liberation are an unending task [emphasis added].

    Stick around and help us all “move democracy forward by peaceful means to better the life of our citizens.” We can begin by recognizing and disarming — through deserved ridicule — the propaganda catapults who believe that they can easily subdue us by endlessly repeating the same tired lies until their message — “Buy what we wish to sell you” — sinks in and the difference between truth and falsity no longer matters. If Fascist propaganda doesn’t scare us dirty fucking retard Hippy anti-war Vietnam Veterans, it shouldn’t scare a decent person like you, either.

  93. in other words, gene, you have no argument.

    The survivors of the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq, the survivors of thousands killed in Palestine, and 73 million Iranians — minus a few assassinated by Mossad, thank you for demonstrating the fine moral values that USA represents.

    your blog has demonstrated the truth of the statement, Demonization destroys the ability to think critically.

  94. No, I’ve got plenty of argument. I’m not interested in talking to a Nazi loving douche bag. The next time you get the urge to address me directly, I cordially invite you to go fuck yourself.

  95. Was that clear enough for you, Herr Goebbels?

    BTW, it’s not demonizing when you call a demon a demon.

    It’s accurate.

  96. Malisha, Herbert Hoover dedicated 900 pages to considering that question — in a slightly more nuanced way.

    Having met with Hitler and Goering, Hoover concluded that Hitler had “three idees fixes: to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles; to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States . . .not merely from an aggressive ideology but to ensure the food security of Germany’s population; and to destroy the Russian Communist government.”

    Hoover reported that Hitler was determined that the German people would never again be “starved into submission.”

    The main argument of Hoover’s “Freedom Betrayed” was that Hitler had no desire or intention to enter a war with Western Europe/France/Great Britain; Hitler’s territorial claims were eastward — reclaiming lands sundered from Germany by the Versailles treaty, lands where German minorities dwelt; and claiming agricultural land in Ukraine/Russia.

    Hoover advised that neither Britain nor France was economically fit to enter a war, they were not targeted, and they should just remain quiet. Likewise, the USA should stay out of the way and “let those two bastards [Russia and Germany] annihilate themselves.” The outcome, Hoover thought, would have been “peace for a hundred years.”

    In Hoover’s assessment, in 1933, Hitler and the German government were NOT threats to the US, or to the West. Yes, it is true that in 1933 Jews were discriminated against in employment and education opportunities, and in 1935 these discriminatory practices were framed into the Nuremberg laws. Despite the “atrocity propaganda” that so many have absorbed uncritically, in 1933 Jews were not subject to ‘pogroms’ or wholesale imprisonment; they lived far safer lives in Nazi Germany in 1933-1940 than Palestinians have lived since 1948.

    It is precisely because German Jews did feel safe in Germany, and were not willing to leave and were especially unwilling to migrate to Palestine, where their wealth was desperately needed to save the zionist project from bankruptcy, that zionists deliberately provoked the German people with its series of “declarations of war” and economic boycotts, protest rallies, humiliating mock trials designed to derail US diplomatic relations with Germany, that could have resolved the situation without violence. Zionists deliberately provoked Germany, and deliberately pushed for US involvment in a war in Europe that, as Hoover argued, was the blunder of the century.

    Neocons deliberately pushed for US involvment in a war in Iraq, the blunder of a generation.

    The Israel lobby is deliberately pushing the US to wage war against Iran, a blunder that will devastate the entire world into an untold future.

    Go ahead and call me names if that is the best you can muster.

    Millions of people are dead because too many people were too lazy to challenge the propaganda they have been force-fed all their lives.

  97. talkingbacktocspan,

    If you wish to make the point that the Treaty of Versailles imposed great hardships on the German people following WWI and that Adolph Hitler managed to skillfully exploit the deep and bitter resentments that these measures caused among the Germans — especially the impoverished, demobilized Army — then I wish you had made this clear at the beginning of your comments. As George Orwell said in his essay “Propaganda and Demotic Language” (Persuasion, 1944): “propaganda only seems to succeed when it coincides with what people are inclined to do in any case.” Hitler’s propaganda, accordingly, worked well for him during the hard times immediately following WWI and after the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, but not so well during the bubble prosperity of the 1920s when “the lower middle classes, all the millions of shopkeepers and small-salaried folk on whom Hitler had to draw for support shared in the general prosperity” (to quote William L. Shirer from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). Certainly the American government recognized this history and pursued a policy of aiding the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after WWII instead of vindictively punishing those defeated countries as the Allies had done to Germany after The Great War. Occasionally, governments do learn from past errors.

    None of these legitimate German grievances, however, excuse or justify what Adolph Hitler and the Germans did to the Jews, Gypsies, Russians, and other Eastern European peoples during the twelve year reign of the Third Reich. By the same token, nothing done to the Jews by the Germans in WWII justifies what Zionist Jews and Evangelical American Christians do on a daily basis to Palestinian Arabs and Muslims who had nothing to do with German/Christian persecution of Jews during WWII. Those who wish to spread propaganda in support of their own interests — whether Nazis or Zionists — will typically misuse whatever historical events they can appropriate as long as no one calls them on their fraudulent propaganda and blatant emotional guilt-flogging. One simply has to recognize this and try to deal with it appropriately.

    I understand the resentment that many feel when subjected to Zionist/Christian propaganda against Muslims, but one cannot combat that by allowing others to paint one as an apologist for Adolph Hitler — which Zionist/Christian propagandists will do at the drop of a hat, whether justified or otherwise. Glenn Greenwald has written extensively regarding this particular propaganda tactic. See any of his writing on this subject for practical lessons on how to deconstruct and dispose of it. My younger brother the public high school teacher says that whenever a Zionist sympathizer calls him an “anti-semite,” he responds: “On the contrary, I like Arabs.”

    I mean only to say here that one can defend Arabs or Muslims without praising Adolph Hitler or other anti-Jewish Christians — and one should take care not to do that.

  98. “calling a demon a demon.”
    You oughta tune in to a slugfest between Jonathan Kay and Webster Tarpley — http://www.c-spanvideo.org/webstertarpley

    I know I know — “Webster Tarpley — what a douche bag; mighta known a Nazi lover would go for someone like Webster . . .” — is that what you’re thinking?

    Tarpley’s not my cup o tea, and the 9/11 truther stuff wierds me out, but Jonathan Kay and David Frum made the movement and Tarpley look like paragons of rationality and presence.

    Even the people who came to the event to heckle Tarpley ended up chastising Frum and Kay.

  99. I really don’t care what Nazi apologist think of me or how they define classy.

    I don’t feel any obligation to be civil to Nazi supporters in the slightest.

    If that presents a problem for you?

    Good.

  100. “I mean only to say here that one can defend Arabs or Muslims without praising Adolph Hitler or other anti-Jewish Christians — and one should take care not to do that.”

    A point we can agree on, MM.

    There is simply no excuse whatsoever for apologizing for or praising Hitler or the Nazi Party. The acts they took at the concentration and extermination camps and in the ghettos was purely voluntary. They own that evil.

    This is not to say Zionists (especially the Likud) are saints. I largely think the animosity of Israel’s neighbors toward Israel is directly traceable to Likud policy. I’m a firm believer that the two state option is the only viable solution that can bring lasting peace (and given the nature of the events that unfolded around the creation of the State of Israel, probably the only solution for what was inevitable conflict from the start).

  101. Talkingback, I don’t care how many pages ANYONE wrote, or writes, at any time at all, if it’s in support of an idiotic pseudo-idea that has been used by murderers to not only justify their criminal behavior but to foist off onto their victims the blame for it. There’s stuff like that all over the world and whoever wants to believe it can, without implications for the rest of us.

    Here’s an idiotic pseudo-idea: The Jews of Europe produced such trouble in Germany that Hitler was forced to institute the FINAL SOLUTION in order to either keep his people from being starved and destroyed or to punish the perpetrators of a great plot to annihilate the German people, women and children first.

    And all variations on that theme, the same: Idiotic pseudo-ideas.

    Hitler was guilty of what he did without mitigation; Nazis were (and are) guilty of what they did (and do) without mitigation.

    You can spout off to the contrary using any number of sources, pages, rants, citations, or other useless incunabula; feel free.

  102. A few inaccuracies in your timeline, Gene H —

    “Considering the antisemitic tide that the Nazis rode to power and the campaign of violence against German Jews, socialists, communists and other Nazi opponents that began in January of 1933 when Hitler took power and that on January 30, 1933 the Nazi regime declared a boycott on all Jewish businesses and products, it is hardly surprising that seven months later Jews might call for a boycott of German goods.

    a. The “campaign of violence against German Jews . . .” —

    A participant at Mondoweiss explained that there was not really a “campaign of violence or persecution against German Jews in the 1933-1938 era; there was a campaign of discrimination. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/on-the-sidewalk-in-hamburg-hier-wohnte.html#comment-452344

    b. the Nazi party did NOT “declare a boycott on all Jewish businesses on Jan 30, 1933.” On Mar 24, 1933, Jews declared a boycott on all German exports/imports. The Jewish boycott lasted until about 1938.

    In retaliation, on April 1, 1933, Nazis declared a one-day boycott on Jewish businesses.

    c. “seven months later” — meaning August 1933? By that time, zionist groups expanded and reinforced the boycott on German goods. They sought, and received, participation in the ‘Jewish’ boycott from leaders of Roman Catholic and Christian/Protestant denominations.

  103. If evil things were done, and they had–and have– a material impact on world events, and they were done by Jews, is it permissible to point that out?
    Are Jews immune from accountability for their bad acts because they are Jews?

    An example: A 31 year old Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated because he worked in an Iranian nuclear technology program that functions under IAEA oversight within the parameters of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. His wife is now a widow and his young son will grow up without his father.

    But Zalman Shapiro, whose company, NUMEC, is alleged to have illegally supplied enriched uranium to Israel’s secretive nuclear weapons program, lives in a luxury condominium in the Midwest and is on the board of a local Hillel. He has been firewalled from prosecution by action of a former U.S. senator.

    So what is the standard: it’s okay if you’re Jewish; it’s deadly if you’re Iranian?

  104. MM –

    One of the points with which I disagree is that “Hitler managed to exploit” German grievances.

    Hitler did not “exploit” German grievances, he calmed them.

    Case in point: Before and as Hitler came to power, Freikorps were still running wild. It was they who were harassing Germans and Jews.

    In a series of lectures on Machiavelli and the uses of power, prof. Dennis Dalton asserted that Bush I failed to use power properly; he should have killed Saddam in 1991. “Today, Bush is out of office and Hussein is still ruling Iraq,” Dalton said. A leader has got to be willing to employ judicious killing.

    The night of long knives can be studied in the same way: there were bad actors who were still terrorizing the civilian population — including Jews — in Germany; Hitler had to eradicate them. So he did; iirc he personally killed Rohm. The assassinations were necessary, targeted, and disciplined.

    Case in point: When Hitler came to power, the German economy was in a shambles. Unemployment was off the charts, a certain circumstance for unrest, violence, and expressions of resentment of those who did have wealth — Jews were among the wealthier in Germany.

    What did Hitler do to “exploit” that situation?

    This is from “My New Order, a collection of Hitler’s speeches, a sequel to Mein Kampf,” 1941: (the following is commentary by Raoul de Sales, ed. & comm)

    “Besides having promised his followers that Germany would become strong again, Hitler had also promised to cure all the evils of the postwar period, and first of all unemployment.

    Now that he was in power, it was not only natural but predetermined that these two promises should be fulfilled at once and merged into one single objective.

    It was always to be one of Hitler’s greatest boasts that of all civilized countries Germany had been the only one to find a cure for this world evil, unemployment. Naturally he gave credit for this achievement to the transformation of society by the National Socialist Revolution. Unemployment was cured, according to him, as soon as the concept that the wealth of a country was not in its gold or its capital, but its powers of production and its labor, was accepted. . . .And there is no disputing the fact that the system evolved by the German economists and financiers under the pressure of necessity did succeed in producing an apparent recovery which baffled the world.”

    (otoh, This is the Gang That Is Going to Save the World Economy?

    case #3: In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that the Kaiser played off first Christians against Catholics, then Catholics against Christians. Hitler observed that this tactic resulted only in dividing the nation against itself; his vision was for a Germany united around their common cultural inheritance, which, as R H S Stolfi explains, Hitler believed could be found in music and opera. No, Hitler did NOT unite Germans against Jews, but around Norse/German mythology.

    Oh that demon Hitler, uniting the German people around the Christ-type hero Siegfried.

  105. Ask Germans today if they liked being united by Hitler around the wonderful heroic Christ-type hero, Talkingback. Ask a LOT of them.

  106. TB-2-C-Span, your question about whether it’s OK to say Jews did wrong is completely ridiculous, offensive and obviously a way to try to illogically defend the fact that you were saying — over and over again in one way after another — that the Jews murdered by the Third Reich had done wrong and that justified their murders.

    Own up. You’re allowed to believe that. Just don’t try to say something that offensive, stupid, ignorant and illogical and then try to defensively turn it into something else.

    Self defense is still allowed, your royal highness, and pronouncements to the contrary belong in the basket of “idiotic pseudo-ideas” that has already been woven by a million wrong-doers.

    I half expect you to point out that Son of Sam was a Jew so the Holocaust was OK.

  107. The problem with your rationale — or lack of same, Malisha, is that it does not provide any information on what went wrong and how, so that the same situation does not arise again — to ensure that “Never again” thingy.

    Following your line of reasoning, which is, all that needs to be known is that “Hitler was evil,” in order to ensure “Never Again,” all that needs to be done is to eliminate all Hitler-types.

    How do you identify a Hitler-type?

    Benjamin Netanyahu says, frequently, that “Ahmadinejad is Hitler, and it’s 1938.” Based on this claim, Netanyahu has been seeking the destruction of Iran, since at least 1986 (I recognize that you don’t like to read what people write and think, other than that Hitler is evil, but it is useful to read what Benj. Netanyahu has written — in 1979 he defined the protocols for what we are now living out as the Global War on Terror. Iran was Enemy Number One. nb. In 1979, Ahmadinejad was an anonymous 23 year old civil engineering student).

    Ahmadinejad does not have the powers that Hitler had — he has no control over the military, but that counts for little since Iran has an extremely small military — it’s strictly defensive. It’s defensive, not “forward-leaning,” like the US, because Iran has no expansionist or extra-territorial ambitions, as Germany did under Hitler.

    The largest population of Jews in the Middle East lives in Iran, where they have lived prosperous and secure for longer than Jews have lived anywhere else in the world.

    Jews in Iran are not threatened. In fact, several years ago, Israeli organizations offered to pay Iranian Jews to move to Israel, but very, very few, if any, Iranian Jews took up the offer; they preferred their life in Iran.

    If Ahmadinejad so hated Jews that he wished to kill them, why not start out just down the street in Tehran?

    In order to cast Ahmadinejad as “evil,” it has become necessary for propagandists (this blog IS about propaganda, after all) to distort a phrase that Ahmadinejad has repeated. The distorted version is “Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth” which is then twisted to, “All Jews must be killed.”
    The actual statement is, “Zionism [a political movement, like Communism] will disappear from the pages of time,” meaning that like Communism, zionism will fail of its own internal contradictions.

    Increasingly, Israeli and American Jews are also predicting the eventual collapse of zionism, because it cannot sustain its internal contradictions.
    ______

    But meanwhile, based on inflammatory and distorted rhetoric — “Ahmadinejad is Hitler, Hitler is evil, therefore, Ahmadinejad is evil, therefore Ahmadinejad/Iran must be made to suffer therefore the Iranian people must be made to suffer; in fact, unless the evil regime in Iran ‘changes their behavior,’ we should bomb their cities, town and people” –the propagandists are carrying out the delusional and irrational scheme that they have concocted: Iranian civilians and scientists are assassinated for the ‘crime’ of working in their own country. Iranian children are deprived of the food they need to develop normally, because of actions taken on the basis of irrational rhetoric/propaganda.

    Do you have a problem with that?

  108. Interesting that you mentioned Son of Sam in your otherwise completely logic- and substance-free rant.

    His hangout was the estate of Sam Untermyer, who, with Rabbi Stephen Wise, engineered the Jewish boycott of Germany from 1933-1938.

  109. btw Malisha, don’t put words in my mouth. Refute the claims I made, not the ones you make up.

    I do argue that the Jewish boycott of Germany 1933-1938 was a deliberate act of provocation, to suit zionist goals of transfering German Jewish wealth to Palestine because otherwise the zionist project would go bankrupt.

    If you can refute that argument, have at it. If you destroy the facts and logic of my argument, as a rational person, I must acquiesce to your counter-argument.
    Name calling is not a refutation. It’s a sign of weakness.

  110. Talking, you tried to restate what you were saying to clean it up a little, but if you want me to refute what you have now said (I wouldn’t even BOTHER to refute what you previously said), here we go:

    You said:

    I do argue that the Jewish boycott of Germany 1933-1938 was a deliberate act of provocation, to suit zionist goals of transfering German Jewish wealth to Palestine because otherwise the zionist project would go bankrupt.

    I refute that. It is absurd. I don’t care if you think my saying that is a sign of weakness on my part or not. The German Jews had no design of going to Palestine with their wealth — nor did their wealth GET TO PALESTINE via Auschwitz and Dachau. The design was Hitler’s design to transfer their wealth to HIM and HIS and to kill them. From 1933 to 1938 the Jews tried to protest and prevent that, but alas, they were too WEAK to do so. If you don’t like me weakly calling you names don’t go public with some crap like that.

  111. “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: ‘by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.'” – Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 published July 18, 1925

  112. “If we consider how greatly he has sinned against the masses in the course of the centuries, how he has squeezed and sucked the blood again and again; if furthermore, we consider how the people gradually learned to hate him for this, and ended up by regarding his existence as nothing but punishment of Heaven for the other peoples, we can understand how hard this shift must be for the Jew.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

  113. “The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people.” – Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

  114. Summary:

    Jews are responsible for all the evil in the world, they want our women, and God wants me to defend myself from “the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.” (The quote also from Mein Kampf.)

    This was all in 1925-26.

  115. re your comment –
    ” Ask Germans today if they liked being united by Hitler around the wonderful heroic Christ-type hero, Talkingback. Ask a LOT of them.”

    first of all, the Christ-type hero was Siegfried, from Wagner’s opera. Didn’t want you to get the impression Hitler was cast as the Christ type.
    ——-

    here’s something intriguing, Malisha, this contrast in the social and psychological well-being of Germans vs Israeli Jews.

    In The War of Our Childhoods author Wolfgang Samuel interview 27 people who, like him, were children in Germany during the war. As children, they experienced firebombing, starvation, separation and loss of their parents, some even witnessed the rapes of family members.

    Samuel concludes: “”My focus. . .is on the astounding ability of a generation of German children to emerge from debilitating circumstances as sane and productive human beings.”

    Contrast that first-person testimony with the observations of Israeli-born & educated psychologist Avigail Abarbanel. She wrote, in “Israel’s Growing Insanity,” that it is a “mainstream view” in Israel today that they are “facing a danger of annihilation.” (Be aware that actual holocaust survivors are by now in the minority; most Israelis are a generation removed from the holocaust.)
    Abarbanel continues, “When a person’s perception of reality is completely out of touch with reality itself, we begin to get an uneasy feeling that something might be wrong with his or her mind. Where is the evidence that the Jews, right now are facing a “real danger of complete annihilation”?

    Abarbanel traces the roots of this detached-from-reality phenomenon to the profound identity-confusion Israeli Jews experience, and traces THAT identity crisis to “the neurotic Zionist movement. She explores how this Israeli Jewish psychological crisis manifests itself in the sham “peace process,” and, most tragically, how it has damaged the lives of Palestinians.

    AS mentioned above, it is not actual holocaust survivors who exhibit this phenomenon, it is second and third generation Israeli Jews who do so. That means they have been TAUGHT — propagandized, if you will — to believe that they are about to be annihilated.

    While the myths of German culture united the German people, and enabled children who lived through the horror of war to emerge as “sane and productive human beings,” the core myths of today’s Israeli Jews are not only not unifying them as a people but are even fragmenting their own sense of integrated personhood.
    http://www.avigailabarbanel.me.uk/growing-insanity.html

    Israeli psychiatrist Zvi Rex, has said ” “The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.” Or in other words, a guilty conscience has a surprising way of manifesting itself through aggression and claims to victimhood.” ”

    Which cohort, Germans or Israeli Jews, has been forced to confront reality and acknowledge guilt? And consistent with Dr. Rex’s analysis, as well as the observations of Dr. Abarbanel, which group manifests “aggression and claims to victimhood?”

    And for Gene H and this propaganda project — what role does propaganda play in maintaining a psychologically dangerous state, and is such a state best resolved by enabling it or by confronting reality?

  116. Malisha, saying “I refute that” is not an argument, it is an assertion. You need some facts and logic to undermine my argument.

    The facts are not on your side.

    I will, however, not undermine your non-refutation by citing the facts until you have the opportunity to provide a real argument. Fair is fair, after all; it’s just the kind of guy I am.

  117. I was busy this morning and operating from memory so I decided to verify some dates now that I had a bit of free time. Indeed, I did mistake the dates of the AJC call for boycott, but in context you’ll see exactly how ridiculous comparing it to “an act of war” really is:

    January 30, 1933. – Hitler becomes Chancellor.

    February 27, 1933 – Reichstag burns – likely at the hands of the Nazis themselves.

    February 28, 1933 – The Reichstag Fire Decree is issued, suspending the civil rights of Germans.

    March 21, 1933 – Hindenburg signed two decrees put before him by Hitler. The first decree granted full pardons to all Nazis currently in prison. The second decree allowed for the arrest of anyone suspected of maliciously criticizing the government and/or the Nazi Party. A third decree (signed only by Hitler and Papen) creates special courts to try political offenders. These courts are conducted in the courts-martial style, without a jury and usually with no counsel for the defense.

    March 22, 1933 – Dachau opens.

    March 24, 1933 – Hitler becomes der Führer with the signing of the Enabling Act by the newly reconstituted Reichstag.

    April 1, 1933 – Nazis stage boycott of Jewish shops and businesses.

    April 11, 1933 – Nazis issue a Decree defining a non-Aryan as “anyone descended from non-Aryan, especially Jewish, parents or grandparents. One parent or grandparent classifies the descendant as non-Aryan…especially if one parent or grandparent was of the Jewish faith.”

    April 26, 1933 – The Gestapo is created by Hermann Göring.

    May 10, 1933 – Book burning! Everyone bring marshmallows.

    July 14, 1933 – The Nazi Party is declared the only legal party in Germany.

    August, 1933 – AJC leads a general boycott of German goods.

    November 24, 1933 – The Nazis pass a “Law Against Habitual and Dangerous Criminals”, which allows beggars, the homeless, alcoholics and the unemployed (read: the poor) to be sent to concentration camps in addition to political prisoners.

  118. As for this project?

    It aims to teach people how to easily identify people like you, you Nazi apologist.

    Your entire posting here has been nothing more than an exercise in cherry picking, deflection, misdirection and apologetics on behalf of those po’ ol’ misunderstood Nazis.

    Being able to identify propaganda is the first step in being able to fight propaganda, but especially propaganda that seeks to rationalize away horrific acts such as the Holocaust which killed 6,000,000 Jews and as many as 11,000,000 in toto by blaming the act on someone other than the guys holding the keys to the gas chambers.

  119. I’m guessing for your next act, Herr Goebbels, you’re probably going to call a concentration camp something like “enhanced accommodations”.

  120. here’s a better review/overview of Herbert Hoover’s “Freedom Betrayed” than the poorly cobbled quotes I posted earlier —

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10838171-freedom-betrayed#other_reviews

    QUOTE
    1. War between Germany and Russia was inevitable.
    2. Hitler’s attack on Western Democracies was only to brush them out of his way.
    3. There would have been no attack on the Western Democracies had they not supplied the guarantee to Poland in March of 1939.
    4. This Poland guarantee was the greatest blunder in British diplomatic history
    .
    5. There was no sincerity on either side of the Stalin-Hitler non-aggression pack made in August, 1939.
    6. Neither the US nor any part of the Western Hemisphere was ever in danger of invasion by Hitler.
    7. The danger of US invasion was lessened further by Hitler’s invasion of Russia.
    8. FDR, knowing 6 and 7 by November 1940 (election time), had no reason to put the US in the war to ‘save Britain’ or to save the US from invasion.
    9. The
    use of the US Navy for undeclared war on Germany (in 1940 and 1941) was unconstitutional.
    10. There were secret military agreements with Britain possibly as early as January, 1940.
    11. The war with Japan was deliberately provoked.

    He has few good things to say about FDR, Churchill, or Stalin, and wanted us to stay out of the war. He saw FDR as incompetent at best. Because of Hoover’s position, he had access to a number of ‘insiders’ who shared with him details of what was really going on.

    . . .[The book] does supply adequate documentation (much of it based on diplomatic papers) to support his theses… this is much more a diplomatic history, than a military one.

    Those that propose WWII as the ‘Good War’ need to supply extraordinary evidence to justify the slaughter that left 50 to 70 million dead. This book shows that Hoover sided with those who wanted nothing to do with that slaughter.

    Having read Rothbard’s ‘The Great Depression’, I had earlier formed a negative opinion of Hoover. This book redeems him.(less)

    END QUOTE

  121. Herbert Hoover?

    The jokes practically write themselves.

    As to the reason you have a better opinion of Hoover, that would be your confirmation bias in re the Nazis coming into play. That Hoover sucked was about the only thing I’ve ever agreed with that fascist tool Rothbard about, but then again, it’s hard to like a President who consistently shows up in the Top 10 on polls among academics about “The Worst American Presidents”.

  122. another astonishing aspect of “Freedom Betrayed.”
    In ~900 pages, Jews are mentioned only 3 or 4 times.
    In spite of popular, propagandized, perception, the second world war was NOT all about Jews.

  123. “In spite of popular, propagandized, perception, the second world war was NOT all about Jews.”

    No one said it was, straw man.

  124. I didn’t write the review, Gene, I quoted someone else’s review. The book is on my desk; the review seems a fair representation.

    Yer right, Herbert Hoover? pfft. What does he know.

    Rely on Gene H. He’s got the real scoop. He spent years travelling in Europe before, during and after the war; talking with the principals; reading diplomatic cables. Gene H. is the MAN, man.

    btw, did you fact check the dates (Mar 1933-Nov 1938) when zionists imposed the boycott vs the one day (Apr 1 1933) that Germans boycotted Jews?

  125. Instead we should rely on some anonymous Nazi apologist quoting a book review for a book it sounds like he never actually read. You do realize that once war was declared that Hoover offered his services to the FDR administration and gave his full support to the effort despite his earlier (badly mistaken) isolationist efforts and assessment that the European powers could contain the Nazi military threat, don’t you?

    As to the date, I not only corrected it? I put it in context, much to your chagrin, boot licker.

  126. talkingbacktocpan:

    ““let those two bastards [Russia and Germany] annihilate themselves.””

    Hoover had it right and we should have helped them both destroy each other or helped Germany destroy the Soviet Union. Which leads to the question why didnt we?

  127. Bron,

    Because Hoover was an isolationist. He wouldn’t have minded if Germany and the USSR had destroyed each other, but he wasn’t going to intervene in any active manner. However, even if he had? He couldn’t have without incurring the wrath of our European allies who saw both nations a threat – albeit to varied degrees and for different reasons. Any act would have been seen to strengthen two parties that no one in Europe wanted to see get stronger. It was either aid the allies against aggression or do nothing and since Hitler didn’t invade Poland until 1939 – six years after Hoover left office – there was nothing he could have done practically even if he had wanted to intervene (and he didn’t want to do anything).

  128. Talkin: WWII was the natural result of an ostrich having fallen upon a cafe at the corner two blocks down from where Geli lived in 1921…

    REFUTE THAT if you can!

    Can’t? Can’t? See, you lose!

    Oh, PS: Who cares about similarities between Israeli Jews and German youth in a discussion of propaganda? YOu’re trying to prove that the Jews forced Hitler to do what he did in WWII somehow?

    Publish this brilliant idea in a peer-reviewed journal, OK?

  129. Gene,
    I think I would believe George W. Bush on economics before I would believe the “stuff” being suggested under Hoover’s name.

  130. Gene and Malisha

    click onto talkingbacks name to go to his wordpress site. that should explain everything.

  131. talkingback:

    just why are you a Nazi apologist? There is some kernel of truth in what you say but overall how do you support Hitler’s regime and the industrial killing of 6-8 million human beings?

    A man like Hitler would have found some other group to use as scapegoats to pursue power. The Jews were just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  132. Bron,

    “There is some kernel of truth in what you say but overall how do you support Hitler’s regime and the industrial killing of 6-8 million human beings?”

    By passing the buck for Nazi atrocities on to causation that – while it led up to the war – had nothing to do with the Nazis decision to implement the Final Solution or Hitler’s own innate antisemitism. Germany was ripe for takeover by a genocidal madman and it was made ripe by the interwar period, the global effects of the Great Depression and the draconian sanctions of the Allies at the Treaty of Versailles, but none of that negates that the acts of Hitler and the Nazi Party were willful, deliberate and taken of their own free will. Attempting to redeem the unredeemable crimes of the Nazis is supporting them. Surely you can see that.

  133. Bron,

    Here’s an example by analogy: It’s like saying Charles Manson wasn’t responsible for his actions because of the political and social turmoil of the ’60’s.

  134. Malisha:
    1. What is the evidence that an ostrich fell on a café at the corner”
    2. What is the connection between the war in Germany and the ostrich, or the war and the café at the corner?
    3. Who gained and who lost as a result of the ostrich having fallen on the café?
    3a. Did the ostrich fall on the cafe as a result of his own negligence, i.e. by burying his head in the sand?
    4. Were those who were harmed justly compensated for their loss (in a civilization run by universally agreed upon rights and duties, and with the presumption of equity, a member of the community forms a social contract that he/she will submit grievances to be resolved equitably, according to the community’s agreed-upon standards. When such equity – or justice – is denied, then there is a natural tendency for an aggrieved to seek his/her own equity – human nature demands equity/balance/rationality.

    Question 2:
    “Who cares about the similarities between Israeli Jews and German youth in a discussion of propaganda?

    In his massive history of “The Origins of the Spanish Inquisition,” Benzion Netanyahu (Benjamin’s father) wrote, in the chapter titled “Historical Background/The Jewish Question”: “A brief account of the evolution of . . .the Jewish problem from antiquity to the birth of the Spanish Inquisition . . .and above all of its patterns and key elements, seems essential to our discussion. Without it we can hardly explain the emergence of the Inquisition [holocaust?], its nature, its objectives and its historic course.

    Accordingly, I was looking for the patterns and key elements of the holocaust relative to the present conflict between Israel and Iran. Given that Israel, and especially Benjamin Netanyahu, who was extremely close to his father, have frequently equated Iran with Germany and Ahmadinejad with Hitler, I thought the research was appropriate to understand what connection the Netanyahus were building upon. Didn’t Sun Tzu say, Know your enemy, and also know your own and your allies’ strengths and weaknesses?
    If we can know, with as much accuracy and honesty as can be mustered, the facts of interactions between Germans and Jews during the period 1881-1945, that eventuated in what is called the holocaust, then perhaps we can intervene to prevent the same dynamics from playing out again.
    Both Germans and Jews – and others – were losers in the 1881-1945 era; I would argue that Germans lost more, and were granted less ‘justice,’ than were Jews: the German people lost 2 million soldiers and 800,000 civilians in World War I. The terms of the Versailles treaty –which Germany signed under duress of continued starvation—stripped from Germany lands where German people lived as a despised minority; levied onerous reparations on Germany; and demanded that Germany ALONE accept culpability for a war that was the result of complex alliances and beneficiaries.
    On the other hand, as Edwin Black writes, “zionists were triumphant at Versailles: Jews gained a homeland for Jews in Palestine AND the guarantee of protection of their rights in other nations in Europe where Jews lived.” By the time the Versailles treaty was signed, July 1919, Jews had already taken major roles in the establishment of the Weimar Republic in Germany, imposing on the majority German people styles of government, economic management, and culture that were antithetical to the cultural norms of the German majority, and that native German bureaucrats considered ill-advised, based upon their experience and expertise. The failure of the German economy under Weimar proved them correct.

    The topic is relevant to a “discussion of propaganda” because, as I argued earlier, the second generation of Israeli Jews is, in the words of Avigail Abarbanel, “detached from reality,” in a psychotic state that she (and others) have described as “pre-traumatic stress syndrome.”

    As Gene H. pointed out, propaganda is how the Roman Catholic church ‘kept the faith,’ i.e. taught/indoctrinated its adherents. It’s not a stretch to say that Jewish children are taught/indoctrinated/propagandized with the notions that Jews are always and everywhere facing annihilation.

    So the question becomes, why are second- and later-generation Jews indoctrinated in the belief that they are facing annihilation? Does this indoctrination affect only the Israeli Jewish community or does it have wider implications? If it has wider implications, does the larger world community have the right or even the duty to intervene to correct indoctrination that is harming not only the domestic Jewish community but others as well?

    Question/snide remark #3: “Publish this brilliant idea in a peer-reviewed journal, OK?”
    Heh.
    Ernst Zundel is in jail because he dared to advance a theory of the holocaust that is at odds with the required narrative.
    David Irving has been fined and jailed for publishing research that draws conclusions at odds with the required narrative.
    Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePauw university because of his views on the holocaust.
    No peer reviewed journal that wishes to remain viable will publish any research that deviates from the required narrative.
    My C Span blog is grossly out-of-date. Several days ago I heard journalist Anna Quindlen’s brief advert for a discussion of press freedom. I recall that she ended her 1-min. spot with the statement, “that’s why Nazis burned books.”
    Burning books causes them to become invisible. Refusing to publish material other than the accepted narrative has the same outcome.
    One more thing, then it’s time for chardonnay on the front porch: Why is the holocaust such a carefully controlled narrative? Why are those who deviate from the narrative punished with loss of their careers, their wealth, their freedom? I overdosed on Perry Mason when I was a kid. I learned that when the witness/defendant is trying to hide something, that’s where the incriminating evidence is.
    One more one more thing – Why don’t I publish in a peer reviewed journal? I don’t have access to a peer reviewed journal because I do not have an education. My parents were too poor to pay for college, and they were too poor because my Mom had lost her home and my Dad had been permanently injured fighting in a war that did not have to be fought.
    This is for you, Mom and Dad.

  135. Gene to Bron —
    “Here’s an example by analogy: It’s like saying Charles Manson wasn’t responsible for his actions because of the political and social turmoil of the ’60′s.”

    poor dear, you’re really not that smart, are you Gene?

    It’s not an apt analogy at all because Charles Manson’s victims did not act against him in ways that caused him harm, and which actions the actors had no right to carry out.

    In 1933, zionists DID act against Germany in ways that caused harm to Germany, with the stated and enacted specific intent to cause grievous harm to Germany, and as you said yourself, without the right, as a non-state, to do so.

    try again.

  136. Speaking of burning books, I noticed you removed the article from your blog where you were blaming Jews for 9/11, Herr Revisionist. Why is that? It was there both late last night and early this morning before pete suggested looking at your blog? I would have taken a screen capture if I’d known you were going to pull that kind of shenanigan.

    Also, thanks for revealing your motives for being a Nazi sympathizer.

    It makes it that much easier to dismiss what you say as propaganda in its own right.

  137. Talkingback, your take on things is informed by your wish to have things a certain way. If we were to use your logic, your loyal adherence to facts and implications as they are rather than as you like them, and if we were, at the same time, to scrupulously avoid “correcting for” certain research biases that you have revealed, we could come up with the conclusions that seem to give you so much comfort and joy. So arguendo, I’m going to take them and see where they end up. (Spoiler: They end up with YOU LOSE!)

    Here we have it. Some Zionists are realizing that they simply cannot get a state of Israel going, and make it one of the most formidable powers in the world (which is their goal) unless they cause most people in the Western World to completely buy a ridiculous and counterintuitive story that will then paralize whole governments into doing wrong for years and years, maybe decades. So all they need is to do something that will have ALL THEIR INTENDED CONSEQUENCES so they can gain dominion over everyone’s mind, and therefore grab everyone’s purse, and establish their state, whereupon they will bring about World War III to their benefit — oh wait a minute, that’s a two-step, so first they have to create World War II, but no matter. They can do that too. Just a little preliminary.

    So how to do it? How, How? Oh I know, says the clever old bearded Jew, “Let’s starve the Germans so they get really mad and start killing Jews (because the Jews who won’t give all their money to Palestine aren’t that valuable anyway) and then we can holler and scream and fuss and cry and stir up a lot of trouble, and then we can get all the countries of Europe (except maybe Italy or some silly countries like that) to do other acts of war to Germany and then if we’re really lucky, the Germans will kill five or six million Jews and about 12 million Russians and all like that, and by the time we’re done, everyone in the world will be mad at the Germans but we will have gotten all the richest Jews out by that time and they’ll be so grateful that all their money got given to Palestine that they won’t even notice how we did it, OK?”

    And all this was found, by the way, in some old manuscripts, and it was all confirmed.

    Now, the fact that AFTER Hitler came to power, having declared his intentions already, there was a deal cut to get Jews out of Germany and to Palestine, and the fact that concessions were made to Hitler to get that deal done, and the fact that it both benefitted the Zionists and put pressure on Hitler at a certain point before he had all the power he later acquired, actually PROVES THAT, so the manuscript itself isn’t so important, so I won’t tell you what it’s called but its subtitle is: “Protocol of the Elders among the Zionists who Plan to Stage WWII and then cause WWIII.”

    The whole purpose of this declaration of war against Germany by the Jews was to effectuate a “sacrifice campaign” to give Jews the right to never be blamed for their bad behavior ever again.

    And guess what: It worked.

    The Jews managed to set up a state that has the best Defense Force imaginable, that has probably the best Intelligence Agency in the world, and that is now dominating the Middle East and behaving like a bully, so their whole plan worked.

    It worked. They WON!

    You (who are fair-minded and wouldn’t want that to happen) LOST!

  138. Actually it’s a perfect analogy, Herr Uneducated. The Jews did nothing to merit industrialized genocide. The situation of Germany was simply not their doing. Just so, the victims of the Manson family were in no way responsible for the vile acts visited upon them. Manson was a crazy person leading the blind and the stupid to do his bidding.

    I’ve got clothes smarter than you.

    Why don’t you try again.

    I like smacking down liars and Nazi sympathizers.

  139. Gene, HA HA, good for you checking out the website. Hilarious!

    TalkingBack: You’re not claiming any copyright protection for what you’re saying on this blog, are you? Because I sure want to quote it! And I’m preparing a great schtick — thanks to you. (And I won’t post it, because I want it to be copyrighted.)

  140. TalkingBack, now I see how you got to your conclusions: The Jews took away your education and naturally you’re mad about that.

    But don’t feel too bad, if you had been able to support an education, it would have been dominated by all the Jews in Academia and they just would have made you so confused by all their propaganda, you would have actually believed that the Germans inappropriately started at least one war during the 20th Century. See, you’dabeen brain-washed. Lucky THAT didn’t happen!

    It reminds me of a woman I met in about 1988 or so. She was from Iran, and had come here, gotten an education, and was a social worker. She married an American guy from the mid-West. They had 2 kids. When they got a divorce she contacted me through mutual friends because she wanted to have someone to talk to who would be sympathetic about divorce court proceedings. Our mutual friend was a very religious Mormon, and this lady presumed I was a Mormon too. When she was commiserating with me about how difficult custody battles were, she said that all the divorces in America were the fault of the Jews. I wondered how that worked, and she told me: when people get divorced they have to sell their houses and they go from one house to two separate apartments. Since the Jews own all the apartment buildings, they cause divorces so that they rent twice as many apartments as necessary!

    Wow, why didn’t I THINK OF THAT?

  141. Bron “Why didn’t we do that?” [let Germany & Russia annihilate each other].

    1. Because Churchill was in the pay of the Focus group — Jewish businessmen and British oil men who wanted a Jewish colony in Palestine as a Mediterranean fortress for their oil fleets & for British access to its empire. Churchill desperately needed the money: he was trying to support Chartwell, complete w/ 24 servants, as well as his son’s gambling debts, on what amounted to a mid-level bureaucrat’s salary.

    2. Part of Churchill’s task was to draw US into the fight in Europe.

    3. Lloyd George, chief negotiator, had been Theodor Herzl’s and the zionist organization’s attorney. (“A Place Among the Nations,” Benj. Netanyahu)

    4. Baron Rothschild spent so much time visiting Lord Balfour that Rothschild’s future daughter in law thought the Baron worked in Balfour’s offices. (Niall Ferguson’s biography of the Rothschilds)

    5. “My gratitude to Chaim Weizmann for providing acetone for our ships made me a believer in zionism.” – Lloyd George

    6. -Samuel Untermyer was a major Democratic party activist/fund raiser in New York City, FDR’s home turf before his presidency. (Richard Hawkins, “Untermyer: Hitler’s Bitterest Foe.”)

    7. -“As the former governor of New York, FDR was attuned to the pulse of the Jewish constituency. The legends of FDR’s strong friendship with Stephen Wise were feared in Berlin.” (The Transfer Agreement, p. 6)

    8. -“[. . .] the top leadership of the Congress attended, led by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the Congress’ founder, currently serving as its honorary president. . . .Wise . . .had been in touch with with Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, a leading American Zionist and one of Wise’s close personal friends. The advice was to delay a direct appeal to newly sworn-in President Roosevelt, who was preoccupied with America’s Depression and a calamitous banking crisis. But Brandeis did feel that ultimately the matter should be brought to the ear of FDR personally.” (Transfer Agreement, p. 10).

    9. -“[I]n 1933, Rabbis wise was growing increasingly frustrated with Roosevelt’s failure to speak out. . . .when he sought in vain to meet with the president, Rabbi Wise wrote to his wife, ‘If he refuse to see me, I shall return and let loose an avalance of demands for actions by Jewry. I have other things up my sleeve. Perhaps it will be better, for I shall be free to speak as I have never spoken before. And God helping me, I will fight.’ ” (“In the Garden of Beasts,” Erik Larson, p 29)

    10. – ” On the other side stood Jewish groups . . .headed by Judge Proscauer, which counseled a quieter path . . .[and including] Chicago attorney Leo Wormser. . . .who opposed Untermyer’s plan because it could impair Germany’s ability to pay its bond debt to American holders.” (Larson, Garden of Beasts, p. 29)

    11. “In the Garden of Beasts” is the story of the first year — 1933-1934 — of William Dodd and his family’s posting to Berlin as ambassador to Germany.
    In this passage, Dodd is running the gauntlet of introductions to Washington and New York persons of influence. FDR had already instructed Dodd to concentrate on collecting Germany’s war debt.
    “First . . .Dodd met the bankers . . .at the offices of the National City Bank, . . .later called Citibank. Dodd was startled to learn that National City Bank and Chase National Bank held over one hundred million dollars in German bonds, which Germany at this point was proposing to pay back at a rate of 30 cents on the dollar. ‘There was much talk but no agreement that I should do all I possibly cold to prevent Germany’s defaulting openly,’ Dodd wrote. He had little sympathy for the bankers. The prospect of high interest rates on German bonds had blinded them to the all-too-obvious risk that a war-crushed, politically volatile country might default.” (Larson, p. 37)

    Or the short answer, Bron: We didn’t do that in 1933 for the same reason the US does not enter into a reasonable entente with Iran today — an arrangement greatly in the American interest. That reason is that powerful interest groups and money men exert their power to shape events to their benefit, not to the benefit of the people of the USA.
    12. “That evening, the Jewish leaders arrived as schedled, among them Felix M. Warburg, a leading financier who tended to favor the quieter tactis of the American Jewish Committee.and Rabbi Wise of the noisier American Jewish Congress. [shades of J-Street and AIPAC] . . .Dodd’s visitors urged him to press Roosevelt for official intervention, but he demurred.” ( Larson, p. 37)

    13. -“On Dodd’s second day at sea, as he strolled the deck of the Washington [on his way to Berlin], he spotted a familiar face, Rabbi Wise . . .Over the week’s voyage . . .they spoke together about Germany ‘half a dozen times or more,’ Wise reported to a fellow Jewish leader, Julian W. Mack, a federal appellate judge.” (Larson, p. 42) (what a coincidink).

    While Jewish influencers enjoyed access to the highest decision makers, Germany’s representatives were given short shrift. When Germany’s finance minister Hjalmar Schacht called on Secretary Hull, Hull carried out the scheme Roosevelt had instructed him: when Schacht appeared in Hull’s office, Hull ignored him for three full minutes, pretending to look for a document. After the uncomfortable period had elapsed, Hull presented the document to Schacht: “a stern note from Roosevelt condemning any attempt by Germany to default.” (Larson, p. 27)

    When the German ambassador to the USA made repeated trips to the State Department to protest anti-German activities such as mock trials, he was treated with contempt and lectured on ‘freedom of speech.’

  142. Say, why did you take down that article on the Jews being responsible for 9/11? Speaking of which, you offer no proof whatsoever for statements 1 & 2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

  143. Gene H, German civilians did nothing to merit “industrialized slaughter” either, but that is what they endured, from 1915-1919, when Chaim Weizmann threw his support (as head of world zionist organization) behind Great Britain’s blockade of German ports and was rewarded for his efforts with the Balfour Declaration.

    Nor did German civilians do anything to merit “industrialized slaughter” by firebombing, but that is what approx. 600,000 incinerated Germans suffered.
    For some reason, Erich Mendelsohn did not receive a Nobel prize for his part in the firebombing of 150 of Germany’s cities and the obliteration of Germany’s “bridge to its medieval past.”

    Read about the firebombing itself here http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/overy_03_07.html
    and about Mendelsohn’s role in it here — http://tinyurl.com/76yggbt
    QUOTE
    “One of the most compelling sidebars in Mendelsohn’s life (and in the film) involves a village he helped construct in the Nevada desert. The U.S. had entered World War II, but there were troubles. Allied bombs, dropped onto the rooftops of enemy cities, were failing to have the intended devastating effect; since Germany’s top-level topography was different than what America had reckoned. The government enlisted Mendelsohn’s aid (or rather, Mendelsohn volunteered) in designing a mock German village for purposes of target practice. Mendelsohn, the architect who in many ways built modern Berlin, was now helping to destroy it; there are unpursued parallels here between Einstein and the Manhattan Project. The German Village period might be the pinnacle of the Mendelsohnian tragedy, but Dror leaves it up to us to decide. With minimal editorial framing, we are stuck weighing the horrors of Allied firebombing against the evils of Axis aggression. We yearn for a third choice, and wonder if such a thing is possible.”
    END QUOTE

    read them, but only if you think you can get your head out of Malisha’s ostrich’s arse

  144. Notice: All material posted on this blog under the username/ID/avatar “talkingbacktocspan” is the intellectual property of talkingbacktocspan.
    This declaration serves to protect it as copyrighted.

    No use of any of this material in any form, without the express written permission of the copyright owner is prohibited.

    talkingbacktocspan

  145. Talkingback, “Notice: All material posted on this blog under the username/ID/avatar “talkingbacktocspan” is the intellectual property of talkingbacktocspan. This declaration serves to protect it as copyrighted.
    No use of any of this material in any form, without the express written permission of the copyright owner is prohibited.
    “talkingbacktocspan”

    Hey TalkingBack: If I don’t obey you, you’ll have to sue me! Na na na na naaaa naaaaa!

    (BTW, do you have the phrase “eat shit” trademarked? Just checking!)

  146. Oh, and TalkingBack, I will now put words in your mouth, too:

    “WORDS WORDS WORDS” meaning only that TalkingBack feels a little stronger when he can say things that he thinks will make others really think he’s tough and big and dangerous and so forth but when you get right down to it, he’s scared, because all the big bad Jews in the world are gonna hurt him some more.

    WORDS WORDS WORDS!!

    See, I put them in your mouth. Copyright them, right away! After all they’re your “intellectual property” which in your case rhymes with oxymoron.

  147. Now the interesting thing about this is the spillover it has showed me from the Zimmerman/Martin thread. After Zimmerman killed Martin, it was possible that his initial intent was not going to work any more. I believe his initial intent was to catch someone so he could increase his “dominance units” in his community, which was yet another place where his attention-getting misbehavior was not working out as he had hoped. So he’s standing there, hoping to hell that the guy he killed could be proven to be a criminal so he would be a hero, which was his original intent. So they do a little this and a little that and he goes in to the police station. He doesn’t want to go to the hospital first because he doesn’t really need a defense, and the cops don’t want to take him to the hospital first because THEY don’t really need a defense (against charges of brutality or the like) since they know Zimmerman is on their side, and not ready to complain about them beating him up.

    Everybody goes back in a friendly way to the station. They talk. Everything gets wrapped up. The guy doesn’t pop up at first from fingerprints or anything, but what the Hell, they’ll find something on him, not to worry. After all, what was he doing around there?

    When it turns into a problem, however, then there has to be a campaign and it has to be presented as an attack on Zimmerman by the mean, nasty, criminal, vicious — what were all those other words? — thug.

    Now we have a couple of months of screaming and hollering about:

    1. Blacks killing whites and nobody cares;
    2. Blacks getting off when they commit crimes and nobody cares;
    3. Zimmerman being nice and kind and unracist;
    4. Zimmerman being done to and hurt and roughed up and mistreated;
    5. Witnesses seeing badness on Martin’s part;
    6. Any witnesses seeing badness on Zimmerman’s part are racist;
    7. Duh…

    Oh. I get it. Blacks in the South and Jews in Germany have been engaged, for centuries and centuries, in efforts to make good people feel bad about themselves, and efforts to hurt them, rob them, brutalize them and slander them, and why?

    Because they’re bad people.
    They’re just plain rotten bad people.

    They need to be killed.

    What an old story. What a stupid, successful old story. And why is it so successful in spite of being stupid?

    Reason number 1 – because PEOPLE ARE STUPID.
    Reason number 2 – PROPAGANDA.

    (Hey TalkingBack: What’s good for the goose is good propaganda. Yark Yark Yark!!)

  148. You really don’t know a damn thing about how military strategy works, do you, Brownshirt? That’s a rhetorical question. Too bad that glaring gap in your education isn’t the only one.

    Your statements beg the question (which is a logical fallacy by the way) that the British Zionist Federation or Chaim Weizmann set British policy regarding Germany or military deployment. He wasn’t a member of the either the British government or their military. He had no say whatsoever about British military strategy.

    First, some context. WWI ran from July, 8 1914 and lasted until November, 11 1918. It started when the Austro-Hungarian Empire invaded Serbia and the Germans invaded of Belgium, Luxembourg and France (which subsequently led to Russia attacking Germany). The blockade of Germany lasted from 1914 to 1919.

    The intent was to indeed starve the Germans of both food and other war materials. This tactic is as old as siege warfare. It’s a perfectly valid military tactic and it made perfect sense given the British dominance of the seas and Germany’s dependence on foreign materials. You starve out and deprive materials to an entrenched force until they surrender. I could list dozens of time this tactic was used by Romans and others but instead I’ll simply say that next to battering down the walls with whatever siege engine technology you had available, that this was (and still is) the primary component of siege warfare tactics. The Germans even tried to do the same thing to the British, but their Navy was simply no match for the British Navy. That the blockade was held past the end of hostilities to force the German signing of the Treaty of Versailles was an inexcusable action by the British, but the decision was theirs and it had repercussions – none of which necessitated the Third Reich’s Final Solution.

    Since strategy had been on the boards well before 1914 because all involved could see war brewing, the first person to suggest the strategy of the British blockades was the then Director of Naval Intelligence Department Capt. Charles Ottley who served as Director from 1905-1907. He is not to be confused with Charles Ottley Groom Napier, his relative who was a famous figure in British Israelism. However, as a student of military history, he’d have known this tactic and Occam’s Razor suggests he would have picked it based upon British resources and the tactical lay of the situation whether Chaim Weizmann approved or not. The bottom line is Ottley was out at NID by the time the blockade was implemented. The person responsible for setting British Naval war strategy at the time the blockade was begun is First Sea Lord Admiral of the Fleet John Arbuthnot “Jacky” Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher of Kilverstone, GCB, OM, GCVO. He reported to then First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. He was replaced by First Sea Lord Admiral of the Fleet Sir Henry Bradwardine Jackson GCB, KCVO, FRS after arguing with Churchill over strategy at Gallipoli. As Gallipoli went south, so did his relationship with Churchill and Churchill eventually resigned in 1915 as First Lord of the Admiralty after pushing the disastrous campaign against the advice of Lord Fisher. Neither Lord Adm. Fisher or Adm. Jackson were involved with the British Israelism movement but both were competent military commanders well versed in military history, strategy and tactics.

    The reasons for setting the blockade had nothing to do with the British Zionist Federation or Chaim Weizmann and everything to do with sound military strategy and tactics. The results in Germany, particularly the holding of the blockade after the Armistice, did indeed result in unnecessary suffering of German civilians – a condition that set the stage for someone like Hitler and the Nazis to take power, but it had nothing to do with Jews, the British Zionist Federation or Chaim Weizmann. It was about winning a war and getting the exact terms of surrender the Allies wanted which were admittedly draconian and only exacerbated the situation in interwar Germany that Hitler later exploited to his advantage.

    Also, what the German civilians had to endure in WWI was not industrialized slaughter, dumbass. It was simply the horrors of war. No one was setting up camps and murdering them with factory efficiency.

    So why was that you took down that post from your blog about the Jews being responsible for 9/11?

    I was really interested in talking about that.

    You goose-stepping moron.

  149. Gene,
    you are ruining all of my fun reading these rants by actually producing factual information and logical reviews of the reasoning! It is so much fun reading the decades old crap about the Jews being responsible for everything bad in the world.

  150. Offensive Information Warfare and Psychological Operations

    Wayne Madsen

    Nov. 2001

    Critical infrastructure protection is a two-edged sword. While stressing defensive infrastructure protection methods quite publicly, the U.S. government is not so keen on discussing its plans to conduct offensive cyber-attacks against other countries. However, one part of the U.S. plan to wage such warfare falls into the category of psychological warfare operations, which consists of infusing the electronic media with propaganda aimed at managing or changing popular perceptions about U.S. policies.

    In October 1999, the U.S. Defense Department consolidated its defensive and offensive information warfare activities within the U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The subordinate activity responsible for these operations is the Joint Task Force for Computer Network Defense.

    On April 30, 1999, Presidential Decision Directive 68 (PDD-68) was signed by President Clinton. This directive carried out the perception management proposals contained in the Marsh Report. PDD-68 authorized the creation of the International Public Information (IPI) system. A “core group” composed of representatives of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Treasury, and Commerce, the CIA and NSA was to develop methods “to prevent and mitigate crises and to influence foreign audiences in ways favorable to the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives.” According to the directive, information aimed at U.S. audiences is to be “coordinated, integrated, de-conflicted, and synchronized with the [IPI] to achieve a synergistic effect.” Essentially, the world’s electronic media, including the Internet, will be manipulated to achieve maximum propaganda success for U.S. government policies and strategies. The man behind the idea of an Internet-based international propaganda system is the architect of America’s Critical Infrastructure/Information Warfare doctrine – Richard Clarke.

    In a May 2000 a Defense Science Board Task Force, which included members from the leading homeland security and information warfare contractors Booz Allen, SAIC, and ANSER, as well as Walt Disney Imagineering, concluded that the IPI system should be merged with the Pentagon’s psychological warfare (PSYOP) capabilities. The report stated, “of particular concern is the lack of an integrated PSYOP capability with the strategic International Public Information (IPI) initiative . . . DoD certainly possesses capabilities and experience which would enhance the development of the IPI initiative.”[1] The report also called for the federal government to influence media through the buying of content to spread propaganda – clearly something that was on the mind of presidential counselor Karl Rove when he met in Los Angeles on November 12, 2001 with Hollywood’s leading movie and television producers, including those from Paramount, Sony, Viacom, CBS, Dreamworks, and MGM. Although Rove denied the administration’s goal was spreading propaganda and influencing content, the DSB Task Force report explicitly stated its intentions to influence the content of popular media: “Buying good content on which the messages will ‘ride’ is a necessary and desirable expenditure.”[2]

    It was not the first time the government was caught trying to infiltrate the media with disinformation specialists. From June 1999 to March 2000, five interns from the Fourth Psychological Operations Group, Fort Bragg in North Carolina were found to have worked at CNN headquarters in Atlanta. From September 1998 to May 1999, another three Fort Bragg PSYOPs personnel were discovered at National Public Radio (NPR). They worked on the programs All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Talk of the Nation. The networks involved first denied they knew where the individuals were from but then terminated the agreement with the U.S. Army that permitted them to work inside the news organizations.[3]

    Furthermore, the DSB Task Force recommended a permanent national propaganda infrastructure be set up within the national security framework during peacetime. It stated, “a permanent, properly constituted interagency body should be established within the National Security Council charged with all U.S. Government IPI, PD [public diplomacy], PSYOP and other peacetime management policies and operations. An authoritative standing body would ensure on-going, front-end, continuous interagency dialogue, coordination, and integration.”[4] The Task Force also set its eyes on the Internet in calling for PSYOPs to be adapted to support “Internet War.” Specifically, the report states the targets for such an Internet War:

    Web sites: “quite suitable for dissemination of PSYOP content.”

    E-mail: “Email is probably the predominant means of communication for Internet consumers and could also be an excellent medium for PSYOP. If desired, each message could be tailored to an individual recipient, thus providing some rough form of geographic tailoring and helping to keep opposing authorities somewhat in the dark about what everyone is receiving.”

    Chat rooms and messaging: “Internet chat rooms may also have potential PSYOP uses, in that “guided discussions” could perhaps be used to influence how citizens think about certain topics. In the Chinese approach, offending messages are deleted before, or just after, they have been sent to everyone.”

    Video games and other media: [Video games] can be disseminated by a number of techniques, ranging from diskettes to web downloads. Other important media at this moment include CDs, CD-ROMs, and DVDs. All are suitable for PSYOP in some situations.”[5]

    In late 1999, a legal team at the Defense Department cautioned against the use of computer hacking and disinformation in offensive information campaigns. In a document titled “An Assessment of International Legal Issues in Information Operations,” the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel opined that it was dangerous for the military to contemplate launching information warfare attacks on banks, stock exchanges, and universities. The lawyers warned of the possibility of a ripple effect on civilian populations and unintended consequences for neutral or allied nations. As for disinformation campaigns contemplated by some within the Pentagon and intelligence community, the Pentagon report was straightforward: “it might be possible to use computer morphing techniques to create an image of the enemy’s chief of state informing his troops that an armistice or cease-fire agreement had been signed. If false, this also would be a war crime.” [6]

    [1] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, “Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on The Creation and Dissemination of All Forms of Information in Support of Psychological Operations (PSYOP) in Time of Military Conflict,” May 2000.

    [2] Ibid.

    [3] J. Max Robins, “Military Interns Booted From CNN, NPR: How Did Army Officers get Into the News Business?” TV Guide, 15-21 April 2000; Mike Janssen, “NPR news chiefs deny they knew of Army interns,” Current, 17 April 2000.

    [4] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, op. cit.

    [5] Ibid.

    [6] Bradley Graham, “Military Grappling With Rules for Cyber Warfare,” The Washington Post, November 8, 1999, p. A1.

  151. Gene H:

    I am trying to find out why talkingbacktocspan is pro-Nazi. I am still trying to figure out why Nazis were pro-Nazi.

    Maybe talkingbacktocspan is a former SS private or something? That alone would be interesting to hear his views as a German who lived through that time and to get his take on it. Albeit one sided take.

    I just wonder about the mindset of someone who would support collectivism and this guy seems to be a real collectivist. The kind who thinks the state has a right to murder people at odds with the state for the good of the state.

  152. Bron,

    I can only tell you so many times that I’m not for the state for the good of the state, I’m for the state being the servant of all the people.

    That you cannot understand that is entirely your failing.

  153. Bron, “why the Nazis were Nazis” — yes, I know you didn’t say exactly that, but it is a related question.

    Fear. Rage. Misplaced rage, and more rage, and more fear.

    I read a study (cannot now cite it, cannot now find it) about 20-30 years ago that said that using an American definition of what is child abuse and what is not child abuse (kicking, beating with sticks, belts or objects, starvation, position torture, deliberate humiliation, etc. etc.), a survey of adult Germans from all different socioeconomic groups who were at that time 60 years old or older (thus, they were the youth of Germany at the time of WWII) showed that 80% of them had been “seriously abused.” In other words, strict authoritarian parenting with the full panoply of corporal punishment was just the norm in Germany during the 20th Century, at least during the first half of the 20th Century.

    A whole generation of people (one can extrapolate and say probably more, but I did not read about that) fearful, defensive, rageful, embittered. Under those circumstances, it’s not so hard to imagine identifying with the Nazi philosophy or psychology, social persona, or even behavior.

    There was a work of nonfiction entitled “Diary of a Man in Despair” — it has been translated, but I cannot remember the author (no time now to look it up) that really opened my eyes to what it might have been like to live in Germany and NOT be a Jew. Still, a pretty frightening thing.

  154. Gene H:

    I never said you were. I was wondering why talkingbacktocspan was.

    I would no more think you capable of rounding up 1 person let alone 6 million people and herding them off to a prison camp for systematic slaughter than I would be able to fly to the moon unaided.

    Talkingbacktocspan has admitted he is perfectly capable and so I was wondering what kind of mind would do that and why.

  155. Bron, there are plenty of people among us who would be capable of everything that has been done by the greatest criminals in history, and of putting a good face on it, and of defending it, and of attacking anybody who insisted that it should NOT be defended.

    I was once married to a guy the JUDGE characterized as “a Jewish Nazi.” He said that the Germans were right to do what they did, but they had done it to the wrong people — they should not have done it to the Jews because in fact Jews were good (and Armenians were good) but the principle of the thing — enslaving and destroying people who are NOT GOOD, he supported completely.

    It comes in all flavors and all sizes and it comes upon us in ways we never suspect. You can kill someone because you don’t like them and insist that it was OK because they were a thug. It’s not a far stretch. What was different about the Nazis in Germany was that they got it all organized and they ran their trains on time.

  156. Malisha:

    My great grandfather was a stern German and I used to hear horror stories about him, he died in the late 20’s. Yes they did abuse their children.

  157. Bron, child abuse was my field of “work” although I was never paid for it. I was qualified as a lecturer for the Public Health Service and made presentations in six states, over a period of many years. The thing that rang truest to me over all the time, all the theories, etc., about the Nazis, was this one study about child abuse. Just rampant violent abuse.

  158. Malisha:

    The Italians embraced Il Duce but did they round up Jews? I know the Nazis in Italy did.

    I dont know if Italians abused their children. What about Russians, the Chinese? Are totalitarian societies just a result of being abused as a child?

  159. Oh I think that most extremely hostile people who are authoritarian tyrants do have some kind of extreme hatred-based history. Most patriarchal societies are, by the way, abusive to their children.

  160. Bron, I was quoting from a study about the Germans. I was generalizing to others and guessing; it would be really good to see research about the origins of the authoritarian personality, though. I think the research must be out there, but I’m no sociologist or psychologist, and I just don’t know. In a way I wish I had gotten enough education to know more about these theories I come up with, but it’s late in the day and maybe others will do some of the research when it’s even later. Who knows?

    Just in general, though, kids who are raised in a way that gives them basic respect and is not abusive do not tend to go totally f*****g bonkers and devote their lives to destroying other people. Again, just an educated guess, and that education itself is empirical.

    A friend of mine called me an autodidact but really, I learn from others, not from myself. I have learned, for example, from you, and I appreciate it.

  161. Malisha,

    Autodidactic simply means “self-taught”. In that respect, all who continue to learn are autodidactic no matter where their lessons are derived.

  162. Bron,

    I gotcha now. I was reading very hastily and very much in passing earlier. Thanks for the clarification. Upon a second reading (post beer and nap), your original meaning was quite clear.

  163. Quotable quotes:
    source: Malisha

    “I was generalizing to others and guessing; it would be really good to see research about the origins of the authoritarian personality, though. I think the research must be out there, but I’m no sociologist or psychologist, and I just don’t know.
    =====

    source: Gene H

    “What is your first line of defense against propaganda?
    . . .

    Always question the message and the messenger as well as any who may have sent the messenger. Practice reading with emotional detachment and a critical eye to not only what is said, but how it is said and by whom.

    . . . my unhidden message to you: Wake up. Civilization calls. The world is what we make it.”

    = = = =

    source: Malisha:

    “In a way I wish I had gotten enough education to know more about these theories I come up with, but it’s late in the day and maybe others will do some of the research when it’s even later. Who knows?

    = = = =
    source: Gene H:

    “I was reading very hastily and very much in passing earlier. ”

    —–
    TalkingbacktoCSpan has done “some of the research” and offered it to this forum, with sources and links plainly stated. Gene’s responses indicate he did not read the research carefully — he dismissed the substance based on his disdain for the domain owner. A domain, like Gene explained about propaganda, “is a tool . . .it is neutral.”

    Malisha spouts whatever the voices in her head tell her. The intellectual posture she stated in these comments is: “I don’t know,” and “I didn’t have a whole lot of time to study it in-depth,” and “I don’t care how many pages ANYONE wrote, or writes, at any time at all,” “Hitler was guilty of what he did without mitigation; Nazis were (and are) guilty of what they did (and do) without mitigation,” and “You can spout off to the contrary using any number of sources, pages, rants, citations, or other useless incunabula; feel free,”

    Or Malisha, the short version: Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

    Propaganda wins.
    Justice, equity, morality, the Palestinian people, the Iraqi people, the Iranian people lose.

  164. TalkingBack, what you have proven by these quotes is that when we do not know something, we don’t go making up pscho crazy crap and alleging that it is true and has been shown to be true and whoever doesn’t agree with it is best advised to eat shit. And we’re not afraid to say so! Nazis and their ilk, on the other hand, have to be thought of as right and as experts in everything specifically so that everyone else can be wrong and thus worthy of being abused, insulted and probably killed if you can gather up the weaponry. That’s why we don’t like you.

  165. Talkingback, something else:

    Gene H said he had read hastily when he accepted correction for getting something wrong. Normal intelligent people do that all the time. Normal intelligent people ALSO guess at things, believe things, and say things that they may later revise. But normal intelligent people do NOT agree to take a little “fact” or even a little “factoid” from someone’s store-house of favorite ideas and use it to conclude something that it doesn’t lead to, simply because an opinionated fascist Nazi apologist wants them to.

    See here, the Jews did not cause the Germans to kill them.
    FACT.
    See here, Trayvon Martin did not cause George Zimmerman to kill him.
    See how that goes?
    You want to argue against those theories because you have a fact that you think makes those statements false? Go right ahead. You’ll get plenty of support from people like yourself. And during the 30s and 40s in Germany, Hitler got lots of support from people like yourself too.

    And then lost.

  166. talkingbacktocspan,

    Nice cherry picking there, boot licker. I read your “research”. Your “research” is crap, just like your conclusions. The proof I read what you wrote lies in the dissection of your claims.

    What I didn’t read carefully was Bron’s posting. You again commit a logical fallacy, the fallacy of composition. You again try to justify your misinformation (Nazis are misunderstood) with a lie or distortion. Unfortunately for you – but fortunately for everyone else – your propaganda skills are not very good although you do practice on one of the better methods: concealing a lie behind a kernel of truth.

    As for disliking the domain owner? You are damn straight I don’t like you. You attempt to genuinely defend the actions of the greatest mass murderers in history and you expected some other kind of reaction from people? This isn’t court. The Nazis aren’t due a defense any longer. They had their day at the bar. They’ve been judged legally and by the hand of history. The Nazis were found guilty. They weren’t misunderstood. They weren’t driven to their evil acts by their victims. They were simply evil. Evil men leading other evil men. They did what they did of their own free will for their own political and economic gain. And what they did was start a war of aggression and persecute and murder millions of people whose biggest crimes were being born of “the Other” and/or opposing them. If you don’t like that people have a negative reaction to your apologetics for the Nazis?

    Get a new hobby.

    When you lie with dogs, you get fleas.

    You aren’t doing the Palestinians any favors by supporting the Nazis.
    You aren’t shining light on the situation with Iran by making false equivalences (and the situation with Iran is factually and fundamentally different than the Jewish/Palestinian issue).
    You aren’t doing anything but illustrating how far you personally are willing to go to defend the indefensible actions of mass murderers.

    BTW, how is it again exactly that the Jews are responsible for 9/11? Given that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi and the operation was funded with Saudi Arabian money? Given that there was no Israeli connection to the attacks at all?

    I’m sure the world wants to hear more about that other theory of yours beside the one where the Nazis were justified in killing millions.

  167. Update. As many of us have been writing about, we are indeed already the victims of propaganda aimed at US citizens. You can read the following story at antiwar.com or warisacrime.org

    “The former president said he acted alone, independent of the contractor
    by John Glaser

    The co-owner of a major Pentagon propaganda contractor publicly admitted Thursday that he was behind a series of coordinated misinformation campaigns targeting two USA Today journalists who had scrutinized the contractor in their reporting.”

    I especially like the part about Mr. Glaser claiming he, “acted alone”. A few bad apples etc.!

  168. Gene H: My alcoholic beverage expert tells me there are three types of chimay: blue, white and something else label color. (I have forgotten already, further decreasing the credibility of the voices in my head as per TalkingBack.) Which one?

  169. Jill,

    I posted the following on my post about propaganda yesterday:

    Pentagon Contractor Admits To Perpetrating Online Smear Campaign Against USA Today Reporters
    By Adam Peck on May 24, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/05/24/490237/pentagon-contractor-admits-to-perpetrating-online-smear-campaign-against-usa-today-reporters/

    Excerpt:
    In April, two USA Today journalists claimed they were the victims of a deliberate “reputation attack” after they wrote a series of stories about the Pentagon’s contracts with groups that specialize in the production of propaganda. Days after the journalists began speaking with officials at the Pentagon and other sources for the story, fake websites and social media accounts set up in the names of the two reporters were mysteriously registered and began trying to discredit the stories.

    Camille Chidiac, the minority owner and former president of Leonie Industries, one of the consulting firms that works with the Pentagon and was featured prominently in USA Today’s reporting, took responsibility for the misinformation campaign. USA Today reports:

    “I take full responsibility for having some of the discussion forums opened and reproducing their previously published USA TODAY articles on them,” he said a statement released by his attorney, Lin Wood, of Atlanta.

    “I recognize and deeply regret that my actions have caused concerns for Leonie and the U.S. military. This was never my intention. As an immediate corrective action, I am in the process of completely divesting my remaining minority ownership from Leonie,” Chidiac said.

  170. Malisha,

    I had a blue (Grande Reserve). There is red (Première) and gold (Triple). The Triple is the lightest of the three and the blue the darkest and most full bodied. I prefer red or blue.

  171. Rafflaw: you are ruining all of my fun reading these rants by actually producing factual information and logical reviews of the reasoning! It is so much fun reading the decades old crap about the Jews being responsible for everything bad in the world.

    I just checked, because I’m actually decades old and I began to worry that somehow I had made people believe that crap about the Jews being responsible for everything bad in the world (see? Because I was, see?).

    Guess what — it was even older than that!

    In 70 BC Rome conquered Jerusalem, and Pompey apparently ordered the Jews to worship the Roman Gods. But there were so many of them, and that was so irritating, most Jews wouldn’t do it.

    There came to be a real problem between some of the Jews and some of the Romans and blah blah blah. A Jew later called Jesus of Nazareth preached a lot and the Romans targeted him as “King of the Jews” — mind you, a religion that had as its dominant theme a slave rebellion that had been supported by THEIR God who was the ONLY God and who had chosen THEM as the best of the crowd, was not going to be popular with Rome!

    The Romans crucified Jesus (it was already a well ingrained Roman habit to crucify folks) and by the time people were converting to Christianity, a large number of them were blaming the Jews (those stubborn non-converters) for killing him.

    St. Paul proclaimed that the Jews “killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out, the Jews who are heedless of God’s will and enemies of their fellow men…” (I Thessalonians 2:15-16)

    As Christianity spread, the differences between Christianity and Judaism became more and more pronounced. But it was not until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire (oops, if we can’t whip them, join them and take over as HQ) that anti-Judaism became a serious threat to Jewish existence.

    By the fourth century, Jews were generally despised by Christians everywhere. St. Augustine, one of Christianity’s most influential leaders, likened the Jewish people to Cain, who had murdered his own brother and thus became the first criminal in biblical history. St. Augustine wrote that Jews were a “wicked sect” and should be subjected to permanent exile because of their evil ways. John, the author of the book of Revelations, called Jews the children of the devil. (John.8:44)

    Discrimination laws were passed throughout the Christian world to protect good Christians from Jewish “contamination” by enforced separation and second-class (if any) citizenship. By the sixth century, the anti-Jewish laws were common.

    When the Muslim religion sprang up in the Middle East, it also named Jews, along with Christians, as essentially bad, anti-Allah people, to be despised.

    Beginning in 1096, Christian leaders launched a series of crusades against the Muslims to win control of Palestine, the birthplace of Jesus. On their way to the Middle East, the crusader armies attacked Jewish communities all along the route. The First Crusade was especially bloody. Entire communities of Jews were forced to choose between baptism or death, and since few Jews would renounce their faith, the First Crusade resulted in nearly 10,000 Jews being slaughtered during the first six months alone.

    Godfrey Bouillon, leader of the First Crusade, vowed “to leave no single member of the Jewish race alive,” and ordered the synagogue in Jerusalem burned to the ground with its entire Jewish congregation trapped inside.

    The Second Crusade, in 1146, was more sparing of Jewish lives; but, nevertheless, intensified the religious persecution of Jews.

    Thousands of Jews fled to Eastern Europe, but they were unable to escape the relentless oppression, and by the thirteenth century, church leaders in what is now Germany required all Jews to wear cone-shaped hats so that no one would mistake them from ordinary Germans. In Latin countries, Jews were forced to sew yellow badges on their clothing as a means of instant identification. The persecutions continued, and most often, they were “justified” by slanders against the Jews, who were thought of as thugs entitled to no protection.

    Peter Abler, a twelfth century philosopher and priest wrote of the Jews:

    “Heaven is their only place of refuge. If they want to travel to the nearest town, they have to buy protection with huge sums of money from the Christian rulers who actually wish for the Jews’ deaths so that the rulers can confiscate the possessions of the Jews. The Jews cannot own land or vineyards. Thus, all that is left to them as a means of livelihood is the business of money lending, and this in turn brings the hatred of Christians upon them even more.”

    Jews were allowed to become moneylenders largely because the Catholic Church considered it a sin for Christians to charge interest for lending money. And because Jews had few other ways of earning a living, large numbers of them eventually became bankers and financiers, which resulted in a stereotyping of Jews as money-hungry exploiters and usurers. It was a stereotype that was to linger even after Jews were driven from the banking industry years later, and still continues in many places up until the present day.

    By the end of the fifteenth century, except for a few business encounters, Jews were totally isolated from their Christian neighbors. In some countries, Jews were forcibly confined in ghettos, sections of cities that were enclosed by high, prison-like walls. With forced segregation came new myths and stereotypes. Increasingly Jews were portrayed as agents of the devil, responsible for every catastrophe from random crime to plague and drought. Artists portrayed Jews as having horns, tails, and evil satanic faces. Christian priests and scholars often elaborated on the idea that Jews were evil creatures who were somehow less than human.

    In 1517, Martin Luther, a Catholic priest in Germany, complained of corruption in the Church of Rome and called on Church leaders to reform. Instead, the Church branded him a heretic and excommunicated him. The result was the Protestant Reformation, which ultimately led to the founding of New Christian churches in Western Europe and a series of devastating wars.

    Luther had hoped to convert the Jews to Christianity. In 1523, he told his followers, “…we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly fashion in order that we convert some of them … we are but Gentiles, while Jews are of the lineage of Christ.” But when Jews refused to convert, an angry Luther wrote, in part:

    “First their synagogues… should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians… Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed… For, as has been said, God’s rage is so great against them that they only become worse and worse through mild mercy, and not much better through severe mercy. Therefore away with them… To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may be free of this insufferable devilish burden — the Jews.”

    Catholic Historian Malcolm Hay explained:

    “Men are not born with hatred in their blood. The infection is usually acquired by contact; it may be injected deliberately or even unconsciously by the parents, or by the teachers… The disease may be spread throughout the land like the plague, so that a class, a religion, or a nation will become the victim of popular hatred without anyone knowing exactly how it all began; and people will disagree, and even quarrel among themselves, about the real reason for its existence; and no one foresees the inevitable consequences.”

    Over time, most Jews were driven from central Europe. Many of them settled in Poland and Russia. But there the persecution continued. In 1648 and 1649, thousands of Polish Jews were slaughtered. During the late 1800’s, in both Poland and Russia, Jews were murdered in organized mass killings called pogroms.

    Meanwhile, in France, many Christians were calling for the emancipation of Jews. This push for Jewish civil rights was an outgrowth of the French Revolution (1789-1799) with its emphasis on liberty and equality. The movement grew, and by the mid 1800’s, most Western and Central European Jews were fully emancipated.

    Yet, during the late 1800’s, “Jew-hatred” resurfaced as a formidable force throughout Europe, and in 1879 the word “Anti-Semitism” was coined by the German journalist and pre-Fascist Wilhelm Mahr who felt he needed a more scientific, more benign, term than “Juden-hass” (German for “hatred of Jews”) to define a political movement centered upon hatred of Jews.

    About this same time a new Jewish movement called Zionism emerged, and many Jews began working toward an independent Jewish state in Palestine, viewing this as the only sure way to avoid the resurgent persecution. Zionists in large numbers bought land and settled in Palestine.

    In 1918, during the course of World War I, Britain captured Palestine from the Ottoman Turks. Fearing the hostility of the local Palestinians and neighboring Arab nations, Britain soon limited Jewish immigration to Palestine, even though many Jews had aided in the British takeover.

    In 1933, Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany and set out on a concentrated program to intensify his nations hatred of the Jews. Hitler once said that if the Jews hadn’t existed he would have had to invent them. In many respects that is exactly what he did. Hitler mounted a powerful propaganda campaign designed and implemented by Joseph Goebbels, which blamed the Jews for Germany’s many economic problems, as well as Bolshevism and the worldwide threat of Communism. (Meanwhile, the communists blamed Jews for capitalism and the capitalists blamed Jews for communism.)

    Germany’s nationalistic hatred of the Jews ultimately lead to what was known as the “Final Solution:” the physical annihilation of almost six million Jews — in addition to almost five million other non-Jewish “racial enemies” of the German people during World War II.

    Jews the world over, vowing “Never Again” in reaction to the Holocaust, rallied to the Zionist cause. Though faced with often violent opposition from Palestinian Arabs and others, Jews persisted in their quest for a separate state with “secure boundaries.” Plenty of war, next step. Big burden of resentment and bitterness, too. No doubt about it.

    In 1947, The UN partitioned divided Palestine into two separate states, and of course, another war. And then another and another and another and another. And proxy wars. Then you had a scene that could have been written by W.H. Auden, on both sides:

    And now it’s time for us to learn
    what all schoolchildren learn:
    that those to whom evil is done
    will do evil in return.

    I believe I have probably gotten some facts wrong (lifted most of it from a non-copyrighted website) and quoted a few words wrong in the poem. My point, though, is that the twice-told tale of “Jews are responsible for all our problems” is not just old; it is primitive. It is the lazyman’s way to say:

    OH yes, I am a failure, but only because of those Jews…

  172. Great post, Malisha. And with fine examples of propaganda throughout history. You may decry your lack of formal education, but you illustrate well the point that even autodidactics can have excellent instructors. My grandfather always said, “The only day wasted is a day you don’t learn something new.” I think he would have thought you don’t waste your time.

  173. The boycott unnerved the Nazis, who believed that Jews wielded supernatural international economic power. They knew that in the past Jews had used boycotts effectively against Russian Czar Nicholas II to combat his persecution of Jews, and automaker Henry Ford to halt his anti-Semitic campaign. Whether or not this new boycott actually possessed the punishing power to crush the Reich economy was irrelevant; what mattered was that Germany perceived the Jewish-led boycott as the greatest threat to its survival–and reacted accordingly.

    I haven’t read the Edwin Black book but all of Francis R. Nicosia’s books on the topic. Strictly the international boycott was started by the British labor union and an ad hoc Jewish boycott group. The communists and the socialists obviously had been enemies for much longer, and immediate after Hitler’s seizure of power in Jan. 1933 the Reichstags Fire was used as an excuse to target the German left both Jewish and non-Jewish and it’s papers. The British labor union obviously was aware of this. I think America was slightly later in the year, after the election, for which the left had to get out of the way. And after they could turn to their central enemy, the curiously paradox threat Judeo-Bolsheviks and the “international finance Jews”.

    Fact is that Zionist in Germany and Palestine or German Jews generally did not like the boycott,. they feared it could make them more vulnerable. The Zionists because they had pursued the transfer solution they had seeked even before the Nazis rise to power. But this would already be to complicated for “our friend” I guess.

  174. Actually I wanted to add something about the Russian Czar and Henry Ford, and the “white” Russian network spreading colorful tales, eagerly picked up by the Nazis, or e.g. the Nazi manipulation of the numbers of Jewish communists, but I leave it at that. I seem to have accidentally pushed the the post button, while leaving to get a coffee.

    To be quite honest I am really, really tired of these debates. I had them over and over again especially on the US net during the last decade.

    Strictly by now I have the impression that most of these people beyond reach and to a large extend only attracted to colorful tales and ultimately unreachable by rational argument. I wonder if this is someone I have met before under a different web name.

  175. Gene H, wow, I didn’t know your grandfather was Jewish! My Landsman! (Thanks, Gene, for much appreciated compliment.)

    Leander, I know, it’s totally boring. And you’re right it has definitely fallen on deaf ears if anybody thinks that there’s use in addressing a fact that is not connected in a causal way to a rational view of a very clear picture.

    And it does remind me of the Zimmerman case, in this respect: The talk about boo boos on Zimmerman’s head, for instance, had nothing to do with either the murder or the fact that the police would not arrest Zimmerman for the murder. Our own Professor Turley put up the first picture to surface (taken by a layman’s cell phone allegedly and probably at the scene of the crime that night) with a headline strongly suggesting both that (a) it proved “serious injury” [which obviously it did not] and that (b) it might be proof of self-defense in the killing of Trayvon Martin [an even farther logical stretch, because you can get injured when you are murdering somebody even with premeditated intent; it is not a very safe activity].

    A boycott of a dangerous tyrant and some hasty rescue operations before the boycott is lifted, while very interesting, neither proves treasonous or warmongering behavior by a group of people against a legitimate government trying to protect its people NOR guilt on their part for the obviously pre-planned, premeditated and prearranged murder of millions of their coreligionists in an allegedly unavoidable war. That’s just like saying Trayvon Martin’s attempts to protect himself amounted to an attack that George Zimmerman HAD to kill him for.

    In fact, early in the war or perhaps even before WWII was actually in progress (I can’t remember the dates), the policy of picking up “mental defectives” and gassing them to death in mobile trucks while they were allegedly on the way to some institutions to house them had actually been stopped by the kinds of protests that international communities can wage to protest inappropriate and tyrannical state action that has broad targets.

    OK, now I found the rudimentary facts. Starting in 1933 (sound familiar) the German government would notify certain people that they officially had a life that was “not worth living.” Then they would be picked up in trucks that had their windows painted over so nobody could see inside, and they were gassed to death, and then their bodies were cremated. Naturally, this got a few people in the net that it shouldn’t have messed with, although the Nazis were trying to keep it secret at the time. They said that these unfortunates were going to be “granted euthanasia.”

    Soon the killings were conducted from 4 Tiergarten Street, Berlin, the Centre for the program named Aktion T4. The murders (initially of children who were classified as useless and worthless) were gradually extended to include teenagers and adults and were perpetrated in six German and Austrian institutions equipped with mobile gas vans or stationary gas installations and crematoria. Viktor Brack, head of Aktion T4, ordered that the killing should be performed only by physicians. I don’t know if it was or not. More than 5,000 children and some 70,000 adults fell victim to the Aktion T4 program. Their crime? Having “lives not worth living.”

    Here’s the kicker: The Aktion T4 program was officially halted by 1941, largely due to public protest. (The Nazis got around that and killed whomever they wanted to kill, of course, but the official program that had lasted for years brought forth such a storm of protest that it had to be stopped IN 1941, when the Nazis in power were LEAST likely to amend their ways based on public outcry!)

    This is very instructive. Effective protest (and I don’t even know what KIND) made the Nazis stop one of their murder programs. ON TOPIC this thread: counter-propaganda is also important. If you have a rogue government housing and supporting a virulent tyrant-bully with evil intent that has the real capacity to endanger freedom everywhere, TRY EVERYTHING. Boycotts, protest, counter-propaganda, escape, rescue operations, evasive actions, activation campaigns, infiltration, blah blah blah. You want to be careful not to do anything that might look provocative or nasty so as not to give credence to the lies already being told about you as the intended victim class? OK then, don’t do ANYTHING; see how that works out.

    I find that if you go on the web and look for people to carry on saying that the Jews went “like sheep to the slaughter” in WWII and just filed onto the cattle cars in orderly fashion to be killed, you will find them (most of them not even born at the time of the Holocaust) giving self-righteous lectures about how the Jews SHOULD have behaved. They blame the mass murder on the victims who should have protested. Then you have folks like TalkingBack who say they brought it on themselves BY actions they took to protest.

    Sounds like Police Chief Lee saying Trayvon Martin should have more effectively escaped while others insist that he brought on his own murder by trying to defend himself from Zimmerman.

    The problem is that once someone, with the power of death in their army or in their HAND, has decided you are their enemy and they need to get rid of you, your options are not great unless YOU ARE ALSO ARMED. Your options are to either try to get away or try to defend. Either way, if you lose, there will be people who self-righteously declare you should not have tried to avoid your own murder and that by doing so, you justified it, after the fact.

    This is old abuser technology. It’s just the impotent, pissy-pants wife-beater telling his punching bag, “Look what you made me do.”

  176. Elaine M: TalkingBacktoCSpan gave you the definitive answer!

    So now I get it. The Jews caused the Holocaust but it didn’t actually happen after all. What that says about the use of propaganda is important: Give the cause, deny the effect, come out with a Q.E.D. anyway.

    All I wish is that TalkingBack would re-post (on his website) that explanation (that Gene H read) of how the Jews caused 9/11 so we could undo the destruction that allegedly took place on September 11, 2001 in New York and get those towers and those people BACK here!

  177. whoever doesn’t agree with it is best advised to eat shit.

    Malisha, you were invited to eat shit NOT because you did not “agree” with the things I had written (which are, btw, from predominantly Jewish sources), but because you dishonored the sacrifices imposed on my Mother and Father, an outcome of a war that did not have to be.

    have a second helping.

  178. TalkingBack, honoring your mother and father are not on my list of things to do, not today, not ever — According to the Ten Commandments, those are for YOU to do. And now, you do what you want and I do what I want, which does not include any obedience to your wishes.

  179. “A simple example of an indirect suggestion could be a gesture as simple as making a comment at the dinner table that I do not see the salt. You would pick up the salt shaker and hand it to me just as if I asked you directly to pass the salt.” OS

    Seen that, been done to me for years by my Kerstin. Thanks for showing it.

  180. Idealist, after Kerstin did that to you for years, you were still pretty much unharmed by it, right? Here’s your blessing: May no evil worse than salt-passing happen to you in the next 100 years. We can all be OK.

  181. Malisha,
    in his tutorial on “Propaganda,” Gene urged readers to “Practice reading with emotional detachment and a critical eye to not only what is said, but how it is said and by whom.”

    Elaine asked:

    “So…is talkingbacktocspan disputing the fact that Hitler and his gang of thugs killed more than 6,000,000 people?”

    I responded, “Yes.”

    (It is reasonable to assume that Elaine was referring to “6,000,000 Jews, inasmuch as that is the narrative the world has been told for many years. (Curious how that ‘6,000,000’ figure is precisely the same as the obviously phony letter produced by former gov. Glynn in August 1919.) Many, many more than “6,000,000 people” died in the wars, the largest majority at the hands of Russians, under the leadership of Winston Churchill’s good friend, “Uncle Jo” Stalin.

    You morphed that question and response into:
    “So now I get it. The Jews caused the Holocaust but it didn’t actually happen after all. What that says about the use of propaganda is important: Give the cause, deny the effect, come out with a Q.E.D. anyway.”

    Nowhere did I write that “Jews caused the Holocaust.”

    I stated facts and evidence to support the claim that zionists imposed a blockade on the German population, knowing in advance that those people had already suffered horribly from a blockade, and with the goal and purpose of inducing German Jews to flee Germany for (preferably) Palestine, which desperately needed their wealth to survive. That blockade against Germany persisted for over five years — longer than the WWI blockade. As the timeline below shows,

    The second part of your question, as you wrote it, needs further context.

    Gene H. wrote earlier that:

    “Also, what the German civilians had to endure in WWI was not industrialized slaughter, dumbass. It was simply the horrors of war. No one was setting up camps and murdering them with factory efficiency.”

    Jews — and others — died in the war, in unconscionable numbers.
    The contents of Jorg Friedrich’s book, “The Fire,” presents compelling evidence that German civilians were “murdered” with industrialized “factory efficiency” by means of firebombing that killed nearly a million civilians and destroyed 150 German towns and villages — 3/4 of all of Germany, and nearly all of Germany’s link with its ancient past. Furthermore, according to this flier for a Feb 2012 retrospective on the work of Erich Mendelsohn,

    “One of the most compelling sidebars in Mendelsohn’s life (and in the film) involves a village he helped construct in the Nevada desert. The U.S. had entered World War II, but there were troubles. Allied bombs, dropped onto the rooftops of enemy cities, were failing to have the intended devastating effect; since Germany’s top-level topography was different than what America had reckoned. The government enlisted Mendelsohn’s aid (or rather, Mendelsohn volunteered) in designing a mock German village for purposes of target practice. Mendelsohn, the architect who in many ways built modern Berlin, was now helping to destroy it; there are unpursued parallels here between Einstein and the Manhattan Project. The German Village period might be the pinnacle of the Mendelsohnian tragedy, but Dror leaves it up to us to decide. With minimal editorial framing, we are stuck weighing the horrors of Allied firebombing against the evils of Axis aggression. We yearn for a third choice, and wonder if such a thing is possible.”

    What was done to the German civilian population, deliberately and for the purpose of terrorizing civilians, meets the definition of a war crime. Neither Winston Churchill, who urged for the bombing campaign; nor the US military and political leaders who endorsed it an carried it out; nor Erich Mendelsohn, who volunteered to lend his expertise, were ever charged as war criminals. Mendelsohn designed the Weizmann Institute in Israel, as well as the ‘International style’ that dominates the Israeli landscape today.

    In his book, Hollowlands: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation, author/architect Eyal Weizman “unravels Israel’s mechanisms of control and its transformation of the Occupied Territories into a theoretically constructed artifice, in which natural features function as the weapons and ammunition with which the conflict is waged.”

  182. Our guest blogger today has shown again in his little tiff with MM that he is indeed a master propagandist. And leader of the ´”bully boys at JT’s”.

    He, in his post ending with wishing MM good luck with his poetry (some conceits have we all), draws off his garb of good samaritan guarding us from propanganda (in this case).
    He reveals as usual his tactic of never answering opposing arguments except by ignoring or ignobling them as “utter nonsense.

    If that does not reveal his real character sufficiently, regard then his continuing with ad hominem attacks. “strawmen” accusations, “opponent’s stupidity” in various forms, but never addressing the issues or points raised. He did briefly with Kmer Rouge, but then was only clarifying the most obscure part of his previous rant.

    Why do I comment? Not out of a sense of outraged justice, No, GeneH wouldn’t or won’t understand that or he would not spout this.

    Only because I was enjoying his propaganda until he revealed the learing face behind the mask of academic rectitude carrying the shield of the knight defending our nation.

    As for education being a shield against propaganda. Well I take my knowledge from the Chomsky bit I have often posted here (just days ago) which shows that the higher you go the more you must internalize the message of the majority in power, or you will be filtered out. QED Those with college degrees are already proven consumers of propaganda.

    And let me say in passing that I have Hayakawa’s book, but never got past the first pages. Some are dumber that others. But even I can see a drawing of red herrings across the trail to deal with a disturbing argument.

    What does GeneH threaten with? Only his bile. And it is boringly always the same color.
    And just to keep a step ahead. I’m neither senile nor in the need of uppiing my medicines, which is becoming silly in the number of repetitions.
    No, whatever form his attacks, they always run true to form. Just so you know.

    One last point. I find the differentiation between denotation and connnotation as misleading.

    There are no clear denotations unless these are just convenient milestones in the living language agreeed upon in a dictionary or equivalent written document. Living language is always full of connotations—only connatations. And these change from one day to the next. As our surroundings and society dictate.
    And connotations thus as agreed for the moment at the place they are used, from group to group, from professional field to another, from generation to another,….. continue as you please. Am sure you can.

    I like GeneH, in fact greatly. But only as long as he keeps his good guy hat on abd leaves the knives to Mr. Hyde to wield.

  183. TalkingBack, I’m not reading your post; I’m not revising my opinion of what you have said before on this thread; I’m not interested in your subtle apologetics; I’m not impressed by your self-righteous bluster. You can post back to me from now until doomsday because how you arrived at your conclusions and the arguments you may propose to support your own thinking, though perhaps very significant and exciting to you, are neither significant nor exciting to me.

  184. Malisha,
    I did not notice it until the curator led me to the water to drink of the sea of knowledge. And that was in Kerstin’s last weeks. I never begrudged her or any other woman since for “guiding” me. Then I was only irritated that we had spent years not saying what we wanted or who we were. But that again is not unusual.

    But when OS said it, it became threatening in how we all can be manipulated. And who’s to stop them.

    My last resort is to say: Don’t believe anything you see or hear via media. It’s all propaganda. Every column inch is paid for in some script or another.
    Script? That’s play money used often in connection with wars.

  185. leander, are you aware of the deep animus between German Jews and Russian (esp Communist/Bolshevic) Jews?
    In the US this was profound. German Jews arrived in US first, usually with some wealth as well as access to financing assistance from European Jews.
    They in turn became wealthy in the US. When Russian Jews began to migrate to US, they were scorned by Jews already here and established.
    Even today, in a Midwestern US city where German Jews settled early on and prospered mightily, Russian Jews occupy the second largest number of government subsidized housing units. Turns out Jews are not so monolithic after all; they are a cross-section of mankind, just like the rest of us: rich and poor; smart and dumb, successful and not so successful; even Jews living on U S government welfare subsidies–both inside AND outside of Israel.

  186. @ Idealist, yes, of course. I was just teasing you because of the salt.

    We’re probably all scared of each other and we probably all come by it honestly. Whenever we are not scared ENOUGH, we call ourselves stupid later on. When we are TOO scared of each other, we get into ridiculous self-defeating loops that entangle our mental capacities.

    Everything leads back to the “what does it mean?” and it’s life’s work.

  187. id707,

    Looking for trouble again, Mr. Passive Aggressive? Not getting enough attention from the nurses? Do you even know what a straw man is?

    It’s when someone purposefully misrepresents another’s position to attack it.

    Which is precisely what MM did by attributing statements to me that I didn’t make. This is indeed the second time he has done this and this is the second time you’ve joined in defense of him while he’s used this tactic. The last time ended up with me handing both of you your asses on a factual plate doing exactly what I did this time: pointing out that I did not say what you claimed I said.

    At least you are predictable.

    If you don’t like me calling out the straw man tactic? Don’t support those who use it. It’s a favored tactic of propagandists and those with unusually weak counter arguments. Which is odd considering MM claims to have professional military training at propaganda. If true, Occam’s Razor suggests he misrepresents other’s positions on purpose. I can even speculate as to why but I won’t. It isn’t relevant.

    However, what is relevant is the tactic. When someone misrepresents what I say just to attack it? No matter who it is?

    I’m going to point it out.

    If you don’t like that? Tough. I didn’t say he was using a straw man for my own amusement. I said it because that is what he was doing. I never mentioned Cambodia in the context of its relationship with America. I used Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as an example. You’d both know that if you could understand what you read or formulate cogent arguments without resorting to fallacies.

    I’ll wear any hat I please up to and including my vicious bastard hat.

    Was that plain enough for you to understand?

    Or do you need clarification?

  188. BTW, thanks for giving me another chance to point out a propaganda tactic.

    Your cooperation on these matters is greatly appreciated.

  189. OK, from another source on the web, a list-serve of “The Patrick Crusade” that advocates for prison reform, I just got this message, which I have not yet investigated, and I have not yet watched the video clip.

    Quoted from the Patrick Crusade e-mail:

    “This film explores the evolution of propaganda and
    public relations in the United States, with an emphasis
    on the elitist theory of democracy and the relationship
    between war, propaganda and class.

    ‘Psywar’ exposes the propaganda system, providing
    crucial background and insight into the control of
    information and thought.

    Video: [here, the url did not reproduce; I’ll try again]*

    Psywar: The Real Battlefield is Your Mind

    P.S. Please share Forbidden Knowledge TV e-mails
    and videos with your friends and colleagues.

    OK, I figured out that you go to the url:
    http://www.ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.com
    and you click on
    Psywar: The Real Battlefield Is Your Mind
    and they play a video for yiou.

    I did not have time to watch it, thought that some on this thread might want to try. If not, sorry for irrelevant post.

  190. Also, some really nice examples of cherry picking and conflation there, talkingbacktocspan.

    I think you should know that I personally boycott Wal-Mart since you seem to think that is a declaration of war.

    Strangely enough, gangs of thugs in blue smocks haven’t tried to round up me and my family and herd us into a gas chamber.

  191. GeneH,

    Good stuff. Even I could understand (somewhat) the strawnan issue. And you as I said will always be you. But when you start casting shit, and MM seems to inspire this in you, you demean yourself and frankly are boring.

    As someone wrote once, the others leave the biker bar brawl and go into to salon to drink their tea, occasionally snorting it out of their noses when they are amused at the noise coming from the biker side.

    Why in the hell a smart man uses biker tactics is a wonder to contemplate.

    Good luck with yours. You need it as long as you show your hairy chest to impress here. And as for nurses. Typical bully browling. NB browling, not brawling.

    If I prefer the attentions of women is no concern of yours. As in fact nothing I say and do is. My arguments don’t depend on my manhood qualifications. Do yours?

    That I keep getting into your brawls amazes me too.
    Particulaly as neither of you are on my level.
    But am please you said a little without belittling me and the strawman which I did not honestly understand was appreciate. But your other antics don’t be a magnum cum laude. But I know, you don’t need it, so ignore it.

    But I always enjoyed kicking the shins on pompous asses.
    Even the one who was my CEO and bossed over 110,000 employees. He only glared at me the day after from the next table at luncheon.

    So you ain’t nothing special in my life, Mr Big Frog in a Small Pond. I mean only we are not senators, thank god.

  192. Again, you have mistaken yourself for someone who’s opinion of me matters to me or to anyone of any import to me, id707.

    If you find what I write not to your suiting, you are free not to read it.

  193. Bye y’ll. gone to bed. Sheesh, the hours you keep, six after me. ¨Which means I go up first. The early bird gets worms.

    Speaking of worms:

    The black thrush’s wife is hunting worms now. Which means the eggs are hatched. And the husband has quietened down. He has no time for warning others now. Food is vital. So they both run and fly, run and fly.

  194. GeneH,
    Right you are. Touché.
    It was a moment of hubris and amusing myself attacking windmills. Which most of us do. When did you do something dangerous last?
    Seems like I know only one here and she ain’t bragging.

  195. GeneH,

    You are not keeping up with me now. I’m no longer passive-aggressive. Don’t run from bullies anymore. I punch (figuratively) them in their faces if I feel like it. If it is worth it.

    I found out about how they work the bully tricks now.
    So no sweat anymore. Was good advice from you and MikeS, but now it is a thing of the past. So much more peaceful now. Always good to have a shrink, but as someone said, you have to do the heavy lifting yourself. And I did it.
    It was just a question of finding where my fears lay.
    Amd you don’t qualify any more as a worry point.

    Good luck with yours, if you have any. Apparently opposition gets you upset. But that I’ve said before.

  196. That’s pretty funny considering that entire comment was passive-aggressive (i.e. expressing aggression in non-assertive ways).

    You have a good time playing grabass with the nurses.

  197. Gene H @ May 22 1:32 am wrote:

    “Consider that the common workplace sign found in restaurants reading “All Employees Must Wash Hands Before Returning to Work” is just as much propaganda as “Jews are destroying Germany!”. The wash sign, however, isn’t about division of the other or destruction of the other but rather about personal hygiene and food safety. That’s an example of propaganda put to good use.”

    Seems to be a failure of differentiation in the definition of propaganda. By this definition, Any written or spoken words constitute propaganda.

    wrt to specific examples given, this differentiation can be made: The first statement is a command; the second statement, as written, is merely a declaration or assertion. Tested against the definitions you posted; namely:

    “2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

    3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect”

    as well as the definitions of “to persuade:”

    1: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action

    2: to plead with : urge”

    Neither sentence seems to have any propaganda value. The first statement is a simple command: Employees must was their hands.

    The second statement, as written, is a simple assertion; it is unaccompanied by evidence to prove its validity, nor by other context calculated to generate a response one way or the other.

    Thought experiment: In the context of a conversation that’s been taking place here, perhaps what Gene had in mind for the second statement was a direct quote of the banner headline in the London newspaper on Mar 24, 1933: Judea Declares War on Germany; Jews of All the World Unite In Action.

    That is a horse of a different color: it is a public declaration of a commitment. To paraphrase an analogy used by writing expert Kenneth Bruffee, such a declaration “is like saying ‘I Do’ in a marriage ceremony. You are taking public responsibility . . , and there is no going back.” [in Writing Arguments, by Ramage & Bean, p. 440]

    Just as “I Do” in a marriage signifies “taking public responsibility” for other promised and intended actions, so the Mar. 24, 1933 Judea[n] Declaration of War on Germany listed its intentions and promised actions. Some of those intentions and actions were:

    1. ” If the present plans are carried out, the Hitlerite cry will be:
    “The Jews are persecuting Germany.”

    that is, it was the intent of the Judean boycott to unite Jews to “persecute Germany.”

    2. “Fourteen million Jews, dispersed throughout the world, have
    banded together as one man to declare war on the German
    persecutors of their co-religionists. Sectional differences
    and antagonisms have been submerged in one common aim – to stand by the 600,000 Jews of Germany who are terrorised by Hitlerite
    anti-Semitism and to compel Fascist Germany to end its
    campaign of violence and suppression directed against its
    Jewish minority. ”

    This statement includes a Declaration of War AND an allegation of a casus belli – 14 million Jews unite to wage war against the “campaign of violence and suppression” of the “600,000 Jews of Germany.” [side note: in light of Gov. Glynn’s complaint in August 1919 that “SIX MILLION MEN AND WOMEN ARE DYING from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And THIS FATE is upon them through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a BIGOTED LUST FOR JEWISH BLOOD,” the numbers printed in the London Daily Express on Mar 24, 1933.]

    3. “[Germany] is faced with an international boycott in commerce, finance, and industry.”

    4. ” Germany is a heavy borrower in foreign money markets, where
    Jewish influence is considerable. Continued anti-Semitism in
    Germany is likely to react seriously against her. A move is on
    foot on the part of Jewish financiers to exert pressure to force
    anti-Jewish action to stop.”

    This declared action is twice curious: first, Many Jewish financiers had expressed to newly appointed Amb. William Dodd their concern over this imposed boycott, fearing that it would impair their ability to collect on the loans made to Germany to repay reparations imposed at Versailles. The second curiosity — or irony, perhaps, is that, as mentioned above, Germany found a way around the money lenders to work its way out of debt, to bring about an easing of Germany’s acute unemployment problem, and to move forward economically, without resort to the world financial markets. THAT may have been Nazi Germany’s greatest offense against the west.

  198. Apparently your failures in self-education include the English language, boot licker.

    Both are sentences that propagate an idea.

    That one is expressed in the form of a command and the other is expressed as a statement is irrelevant.

    Thank you for your fine example of argumentum verbosium though.

    You took an awful lot of words to say nothing of any substance.

  199. Ever since Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson managed to get the Trayvon Martin case into the media’s eye and mouth, and into the public ear and eye, we have seen propaganda at work. Some of the propaganda was perfectly clear about its goal: to get the feds to investigate what happened down there in Florida, and to get charges drawn by the prosecutor, against George Zimmerman, for killing Trayvon Martin.

    Propaganda that showed up “on the other side” wanted to make sure that charges were not drawn and that, presumably, no federal investigation would be instituted into what happened. Yet after charges were drawn and the investigation was undertaken, the “other side” propaganda continued.

    I’m looking at that now.

    Thought experiment: In the context of a conversation that’s been taking place on the web, perhaps what the Zimmerman side wanted to sell was the idea that on February 26, 2012:

    “Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, giving rise to a general attack by African Americans against Zimmerman and against whites in general.” After all, Taafe actually said it: “This is when George became the victim.”

    Sharpton and Jackson, Crump and others, all said that Zimmerman should have been charged with and tried for a crime.

    That is a horse of a different color: it was a public declaration of a commitment. To paraphrase an analogy used by writing expert Kenneth Bruffee, such a declaration “is like saying ‘I Do’ in a marriage ceremony. You are taking public responsibility . . , and there is no going back.” [in Writing Arguments, by Ramage & Bean, p. 440]

    Just as “I Do” in a marriage signifies “taking public responsibility” for other promised and intended actions, so the February 26, 2012 attack by Martin on Zimmerman, and the declaration by his supporters thereafter that Zimmerman should be punished even more after that, listed its intentions and promised actions. Some of those intentions and actions were:

    1. We will not stop demonstrating and turning up the volume on the public outcry until we see action.

    2. Seventy-five percent of the American people believe that George Zimmerman should be held accountable for his actions on 2/26/2012.

    This statement amounts to a public denouncement of an individual. It blames Zimmerman for violence that was actually the result of an attack upon him, when he was only trying to stand his ground. He and his family have been forced to hide out; his wife has not been able to see her own mother for weeks because of the fear of public exposure; the things that are being said about Zimmerman are all untrue and horrible and designed to cause hatred against him. yada yada blah blah blah.

    3. Now the entire Sanford Police Department is under investigation and suspicion and has been badly damaged for no reason other than people trying to second-guess law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.

    4. Public officials in Florida have had to devote substantial taxpayer-paid resources to this case when other cases are far more important and the ability of the state to carry on its business in the best interests of its people is being threatened by this inappropriate outcry.

    This big protest movement is twice curious: first, Many African American youths are actually in trouble with the law, and a good number of them actually HAVE burglarized the homes of innocent residents of various nice communities, and thus there was no reason for Zimmerman not to suspect that this was the problem on 2/26/2012.
    Furthermore, the activists leading this campaign had led other campaigns that were ultimately judged to have little or no credibility and therefore, to judge this campaign by its leaders, it is obvious that only Zimmerman’s story, and not any alternative story, has credibility. The second curiosity — or irony, perhaps, is that it appears that probably Trayvon Martin was actually a thug and therefore the idea that Zimmerman killed an innocent young man who was unarmed at the time is a gross misconception. He probably only killed a thug who would have been armed and dangerous at the first opportunity, if permitted to go on living. Since George Zimmerman was truly innocent of wrongdoing, and, in the words of the manufacturers of the Trayvon Martin targets in Virginia: “Is Innocent [because] he shot a thug”

    The real issue that all who call for his prosecution and punishment are dealing with is their opposition to the good people of this country limiting the criminal conduct of thugs.

    [caveat: this analysis is strictly fictional and does not represent the position of this station; it is a political message endorsed by some elves that found their way into the computer lab]

  200. Gene —

    genius,** I **didn’t “DECLARE WAR ON GERMANY”, Jews did. A declaration — particularly one so public and specific as to be printed in bold face type in an international newspaper, complete with details of how the ‘war’ was intended to be waged; and that was reinforced by numerous radio broadcasts, massive protest rallies, several ‘mock trials’ and other events and activities that were, as they were intended to be, destabilizing to US State Department diplomatic activities with Germany, is not just ‘a sentence that propagates an idea” — unless you hold that the U S Declaration of Independence is just “a sentence that propagates an idea,” or the NYTimes was just “propagating an idea” on Dec 8 1941 http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1208.html

    When a non-state actor takes it upon itself to destabilize the diplomatic relations of two sovereign nations, the citizens of BOTH nations have a right and even an obligation to call them out on it and demand that it not occur again.

    Similar activities ARE occurring again — the “Israel lobby” — a group that lobbies for a foreign government but refuses to register as foreign agents — is subverting the rights of the people of the United States to influence their legislators and leaders in an issue as serious as waging a war that could involve nuclear weapons.

    btw, “gangs of thugs in blue smocks . . .” didn’t “herd” zionists who declared war on Germany OR German Jews “into a gas chamber.”

  201. Let me figure this out.
    Last time war got declared on Germany, they lost.
    Well, I would guess from this that I can handicap the next race.

  202. boot licker,

    “genius,** I **didn’t “DECLARE WAR ON GERMANY”

    That’s a straw man. I didn’t say you declared war on Germany, but I am a genius. Thanks for noticing.

    “Jews did.”

    That’s a false equivalence. A group of Jews declared an economic boycott on German goods. That’s not the same thing as a group of Jews let alone all Jews declaring war on Germany no matter how many times you repeat yourself. A false equivalence is not only a logical fallacy, it’s a form of lie.

    “When a non-state actor takes it upon itself to destabilize the diplomatic relations of two sovereign nations, the citizens of BOTH nations have a right and even an obligation to call them out on it and demand that it not occur again.”

    And both the U.S. and Germany did protest the boycott. Protests which according to the terms of our Constitution, the AJC was free to ignore as a matter of protected political free speech under the 1st Amendment. That 1st Amendment! She is a two-edged sword.

    “unless you hold that the U S Declaration of Independence is just “a sentence that propagates an idea,” or the NYTimes was just “propagating an idea””

    Actually they are both propagating an idea – in the case of the Declaration of Independence a whole set of really good ideas – but the New York Times isn’t the titular head of all Jews. They are in the newspaper business and in the news business, hyperbole sells papers. “Jews Declare War on Germany” sells a lot more papers than “Jews Refuse to Buy Mercedes”. A statement made by a party with no power to represent Jews in any official capacity made a hyperbolic statement to sell newspapers and thus cater to their vested interests in profit. Who’d have thunk it?

    “Similar activities ARE occurring again — the “Israel lobby” — a group that lobbies for a foreign government but refuses to register as foreign agents — is subverting the rights of the people of the United States to influence their legislators and leaders in an issue as serious as waging a war that could involve nuclear weapons.”

    They are many PACs representing Jewish interests in Washington, so there is no unified “Israel lobby”. If you’re talking about AIPAC being a bunch of war hungry scumbags? You’ll get no argument from me. They’ve been busted twice for harboring spies and they should be put out of business, however, AIPAC does not speak for all Jews or even Israel in any official capacity. There are even Jews who post here regularly who despise AIPAC and the war-mongering far right neoconservative interests that they do represent. You keep making the error of thinking that Jews operate as some sort on monolithic entity behind some vast conspiracy. They don’t. Some of them are indeed rotten rat bastards like AIPAC, but a great many Jews would also welcome a two-state solution to the Palestinian issue because they value peace over Netayahu’s ego and vanity. You are making the error of the fallacy of composition again and blaming the whole for the properties of constituent members of a class. In this case, a very large and diverse class, thus compounding the error in scale. Logic. It’s not just for breakfast anymore. I’d suggest you get some, but at this point given you make the same errors over and over even after they are pointed out, I’m sure it’s just pearls before Nazi supporting swine.

    “btw, “gangs of thugs in blue smocks . . .” didn’t “herd” zionists who declared war on Germany OR German Jews “into a gas chamber.”

    Forgoing the ridiculous false equivalence that a boycott is a declaration of war (and the fact that you apparently don’t understand what an analogy is or how it works)? No, the people who rounded up “the Other” and herded them into gas chambers didn’t wear blue smocks or work for Wal-Mart. They wore brown shirts with red, white and black armbands and natty black uniforms with Death’s Head insignias on their caps and worked for the Nazi led German government.

    You do seem to get awfully worked up defending the actions of the Nazis.

    Tell the truth.

    It gives you a little wood, doesn’t it?

    And I do mean little.

    Please, feel free to foam at the mouth some more.

    It’s pathetic and a provides perfect examples of the tactics of propagandists. In this particular episode, the false analogy, the fallacy of composition, mischaracterization, hasty generalization, displacement, cherry picking and obfuscation by using a kernel of truth to clothe your lies and distortions. How’s that working out for you, Stormfront?

    That was a rhetorical question.

  203. “A group of Jews declared an economic boycott on German goods. That’s not the same thing as a group of Jews let alone all Jews declaring war on Germany no matter how many times you repeat yourself. A false equivalence is not only a logical fallacy, it’s a form of lie.”

    http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/jewishwar.cfm

    “The Express said that Germany was “now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry….In London, New York, Paris and Warsaw, Jewish businessmen are united to go on an economic crusade.”

    . . .
    On March 27, 1933 the planned protest at Madison Square Garden was attended by 40,000 protestors . . .

    Similar rallies and protest marches were also held in other cities. . . .

    Hitler’s March 28, 1933 speech ordering a boycott against Jewish stores and goods was in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership.

    . . .

    Growing anti-Semitism in Germany and by the German government in response to the boycott played into the hands of the Zionist leaders. Prior to the escalation of anti-Semitism as a result of the boycott the majority of German Jews had little sympathy for the Zionist cause of promoting the immigration of world Jewry to Palestine. Making the situation in Germany as uncomfortable for the Jews as possible, in cooperation with German National Socialism, was part of the Zionist plan to achieve their goal of populating Palestine with a Jewish majority.

  204. Oooo. Evasion and repetition. That was completely expected. An essential component of the Big Lie strategy is relentless repetition.

    The fact that Hitler had been publicly blaming the Jews for everything bad in the world since 1925 had nothing to do with the rampant antisemitism is Germany, did it? Or that Hitler was merely building on a tradition of German and Austrian (and indeed European and Russian) antisemitism he himself encountered in earnest for the first time in Vienna while a struggling artist after WWI. And still, a boycott is not a declaration of war, the AJC didn’t represent all Jews, there was no Jewish state and no Jewish military to declare war on Germany.

    Thanks too for pointing to evidence that Jews don’t act or believe as a monolithic bloc either.

    Do you often try to win arguments by making the oppositions point for them?

    Have you noticed that I don’t blame Germans en masse for the acts of the Nazis and the Nazi controlled German government but rather blame the Nazis proper?

    You should look in to the logical fallacy of composition.

    You certainly seem fond of asserting that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.

    Oddly enough, this is something bigots do all the time.

  205. GeneH,
    You say: You have a good time playing grabass with the nurses.
    That could imply that I am not “man” enough to play with the you.
    Is my understanding of your meaning correct?
    Please clarify.

  206. Gene wrote: “That was completely expected. An essential component of the Big Lie strategy is relentless repetition. . . .”

    the comment consisted exclusively of quoted material. The material was written by Jewish persons. On the assumption that you are at least capable of reading at a fourth-grade level, I assumed your failure to comprehend the words published by Jewish groups was a result of your not having clicked the links and read the actual documents.

    And yes, “endless repetition” is an essential component of the Big Lie strategy, which likely accounts for the endless repetition of “atrocity propaganda” against Germany by the same zionist groups that published the banner headline, “Judea Declares War on Germany.”

    “Oddly enough, this is something bigots do all the time.”

  207. TalkingBack, from what you write, and assessing the destructive successes of the “Jewish persons,” I am betting that the Jew Bigots are going to thrash your ass yet again.

  208. Boot licker,

    Your response is disjointed and nonsensical. The retort “That was completely expected. An essential component of the Big Lie strategy is relentless repetition. . . .”? Is a statement about your tactics. That you found a fringe group of radical Jews who wrote something you could cherry pick in support of your ridiculous apologetics for the Nazis is simply to be expected. You are not the only ignorant person in the world. You can even find “Jews for Jesus” if you look. Some people are just born confused.

    “And yes, “endless repetition” is an essential component of the Big Lie strategy, which likely accounts for the endless repetition of “atrocity propaganda” against Germany by the same zionist groups that published the banner headline, “Judea Declares War on Germany.””

    Ooooo. You stepped up your game to try to pull a Rove. There is only one thing wrong with that. There is no such thing as “atrocity propaganda”. The Nazis actually committed atrocious war crimes. I know this because of the abundance of historical evidence that they did, including discussions with a first hand observer of one of the liberators of Dachau. My cousin’s grandfather was among the American troops who freed that camp. He was neither a liar nor prone to exaggeration. The same can be said of an author I knew named Ben Edelbaum. He used to do book signings all the time at a book store I worked at in high school. We had many hours to talk between customers. His book? “Growing up in the Holocaust”. It recounts his story of being a young boy in Auschwitz. It is non-fiction. I’ve also read extensively about the trials at Nuremberg from both a historical and a technical perspective. The evidence of Nazi atrocities is simply overwhelming.

    I think I’ll believe the evidence left by the camps and the witnesses instead of your denier nonsense no matter how often your repeat yourself or try to build rationalizations for what the Nazis did.

    Any sensible person would.

  209. id707,

    What I said could also imply the moon is made of cheese if the person inferring meaning is simply looking for something that isn’t there.

    Whether or not you choose to have a good time playing grabass with the nurses is entirely up to you.

  210. Gene H, this is one of the really important issues about propaganda. What TalkingBack believes is, by his own admission, a comfortable belief for him because in his personal life, somehow his needs were not met, including probably his most basic poignant dependency needs. He cannot blame this upon his parents (as perhaps others might) for whatever reason, and he cannot blame this upon himself, and he has come up with the real cause of all his unhappiness: America’s participation in WWII was unnecessary because what happened in WWII was that some nefarious Jews attacked Germany and America, which should have been righteous enough to prevent such an outrage, actually fanned the flames of Jewish anti-German hatred and permitted this international crime to drag the country and his father into the war. It was all done to inflame the world with falsehoods to the point where the UN would create a zionist criminal state which then would complete the international criminal conspiracy, as we see it doing.

    This is the only explanation that makes TalkingBack’s life worthwhile.

    If this did not happen, exactly as he says it did, for the reasons he says it did, then why would he have borne so much sorrow? No reason. He never deserved it!

    So a story that can make someone feel that nothing is their fault, that everything bad or rotten is due to the badness and wickedness and evil of the “other” — very often the Jews but often others, if there are no Jews around to absorb the blows — is a very welcome story to persons of weak character who cannot tolerate the idea that they could have done better for themselves if only…

    If only those rotten Jews weren’t destroying Germany, hadn’t stabbed Germany in the back in World War I, hadn’t caused the defeat of the greatest nation on earth by their enemies in World War I, why then…

    Everything would have been fine, would have been hunky dorey. All good Germans would have food and jobs and happy lives. The fact that they had entered into (started, perhaps?) a war that involved all of Europe and that the war ended badly for them (called World War I) was not really to be blamed. It was just the Jews, of course.

    I remember some bozo who was the leader of some country — I do not have time to search for this but it was within the last 10 years — made an announcement, internationally, that the Jews had basically invented the story of how much they were oppressed and decimated during the 20th century to manipulate people’s minds into accepting the principles of equality and decent treatment for minorities! What a terrible thing to do!

    What puzzles me is this: If the Jews declared war on Germany to force the Germans to do bad things to them in order to get whole bunches of them to support Zionism so that Israel could be created and prosper and dominate the world, then why didn’t the Germans do the SMART THING, and PLAY SMART instead of pandering to this nefarious scheme? Why didn’t they simply life all anti-Jewish laws, show the world they had nothing against their Jewish citizens, set up little parks for Jewish children to play in on Saturdays, and hold Jewish orchestral competitions in Munich? That would have really shown the world, disarmed those nasty Yids, and avoided World War II in a quick minute! Man, those Nazis were dumb. They could have changed the course of history if they only gave it a 20-minute think-up. And they could have borrowed all the money to do that good stuff from America!

  211. Malisha,

    You bring up a good point in that in order for propaganda to be effective, it must appeal to some basic need or desire. In talkingback’s case, it presents an interesting microcosm of precisely how the Nazis antisemitic propaganda leading up to WWII worked on the German people. Where talkingback needs something to explain his misery and make it not his fault, so did the German consumers of Nazi propaganda. They needed someone to blame for the interwar period and its deprivations. Instead of doing the thinking required to realize it was the combined fault of the Central Powers for starting a war of aggression and the Allied Powers for their draconian demands at Versailles, they readily consumed the per-packaged solution offered by the Nazis that it was really the Jews (a relatively weak social and political minority) that did all that to Germany. Just so, talkingback has done the same thing in his personal life. He would rather believe his life’s misery is caused by someone else (the Jews) rather than accept his own and his parent’s role in making his life miserable. People psychologically want to be the the hero of their own story. If that means projecting responsibility for their own failure upon others, the human mind is far too capable of doing that. Therapists offices around the world are full of people blaming others for their problems instead of accepting responsibility for their own life. That is part and parcel of what makes propaganda so insidious – it preys upon the weaknesses of the human psyche by manipulation of common normative and defensive mechanisms.

  212. Gene H, what you say about how “THE Jews” view AIPAC’s conduct and so forth brings up a very important point. Israel has a Parliament and in that Parliament, there are plenty of people who stand up and rail against the actions of other bunches of Jews who are doing something that the railers vigorously oppose. Israel will go ahead and bring down a government if enough people get exercised about what some of them are doing wrong. The problem in Nazi Germany was that you didn’t HAVE this any more, starting in 1933 and onward. You didn’t have people who could get up and rail against what Hitler was doing and then sit down and expect to keep living. The whole point was that TalkingBack’s view of the world includes mischaracterizations of both “THE JEWS” [who are just a big satan composed of little pieces, like little bitty jewglobs that only serve to feed the satanic needs of the big THE JEWS] and “the Germans” who, in his worldview, were starved and often murdered by “THE JEWS” so that they finally had to try to defend themselves.

    It’s about a three-year-old version of “me-me-me versus BAD-BAD-BAD” and it has the enormous power that a three-year-old temper tantrum can gain if there is no rational control (like good parents) in sight.

    Those Jews both in and out of Israel who have been working hard to salvage any chance of peace in the Middle East are often accused of pandering to those persistent enemies of Israel who would settle for nothing less than the complete destruction of the state, the destruction of the Jews per se, and the self-righteous re-anointing of every living and dead anti-Semite who ever tried to destroy “THE JEWS.” Rants and raves like those of TalkinBack naturally make it all the harder for any Jews to win over their coreligionists or landsmen to their more moderate point of view, because guys like him are real, they do exist, and they spout their crap everywhere and very vigorously. Just as he believes that the Jews who tried to bring pressure on the Nazis to stop their anti-Semitic hate-fest were actually declaring war on a harmless, blameless state and starting an unnecessary war for their own purposes, there is plenty of belief that Israel’s leadership now MUST be as right-wing pro-conflict no-compromise as possible or Israel will be dismantled by its satanic enemies. And just as a grain of truth to a factual story (Jews backed a boycott) can lead a paranoid to a crazy conclusion, so a partly true perception (the Arab states still insist upon pushing Israel into the sea) can lead a paranoid leadership to an untenable position.

  213. Malisha and Gene, You both fail to grasp several important fact patterns, and also fall into a seductive propaganda trap.
    Re the latter: you have made my comments ‘all about TalkingbacktoCSpan;’ that is, you engage in ad hominem argument: because you are unwilling or unable to argue with the facts and evidence that TBTCS, you engage in ‘armchair psychoanalysis’ of TBTCS, based on nothing but the image you have created in your (cottony) heads.
    You have no idea if TBTCS is male or female,
    rich or poor,
    powerful or otherwise,
    writing from a hasbara center in Tel Aviv, a propaganda station in Tehran, or a community room in a psychiatric ward in Poduka. You simply have no facts, nor have you relied on facts in the ludicrous psychoanalytic profile you have indulged in. You operate in a fact-free environment.

    On the other hand, TBTCS has offered facts, links, evidence, and a unifying theory. You, Malisha, stated that you were not interested in facts, you prefer to run on the messages sent to your brain by your beer-influenced gut.

  214. Where’d you get my beer-influenced gut from, TalkingBack? That’s — excuse me — fucking hilarious, and just as analytical and factually accurate as the rest of your blather. YOU told me abut your parents who couldn’t do right by you because they were sucked into the war brought on by the nasty Jews. It didn’t take much to figure you out. You’re not that different from many of the folks who, around 1933, were dealing with their own deprived lives and finding it convenient to conclude they would have been fine were it not for the evil Jews taking everything away from them. I never expected your love or respect and suffer not from continuing to live without it. And I’ll skip telling you what to eat.

  215. Malisha, a summary of your comment> “I will not confront the facts that decidedly non-fringe persons, such as Louis Brandeis, Sam Untermeyer, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Felix & Max Warburg, Fiorello LaGuardia, and a host of others, collaborated to destroy Germany’s economy. Instead, I will use the vast powers of the cobwebs in my mind to do armchair psychoanalysis of the entity who typed that information, and derogate THAT entity, rather than confront some facts that may threaten my comfort level and a narrative I have relied upon to justify monstrous maltreatment of other people.

    (PS Malisha, your recitation of ‘history’ has more holes than the NYC sewer system.)

  216. TBTCS, something very pleasant just occurred to me. Please be advised that I will never believe you and that in general, your conclusions are so ridiculous that only those people who are very much LIKE YOU will ever believe you, and that survives all your spiteful and absurdly disdainful commentary, and that means no polemics, pissemics, polythemerals, fecobemerals, problumetriciousaries or punkadacious-stenchophonics are going to work. And probably some Jews are going to destroy you! (After which you won’t even get to RIP because my god is bigger than yours.)

  217. http://www.deliberation.info/dystopia-revisited/
    QUOTE:
    “When asked “What is the most effective military weapon the Israelis have?” The answer has to be “The control of the Western media.”

    The domination of the media was decreed at the Zionist conference of 1897.

    . . .

    The effect of this control dictates to the sluggish Western population which countries they may like and which they must hate.

    Seventy-year-old Benjamin Freedman, an American anti-Zionist Jew, declared in a speech presented in 1961, “The Zionists rule these United States as though they were absolute monarchs of this country.”

    Freedman declared that in 1916, when Britain was seriously considering a peace offered by Germans, on the basis of a status quo ante, the Zionists seized an opportunity to inform the British War Cabinet that they could still win the war.

    They used the same techniques to brainwash the British War Cabinet that they have perfected in the media.

    “We will guarantee to bring the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria, Hungary and Turkey.” Britain made that promise in October 1916.

    Freedman revealed at that time the United States was totally pro-German; the newspapers…all the mass communication media was controlled by Jews who were pro-German.

    When the Zionists saw the possibility of getting Palestine, everything changed overnight. Suddenly the Germans were no good. They were villains (shooting Red Cross nurses and cutting off babies hands. They were Huns.

    An insider during this time, and a few years before, Freedman described American President Woodrow Wilson “as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby.” The same tactics were used in the media. The American people were duped into joining WWI [and WWII] as they were in going into Iraq. . . .”

    END QUOTE

  218. Citing an article by a well known antisemitic former English professor at the Universities of Kuwait and Bahrain and general all around douche bag is proof of absolutely nothing other than the adage “garbage in, garbage out”.

  219. Gene H, thanks for your info. I never even check his citations because he gives headlines, people’s assertions, and speeches by nutcases as “proof” of his paranoid theories. If this guy’s speech (whatever it was) proved anything to me, I would have to admit that my “kow-tows to propaganda without considering the source” gene was double recessive. (Did I get that genetic stuff right? I better check with the Eugenics guys.)

  220. Arthur Ruppin and the Production of the Modern Hebrew Culture in Palestine Etan Bloom, TelAviv University PhD dissertation

    QUOTE
    Although Ruppin obtained a law degree and had a promising career in the field of law, and although he wrote a doctoral thesis in political economy
    (Nationalökonomie),78 his real intellectual curiosity and his first academic success lay in the new interdisciplinary field which become known in the following years as “racial hygiene” (Rassenhygiene) or “eugenics.” One of the main initiators of this paradigm in Germany, as well as of its popular repertoire, was the blond, blue eyed biologist Ernst Haeckel, one of Ruppin’s academic patrons and a central father figure of his weltanschauung, who was depicted by him as a “prächtiger Germanentyp”
    (Korolik 1981, 95).79
    . . .
    Haeckel’s influence on Ruppin cannot be overestimated and we can find traces of it even in his last book (1940) in which he presented Heackel’s thoughts as his own:
    . . .
    Ruppin’s winning essay Darwinismus und Socialwissenschaft analyzed the
    applicability of Darwin’s theory to organizing society and the state and expressed enthusiastic belief in the power of social engineering to elevate man to a new level of morality and freedom. In presenting his euphemistic eugenics program, (which became much harsher later on when he applied it to the Jews), Ruppin acknowledged that he was demanding great sacrifices of human beings, but he believed people (i.e.Germans) would accept them if convinced of the social usefulness of their actions.

    Though he acknowledged the sacrifice his bio-medical vision inflicted upon the individual, he supported the state and its crucial function and gave it the decisive right to intervene in the life of the individual, promoting the idea that social welfare and education had to be combined with a program of eugenics, in which invalids and the mentally ill would be discouraged (Ruppin 1903a, 31, 36, 45-46, 64, 91-92, 123; Penslar 1991, 86-87).

    “In an age of dwindling belief in the immortality of the soul, the individual
    will recognize, in his belonging to the state and his actions for the state, his share in eternity, in the history of the whole of mankind, and must look up to the state with genuine religious fervor. He must approach the state only as a wave in the ocean, which, barely arisen, quickly passes and sinks without a trace into the sea […] so for the peoples of old in honor of gods, so for the individual today may no sacrifice seem too great in honor of the state.”
    (Ruppin 1903a, 92, in: Penslar 1991, 86-87).

    END QUOTE

  221. GeneH dismisses his opponents as nutcases, He does so also with the persons behind the citations used by the primary nut case.
    Malisha used the psychological defamation technique also.

    Why? One presumption I can imagine is that we are all lazy. Only the nutcase has the energy and drive to collect “from NYC sewers” the “facts”.

    Now this is endemic to GeneH, I feel. He is least of all lazy, but he seldom if ever answers a factual argument point, usuallly ignoring them and leading instead with new attacks.

    This is the same technique we’ve seen in all political debates by each debater. Never answer the question posed is the technique.

    Now I have not followed this argument at all. I don’t have facts to comment in general. I am a consumer, in lack of energy to find other, of the dominant propaganda over the years, ie Western powers. I am personally pre-disposed to the Jews dut to my respect for their cultural contributions, although question their beliefs. And my only bone of contention is their actions re reaching a two-state solution. This as informantion as to my bias.

    However, I say that psychoanalytical attacks instead of factually based arguments aren’t worth respect.

    Following GeneH’s argumentation I counter with propostint that using that as a guide, then Albert Einstein was anti-semitic too when he addressed the Knesset and said the establishment of Israel on Zionist grounds was a mistake. Just so is the professor called anti-semitic who had differing views—and to boot he is damned for working at universities in the Arab nations.
    Absolutely the first case of a professor selling themselves for profit. Why does Obama kiss the cheek of the Saudi king? For profit. So what does that say about Obama and the professor’s integrity.
    You both of course have never done such a degrading act. Myself a few times, but kicked shins rather. Just as I am doing now.
    Will this gain me? Doubtful.

    Characterizing people to be rid of their arguments is an all too easy method. I’ve never seen Chomsky use that. He laboriously pulls out 15 facts, lays them on the table, and there they speak for all to hear. We are not getting Chomsky here, but rather the peremptory dismissal with a snort of contempt.

    Now Gene may be right and Malisha may be right. But their writings verge on the purely polemical, defamatory, and ad hominem. And Malisha may be right (for her) in her judgement that arguing with XYZ is worthless and refuses to meet him with contrafacts.

    That’s OK for the both of you.
    You do as you wish. That’s what is good about the Professors site. But it also allows me to comment and approve or disapprove.

    Last I was met by GeneH’s opening phrase: “Looking for trouble….”. Which does not assure me of being met with respect. Oh, yes, he will reply that I don’t earn his respect. Just so. But respect and decorum, and the respect that even the unworthy have on the basis of their being human is still required——in my eyes.

    So their actions do nothing for the general debate level here.

    When GeneH says that I can go play with the girls, with an obvious implication that I don’t qualify to play with the boys, then I challenged him to stand and declare a confirmation of that. He glides away and will not answer.

    He will not confirm that he regards me as not manly enough in his eyes to play with the boys.

    Now that does not bother me per se. It is rather the type of argument one could expect from a bully.

    BUT, IT ALSO IS DEFAMING WOMEN AS NOT BEING WORTHY of paraticipating in men’s games. And that is one of our major problems in all modern societies, and certainly in America.

    Defamation is the last thing I expected to meet on a lawyer site. Of course, lawyers are capable of and do use that technique in their work, and often perhaps. But here in a collegial chamber it seems peculiar. Now all here are not lawyers, but if they are welcome then they are also worthy of respect.
    If someone abuses the space and the people here, I’m sure there are other methods than long defamatory counter rants as a way of handling the conflict.

    If you sling mud, you emerge as a shining (!) example of a mudslinger, not as a champion of truth.

    I did not think that the worst tactics of a courtroom would be found here.

  222. Idealist, you say: “Now I have not followed this argument at all. I don’t have facts to comment in general. I am a consumer, in lack of energy to find other, of the dominant propaganda over the years, ie Western powers. I am personally pre-disposed to the Jews dut to my respect for their cultural contributions, although question their beliefs. And my only bone of contention is their actions re reaching a two-state solution. This as informantion as to my bias. * * * However, I say that psychoanalytical attacks instead of factually based arguments aren’t worth respect. * * * Following GeneH’s argumentation I counter with propostint that using that as a guide, then Albert Einstein was anti-semitic too when he addressed the Knesset and said the establishment of Israel on Zionist grounds was a mistake. Just so is the professor called anti-semitic who had differing views—and to boot he is damned for working at universities in the Arab nations. * * *

    OK, let me give you a general response since you haven’t been following the argument, and the argument was on propaganda. I didn’t follow it very much for a while, and then only got interested because of its application in the Zimmerman case, which, as you know, interests me.

    Does the Nazi revisionist Jew-blaming propaganda interest me? Only secondarily, only because it applies to other things, and only occasionally.

    You come in and point out that you’re “predisposed to the Jews,” for what it’s worth. When you question “our” beliefs, I wonder which ones — of mine — you’re questioning. And where did you get that bone of contention, with regard to my actions in reaching a two-state solution? See what I mean? I was very happy with a two state solution in 1947, but you never checked with me then.

    Let me move forward rather quickly here because your issue was with the way I reacted to TalkingBack. Idealist, check the thread. The debate between me and TalkingBack was a bit different in form before his post that read, quite simply and almost eloquently, “Malisha, Eat Shit.”

    A few posts down from that he took issue with me for pointing out that there were people who argued their positions by screaming nonsense and then directed those who did not agree with them to eat shit. Then he came back on thread to really let me know how wrong I was about his wonderful debate techniques, and his explicit explanation was that he had not told me to eat shit because I disagreed — no no (and why would any self-respecting debater do something like that, I ask?) — he had done that because I dishonored his parents’ sacrifice which had been necessitated, of course, by the misconduct of the Jews.

    Idealist, you can be just as idealistic as you want to be, but three things:

    1. Check back on all the threads I have written in. Find me disrespecting someone who takes a position opposite mine — I don’t mean people who jump to their conclusions because they misunderstand me, I mean FIND ME DISRESPECTING SOMEONE WHO TAKES A POSITION OPPOSITE MINE. Check the comment I got somewhere from Lottakatz. Think it over.

    2. Consider how utterly bored and irritated our German poster, Leander, is with all this neoNazi crap he has had to put up with all these years trying to debate people who are still sunk in the deep toilet of anti-Semitic claptrap propaganda. AND…

    3. Somoene upthread had asked TalkingBack if he actually believed that the Nazis had not killed some 6,000,000 people and he responded, quite a while later, with “yes,” so he identified himself (as Gene H had previously identified him by checking into his own webpage where he had apparently informed us poor anti-good-guy shit-eaters that 9/11 was caused by the Jews) as not only a Nazi apologist (more a PROPOLOGIST) but a revisionist historian. So I stopped checking into his citations and his shitations and whenever I felt like it, I Nazi-bated.

    Well that about does it. I hope you also are “predisposed” to the Jews because they’re frank about setting their limits and defining their terms.

  223. @ Idealist — one more thing. How would YOU like me to address TalkingBack?

    Story: When Richard Gardner and Arthur Green, two goon psychiatrists who between them proved that no molested child had ever been molested (for big bundles of money) were giving reasons that kids who claimed to have been molested were lying because they said the wrong thing, I wrote some questions for a lawyer to use in taking one of their depositions (I cannot remember which one, now). The shrink said the kid had not been molested because something she said didn’t match what a molested kid would have really said. So the last question in the list was, “If she had really been molested [and you’re allowed to ask expert witnesses hypothetical questions], exactly what WOULD she have said?”

  224. Malisha:

    I think talkingbacktocspan is most probably a radical, militant Arab/Muslim who hates Jews.

    I dont think there is any possibility of having a conversation with him. He might have a good reason to hate Jews, his father may have been killed in the 67 invasion of Israel or maybe his mother was killed in a Jewish air-strike after his father and others fired rockets into Israel from atop her apartment building. Or it is possible his brother was killed when Hizbullah invaded Israel in 2007.

    So he may have many reasons to hate Jews, all of them self inflicted. We, as a species, seem to have a hard time looking in the mirror and blaming ourselves for our loses.

  225. Oh sure, Bron, but in terms of “looking at ourselves and blaming ourselves for our losses,” I don’t think that’s even necessary. We have losses. It is our job as humans to understand our losses if we can and to try to help others who have losses if possible. It’s just that I was what Frank Taafe calls “fed up” and instead of hauling off and killing some “asshole,” I did a little put-down on the web.

    Thanks for your words.

  226. Malisha – any comment on the award-winning eugenicism that dominated the thinking and practice of Arthur Ruppin, one of the major “producers” of Hebrew culture that defines Israel today?

  227. Malisha:

    Is he an asshole? Or is it just his existence and being. To use a Nazi phrase.

    If you dont realize you are an asshole can you be one?

  228. TalkingBack: You’re qualified to opine on what defines Israel today?

    Check back with me later on that, I have to study really hard to be able to answer your important intellectual challenge without disappointing my fans. After all, the fate of the Jews rests in my shaky hands.

  229. Bron, about whether one can be an asshole without knowing one IS ONE, I think that is what happened to Trayvon Martin before he got killed. THAT is what I was referring to of course, in my comment. I felt riled, so instead of taking a loaded gun out into my neighborhood and profiling and killing somebody because I thought they were a Nazi or an asshole or something, I posted unkindly on the web.

    Were you quoting Neitzxche? (NEE-TCHEE, ph.)

  230. speaking of propaganda —

    “Germany Must Perish! is the title of a 104-page book written by Theodore Newman Kaufman and self-published in 1941, which advocates the genocide, through sterilization of all Germans, and the territorial dismemberment of Germany.[1] Kaufman founded the Argyle Press of Newark, New Jersey, USA, in order to self-publish his sentiments.
    The book was most notably used by Nazi Germany as propaganda to allege that “the Jews” were plotting against the country.[2] In a contemporary sense, the book is utilized by those attempting to forward evidence of a conspiracy against Germany, with such arguments often pertaining to an antisemitic agenda.
    In the words of the 1945 Journal of Modern History, the book was intended to be “little more than self-indulgence in dire vituperation by a man who sees Germany as the sole cause of the world’s woes.”[3] The author had previously proposed that all Americans should be sterilized to prevent their children from becoming “homicidal monsters”.[4]
    wikipedia, Germany Must Perish

    What we have: A Jewish theatrical agent from New York, Theodore Kaufman, writes and self-publishes a book advocating the genocide-through-sterilization of all Germans. He proposes that Germany as a land mass be dismembered.

    Kaufman marketed his book creatively (albeit in a macabre fashion — he sent preview notices in miniature coffins) and assiduously, advertising in New York Times and gaining enough attention that TIME magazine devoted an article to the book and its proposal.

    This website http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/kriegsziel.htm calls itself the “German propaganda archive.”

    On the linked page, the Calvin.edu webster attacks a pamphlet produced by Wolfgang Diewerge, whose goal was to make the German people aware of Kaufman’s “Germany Must Perish,” pointing out that and to use “Germany Must Perish” to motivate Germans to resist. Diewerge’s pamphlet repeatedly associates Kaufman with the Roosevelt administration and with Jews/Jewry/prominent Jewish persons. Really raw stuff, with just enough facticity mixed in with blatant Jew baiting to rile the masses.

    The calvin.edu web author makes this claim about Kaufman’s “Germany Must Perish:” “but contrary to Nazi claims, he had no significance in the U.S. and the book was pretty much universally ignored.”

    Really? New York Times advertising and a write-up in TIME magazine equals “universally ignored?”

    Well, maybe so.

    But then this caught my eye.

    John F. Piper, Jr. wrote a book about American Christian churches in World War I. He noted that some Christian pastors were pacifists, but that: QUOTE
    ““Advocates of the militant position were much more vocal than those supportive of pacifism and were almost totally unrestrained, either by Christian conscience or the censor. . . .These persons preached a holy war, praised the nation beyond all reason, and sang hymns of hate. The most prominent militants included Billy Sunday, Newell Hillis, Charles Eaton, and Lyman Abbott. They condemned the German people, recited atrocity stories, and indicted Germany as solely responsible for the war. . . .Dr. Hillis, pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church of Brooklyn and famous raconteur of atrocities, merged [Billy Sunday’s] attitude with a sophisticated plan. The German people were clearly at fault and something had to be done to prevent a repeat performance. Sterilization offered a massive but fully effective solution. He supported the call for a conference of surgeons “to consider the sterilization of 10,000,000 German soldiers and the segregation of the women, that when this generation of Germans goes, civilized cities, states and races may be rid of this awful cancer that must be cut clean out of the body of society.” 13

    So Kaufman’s 1941 sterilization proposal was not a novelty; it had roots in the anti-German hate campaign generated in the World War I era, in which Christian evangelicals were passionate participants and leaders.

  231. Malisha,

    Magnificent as usual. But far more attention than I am worth. Some re-newed lessons: !) do not jump into the tail end of arguments which you have not read. 2) do not jump into others arguments at all. 3) don’t clander (?) anyone on one poing, you will get an answer on fifteen others which were not included in your argument (overload tactic by Malisha and GeneH), 4) don’t fuck around with heavyweights, you’re not in that weight class.

    BTW, ain’t backing down. Psychological labeling is still piss in my opinion. And that was my whole point.

    I’ve known a few shrinks in my life, and am not impressed by them. And why should you amateurs, and by that I include the pros here who do diagnostics by comments posted, get any right to use these labels. You’re “othering” others.

    Can you remember the day when “neurotic” was the favorite put-down? Psy-labeling is in the same class as “nigger” baiting. I hate labels. As you said yourself:We are all humans underneath it all. Paraphrase?

    And in my world, there are no jews. I asked Lena today who I discovered clumslly is a proud undeclared jewess, why the necessity of labels. She said: it is me, my culture.
    Well culture I can understand, and survival by means of ingrown hangnails are fine too. But I have, I realize, no solutions to your problems with this jewbaiter. or to anti-judaism (you are not the only semites in the world).

    And my assuming moral leadership of debating righteousness is a laugh of course, which you did not mention, but I will.

    Just reacting to psychologica name-calling, was all for me.

    As for 1947, how could you agree then, you were two years old maybe. ´But you mean later. But that, I believe was not two-nations. Palestinians were under Jordan then(?)

    We’re not here to debate Israel/Palestine problem. I just gave my bonafides as to bias. And I am a jewlover, and an arablover, and a berber lover, and a Rwandesia lover, and a Malilover, and a Thailover…..the list is long.

    And I will not abandon any individual for his origin or his stupid and hateful beliefs. I try occasionally to give some insight to them, but not ardently. Their life is up to them to live. So why do you bother with XYZ? You have good but insufficnt reason as I see it.
    Anybody does who contests more than five minutes with him/her/it.

    Last night all Swedes, note Swedes, became very proud. One of our immigrant children won Semifinal 2 in the Eurovision song contest. She is berber by way of Morroco. You know, St. Augustine was half berber.

    So when do we leave tribalism behind us, and I mean ALL of us, not just the arabs or the jews or ?????

    Good luck with spending your energies on ranters of all kinds, and sharpening your teeth on Zimmerman is also a waste of time, IMHO.
    His temporary public notice has already caused a backlash against Martin. Gets the rednecks out to reniw their registration. And the Feds are only there to keep it within bounds for Obama’s sake. “Don’t risk my vote, dammit.”

    But looks like you plan to be part of the knights of the Don Quixote round table. How’s your lance today? Perky?

    Actually you don’t deserve this sassing. You gave me an honest answer. Apologies for that. But I never can resist making a joke, not even against myself.

    Exit

  232. Malisha wrote: “TalkingBack: You’re qualified to opine on what defines Israel today?”

    I only know what I read in the funny papers.
    The document cited — with links provided, for your perusal — was written by Etan Bloom, an Israeli candidate for the doctoral degree at Tel Aviv University. Bloom stated that Ruppin was A, perhaps THE major “producer of modern Hebrew culture. ” Bloom devoted an entire chapter to examination of Ruppin’s study of, commitment to the principles of, and application of eugenic praxis in the choices of those Jews who might be granted the right to migrate to zionist Palestine, and the parameters for creating the “new Jew” out of the properly selected “human material” (Ruppin’s words).

    You being such an ardent autodidact ‘n all, inquiring minds wondered what you thought of the whole business,

  233. TalkingBack, I study what I want to study. That’s why I am a successful audodidact and that is why you can mentally write me down as being terribly uninformed, ignorant blah blah blah about your interesting offers. If I were interested in your stuff I would have checked into your website long ago. As it is, I know enough about your positions to say “no thank you” (homo fecalocephalus) to your invitations — pretty much all of them.

    Idealist, I do give up on people. I don’t have time not to. So I will “abandon” someone for his “hateful beliefs” although that’s not ALWAYS the case. I pick and choose, and I answer to nobody. More often I won’t abandon someone so much for his “hateful beliefs” as for being just flat out irritating and sounding stupid, but that’s just because, as a typical Jew, I’m so smart. (Again, thank my genes and those Zionists who have kept our race pure.)

    Somebody put one of those smiley faces in here for me, OK?

  234. id707,

    First, your inference problem is not my implication problem. You seem to have a knack for making up wrongs against you. Again, I hope you have a good time playing grabass with the nurses. Nothing more, nothing less. Had I wanted to tell you something insulting? I would have been direct about it – as I am about to be. However, as previously stated, whether or not you have a good time playing grabass with the nurses is entirely up to you.

    Second, I’m going to say this plainly so there is no room for misunderstanding:

    You persistently attack others – but especially males – and then play victim if they take you to task for it. And, yes, I do think there is something wrong with you based on your behavior. By your own past admissions you are a psych patient. Undermining the credibility of a source of information is a valid tactic in argumentation. If you don’t like that I think a Nazi apologist is suffering from mental defect because by his own admission he blames Jews for the failings of his parents and himself in how his life turned out instead of accepting his responsibility in that matter? Tough. If you don’t like that I question your stability based on your actions? Also tough. As humans, we make psychological judgments about those we interact with on a daily basis. That person is nice. That person is naughty. That person is smart. That person is stupid. That person is normal. That person is crazy. Commenting upon those judgments is somehow off limits because you don’t respect that? Too bad. That’s not how this works.

    As to how I argue? This isn’t the courtroom nor are you qualified to critique how I argue. I argue with people dependent upon how they argue with me; the reciprocity of the Golden Rule. For example, Mike S. and I disagree on several topics yet because Mike argues with me in an above board respectful manner and never resorts to fallacies with me, our disagreements are the very portrait of civility. The same can be said of mespo and the other guest bloggers and quite a few of the other regular posters here (I’d make a list, but I don’t want to omit anyone). Those who choose engage in fallacious argument though, be it in form or substance, get tossed around like a chihuahua fighting a gorilla.

    You are entitled to your opinion about how I argue and I’m entitled to ignore you – which is what I do 90% of the time any way. In the future, I’ll do as I have done in the past; meaning I’ll argue however I please using whatever tactics or strategy I please as this is a free speech forum and there are very few rules let alone the constraints of a courtroom. When there is argument here instead of discussion, this isn’t analogous to boxing. It’s a mixed martial arts street brawl. If you don’t like it? If something about it disturbs you? Again, you are free NOT to read what I post. My sole purpose in life is not to bother you, but if I do? Well, that’s your reaction and I’ll address reactions and their ownership in a bit.

    However, since by your own admission you haven’t been following the argument, perhaps you should consider that you are arguing from ignorance. Arguing from ignorance just like the two times you attacked me for taking MM to task for using straw men to misrepresent what I had said just to attack it. Arguing from ignorance is just as much a logical fallacy as using straw men.

    I don’t care if you respect me or not. To me, you’re just some anonymous Internet critic and one with an apparent (and admitted) problem in dealing with social interactions. You admitted in the past that one of your reasons for seeking therapy was that since the death of your wife you found people and the world a confusing place. While I wish you luck in getting that straitened out, that combined with the pattern of behavior you exhibit here leads me to question you as a source for criticism. This is not the first time I’ve been criticized in my life and as always I consider the source. Concerned about your critique? Why would I possibly care on any rational and logical level what you think about what I do? And just so to avoid your confusion, that was a rhetorical question. I don’t care. Random anonymous Internet posters rank at the very bottom of my list. You have by your own admission mitigating circumstances that lead me to discount your critiques even more. Your criticism matter to me as much as the criticisms of a Nazi apologist, which is to say, not at all.

    There are a few people who post anonymously here that their opinion matters to me, but that is because I know them out of camera and they have earned the respect and admiration required to have their opinion matter to me. I listen to their feedback. Yours? Not so much. So again, if that presents a problem for you, you are free to not read what I post. It seems to cause you some aggravation. And while aggravating you is not my primary purpose, I am totally indifferent to your reactions. They are yours, just like your malformed inference is yours. Your reactions are really the only thing you have control over in life. Fear, hate, love, desire, they are all the same – your reactions. You own them. How they control your life is entirely up to you.

    If I were a propagandist (to tie this back in to the thread proper), I would be very interested in how your reactions control your life and in using your reactions against you to get what I want. Since I am an anti-propagandist by nature who follows the dictates of Marcus Aurelius to both “[s]eek the truth, by which no man was ever hurt” and to “ask of each and every thing what is it in itself”, my parameters of operation are not defined by your opinions but rather finding the underlying truths of the world. Your reactions are of no concern to me. That you have the right tools to discern fact from fiction – including the tools to recognize propaganda – do matter. Bad information leads to bad decisions and the history of bad men and bad ideas is paved with the blood of good people operating off of bad information. Bad information like “the Nazis were just misunderstood and they were driven to their acts by the Jews and, by the way, they didn’t really kill 6,000,000 Jews.” Should I choose to posit on the mental state of someone who would believe such a blatant historical falsehood and take great lengths to rationalize and justify his belief in such manifest lies? I will. Your approval or respect is not required.

    However, if I bother you, feel free to avoid me, but don’t expect me to change what I do or who I am because you “don’t respect” something about it. Concurrently, what you respect is your opinion and while you are entitled to it, I have no obligation to act upon your opinion one way or the other. You are neither my friend nor my family. Your opinion does not inform or determine my operational principles. I do with input from friends and family. Your criticisms have no impact on what I do or how I do it and merit indifference on any rational and logical level. That is my reaction.

    This does not change that if you want to opine about me and what I do, I will counter should I so desire and those counters will be criticism of you and any position you might be taking. Not because I care on a personal level what you think. Rather, because I can.

    Was that clear enough for you?

    Or do you need clarification?

  235. Bron,

    “If you dont realize you are an asshole can you be one?”

    Yes. It is a state of perception and a state of being. Perceptions can be manipulated – that is the point of discussing propaganda. Think of all the pols over time that you’ve thought “that guy/gal is alright” only later to think upon seeing them further in action “that guy/gal is an asshole” or see some other public figure you had a negative opinion of to only change it later after finding out they did something solid good? The perception and the state can be disjunct. It’s like Robin Williams said about Gandhi. “As beatific as Gandhi was, I’m sure there was some guy in a Bombay bar going, “I knew Gandhi…he was a prick.”

  236. GeneH,

    Won’t thank you since you would say that was presumptious too. But it was helpful as usual. A kick in the ass usually delivers a message to the mind.

    As for attacking men, they seem to be in the majority here. And for what reason. I have no studies on it, they seem to be the ones who make stupid statements here, particularyly misogynistic ones. Well, I am no saviour of the world, so will lay from me that role. And saving ladies is a silly idea too, when you think about it. They have saved themselves for millions of years. And will continue.

    No clarifications needed.

    Happy bullying.

    PS It seems you still support the use of ad hominem insults and psycho labeling based on your opinions. Fine with me. A mistake to interfere with a feeding bully.
    I won’t reveal anything more about myself. That is also a welcome lesson. Bye-bye-

  237. id707,

    Again, it’s not bullying when you stand up for yourself. You’re free to criticize others but no one is free to criticize you? I’m calling bullshit on that. You were the first to go on the offensive with me. When you first started posting here, I not only welcomed you, I defended you from others attacking you on baseless grounds. A kindness you repaid with later attacks on me that you instigated ironically enough by trying to paint me as delusional and then played victim when I fought back. That you choose your target poorly is your problem. That is a fact. You reap what you sow. That ethic of reciprocity cuts both ways.

  238. talkingbacktoadolph:

    why do you think like you do? You are really full of hate. What happened to you to cause this? Did you grow up this way with mom and dad feeding you a daily line of “hate the Jew” or did you lose a loved one in one of the many wars between Arab and Jew?

    What fuels the fire of your hatred for the Jewish people?

    If your mother and father fed you this stuff, you can learn a better path and if you lost a loved one you can forgive and move on. The bitterness will only destroy your soul in the long run.

    Jewish people dont care if you hate them, I am not Jewish but I feel sorry for you. I hope you are an elderly man so you dont spend a long time with your hatred.

  239. bron, Do you believe the notion “Never Again” should apply to every living creature, or just to a select group?

    If nobody, “Ever again” should be subjected to what Gene describes as “the horrors of war” when it applies to German civilians, but “factory efficient genocide” (owtte) when it applies to Jews, and that Edwin Black describes as “their own fault” [that 800,000 German civilians actually starved to death] when it applies to German civilians, but that Gov. Glynn calls “the bigoted lust for Jewish blood” in a propaganda letter about something that DID NOT HAPPEN, then how do you suggest we go about making sure that NEVER AGAIN will German civilians be starved to death, or that NEVER AGAIN will Jews [allegedly] be harmed as a result of “bigoted lust for Jewish blood?”

    How are we to accomplish this if we do not have clear and honest information about how and why it happened in the first place?

  240. ps. Bron, inasmuch as persons such as Ephraim Sneh have told cheering AIPAC audiences that “Iran’s leaders should be made to fear that their 70 million people will starve,” and in view of the fact that AIPAC has ppushed through the US Congress legislation that can and is causing those fears to be realities among the Iranian people, it seems that “Never Again” has had a very short shelf life.

    http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2012/03/inhumanity-of-iran-threat-rhetoric.html

  241. Kick in and help some of the people in need, some of the people being starved, hurt, tormented, killed, etc. Help some of them, or perhaps even just ONE of them, maybe just for a month, a week, try that. It is remarkably healing. Find an elderly German who was starved during or after the war, and bring him or her free breakfast, lunch and dinner for a week. DO SOMETHING!

  242. Malisha:

    and that is the problem with talkingback.

    Hitler was a beast and he sold the German people a pack of lies. What I find interesting is that they bought those lies hook, line and sinker. They were totally intellectually unprepared for Hitler and his message. They had no philosophical antidote to it. There were, at least to my knowledge, no German Lockes, Jeffersons or Madisons to which the people could turn for intellectual protection. All they had was Marx, Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger.

  243. Gene H –
    TBTCS wrote: “Gov. Glynn calls “the bigoted lust for Jewish blood” in a propaganda letter about something that DID NOT HAPPEN,”

    Gov. Glynn’s letter is posted, in full, above, at May 22, 2012 at 12:35 am.

    The things that Glynn wrote in his Aug 1919 letter DID NOT HAPPEN as Glynn stated; the contents of the letter were untrue.
    German civilians — 800,000 of them, by Edwin Black’s own reckoning, died of starvation as a result of blockade imposed on Germany by Allies, mainly Great Britain. The fact that Edwin Black mentioned the blockade and the deaths of 800,000 derisively, and does NOT mention the deaths of Jews, suggests that Jews were not proportionately harmed by the blockade.

  244. Bron – QUOTE Benjamin Freedman on Zionism What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. I’m not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I’m here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians. Now, first of all, I’d like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 — that was shortly before elections — Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America. In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area. In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes. Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe… when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III. You say, when will that take place? The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause. I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations — and of the ninety-nine nations there, I’ve consulted with maybe seventy of them — and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we’re not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally. And who will these people have supporting them, you ask. Well, four days after President Kennedy — or he was then Senator Kennedy — made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists. Not only that… they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their homeland. With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group. That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite. It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world’s total population. Eighty percent of the world’s population. Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us. And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians… the non-white nations of the world, and that’s what we face. And what is the reason? The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this — time I’ll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement — the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now, you say, ‘well, that’s a very broad statement to make’, but let me show what happened while you were — I don’t want to wear that out — let me show what happened while WE were all asleep. I’m including myself with you. We were all asleep. What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened? Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week’s food supply facing her — and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed. Now Germany — not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.” Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated. While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn’t believe what I’m saying is at all possible — the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.” The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.” In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.” Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German — totally pro-German — because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers — the German-Jews — Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime. Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. And they were no good. Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.” And that did happen. That’s how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. Now the war — World War One — in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there — we were railroaded into it — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened? After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that. Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it’s history. You know what happened. Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost. Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd’s and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers — the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. Now, the Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.” It was a sellout that I can best compare — suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let’s quit. We offer you peace terms. Let’s forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man’s imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese? I don’t think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn’t be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel. Well, that’s how the Germans felt towards these Jews. “We’ve been so nice to them”; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.” Now, Nahum Sokolow — all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today — they, in 1919, 1920, ’21, ’22, and ’23, they wrote in all their papers — and the press was filled with their statements — that “the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them.” The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn’t that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema’ Yisrael” or “Our Father.” No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 — three hundred! — small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world’s great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain’s, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products. And what happened? What happened as a result of that? There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: “We must slap down Germany”, because there isn’t one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that? When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations. Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact. They didn’t want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that. So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews]. They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could? They shunned them. The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat. Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn’t know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933. And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler! And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was. You can’t treat us that way! And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you.” Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine. So what did they [the Jews] do? They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here. . . (You want to ask a question? — Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time. they were called ‘Social Democrats.) Well, I don’t want to go by what they were called. We’re now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security. Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former — their status — and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone’s head. The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn’t fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could. Well, that’s the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews. And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money — you know the way the Mark was devalued — they bought up practically everything. Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermeyer came back to the United States — who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference — and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said: “The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them, that will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business.” And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany’s food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. Their labor. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany’s population would have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page — a whole page — in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that: “this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA” . [National Recovery Administration] — which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words “made in Germany” on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted. If anyone came in and found a dish marked “made in Germany,” they were picketed with signs: “Hitler”, “murderer”, and so forth, and like — something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked “made in Germany”. Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I’ve been observing women’s legs in the last twenty years, I haven’t seen a pair with cotton stockings on them. So Macy! I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying “MURDERS” and “HITLERITES”, and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing. Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, “Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?” They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous. That continued for some time, and it wasn’t until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth. Now, for anyone to say that — I don’t like to use the word ‘anti-Semitism’ because it’s meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I’ll have to use it — the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three — did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott — and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It’s going to be Christian or it’s going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: “We’re going to keep it Christian if possible”. And they started to re-arm. And there intention was — by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 — the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: “Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.” The same as we in this country are saying today, “Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.” And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world. Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. One million tons of TNT is a megaton. Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. That was when they were first developed five or six years ago. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have. So, what do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. And why will it take place? It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III. Act I was World War I. Act II was World War II. Act III is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it’s known all over the world. Now, what are we going to do? The life you save may be your son’s. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don’t know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren’t permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other ‘s knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was ‘confidential man’ to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. And that’s how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. Now, at this moment… at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don’t stand a chance even if they don’t use nuclear bombs. How can the United States — about five percent of the world — go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground? How can we do it… send our boys over there to be slaughtered? For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their ‘commonwealth’? They’ve fooled you so much that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going. Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, “Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony.” That is correct. I don’t know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony. Now, what are the facts about the Jews? The Jews — I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn’t a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that. Now what happened? The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe — and to reduce this so you don’t get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe — they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles. Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe — so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That’s how big and powerful they were. Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy. I don’t want to go into the details of that now. It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world. Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith — either Christianity, Islam — the Moslem faith — or what is known today as Judaism — really Talmudism. So, like spinning a top and calling out “eeny, meeny, miney, moe,” he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people — 800,000 thousand square miles — and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews. There wasn’t one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying: “Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God’s chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland, It’s your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we’re Jews.” Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted]. And it’s just as ridiculous to call them “people of the Holy Land,” as it would be. . . there are 54 million Chinese Moslems. Fifty four million! And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves ‘Arabs’. Imagine! Why, you’d say they’re lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren’t different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith. Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. They likewise, because their king took the faith — Talmudic faith — they had no choice. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So everybody — they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system — so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews! Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to say, “We’re going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God’s chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land.” Now, could there be a bigger lie than that? Could there be a bigger lie than that? And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you’d believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn’t call black black anymore — you’d start to call black white. And nobody could blame you. Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Because after two wars fought in Europe — World War I and World War II — if it wasn’t possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for? Did they have to — like you flush the toilet — because they couldn’t get along, did they have to say, “Well, we’re going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us”? I can’t understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I’m telling you. But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . . I don’t care whether you know all this or not. It doesn’t make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me. I’ve got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don’t want them to go and fight and die… like they died in Korea. Like they died in Japan. Like they’ve died all over the world. For what? To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years? Is that why the United States must go to war? Because the Democratic Party wants New York State — the electoral vote? Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?… which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power? In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists. And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes. Now, I don’t blame Mr. Kennedy. I’m fond of Mr. Kennedy. I think he’s a great man. I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows. He’s playing with the enemy. Like when you go fishing, you’ve got to play with the fish. Let ’em out and pull ’em in. Let ’em out and pull ’em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy’s father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don’t think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark. But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate — not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy. And tell him, “I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen”. I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write. Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do. But I don’t think it’s necessary to do that. You’re above the average group in intelligence and I don’t think it’s necessary to impress this any more. But. . . I want to tell you one more thing. You talk about… “Oh, the Jews. Why the Jews? Christianity. Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion”. But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that day… and I was one of them! This is not hearsay. I’m not here to be a rabble-rouser. I’m here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand — and it’s the only prayer for which you stand — and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months — any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on. And further than that, the Talmud teaches: “Don’t forget — whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge — remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that”. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. And we’re going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason. You can’t depend upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge. Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this. Tomorrow’s going to be a long day. Now I want to say one thing. You ask me. . . well, you think to yourself: “well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it.” Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I’m telling you. And one newspaper after another refused the advertisement. And when I couldn’t find a newspaper to take them — I paid cash, not credit — what happened? My lawyer told me, “There’s an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement”. So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that’s how I met him. So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: “Well, I think he’s a little anti-Semitic. I don’t know whether I can get him over here. So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then. Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications. I say it without any reservations. And I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn’t for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with “Common Sense” — he’s been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year — if it wasn’t for the work he’s been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires. Many of the other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through “Common Sense”. Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could. I’m not as flush as I was. I cannot go on spending the money. . . I’m not going to take up a collection. Don’t worry. I see five people getting up to leave. (laughter) I haven’t got the money that I used to spend. I used to print a quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out. Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally. So I said, “With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job”. So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for them. Well, there’s always a bottom to the barrel. I suppose we’ve all reached that at times. I’m not so poor that I can’t live without working and that’s what worries the Anti-Defamation League. I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on the bread line. But Mr. McGinley is working. He’s sick and he’s going at this stronger than ever. And all I want to say is that they want to close up “Common Sense” more than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive. So I just want to tell you this. All they do is circulate rumors: “Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of ‘Common Sense’.” The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United States: don’t send any money to Common Sense. They don’t need it. The’ve got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer. That all has strategy. They don’t want to advertise me so that people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just want people to lay off “Common Sense”. And all I’m telling you is, I do try to help him, but I haven’t been able to. And I will be very honest. One thing I won’t do is lie. In the last year I’ve had so much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar. How he’s managed to survive, I don’t know. God alone knows. And he must be in God’s care because how he’s pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don’t know. But that press is working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of “Common Sense” go out with a new message. And if that information could be multiplied. . . if people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around. Plow that field. Sow those seeds, you don’t know which will take root, but for God’s sake, this is our last chance. [Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to ‘buy more stuff’, play golf, etc., and use the money to keep “Common Sense” going. He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American public and elected officials. He then asks for questions from the audience.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {Question inaudible] Freedman: All right, I’ll comment on that. This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I’m going to make an attempt. In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea. Judea was a province of the Roman Empire. Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius. Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean. Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as ‘j’, and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts ‘ghu’. Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic… all those languages. Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn’t exist. Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean. I’ve seen those early… the earliest scripts available. In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English. There was no English edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read? It was only the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages. Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. But in it, he had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius. There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as ‘gyu’, “jew”. At the time, there was no printing press. Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes… I have them all here. If you want I can read them to you. I will. That word ‘gyu’ which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ‘ gyu ‘, then ‘ giu ‘, then ‘ iu ‘ (because the ‘ i ‘ in Latin is pronounced like the ‘ j ‘. Julius Caesar is ‘ Iul ‘ because there is no ‘j’ in Latin) then ‘ iuw ‘, then ‘ ieuu ‘, then ‘ ieuy ‘, then ‘ iwe ‘, then ‘ iow ‘, then ‘ iewe ‘, all in Bibles as time went on. Then ‘ ieue ‘, then ‘ iue ‘, then ‘ ive ‘, and then ‘ ivw ‘, and finally in the 18th century… ‘ jew ‘. Jew. All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin. Now, there was no such thing as ‘Jew’, and any theologian — I’ve lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe — there was no such word as Jew. There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was ‘gyu’ — Jew. A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a ‘lab’, and gasoline ‘gas’… a tendency to short up. So, in England there were no public schools; people didn’t know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it. Now for a theologian to say that you can’t harm the Jews, is just ridiculous. I’d like to know where in the scriptures it says that. I’d like to know the text. Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews. What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews — the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers — they weren’t Jews, as I just explained to you. They were Eastern Europeans who’d been converted to Talmudism. There was no such thing as Judaism. Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible]. No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism. It didn’t exist. They pulled it out of the air. . . a meaningless word. Just like ‘anti-Semitic’. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don’t like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn’t one Jew who’s a Semite. They’re all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews. So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend who told you these things, I’ll convince him and it’ll be one step in the right direction. I’ll go wherever I have to go to meet him. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, ma’am. Well… I can answer that. First of all, your first premise is wrong. Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong. Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they create the impression that they are the Jewish ‘race\'; that they are the Jewish nation; that they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like a cream puff. But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony. In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot. A civil war. The Eastern Europeans said, “What the hell. We should give up Kol Nidre? That gives us our grip on our people. We give them a franchise so they can tell the Christians, ‘Go to hell. We’ll make any deal you want’, but they don’t have to carry it out. That gives us our grip on our people”. So, they’re not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists. . . Now, I’ll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race. Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who — on behalf of the British Cabinet — negotiated the deal with these Zionists. And in here he says that all the jews in England were against it. The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible – probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry… who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief. That was while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian ‘race’? or a Christian religion?… or are the Christians united? So the same disunity is among the Jews. And I’ll show you in this same document that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it. That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal ———————————————— [Question inaudible] Freedman: You know why? Because if they don’t, they’re decked up. They come around and they tell you how much you must give, and if you don’t . . . oh, you’re anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign. . . and you have got to give. In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building. And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name. Then, the buyers are told, “When you come into that building to call on someone and they haven’t got a gold star, tell them that you won’t buy from them until they have the gold star”. BLACKMAIL. I don’t know what else you can call it. Then what do they do? They tell you it’s for ‘humanitarian purposes’ and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible. So if they hadn’t sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax. So what happens? That seven billion dollars deficit — that air pocket — the gullible Christians have to make up. They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax. Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government. So why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient homeland? And you say, “Oh, well. The poor Jews. They have no place to go and they’ve been persecuted all their lives”. They’ve never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion. Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England? King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds. For four-hundred years there wasn’t a Jew. But do you know why they were driven out? Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it’s a sin to charge ‘rent’ for the use of money. In other words – what we call interest [usury] is a sin. So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn’t pay, they [Jews] foreclosed. And they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the money-lenders. So the king finally said — and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library. When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders. Edward the First. And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews. But it got worse and worse. So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, “I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders. If they’re killed you have to pay me, because I’m his sole heir”. That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out. There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that’s how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom. When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else did. He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland. So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion. It has never happened. It’s always their impact on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in which they settle. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Question inaudible] Freedman: Yes, sir. Well, they say most of those things themselves. It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it. Most of those things they say themselves. But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe. When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object. The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed. When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that’s the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia — who they were — that they had practiced this Talmudic faith — the Christians in Western Europe said, “They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!” And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that — and he’s probably as good an authority on that subject as there is. So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done after they left their homeland. And every word of it is true… they say it themselves. I can give you half a dozen books they’ve written in which they say the same thing: When they have money they become tyrants. And when they become defeated, they become ruthless. They’re only barbarians. They’re the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose. What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did? The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that. There was no need for them. . . they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn’t want that. When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union. There was no need for that. But they thought, “Now is the time”, and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word ‘Bolshevism’, you’ll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution. One of them is, “Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you’ve got”. It would pay you to read that. You’d also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement. And that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement. Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he. And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [Question inaudible] Freedman: Well, I can’t advocate that you do anything that’s criminal, but I can tell you this. You can start what I call an endless chain. If you can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement: Mr. Kennedy’s office gave me this himself. Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy, took over his office — was in his office — and gave me this. He delivered this on the 25th, and it says here: “For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th”. “Israel is here to stay. It is a national commitment, special obligation of the Democratic Party. The White House must take the lead. American intervention. We will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation”. Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians] aggression? Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that? Suppose three million Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there armed — the Texans were disarmed — and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared themselves the Republic of the Alamo. What would the United States say? Would we say it’s aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves? Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other. Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes? Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, “No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!”, or “No, those Mexicans are in Texas. they declared themselves a sovereign state. Leave them there. You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada. Settle somewhere else”. Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes? So now, you’ve got to write to President Kennedy and say, “We do not consider it aggression in the sense that you use the word, if these people want to return to their homes as the United Nations — fifteen times in the last twelve years — called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms”. END QUOTE
  245. Bron, friends of mine who are living in Germany now and who know a bit about German culture would probably say there was a thriving intelligentsia there for centuries. I haven’t studied that. But read “Diary of a Man in Despair” by Friedrich Reck-Mallaczewen (sp? — not sure) for what it’s worth.

  246. tremendous insight, Malisha; thank you —

    “a Jewish text, the Talmud, says:
    We see things NOT as they are,
    but as WE are.”

    Thus, when you read the facts and quotations that another person writes, if you are operating under the saying of the Talmud, you do not see them for the facts and reality they represent, you see them as YOU are. Because you are, just like every human being, incapable of looking through another person’s eyes, you look through your eyes and persuade yourself that what YOU are seeing is what THEY must be seeing; you project You into They.

    You cannot possibly see things as, for example, Hillary Mann Leverett or Wendy Sherman sees things, because you do not look through their eyes. You cannot possibly see things as Andrew Bacevich or George Soros sees things, because you do not look through their eyes; their eyes are in their heads and your eyes are in your head.

    It is physically and psychologically for a person to see things through the eyes of another.

    That is why it is so essential to try to see things as they are: as reality; as objectively and logically defined as possible, lest your vision becomes so distorted with trying to look through eyes not your own that you run into a wall or off a cliff.

  247. edit: “It is physically and psychologically for a person to see things through the eyes of another.”

    SHOULD BE:

    “It is physically and psychologically IMPOSSIBLE for one person to see things through the eyes of another.”

  248. talkingbacktocspan,

    You’ve mistaken me for someone who thinks you have any grip on reality whatsoever.

  249. TalkingBack, your guy Adolph ran off a cliff himself one time. But thanks for the object lessons, very objective of you, I’ll try to keep that all in mind. I’m glad you remembered that “impossible” in that sentence, too; it’s good for you not to forget that word too often.

  250. Soon to be released: Talmudic commentary according to TalkingBack.

    Everybody get out your Amazon account numbers, limited printing!

    (Headline announcing the publishing of this book inadvertently omitted the word “impossible.”)

  251. I’m really blown away by that talmudic insight, Malisha.
    The more you and Gene attack me, rather than the text that is written, the more it is apparent that you are seeing yourselves; how do i know the talmud tells me so:

    since you do not see things as they ARE, — time after time you have refused to consider or critique the text AS IT IS;

    and because you cannot possibly see things through the eyes of another,

    the saying, ‘we see things as WE are’ means you look only through your own eyes; you see only yourselves. And apparently, you pretty much hate what you see.

    All of the sarcasm and psychologizing and derision you dish out, is your exudation of yourselves, which you are serving up to yourselves.

  252. No, Nazi lover.

    I’ve already critiqued all of your garbage I’m going to waste my time on. Your “facts” are crap. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to make fun of you though. You’re a historical revisionist who thrives on cherry picking and mischaracterization. You use displacement and selective information to demonize and blame Jews for things they had no control over (like the blockade) and logical fallacies to imply that Jews all operate as some monolithic bloc that were capable of “declaring war” on Germany when then had no state, no military and no form of unity whatsoever in the pre-war period. If you want to operate under the delusion that Jews control Allied strategy in WWI and WWII and that they “declared war” on Germany because a group of Jews who had no power to speak for all Jews let alone a Jewish state declared an economic boycott on Germany in WWII that had little or no effect on the German economy?

    Be my guest. I’m not here to convince you your delusions aren’t real. I’m just here to point it out and point out your tactics – which to be clear is all based on distortions and lies. I’m not the kind of doctor who can help you with your problems.

    BTW, nice try at the Rove thing again. That “smear the opponent with your own sin” thing is really cute in a third grade “I know you are but what am I” kind of way. However, time for a fact check. I don’t blame the Jews or anyone else for the things in my life (or in my parents life) that I don’t like. Either they are my own doing, accident or misfortune. And unlike you, I do indeed have a long line of psychiatrists willing to testify to my sanity. Part of the benefit of spending my childhood as a lab rat for the educational system. However, by your own admissions, you have stated facts that combined with your historical revisionist bent and severe hatred for Jews puts your mental health into question in such a way that is obvious to even an amateur.

    Carry on hating on the Jews though.

    You provide a perfect example of why they did indeed need and deserve a state and military of their own in the wake of WWII.

  253. Oh jeez, this is so sophisticated! When I was in grade school they would just go: “I’m rubber and you’re glue; it bounces off me and STICKS TO YOU!” Wow, memories. A couple of them told me I killed Christ, too, and I couldn’t figure that one out — took me years!

    Well, enough Nazi-baiting for one night, I’ll have to go now, carry on…

  254. it’s absolutely astonishing. I point out, You are attacking ME, not the facts, and you respond by attacking ME, not the facts.
    Lather rinse repeat.
    the more you attack me, the more you reveal about yourself.
    You. do. not. know. me.
    I am totally anonymous to you; you have no idea if I’m sitting in a CIA workroom, an IRGC squad room, a hasbara pod in OT Hebron, or tante’s basement.
    I type facts from books. That is all.
    You think that you have a window into my soul & life based on comments about parents and a war that did not have to be fought. You leapt from that to concoctions and conclusions of your own fabrication. Those conclusions can only be based on the stuff of your own psyches because, if you’ll excuse the repetition, you. do. not. know. me.

    but please, do keep up the attacks and the oh so brilliant repartee; you are drawing your own profiles using the BIG box of Crayolas.

  255. I’ve already attacked your facts several times and all I got in response was more cherry picked antisemitic and/or pro-Nazi propaganda that you seem to think is valid because you “typed it out of a book”. I feel no need to discredit your “facts” anymore than I already have.

    “I am totally anonymous to you; you have no idea if I’m sitting in a CIA workroom, an IRGC squad room, a hasbara pod in OT Hebron, or tante’s basement.”

    And you think this makes you credible how exactly?

    So let’s check that score, shall we?

    Some anonymous Internet Nazi jackass is expecting others to think his take on history – which is contrary to that professional historians and as taught in schools and colleges around the world – is the true version of history. Because he says so and quotes from other people, most of whom are either fringers or bigots themselves and not one a professional historian of any repute. All of this while admitting he has a bias because be blames Jews for everything bad in his life instead of taking some responsibility for his own life.

    Yeah. You’re real credible there. Pst! That was sarcasm. No one with any sort of education (or even sense) is taking you seriously other than as in “that is one seriously fucked up individual”.

    I also don’t give a rat’s ass if you point out I’m attacking you or not. Why? Because I am and I’m doing so on purpose. Let me be perfectly clear here:

    You’re Nazi scum.
    The only thing I hate worse than Nazis is pedophiles.
    You are due no respect or courtesy whatsoever.
    You are due no consideration of your special presentation of the “facts” as distorted by your obvious agenda.

  256. hey mr propaganda man,

    did I read this correctly? You wrote:

    “Practice reading with emotional detachment and a critical eye to not only what is said, but how it is said and by whom.”

    Let’s apply that to the centerpiece of your comment on May 30 at 12:08 am, when you wrote:

    Because he says so and quotes from other people, most of whom are either fringers or bigots themselves and not one a professional historian of any repute. All of this while admitting he has a bias because be blames Jews for everything bad in his life instead of taking some responsibility for his own life”

    Second sentence first: “be [sic] blames Jews for everything bad in his life instead of taking some responsibility for his own life”

    What I wrote was this:

    “Why don’t I publish in a peer reviewed journal? I don’t have access to a peer reviewed journal because I do not have an education. My parents were too poor to pay for college, and they were too poor because my Mom had lost her home and my Dad had been permanently injured fighting in a war that did not have to be fought. This is for you, Mom and Dad.”

    You exploded a statement indicating that I did not have sufficient education to publish in a peer reviewed journal into “everything bad in his life.”

    Based upon your incorrect reading of the words written, you somehow made the judgment that I had not “taken responsibility for his own life.”

    Where do you get that idea? It is not present in the words that I wrote. I wrote of the suffering of my parents, and concluded with a dedication to my parents. That is all that was written; that is all the information you have available on which to make an assessment. There is no information communicated in my statement that let’s anyone know whether I am the CFO of a Fortune 500 corp., the owner of a Subway shop in Podunk, the manager of a bordello in Tijuana, the editor of a small circulation trade magazine in Kalamazoo, or a missionary drinking three cups of tea in Uzbekistan. The only thing you DO know is that I do not have the education necessary to publish in a peer reviewed journal.

    You wrote that I “blame Jews” for this disability. What I wrote is that my parents suffered because they were caught up “in a war that did not have to be fought.” Numerous people were responsible for joining that war; prominent among those people were Jewish activists. That is all that you can rationally conclude from the words that I wrote.

    Thus, the second sentence in your statement is totally without merit; it relies on information you supplied from your own projection, and not from anything actually written by me.

    As to the first sentence in your statement:

    “Because he says so and quotes from other people, most of whom are either fringers or bigots themselves and not one a professional historian of any repute.”

    Below is a list of sources and people I have referenced and quoted from in this (tedious) conversation:

    Propagandacritic.com
    Edward Bernays
    Old Testament
    C Paul Vincent, “Politics of Hunger”
    R H S Stolfi, “Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny”
    Jorg Friedrich, “The Fire”
    Ralph Raico, Prof. of History, Buffalo State College, review of “Politics of Hunger”
    Edwin Black, author, journalist. “The Transfer Agreement” and on
    JewishVirtual library website
    Herbert Hoover, “Freedom Betrayed”
    John Dower, Professor of History Emeritus, MIT http://www.booktv.org/Program/11939/After+Words+John+Dower+Cultures+of+War+interviewed+by+Sanho+Tree+Institute+for+Policy+Studies+fellow.aspx

    Sanho Tree, Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies
    NIZKOR
    Martin Glynn, former gov. NY
    N P Howard, University of Sheffield
    Benjamin Netanyahu, “A Place Among the Nations”
    Benzion Netanyahu, “The Origins of the Spanish Inquisition”
    Wolfgang Samuel, author, “The War of Our Childhood”
    Nima Shirazi, blog owner
    Ramage & Bean, authors, “Argument”
    Dennis Dalton, Professor of Political Science at Barnard College, Columbia University
    Raoul de Sales, editor & commentary, “My New Order: Hitler’s Speeches”
    Eyal Weizman, architect & author, “Hollow Lands: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation”
    Niall Ferguson, professor of history, Harvard University, author, biography of the Rothschilds
    Xvi Rex, Israeli psychiatrist
    Avigail Abarbanel, Israeli-born psychologist
    Mondoweiss
    London Daily Express
    New York Times
    Erich Mendelsohn, “the Jewish architect.”
    Simon Winchester, author
    Richard Hawkins, biographer of Samuel Untermyer
    British National Archives (online)
    U S Rep Ed Royce (C Span video)
    Former Israeli Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh
    U S Senator Mark Kirk
    U S Rep Brad Sherman
    Charlie Rose, journalist
    Mohammad Javad Larijani, Iranian parliamentarian
    John F. Piper, author, Christian Churches in World War I, Ohio Univ. Press
    Etan Bloom, doctoral diss., Tel Aviv Univ., “Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Modern Hebrew Culture”
    Benjamin Freedman, video (1961) accessed thru Gilad Atzmon, deliberation
    Jonathan Kay, journalist; Webster Tarpley, PhD (Princeton), author and activist

  257. Malisha suggested:
    “Kick in and help some of the people in need, some of the people being starved, hurt, tormented, killed, etc. Help some of them, or perhaps even just ONE of them, maybe just for a month, a week, try that. It is remarkably healing. Find an elderly German who was starved during or after the war, and bring him or her free breakfast, lunch and dinner for a week. DO SOMETHING!”

    Remarkably healing for WHOM, Malisha? For the person who doles out charity? Maybe you feel a need for healing but I don’t, thanks just the same.

    Furthermore, knowing what I do about the German people, no elderly German who was starved during the war continues to dwell on his or her misery, nor do his/her fellow Germans leave him unassisted if he needs aid. After the war, Germans rolled up their sleeves and made “sane and productive lives” for themselves, as Wolfgang Samuel details in “The War of Our Childhood,” as I mentioned in a comment several days ago.

    In the “kick in and help” category, these aphorisms apply:. ‘First do no harm’ and ‘ An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ I spend my time trying to PREVENT groups like AIPAC and my own government from attempting to starve Iranians into submission. We have seen the play before, and it does not turn out well. It didn’t turn out well for 800,000 German civilians in WWI, and it didn’t turn out well for half a million Iraqi children 20 years ago. No amount of “charitable feeding” will bring back those dead children.

    In a conference in Washington, DC last March, Sanam Anderlini told the audience that, as a result of AIPAC/US-imposed sanctions on Iran, children in Iran do not have the foods and vitamins they need, and people who are sick cannot get the medicines they require.

    Ephraim Sneh told an AIPAC audience in 2008 that “Iran’s leaders should be made to worry about whether their 70 million people will starve.”

    In an interview in Nov 2011, Charlie Rose asked Iran parliamentarian Mohammad Javad Larijani if sanctions were hurting the Iranian people; if they were having a hard time finding enough food.

    What kind of ghouls seek to intentionally starve others? It is the antithesis of civilized behavior.

  258. Or go to a church and light some candles.

    Hug a puppy.

    Get a few crayons and sit down quietly and draw a really nice world.

    Next time a telemarketer calls, don’t be abrupt, make their day, speak with them and buy something. Oh wait a minute — maybe you ARE a telemarketer — oh well…

    Oh, “I type facts from books. That is all.” Get a book like “There’s a Big Beautiful WOrld out there” by Nancy Carlson and type some facts.

    Have a cup of tea without any strychnine in it.

  259. talkingback:

    “What kind of ghouls seek to intentionally starve others? It is the antithesis of civilized behavior.”

    What kind of ghouls support a tyrannical government like the one in Iran?

    The German citizenry was complicit in the rise of the Nazis to power, maybe not all of them but enough.

    The Iranian citizenry was complicit in the ascension to power of Ayatollah Khomeini in the late 70’s. They are guilty as well.

    What civilized nation calls for the destruction of another nation? And works toward that end. Iran is just exactly like Nazi Germany. In a just world, after 9/11, we would have invaded Iran and put the Mullahs on trial and executed them. Which is what we should have done to Hitler instead of giving him the Sudetenland.

  260. bron,

    extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
    you are going to have to provide extraordinary proofs for this statement, or retract the claims:

    “What civilized nation calls for the destruction of another nation?

    If you are suggesting that Iran “calls for the destruction of Israel, ***
    And works toward that end.*** you are going to have to state with excruciating precision the times, dates, actions, and context.

    ” Iran is just exactly like Nazi Germany.

    If your second statement is true, that “Iran is exactly like Nazi Germany,” and if you are unable to provide evidence required to support your first statement, then Nazi Germany was the victim of a war waged against it illegally.

    “In a just world, after 9/11, we would have invaded Iran and put the Mullahs on trial and executed them.”

    For what crime?

    ” Which is what we should have done to Hitler instead of giving him the Sudetenland.”

    Perhaps if Hitler HAD been “put on trial” in 1938, or 1939, or 1940, when Germany offered peace to Great Britain but Churchill refused to parley. Yes indeed, Hitler should have been put on trial. Then we would have transcripts and evidence, rather than propaganda.

  261. talkingbacktocspan, as I noted upthread has provided us a service by illustrating the use of propaganda to develop a narrative that either justifies the pre-judgments of a person/group and/or provides a strategic framework for attacking those perceived as enemies. His/her(?) technique includes a variety of quotations taken from divers sources and strung together to give those lacking knowledge and/or dissatisfied with their own existence a rationale why their individual failures are not their own fault. This was made most clear with respect to tbtcs by this statement:

    “Why don’t I publish in a peer reviewed journal? I don’t have access to a peer reviewed journal because I do not have an education. My parents were too poor to pay for college, and they were too poor because my Mom had lost her home and my Dad had been permanently injured fighting in a war that did not have to be fought. This is for you, Mom and Dad.”

    Now as most here know I’m a Jew. My parents were dead by the time I was 18 and left me with nothing. I worked my way through college, was completely self supporting and in addition won a full tuition scholarship based on a Statewide test. I also won a full tuition work/study scholarship to obtain my Masters Degree. Did I resent the fact that I was orphaned at 18, of course I did. As I grew up though, I came to see that such self justification and such self pity actually prevented me from understanding that despite the tragedies of my life, I was responsible for my own successes and failures. tbtcs by his statement above shows that he remains stuck in a level of selfish immaturity blaming his own failures on others, in his case conveniently it was the Jews who ruined his life. How sad for him and for those around him.

    A bigot is one who assumes that some other racial/ethnic group is homogenous, so that the statements and the actions of a few, represent the
    monolithic whole of the group. As has been done with Blacks and other ethnicities in humanity’s history there is an underlying, false assumption of that
    hated group’s power. Thus the Jews, via their organizations, were able to mobilize world powers against the “innocent and defenseless Germans” in a labyrinthine plot to establish a Jewish State. This plot was so detailed that it included the sacrifice of millions of Jews in service to the great cause.

    Underneath the accusations of Jewish plotting is of course tbtcs’s assumption that we “Evil Jews” are uniformly Machiavellian in our unseemly thought processes. In his/her view, as in Hitler’s, we are an evil non-human race. In fact all we are is both an ethnicity and a religion, that is rather tiny compared to others in the world and that has been historically powerless to fed off the attacks upon us. As far as homogeneity of thought and belief that is the nonsense typically spouted by propagandists and is ridiculous on its face because the nature of humans and human groups is one of ongoing lack of agreement. However, under authoritarian regimes awash in sophisticated propaganda there does appear to be an outward homogeneity of belief as illustrated by Germany under the NAZI’s.

    It is easy to cite AIPAC as speaking for all Jews, but it doesn’t. It is easy to characterize Zionism as a monolithic movement, but it isn’t. It is also easy to
    conflate the policies of the Netanyahu government with all Israeli’s, but they aren’t. It is easy to further conflate all of Judaism with Israel, but that is easily shown to be wrong. It is easy because that’s how propaganda works. One takes simplistic concepts, weaves them loosely together to create the illusion of conspiracy and develop a plot-line to declare something bad. This is illustrated in tbtcs’s comments.

    His/her work is rather on the low end of anti-Jewish diatribe I’ve run into in my life, but indeed it is a body of work filled with hatred and illogical thought.
    This writer though makes a case for the need of Israel’s existence though, albeit minor due to the writer’s limitations. Jews everywhere on this planet, due to their small numbers, require their own State, because history has shown that everywhere in the world we can potentially wind up as scapegoats for the ignorant and the greedy.

    The question of why Jews have been such convenient targets is an easy one to answer. Christianity and Islam both have adopted our Torah to their own uses. They both are founded on the belief that the Torah has been super-ceded by their belief systems. Both Christianity and Islam felt initially that Jews should flock to their teachings as since they were “superior” to Jewish belief. Despite adversity, Jews have adhered to their beliefs and that is a lasting affront to both of these religions. Sadly, from a theological perspective if the Jewish belief is correct, then other beliefs are incorrect.
    That religion, supposedly speaking to the “higher nature” of mankind, devolves into the petty struggle for temporal/theological power is one of the curses’ humanity has lived with for its entire history.

  262. The question might be asked that why I, especially as a Jew, am not bothering to refute tbtcs on a point by point basis? The answer is simple: Much “sturm” and no “drang”. In the alternative: “There is no there, there”. Had he/she put together a coherent argument that held together logically and historically, then there might be some purpose in refuting it. How though, does one refute an
    argument woven together by both false assumptions and biased opinions denoted as facts? The only way would be on a point by point basis that would consume more space than this bloviator has already consumed. If one is ignorant and bigoted enough to buy what he is saying, then logical refutation would gain little. As far as to why I’m not bothering to cast nasty aspersions upon him/her the answer is simply that he/she appears to be a bitter person who blames their failures in life upon others, rather then accept personal responsibility. In his/her failure to make a coherent/logical argument the aspersions cast themselves.

  263. Wow, Mike S, thanks for the thoughtful and eloquent comment.

    It helped me identify something. A while back someone challenged me for having used psychological labels on tbtcs rather than debating him politely. I engaged in my usual subvocalized conversation with myself:

    “Why aren’t you debating him as you do with others?”

    And, like a Jew, I answered a question with a question:

    “Why on earth should I debate him?”

    And then I realized the answer to that! I shouldn’t! In fact, he uses a well worn propaganda/bully technique I call:

    “Admit I’m right or prove I’m right by being a liar.”

    Right back to “Ramses II: Conqueror or Fibber?” If you are pushing a particular piece of propaganda and you have power over lots of people, go ahead, be a fibber, it won’t count against you. If you’re pushing a particular piece of propaganda and you have no power, go ahead, be a fibber, who cares?

    So, fortunately, although Hitler was in the category of “you have power,” from 1933 forward, tbtcs has no power, and if I was guilty of psychologically labelling him rather than honestly debating him on any of his pseudo-ideas, I hereby absolve myself.

    When I thought back to his original premise, that the Jews declared war on Germany with a boycott and thereby caused all the troubles of the world, I thought, “krav maga.”

  264. Another point I would like to make is addressed to the blog in general. There are many valid arguments to be made about wrongs Israel has committed. I fact I’ve made some myself and it is hardly a secret that I dislike the current government of Israel. However, for those who would compare Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to the Shoah all I would say is for shame. The are many examples of genocide in world history. One can look to present day Africa, slavery in America, Armenia, the treatment of Native Americans alone to see examples replete with genocide. Has Israel done ill to Arabs via this ongoing conflict and were people murdered wrongly, absolutely. Does their treatment of the Arab population equate to what we understand to be genocide? I believe it doesn’t, without at the same time justifying Israeli actions. One would have to be a fool not to understand that for political reasons introduction of the word “Genocide” into the discussions of the conflict is merely an attempt to hoist Israeli’s on their own petard and consequently devalue any claim to persecution that Jews have. The problem is that to compare this conflict to the mass murder of millions of Jews, Native Americans, Africans and Armenians is a propagandist’s stretch of great magnitude.

  265. Mike S, these propagandist stretches of great magnitude have been elevated to an art form, and they are now part of the aggressors’ tool-kit in my opinion. Just as you have a common scene in the battered women’s world, where a man who has been served with a restraining order immediately applies for a restraining order against the woman who sought protection from him (claiming, as did George Zimmerman, that he was acting in self defense when the woman attacked him), you have nearly every international aggressor claiming self defense for every incursion. It is not new and it is not limited to the Middle East. The actions of the Israeli government are, of course, exceedingly complex, their leaders’ motivations sometimes even more so, and it is even hard to distinguish figure from ground at times, and I don’t study it so I know very little about it, but the cry of “genocide, genocide” hurled against Israel or Jews in general (folks like tbtcs blur the edges) is not just a stretch, but a useful propagandist slander.

    If you hate someone, and you want to justify making them the target of your wrath, and you want to protect those who injure them, it is relatively easy (depending upon the malleability of your audience and their own “secondary gains”) to criminalize absolutely everything they do. I am reminded of how fast the dead Trayvon Martin went from being “an unarmed teen-ager carrying iced tea and skittles” to “a thug junkie thief bus-driver-assaulter murderous punk delivering MMA punches to an innocent neighborhood watch captain” who was memorialized in hoodie-clad images of himself being sold on-line for people to use for target practice. That took less than two months in a large, diverse democracy allegedly devoted to equality and the rule of law.

  266. talkingbacktocspan,

    I do read what is said with detachment. That’s why I came to the conclusion you have a piss poor education. In that respect, you point out something important about autodidactics in comparison to Malisha. She has a well developed, factually informed education. You have a distorted and incomplete education that caters to your confirmation biases. This illustrates that even the autodidactic can have a fool for a teacher.

    First, let’s address the issue of cherry picking. Do you even know what that is? Cherry picking is the fallacy of incomplete evidence. It is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position such as your ignoring the evidence that the Holocaust really happened and was not provoked by an act of war by some non-existent Jewish state. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention and it permeates many logical fallacies such as false dichotomy, anecdotal evidence, the fallacies of composition and division, the fallacy of the undistributed middle and many others, but the most common example of cherry picking is the one which you display in abundance: the confirmation bias. “Below is a list of sources and people I have referenced and quoted from in this (tedious) conversation:” Well, the conversation is tedious and largely because of you and your cherry picking and irrational hatred, however, providing a list of your “sources” is just more argument by verbosity. Sure, it’ll easily impress the rubes, but anyone with half a brain isn’t going to fall for it. They will realize that you’ve taken your sources either out of context and/or selectively to play to your forgone conclusion – your confirmation bias – that Jews are somehow the root of all evil.

    As to extrapolating your issues with your parents?

    “Based upon your incorrect reading of the words written, you somehow made the judgment that I had not ‘taken responsibility for his own life.’

    Where do you get that idea? It is not present in the words that I wrote.”

    That you do not take responsibility for your life in writ large over the volume of cherry picked nonsense you spout in justification for your hatred of Jews. You clearly need someone to blame things on and the volume of material (which is a form of argumentum verbosium, btw, another logical fallacy) suggests that this need is deeply personal. Combined with what you said about your parents, it is clear that you do not want to blame them for your lack of formal education (and likely other deficiencies in your life) so you blame the war. The war that you previously, concurrently and contemporaneously blame on the Jews. See how my observation works? It’s an analysis of the causal chain in your line of reasoning (such as it is). You saying I’m incorrect in my observation does not make it so simply because you disagree. You are I already stated that your problems are manifest to the rankest of amateur psychologists. That you may not see your problem isn’t uncommon. Mental illness often comes with a side of agnosia – you may not even see your problem and you may not recognize it. That you retreat behind you anonymity to imply that you might be some sort of materially successful person (as if that alone makes you sane or accepting of the responsibility of your own life – it doesn’t) only further indicates your feelings of inadequacy.

    Which come from what again?

    “You wrote that I ‘blame Jews’ for this disability. What I wrote is that my parents suffered because they were caught up “in a war that did not have to be fought.” Numerous people were responsible for joining that war; prominent among those people were Jewish activists. That is all that you can rationally conclude from the words that I wrote.

    Thus, the second sentence in your statement is totally without merit; it relies on information you supplied from your own projection, and not from anything actually written by me.”

    What you wrote is that war that did not have to be fought was the root of you not having a formal education and therefor access to publication in peer reviewed journals. Thanks for displaying your ability to cherry pick even your own statements though. It only bolsters the conclusions reached by my observations. Actually what I said was spot on. It relies upon logic and observation as detailed above.

    As for my projection? That “I know you are but what am I” tactic (which is a form of projection in itself) won’t work in this instance. In fact, even in its most subtle form doesn’t work once pointed out. In order for me to be projecting on you, I would myself have to feel bad about my parents and my education or lack there of. There is a problem with that. I have a first rate education, my parents while not perfect never did substantive wrong by me and I fully accept responsibility for the things in my life I may not like. I also don’t run around blaming a single group of people for the ills of the world let alone the ills in my world. Sure, there are groups and individuals I dislike intensely – like politicians – and some I even hate – like Nazis – but these emotional states are not related to my life. They are related to ethics. My ethical yardstick by which I measure the universe is not me. That’s what Objectivists do and anyone here who is a regular reader will confirm that I may be many things but an Objectivist is most certainly not one of them. The ethical yardstick I use to measure the universe is a collection of tools gathered across the span of my education both formal and informal. If it has to be summarized, the term humanist pragmatic weak rule utilitarian probably comes as close as any encapsulation. In short, you have no evidence of projection and my operational principles (and personal history) are so radically different from the dynamic you display as to make your assertion of projection laughable on its face.

    Just like your entire position on history and the role of Jews in WWI and WWII.

    I suggest why you find this so tedious is that you have not had a single buyer of what you are selling. While I find you tedious in the extreme, I find this exchange anything but tedious. You are providing an excellent negative example from which to teach.

    Now that this has been pointed out, I’ll sit back to see if you’re stupid enough to try to manufacture consent behind you wall of anonymity or by enlisting others to come in and defend the nonsense you spout. Manufacturing consent is after all one of the favored tactics of propaganda trolls. We’ve seen that tactic from you Stormfront types before around here. I’m surprised you haven’t resorted to it already. Then again, maybe not surprised. You aren’t very bright and you appear to be less than mentally cogent. Like most Nazis.

  267. leejcaroll,

    I saw that late last night and found it extremely troubling. Your bringing it to the attention of this thread is most appropriate though. It is a blatant use of propaganda by the Obama administration to attempt to justify their policies.

    *************

    Mike S.,

    Excellent posts and observations as always.

    I do hope you’re having an excellent time on your vacation.

  268. The way a story is put out into public view always has an effect on how future stories are put out. Propaganda has “greased skids” if prior stories that would help people think it out and challenge the dominant take on “the truth” have themselves been “wondrously changed.”

    Take the Hitler thing. In 1931, Hitler’s half-niece (weird expression, but probably used to indicate that she wasn’t all that close in the bloodline) Geli was killed, either by her own hand (as the police at the time ruled) or by someone else’s (only Uncle Adolf’s comes to mind).

    If the story had gotten out that Geli died under peculiar circumstances, in such a way that indicated a probable finding of “foul play,” and that there was neither inquest nor autopsy, and that her body was rushed away to be buried in Austria, and that her uncle’s gun was the weapon that killed her, and that the bullet that killed her entered her chest from a point higher than her own hand would have been, firing it, well, Hitler might not have looked as good to a lot of Germans by the time he ascended to power. And if there had been a proper investigation of what DID happen the night Geli died, there might have been a murder arrest and Hitler might not have been ABLE to ascend to power in 1933. That’s just a very strange and very extreme example of how the control of “small stories” can influence the production of big ones.

    My reason for mentioning this on this thread are two: (1) Cherry-picking is not just the choice of which stories or which “facts” to use to bolster a fallacious point; it also involves an awful lot of “leaving out some stories altogether” to make the particular cherries that are picked look juicier. and (2) Propaganda is not just the promulgation of one or another bundle of impressions or pack of lies; it also includes suppression of information, marginalizing or neutralizing people who have information that is not “desirable” from getting out and reaching the public, and refusing to investigate things that are done to prevent real evaluation of the propaganda presented.

    Every time you have a situation where some monstrous organized criminal activity is finally exposed, you have information coming out showing that someone tried to point the problem out ten, twenty times before; that their warnings went unheeded, that nothing was done, that they lost their jobs, that they were officially designated as lunatics, that their information was devalued, that they were disempowered. Time after time…

  269. Malisha wrote: “(2) Propaganda is not just the promulgation of one or another bundle of impressions or pack of lies; it also includes suppression of information, marginalizing or neutralizing people who have information that is not “desirable” from getting out and reaching the public, and refusing to investigate things that are done to prevent real evaluation of the propaganda presented.”

    Two examples that come to mind are the illegal blockade of Germany that caused the deaths of 800,000 German civilians in World War I; and also the intentional destruction of 150 German cities and German civilians.
    True, many people are aware of the firebombing of Dresden, and most Westerners are keenly aware of the German blitzkrieg — air war against British cities. But it’s a good bet that very few westerners, not even Germans, are aware that the United States Air Force in collaboration with a prominent chemical company built mock-ups of German and Japanese workers housing, even furnishing them in exact detail, then practiced destroying them to guage the most efficient means of creating a fire storm that would not only destroy the targeted housing but also use the destroyed structures as weapons to spread fire — and terror. An estimated 600,000 German civilians were incinerated in this manner.

    Berlin and Munich-trained architect Erich Mendelsohn volunteered to assist the US Air Force in building “German Village” — the mock-up housing — at Dugway in the Utah desert. (see John Dower, “Cultures of War”) Mendelsohn later designed the Weizmann Institute for his friend Chaim Weizmann, and is responsible for what is called the “International style” that dominates architecture in Israel.

    Malisha, continued: “Every time you have a situation where some monstrous organized criminal activity is finally exposed, you have information coming out showing that someone tried to point the problem out ten, twenty times before; that their warnings went unheeded, that nothing was done, that they lost their jobs, that they were officially designated as lunatics, that their information was devalued, that they were disempowered. Time after time…”

    Indeed. In the introductory material to his book, “The Transfer Agreement,” Edwin Black reports that he learned of the collaboration between zionists and the Nazi Government only in 1978. When he told his parents of his intention to write a book on the topic, they threatened to disown him. After a year’s work, he convinced them that the story was an important one to tell.

    In numerous standard histories of the first world war and the inter-war period, the word “zionism” does not appear in the TOC or in the Index; it is not considered as significant to the 30 years of war (and follow-on ‘cold war’) that crippled Europe and several generations of Europeans. Yet Edwin Black writes in “Transfer Agreement” that “zionist Jews were present at Versailles treaty negotiations” — in spite of the fact, as Gene has pointed out several times, that Jews did not have a state at the time. But not only was world Jewry represented at Versailles, Black writes that “zionist Jewry triumphed at Versailles: the acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and they gained assurance of protection of Jewish rights in European states.”

    Students of history should be aware of these facts. A blog/article that seeks to educate its readers does well to provide this information to its readers.

    If you do not know history, you are doomed to repeat it.

    US and AIPAC/Israel lobby influenced actions toward Palestinians and Iranians suggest that these lessons have NOT been fully made known or absorbed.

    When Germans were “starved into submission,” the neurobiological deficits that marked survivors of the famine produced a phenomenon in which fear of future starvation was so overwhelming that young childred stored food rather than eat it: “the fear of hunger was greater than the hunger pains.”

    When policies are carried out against the Iranian people, as well as the people of Gaza, that uses hunger as a weapon — to “starve them into submission” — policy makers should look back to the outcome of the starvation of German civilians, and rethink their strategy.

  270. Malisha:

    I think Aesop was mostly talking about everyday stuff, the others were talking about radical new ways of thinking about the nature of government and the individual rights of man.

    Hell even Hitler probably treated his dog OK so I am not sure how Aesop would help him.

    Talkingbacktocspan needs a cranial injection of the philosophy of liberty. And a rectal injection of foot.

  271. “Hell even Hitler probably treated his dog OK so I am not sure how Aesop would help him.”

    Aesop’s fables were parables with primarily positive ethical lessons, Bron.

    If anyone needs help with ethics, it’s Nazis and Nazi sympathizers.

  272. I heard that Hitler was VERY GOOD to his dog!

    Once I met a wealthy woman in South Africa during Apartheid (widow of an oil refiner) who had Black servants (lots!) and she told me in a huff that if one of her servants didn’t take good enough care of her dogs, she would kill them (the servants). She criticized me for speaking up to her about her appalling racism, saying, “YOU don’t understand because you’re American; I have no use for a black skin.” I said to her, “You have LOTS of use for a black skin, just no respect for the person inside it!”

  273. Aesop’s fables are not really ethics, some are but for the most part they are just examples of how to live on a daily basis. Idiomatic expressions if you will. There are some with a moral/ethical teaching but most seem to come under the Norman Vincent Peale genre.

    For example:

    Appearances are deceptive
    A willful beast must go his own way
    A man is known by the company he keeps
    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

  274. Here’s a story that might be of interest:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/adolf-hitler-campbell-custody-battle-nazi-names-new-jersey_n_1561046.html?ref=crime&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl7|sec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D166018

    I have a bit of experience with DYFS; they’re not mental giants for the most part. I can’t see how taking an infant away from mom a few days old could be justified, but (a) abuse cases are secret so we don’t know about the abuse; and (b) mom ran away from dad in fear so we don’t know much about that, either.

  275. Bron,

    Ethics are the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with duty and obligation, the principles of conduct governing an individual and/or a group; a guiding philosophy which defines how to live on a daily basis. That Aesop’s fables are simplistic is a reflection of that they were created for the unlearned and for children, but they are still at the core talking about ethics.

  276. At home (where I am not at the moment) I have an interesting book about the Fables written by someone who believes they are a sign of the troubled psychosocial period, in Greece, when Aesop wrote.

    Once I wrote little skits based on the fables for Montessori kids to perform so that in a theatrical production, each child would have performance, costume work, props, and stage-crafting to do. What the kids liked best about the fables was the personalities of the animals; they got INTO their roles! I remember the crow who liked being flattered! Other kids persistently told her how wonderful she was, even after the play was over.

  277. Malisha, “I remember the crow who liked being flattered!”

    I think we are all a bit like the crow. Wouldn’t it be nice for all of us to have our family and friends dish out more (justified) flattery, the kind that just makes us feel good about ourselves?

  278. But BettyKath, the flatterer was trying to get the crow to open her mouth so she would drop her nice cherries and lose them, and the flatterer ran off cheerfully eating them!

    Well, I found the book: Lloyd W. Daly’s book “Aesop without Morals: the famous fables, and a life of Aesop.”

    The blurb says that the fables are “reflections in the mirror of self-examination.” It observes that the author believes that “the cynical vein of the Fables runs so strong that it must be obvious” that they were not really for children also observing that some had no moral content at all.

  279. Malisha,

    Perhaps I should clarify: Aesop is for children like vintage Loony Tunes and Merrie Melodies are for children.

  280. Although, I would like to see a breakdown of morality to non-morality plays in Aesop. It has been 20+ years since I read them, but I do recall the preponderance having some kind of moral to the story (or illustrative of a behavior that related to ethics).

  281. According to the Daly Compilation, there were a total of 579 fables, and 579 morals. So actually, I don’t understand.

    But I haven’t read the book. I picked it up used from a high class used book store and will (one of these days) get around to sending it as a gift to a friend. But I have now become interested enough to read the portion of the book that is biographical, about Aesop himself.

    At the play,

  282. Well, now my ignorance will really show. I have never seen either vintage Loony Tunes or Merrie Melodies! But I’ve begun to read the translation of the “life of Aesop” that was included in Daly’s book. VERY STRANGE!

    I’ll report back.
    (Times is strange and things is stranger still!)

  283. “I have never seen either vintage Loony Tunes or Merrie Melodies!”

    Then you are missing one of life’s great pleasures, Malisha. They are cartoons that work on both a child and an adult level – especially if you understand the 40’s and 50’s cultural references.

  284. Gene H, I guess I led a deprived childhood. Damn! What was I doing when I should have been figuring out Loony Tunes and Merrie Melodies? Reading Vercingetorix or something? (More likely Epaminandes!)

    Anyway, here’s what I found out about Aesop. He was apparently a slave in about 600 BC in Greece. Cheeky and irritating, he seems to have spent half his time working for his master and the other half his time humiliating either the master, the master’s promiscuous (with AESOP!) wife, other slaves, and other people, eventually including kings and generals. He could tell of ANYBODY but it was hard to understand his put-downs. It must be a Greek thing.

    Eventually some bunch of xenophobic Greeks framed him for theft and threw him off a cliff. Before they did so, he told a lot of stories.

  285. Malisha,
    Re: Looney Tunes I suggest you start with my first zen master Bugs Bunny from the 40’s.

  286. Solon,

    Ask me sometime on a thread about either unionization, the treatment of employees by management, economics in small town America or the criticality of diversity in a healthy economy. I’ll be glad to discuss the matter in detail then, but the short version is I simply don’t like the way they do business on the large scale and I don’t like their stores as a shopping venue for either service or selection. I believe in voting with my dollar and I don’t want to vote for Wal-Mart.

  287. Greetings from Florida! I’m bored to tears at work so I decided to check out your blog on my iphone during lunch break. I enjoy the info you present here and can’t wait to take a
    look when I get home. I’m amazed at how quick your blog loaded on my phone .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .
    . Anyhow, wonderful site!

  288. Can I just say what a relief to uncover a person that actually knows
    what they are talking about on the net. You certainly understand how
    to bring an issue to light and make it important.
    A lot more people must read this and understand
    this side of your story. I can’t believe you’re not more popular because
    you most certainly possess the gift.

  289. Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The
    words in your article seem to be running off the screen in Opera.
    I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let you know.

    The layout look great though! Hope you get the issue fixed soon.
    Kudos

Comments are closed.