Included in the collection is a book by Friederich Nietzsche, the German philosopher whose writings, some say, provided a basis for Hitler’s fervent nationalism and belief in Aryan supremacy. What you don’t find in Brown’s Hitler collection, Streit says, are fresh insights into his mind or character.
“There is nothing in anything that we have here that would contradict what is generally known about Hitler. He doesn’t say anything about, ‘Jews are good people.’ There is no refutation for anything he stood for.”
But there is unsettling substantiation. One notable subject represented in Brown’s Hitler library is the occult. And the most requested book in the collection is Magic: History, Theory and Practice (1923) by Ernst Schertel. This book, as with some others, Hitler had marked.
“Like footprints in the sand,” Ryback writes of those notes in the margin, “they do not necessarily reveal the purpose of the journey, but they do allow us to see where his attention caught and lingered, where it rushed ahead, where a question was raised or an impression formed. In these books one finds Hitler’s pencil repeatedly drawn to passages related to the connection between the scientific and the spiritual, between the material and the immaterial.”
Hitler marked the margins of his books with vertical lines beside paragraphs or sentences he thought important. And one marked sentence in Magic is quite chilling, given Hitler’s history:
“He who does not carry demonic seeds within him will never give birth to a new world.”
Archive for March, 2009
Part 3, Socialism’s Final Solution
Justin Stamm - Mar 10, 2009
“There is nothing answered without a question asked.”
The term final solution usually will find its way into the passages of commentary on the German National Socialists (Nazis). However very few people know what the initial question was that was first asked, nor by whom. In addition, even fewer recognize that Adolf Hitler was not the originator of the question or the answer.
In the case of the emerging social engineers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, no one had greater influence than Thomas Malthus. A controversial person today and even more so in his day, Malthus wrote an essay named “Principle of Population” and raised the question for the first time on the dangers of overpopulation. The potential catastrophic outcome became known as the “Malthusian Catastrophe.”
The Malthusian Dilemma
Malthus, an English clergyman and economist, believed he recognized the issue of population and its impact on resources, the environment, and society in general. His research moved him to conclude that the rate of population increased faster than society’s ability to produce the resources to sustain it.
The implication on the economic structure of a society was also at stake. He added that with an increase of laborers out of proportion with the available work, large amounts of families would have no means to sustain themselves. With hunger, pestilences, and crime as a result of an impoverished majority, he claimed that action must be taken to “put a check on population.”
[...] Just as the Fabians influenced the Labour Party agenda, today’s Democratic Party reflects the disproportionate influence of a clique of elite cultural and academic leftists now seeking to implement a socialist agenda they have been promoting since the 1960s. This agenda includes nationalized health care, taxpayer-funded abortion, federal control of education, gay marriage, openly-practicing homosexuals in the military, and much, much higher taxes.
Like the Fabian-influenced Labour government, the Obama administration has embarked on a course to “remake” America. The administration will effectively nationalize transportation and utilities through its “green energy” initiatives (indeed, Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently advocated nationalizing the oil industry) openly seeks to nationalize health care (the $787 billion “stimulus” bill includes billions of dollars to begin centralizing health care records) and is using the mortgage and banking crisis to effectively nationalize the financial services and banking sector.
Film explores Nazi’s role in NASA, and the crimes of Von Braun.
Parts 1-4 embedded below
The Collins Brothers on U.S. Balkanization
Wesley Smith - March 06, 2009
Bioethicist Jacob M. Appel, who has written that mentally ill people should not be denied the “opportunities” to commit assisted suicide, now pushes mandatory pre-implatation genetic testing in all IVF fertility treatments in order to weed out the unfit (my term) and for whom care would be expensive. But don’t call it eugenics! From his column:
The most obvious advantage of mandatory screening is that it will reduce the long-term suffering of the children who are spared disease. At the same time, preventing future cancers will certainly save tax dollars. These savings could be redirected toward researching new therapies and providing quality care for current patients. The money might also help to defer the enormous public costs of fertility therapy, coverage for which a growing number of states now require of private insurance plans…While similar screening cannot realistically be imposed upon individuals conceiving “the old-fashioned way,” for obvious reasons of logistics and privacy, these invasive aspects of screening do not apply to IVF.
Opponents of mandatory screening will likely point out that such a rule significantly limits the reproductive autonomy of parents. This is certainly true. However, Western societies have long acknowledged that parental authority cannot undermine the medical interests of a child. Jehovah’s Witnesses may not deny their children blood transfusions; Christian Scientists cannot substitute prayer for life-saving antibiotics. As United States Supreme Court Justice Wiley Rutledge wrote in the landmark case of Prince v. Massachusetts, “Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.”…
Such crass utilitarian utopianism is precisely what eugenics was all about. And its message is insidious: Those with expensive disabling conditions and diseases are a burden on society and you should not be allowed to be born–as a favor to you!
[...]I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. …
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.
Brendan O’Neill - 4 March 2009
Ahead of a conference on the psychology of climate change denial, Brendan O’Neill says green authoritarians are treating debate as a disorder.
A few months ago, for a joke, I set up a Facebook group called ‘Climate change denial is a mental disorder’. It’s a satirical campaigning hub for people who think that climate change denial should be recognised as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association, and that its sufferers – who probably engage in ‘regular chanting and intensive brainwashing sessions in cult-like surroundings’ – should be offered ‘eco-lobotomies’ to remove ‘the denying part of their brain’. The group now has 42 members. Yes, some have signed up because they get the joke, but others are serious subscribers to the denial-as-insanity idea. ‘Thank God I’ve found this group’, says one new member, who is sick of other Facebook groups being ‘hijacked’ by unhinged eco-sceptics.
The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics. And nothing better sums up the elitism and authoritarianism of the environmentalist lobby than its psychologisation of dissent. The labelling of any criticism of the politics of global warming, first as ‘denial’, and now as evidence of mass psychological instability, is an attempt to write off all critics and sceptics as deranged, and to lay the ground for inevitable authoritarian solutions to the problem of climate change. Historically, only the most illiberal and misanthropic regimes have treated disagreement and debate as signs of mental ill-health.
This weekend, the University of West England is hosting a major conference on climate change denial. Strikingly, it’s being organised by the university’s Centre for Psycho-Social Studies. It will be a gathering of those from the top of society – ‘psychotherapists, social researchers, climate change activists, eco-psychologists’ – who will analyse those at the bottom of society, as if we were so many flitting, irrational amoeba under an eco-microscope. The organisers say the conference will explore how ‘denial’ is a product of both ‘addiction and consumption’ and is the ‘consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency and irresponsibility’ (1). It is a testament to the dumbed-down, debate-phobic nature of the modern academy that a conference is being held not to explore ideas – to interrogate, analyse and fight over them – but to tag them as perverse.
Leading green writers have welcomed the West England get-together to study the denying masses. One eco-columnist says the conference might generate ideas for dealing with those who are ‘pathologically’ opposed to the environmental movement (pathology, according to my OED, is the study of ‘morbid or abnormal mental or moral conditions’) (2). Environmentalists recognise the inherent elitism of saying that, while they brave few can see things clearly, the rest of us are somehow disordered (greens are the ‘watchful ones amongst the slaves’, according to one environmentalist writer); yet they seem unashamed. The eco-columnist says this weekend’s conference will be useful because where ‘mainstream politics now largely “gets” environmentalism’, there is still a sceptical mass, ‘a baying and growing crowd, largely consisting of people resistant to the prospect of ever having to alter their lifestyles’. Apparently this crowd ‘gathers to hurl invective’ at environmentalist ideas, such as recycling and low-energy lightbulbs (3).
In a sense, this vision of elite, brainy environmentalists on one side and a baying, insult-hurling crowd on the other speaks, however accidentally and however crudely, to an underlying truth: environmentalism remains a largely elitist project, beloved of politicians, priests and prudes keen to control people’s behaviour and curb our excessive lifestyles, and it rubs many ‘ordinary people’ up the wrong way. Of course much of the public goes along with the environmentalist ethos, bowing to the central idea that mankind is destructive and observing such rituals as sorting their rubbish, but they do so half-heartedly, recognising that, fundamentally, greens’ anti-consumerist, anti-reproduction, anti-travel arguments run counter to their own personal aspirations. Yet rather than recognise this frequently hidden divide between the green elite and the ‘baying crowd’ as one built on differences of opinion, on clashing aspirations, even on rational assessments by sections of the public that recycling is a waste of time, increasingly environmentalists pathologise it, turning it into evidence of their wisdom in contrast to the public’s mental instability.
Mose Farber - March 9, 2009
As the state of the declining global economy worsens, the world turns to the American economic powerhouse for direction. With the Obama administration’s promises of recovery, transparency and accountability for the economy, much of the burden falls onto the shoulders of the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The Fed, which sets the nation’s monetary policy and regulates banks, is immersed in trying to keep the U.S. financial system from cratering.
Today, Bernanke attended President Obama’s daily economic briefing to work on solving the increasing array of economic problems, and tomorrow he will set out his plan for regulating the banks in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Chris Hodapp - 3/08/2009
It’s been a big week for the perennially indignant Global Warming/Climate Change crowd.
Last weekend’s “largest ever demonstration for civil disobedience over climate change” in Washington DC, featuring NASA scientist Jim (”Coal plants are factories of death”) Hansen, along with hundr…thous…no, millions of protesters, was threatened by predictions of 12 inches of snow. Actually, less than a thousand showed up in the snowstorm to hear such working class heroes as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. call for energy company executives to be in jail “for all eternity.” The protest was held at the gates of the Capitol Power Plant with the goal of “shutting down” their coal-fired boiler. The plant opened as usual Monday morning.
Columnist Christopher Booker reports that Britain’s Met Office, which has been one of the UK’s biggest sources of global warming hysterics for two decades, was forced to admit that this was Britain’s coldest winter in 13 years. This after predicting that 2007 would be the warmest year on record globally (whereupon global temperatures plummeted 1° Celsius and wrecking all of those predictive computer models), and stubbornly sticking to their guns with a similar prediction for 2009.
William Yeatman & Jeremy Lott on 2.25.09
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama took a dig at his backward predecessor by promising to “restore science to its rightful place” in America. So why, days before he was sworn in, did Obama choose a failed prophet of the apocalypse to become his most influential scientist?
Obama nominated Dr. John P. Holdren, the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, for chief White House Science Advisor. The Science Advisor’s job is to give impartial scientific analysis to the President on major federal policies.
Holdren’s particular brand of science is infected by what we can only call a doomsday bias. Over the past 40 years, he has warned of population-growth induced “ecocide,” “global cooling,” global warming due to heat dissipation from power plants, nuclear Armageddon, and — this week — “climate disruption” caused by increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
March 9, 2009
People across the U.S. question whether there really is a Power Elite (PE) facilitating global events. My response is, “If a former Chief of Special Operations (clandestine activities) for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (USJCS) says there’s a secret team that controls the U.S. and the World, why is it so hard to believe in a PE acting similarly?” Former Special Ops Chief for the USJCS, L. Fletcher Prouty authored The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World (1973), in which he revealed there’s a “Secret Team consisting of security-cleared individuals in and out of government who receive secret intelligence data gathered by the CIA and the National Security Agency…. The Secret Team has very close affiliations with elements of power in more than threescore foreign countries and is able when it chooses to topple governments, to create governments, and to influence governments almost anywhere in the free world.”