From http://web.archive.org/web/20060515090806/www.eugenics-watch.com/eugbook/euod_ch1.html

1. Eugenics: An Antidemocratic Policy

An elitist, mean spirited, racist policy called eugenics is being advanced in secret by organised societies (1) whose current membership consists mainly of intellectuals, scientists and doctors. The work of these societies is financed by great fortunes, such as that of the Rockefellers, working through front groups, such as the Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
This is dangerous because eugenics is antidemocratic. Bertrand Russell, a supporter of eugenics, said of it:

"The ideas of eugenics are based on the assumption that men are unequal, while democracy is based on the assumption that they are equal"(2)

The framers of the American Constitution were aware of eugenics, which existed under other names throughout the Eighteenth century, and they rejected it for the honour of the human race. In the Federalist Papers we find Hamilton saying:
"Unhappily ... Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has in different degrees extended her dominion over ... all. Africa, Asia and America have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the mistress of the world, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have in direct terms attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America - that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere. Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the European. It belongs to us to vindicate the honour of the human race and to teach that assuming brother moderation."
This is how the United States of America began.
But, beginning in the twentieth century, certain wealthy citizens, such as John D. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller. Jr., rejecting democracy, began to support eugenics.(3) Throughout the Twentieth century, great fortunes have consistently helped fund eugenics, thus rendering it impervious to defeat or exposure. "Pecunia non olet" which means, approximately, "as long as Rockefeller types support eugenic projects, there will be eugenics". That is why, in the late Twentieth century, we see the return of eugenics, despite its dismal history, which includes support for Hitler and his policies.(4)
In addition to support for Hitler, eugenicists were involved in the framing of the Johnson Act 1924. One of the results of the Johnson Act was the exclusion from sanctuary in the USA of the Jews attempting to flee Hitler.(5)
Support from the Wealthy
In 1930 John D. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller Jr. were members of the American Eugenics Society. Furthermore, in the Twenties Raymond Fosdick, an important official of the Rockefeller Foundation, was a member of the American Eugenics Society Advisory council. In this period the Rockefeller Foundation gave money to build quarters for Ernst Rudin, the man who later wrote Hitler's 1933 Sterilisation Law.(6) As co-founder with Alfred Ploetz of the German Eugenics Society, Rudin claimed credit as the inspiration for all Hitler's racial laws, including the Nuremberg laws which made Jews second class citizens in Germany.(7)
In the early part of the century Mrs. E.H. Harriman, who inherited the fortune based on the Union Pacific railroad, created the Eugenics Record Office. Her endowment helped fund the work of Harry Laughlin, the director of the Eugenics Record Office. Laughlin wrote the Model Sterilisation Law which Nazi eugenicists used as a model for their 1933 Sterilisation Law. He accepted an award from Heidelberg University honouring him for his part in developing this law.(8) He was also an important witness at the Congressional hearings on the Johnson Act, the immigration Act which began the policy of national immigration quotas.
Such initiatives became a terrible trap for the Jews in the late Thirties. The Johnson< Act ultimately resulted in the exclusion from America of the Jews attempting to flee Nazi Germany and its racial laws - laws inspired by Laughlin, Rudin and other eugenicists. The exclusion of the Jews was no accident. The Johnson Act, the American law, was, like the Nazi laws, intended to keep a nation Nordic:

"The unique Immigration Quota Acts of 1921-24 .. By their enactment a first class power wrote into law the concept of the desirability of racial homogeneity ... The Nordic stream ... had become a trickle ... Followed these Quota Acts which said to the world: America, still overwhelmingly Nordic, proposes so to remain! These acts began a gigantic eugenic experiment in population control."(9)

After this came the genocide.
That which we now call genocide was then called eugenics.(10)
Auschwitz showed the world the true face of eugenics. Yet some among the wealthy continued to support it.(11)
For example, we find the names Rockefeller and Harriman, supporting the introduction of abortion and contraception, the means of eugenics. John D. Rockefeller III gave Margaret Sanger money with which to develop a contraceptive. Mrs. E.H Harriman's son was Averill Harriman, Governor of New York in the Fifties. Harriman allowed Robert Moses to follow a policy of letting Harlem deteriorate. (See Robert Moses and the Fall of New York., Robert Caro) It was then possible for the next governor, Nelson Rockefeller, to speak of the dreadful conditions in Harlem and the need for contraception and abortion as a solution for the problems of the people trapped there. Hence, in the Sixties, abortion, a eugenic goal, came to be seen as "progressive" in New York State. In the early Seventies, Nelson Rockefeller signed one of the first state law allowing widespread abortion, and the Rockefeller family gave money for the first legal abortion facility in New York State. In the Eighties, Pamela Harriman, Governor Harriman's English widow, used his money to fund the Democratic Leadership PAC, which helped make support for abortion a requirement for advancement in the Democratic Party.(12) (Ironically, the Harriman money, which was obtained as a consequence of the extinguishing of Indian land titles, was dissipated in Pamela Harman's project to extinguish American rights. This left the surviving Harriman blood relatives, in 1994, at the age of eighty, owners of a trust fund as empty as a treaty promise. Litigation is beginning on a legal situation more tangled than that in Bleak House.(13))
Summary
Eugenics is antidemocratic and funded by some of the richest families in America.
What is Eugenics?
In The Descent of Man, Darwin had predicted that "lesser" races would die out as a result of evolution through natural selection.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now, between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (Descent of Man, Charles Darwin)
Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, thought that this evolutionary process among human beings would become more merciful and more rational if man took control of it and speeded it up by "artificial" selection of the next generation. In 1880 he coined the word eugenics to describe the process of replacing natural selection by artificial selection. According to Galton, the aim of eugenic policies was to give:

"the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable."

He also said that, as a subject of study, eugenics is:

"the study of those agencies under social control which may improve or impair the inborn qualities of future generations of man either physically or mentally"(14)

It is my contention that there has been no real change in eugenics or its goals since Galton wrote. Currently eugenicists define eugenics as:

"all efforts whose goal is the modification of natural selection (the guiding force of evolution) to bring about change in a particular direction within human populations or the human species as a whole."(15)

This means that they still believe that they can and should control "evolution" by altering the ratios of human population groups to each other, or in other words, by increasing the population of the good groups and decreasing the bad. This guided increase and decrease is what is meant by " a particular direction". Furthermore, ugenicists still believe that they know which groups should be increasing and which should be decreasing. That is why they study IQ and the relation of crime or violence to inherited characteristics. All these studies, curiously enough, still show that the world needs white supremacy, though new findings show that, within the context of white supremacy, genetic diversity must be maintained.
To summarize, there are social policies aimed at creating population decline among certain groups and these policies are eugenics. In addition, the study of what social policies are needed to reduce a given population group to impotent fragments without actually eliminating that group's (potentially) valuable genes is also eugenics.(15)
In the past, eugenics worked publically and created segregation, apartheid and Nazism out of the unholy mixture of racism amd Darwinism. In the present it works in various disguises. The most important of these disguises is the policy called cryptoeugenics, which consists of working through other groups. In the present, in its crypto-eugenic disguise, eugenics has sponsored abortion, euthanasia, sterilisation, contraception, and sex education of the raw kind which leads to teenage pregnancy, abortion and contraception.(16) These are the means of eugenics. In the not too distant future, I predict, we can expect the return of eugenics as a conservation-based racism. Then these means will fit into a program. As in the past, these means will be used to "purify" - probably within within "green protectorates".
The book, The Bell Curve. by Charles Murray, is an example of this racist return though without any mention of conservation. The Bell Curve is based on the work of eugenicists, many of them current eugenic society members.(17) Here is how William Safire describes the book and its policy implications:
"The Bell Curve dares to examine a thesis unhelpful to race relations: the likelihood that much of intelligence is inherited, and the possibility that the average black is not as smart as the average white ... What bothers Mr. Murray's critics is his scholarly contention that public policy should not encourage procreation among the least intelligent lest we perpetuate a permanent underclass".(18)
Nor am I reading into the book something a eugenicist would not see there. Sandra Scarr(19) has said:

"[Murray and Herrnstein's] eugenic concerns are reflected in the call to eliminate public policies that provide incentives for poor unwed mothers to reproduce."(20)

Murray's exact words were:
"The United States already has policies that inadvertently social engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging the wrong women ... it subsidises births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution ... We ... urge that these policies ... be ended [and we urge society to make] available birth control mechanisms."(21)
Compare this proposed policy with Hitler's remarks - as reported by Herman Rauschning, an intimate of Hitler during the first two years of the Nazi regime. According to Rauschning, Hitler said:
"We have far too much Slav blood in our veins already ... an asocial, inferior section of the nation is gradually moving up ... We shall have to develop a technique of depopulation. If you ask me what I mean by depopulation, I mean the removal of entire racial units ... And by 'remove' I don't necessarily mean destroy; I shall simply take systematic measures to dam their great natural fertility.... We favour the planned control of population movements ... In former days it was the victors prerogative to destroy entire tribes, entire peoples. By doing this gradually and without bloodshed, we demonstrate our humanity."(22)
The Africans Are the Target
Of course, the new eugenics will not be exactly the same as the old. I believe that, in a world accustomed to contraception, abortion and euthanasia, it will be worse than that of the Nazis. Another difference will be that, this time around, the first target will be African Americans, not European Jews. We can see this shift in Murray's book, The Bell Curve, where Jews are presented as a high IQ group and African Americans as the opposite.
It is true that Murray himself does not propose abortion as a means to carry out his policies. He limits himself to advocating birth control. But there are abortion clinics presently existing in the United States which would not hesitate to carry out a eugenic policy through abortion. Edward Allred owns approximately 50 abortion facilities on the West Coast and elsewhere. Here are his comments on race, abortion and welfare:
"population control is too important to be stopped by some right wing pro life types.. Take the new influx of Hispanic immigrants ...Their lack of respect for democracy and social order is frightening. I hope I can do something to stem the tide. I'd set up a clinic in Mexico for free if I could ... The Aid to Families with Dependent Children is the worst boondoggle ever created. When a sullen black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us, it's time to stop. In parts of South Los Angeles having babies for welfare is the only industry people have"(23)
It's Deja Vue All Over Again
In the world of the new eugenics, the word "race" may never be uttered - "ethnic IQ" or some code word doing duty instead. But all the steps from meanspiritedness to genocide which we read about in histories of the rise of the Nazis will be the same.
The meanspiritedness is already evident. For example, this is the way in which an upper-class English eugenicist described a Nazi exhibit in 1934:

"... there is comparatively little about the Jews, and the point stressed is that alien races are all right in themselves and provided they keep to themselves, but that they must not be allowed to `poison good German blood' ... (the exhibit also covered)... `the problem of the 600 black bastards on the Rhine'"(24)

And here is how Charles Murray describes the American future when eugenics first prevails:
"the cognitive elite, with its commanding social position, will implement ... the custodial state ... a high tech and more lavish version of the Indian reservation for some substantial minority of the nation's citizens, while the rest of America tries to go about its business."(25)
The "return of eugenics" is not a speculation about a remote future. In May of 1996 at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, George Annas, a respected bioethicist, and Kenneth Shine, President of the Institute of Medicine, agreed that "we are entering a new era of eugenics". Possible policies of the era already exist as the subject of discussion and intense controversy. For example, here is how Charles Murray describes the attitude of the elite in the near future:

"Over the next decades, it will become broadly accepted by the cognitive elite that the people we now refer to as the underclass are in that condition through no fault of their own but because of inherent shortcomings about which little can be done."(26)

And here is how Frederick Lawrence, the President of Rutgers University, described the African American college student:
"The average SAT for African Americans is 750. Do we set standards in the future so we don't admit anybody with the national test? Or do we deal with a disadvantaged population that doesn't have that genetic hereditary background to have a higher advantage."
President Lawrence later apologised for his remark which, he admitted, was a result of reading The Bell Curve. Lawrence never wanted to be a racist and he had increased minority enrolment at Rutgers from 1% to 10%. But, because he believed the Bell Curve, he interpreted his own achievement in a racist way, i.e., that, for social reasons, universities should admit "a disadvantaged population that doesn't have that genetic hereditary background to have a higher advantage."(27)
Lawrence's experience shows that it is not enough to be opposed to racism; we must also understand its subtle ways, especially its influential eugenic disguises. If not, people opposed to the Holocaust will find themselves supporting genocide just as President Lawrence suddenly found himself supporting racism (which, I am convinced, he abhors) without quite knowing how it happened.
How did I come to know about eugenics?
The question may be asked: If eugenics is so subtle that it has escaped notice for the last fifty years, just how did you come to know about it? Of course, what is really being asked is: how can the average person achieve reliable knowledge about recent eugenics? Is this another conspiracy theory?
In England eugenic theory and policy are discussed far more openly in eugenic journals than they are in America because England's social system is based on a hereditary aristocracy. These journals (The Eugenics Review and Biology and Society) themselves go unnoticed because they are not out on the open shelves in libraries. But they are accessible and, through these journals, I came to know about English eugenics. American eugenics is closely connected with English eugenics and so what began as a study of English eugenics eventually came to include American eugenics.
I began to study English eugenics because I rescued unborn babies from abortion in England by non-violently blocking doors to abortion facilities, just as members of Greenpeace rescue whales by blocking whaling ships.(28) Investigation of the ownership of these abortion facilities turned up the interesting fact that many were founded, owned or directed by members of the Eugenics Society of England or their close allies.
The Calthorpe in Birmingham was founded by Martin Cole, Francois Lafitte, Philip Cauthery and two men named Heathcote and Reynolds. The BPAS, currently owner of five abortion facilities, grew out of the Calthorpe and was headed by Francois Lafitte for twenty years. Philip Cauthery founded the Leeds facility with Godfrey Lightning and also later bought into the South Manchester facility. Heathcote and Reynolds helped founded the Fairfield at Buckhurst Hill - the doctor there was Dorothy Kerslake. (who, withDonn Casey, introduced the technique of suction abortion into the West from the Communist countries where it was developed) DM Pottshelped found the PAS and the Marie Stopes groups both of which founded early abortion facilities. The Marie Stopes group actually bought the name, Marie Stopes, and several properties from the Eugenic Society itself.
Marie Stopes had left the properties accumulated by her group, the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress, to the Eugenics Society which had been running a contraceptive service - the Marie Stopes Foundation. But in the early seventies the Foundation was disbanded and the properties sold to Population Services International. This group was headed by Timothy Rueben Ladbroke Black. In the Nineties, Population Services International renamed itself Marie Stopes International.
Private abortions account for slightly more than half of all abortions in England. There have been almost five million abortions in England so far. The Eugenics Society through their friends at the BPAS, the PAS, Marie Stopes International, the Calthorpe, and the Leigham are responsible for about half of these. So the result of this research was to show that the Eugenics Society and, therefore, eugenics itself was an active force in the present. It also showed that, as in its Nazi past, eugenics works by categorising a group as non persons and then killing, killing, killing.
I noticed also that in England the abortion facilities were hand in glove with the government and able to bring a heavy legal pressure to bear on pro lifers. I worked with Rescue Outreach, for the five years, saving babies by peacefully and non-violently blocking access to abortion facilities all over Europe. There were numerous rescues in many countries. It was noticeable that rescuers were treated different]y in England than anywhere else.
For example, I had not been in England for 12 hours before I was arrested, tried, sentenced to five days in jail for contempt of court, and put in solitary confinement in the psychiatric section for violent offenders at Risley Prison, Manchester. My offence? I went into the South Manchester Private Nursing Home which, despite its fine name, is an abortion facility, and handed out the anti abortion picture called 'Freedom of Choice?'. This depicts the severed head of an unborn child who was aborted and thrown in the trash in Houston, Texas. The picture is no worse than pictures from the Nazi Holocaust and was distributed for the purpose of waking people up to the horrors of abortion. When I was arrested for distributing the picture, I refused to give my name. Refusal to give my name led to all the consequences mentioned above. I think it is fair to say that this would not have happened to any other non violent protester for any other cause.
Here's another example. Speech in the English Parliament is protected, whether in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. Crouched in the safety of the House of Lords, Lord McGregor of Durris, Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, characterised rescuers as 'psychopathic' individuals from America. I found it flattering to be an object of fantasy to the House of Lords, but I asked myself why the Lord bothered. At the time of the comment there were only two American rescuers in England, and both were women. Had the Lords of a great nation nothing better to do than to speculate on the mental states of two women?
As it began, so it went on.
In Yugoslavia, then under Communism, a judge released rescuers because they 'seemed to be people of good will'. In Manchester, England, few months later, both rescuers and picketers were charged with conspiracy. Furthermore, in Manchester, Her Majesty's Government sent a barrister (i.e., a senior lawyer), a Mr. Ter Haar, who ordered the judge to exclude evidence the rescuers were seeking as part of their defence against the very serious charge of conspiracy. Speaking as a government representative, Mr. Ter Haar said that the importance of the confidentiality of abortion information was second in importance only to national security; and that we could not have the information we sought, even if it would prove our innocence. National security! I pictured the headline: "Population Bomb Spy Subpoena Refused".
Mr. Ter Haar also told the judge that there would be a judicial review of the judge's conduct if the judge allowed the subpoenas. The judge refused to allow the subpoenas. We were found guilty. Several people have served prison terms while others are appealing their convictions on the grounds that evidence was withheld.
Our subpoenas only sought to discover the amount of time each doctor spent on diagnosis before he signed his "good faith" opinion that an abortion was necessary. This would not have compromised the confidential records of any individual - except the doctors. On the basis of observation during pickets we felt certain that no real medical consultation was taking place in most cases. There simply wasn't time. At any rate the government determined that this information would be a threat in the hands of pro lifers and so we never got it.
Later on, in Gdansk and Warsaw, Poland, we were not even arrested for our rescues, while in Liverpool, England, we were fined twenty thousand pounds. We received this sentence, in part, because the abortion facility public relations woman testified that the singing of Christmas carols by rescuers harassed, alarmed and distressed her. Proof that the accused caused "harassment, alarm and distress" is required for conviction under the English Public Order Act. This Act, which was meant to protect tenants in Council flats from threats by thugs, was often invoked against us and usually succesfully It is a matter of record that the Act was not used to protect tenants in bad areas from actual threats and harassment. There was, for example, the case of a family harassed and threatened for years, during the same time period in which we were were convicted of singing "Silent Night". The police said there was no way to protect this family against harassment, alarm and distress. (The Daily Telegraph, Nov. 5, 1995, editorial page). Actual threats, it seems, are impossible to prove or prosecute whereas all agree that we sang "Silent Night" and an English judge was able to see this as threatening. (The abortion facility employee, who represented herself at our trial as a thin skinned, startled fawn trembling with alarm at the sound of "Silent Night", used to give sex education to male prisoners. But a judge accepted her testimony as fact.)
In Brazil an armed guard at an illegal abortion facility owned by the Mafia refused to shoot Monsignor Ney, the rescue leader, or even to push him from the abortion facility gate. In Leeds in England a magistrate allowed abortion facility owner, Godfrey Lightning, to ignore a properly served witness summons. This same magistrate accepted as fact the evidence of two abortion employees that the sight of the pro lifers moving to the abortion facility door on their hands and knees had been so bizarre as to cause harassment, alarm and distress. Guilty again - once before of rendering the nation that won the Battle of Britain nationally insecure by singing "Silent Night"- and now guilty of undermining that same national security by crawling on my hands and knees. (Possible newspaper headline: "Terror Crawls in Leeds")
In Arnhem in Holland, a women entering a clinic for an abortion interceded with the police on our behalf. "Don't be so rough", she said "They are only protesters". In Liverpool, England at the Merseyside abortion facility, Heather Baskett, who is connected in some way with a doctor at the facility, knocked Rita Rowan, a grandmother of six to the ground with her car . She did this in front of ten people. I myself saw it happen; in fact, if I had not moved quickly, I would have been hit next. Mrs Baskett coolly parked her car; walked over to where Rita, moaning in pain, was lying on the ground; said, "This is ridiculous. Nothing happened"; and walked away . The police said, and still say, nothing happened on that day.
I asked myself why things were so different in England.
The Eugenics Society and England
When I studied the ownership of the abortion facilities I came to understand that eugenics existed and worked in in England as an influential, organised force. Then I realized that the influence of the Eugenics Society caused the difference in the way in which rescuers were treated. Moreover I realized that eugenics, the philosophy behind segregation, apartheid and Nazism, is alive and well among a section of the English elite and that its influence reaches high in society and wide in universities.(29) Eugenics is not dead, but in hiding, in a variety of disguises. It is the force behind the abortion industry, contraception, genetic screening, in vitro fertilisation, sterilisation, and euthanasia.(30) A hidden elite of strategically placed professors of obstetrics, psychiatry, sociology and genetics and education(31), who are members of the Eugenics Society, are brainwashing English society into accepting eugenics.
For example, the author of Eden and Holland's Manual of Obstetrics, Dr. Eardley Holland, was a vice president of the Eugenics Society in 1944-45 when he became President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Dr. Holland believed that:

"Those who are directly interested in the maternity services of this country should be eugenically minded ... It will be necessary to eliminate the breeding of mental defectives, epileptics, deaf mutes and other undesirable citizens."(32)

Naturally, the Eugenics Society was delighted with this election. Their journal, the Eugenics Review, noted that obstetrics and gynaecology were:
"held by Mr. Holland to include all aspects, qualitative and quantitative, of the reproductive processes of the nation [obstetrics and gynaecology] have much ground in common with eugenics and demography. We may feel sure that Mr. Eardley Holland's appointment will open up new fields of activity for the Society."(33)
But no one has ever asked who Dr. Holland thought were "undesirable citizens" and what steps he took to "eliminate" their "breeding" by "opening up new field of activity for the Society". That's because eugenics now works in secret.

---

---

email to Eugenics Watch for further information
and to Webmaster for comments on this page.
Return to index
Return to Eugenics Watch Homepage

1. England: Eugenics Society (1907 to 1989), Eugenics Society Ltd. (1926 to 1989), Galton Institute (1989-);
   America: American Eugenics Society Inc. (1926 to 1973): Society for the Study of Social Biology Inc. (1973-).
   In the text these societies are generally referred to by their original names, that is the Eugenics Society (ES) or the American Eugenics Society (AES).
   Democracy or Eugenics is intended as an introduction to lists of American and English Eugenics society members on accompanying disks.
   In the body of the text and in the footnotes, names of members of the English Eugenics Society are bolded (e.g.. John Maynard Keynes) while the names of members of the American Eugenics Society are bolded and italicised (e.g.. John Rockefeller Jr.) This means that there is an entry under that name in the list on the appropriate disk.
   This somewhat unconventional approach is necessary to maintain the flow of the text which otherwise would constantly bog down in lists of names and misdeeds.
2. The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, Glanville Williams, 1957, p. 73.
3. Alexander Graham Bell (AT&T, National Geographic), John D. Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller Jr., Mrs. E.H. Harriman (Union Pacific Railroad), Cleveland Dodge (Phelps Dodge) and W.P. Draper (textiles). American eugenics was also supported by Andrew Carnegie, who was Scottish, and Axel Wenner Gren, the owner of Bofors, who was Swedish. In Germany, the Krupp family supported German eugenics, according to Men Behind Hitler .
4. Support for the Nazis: Harry Laughlin; C.M. Goethe; C.G. Campbell; Maria Kopp; Mrs Hodson; O.F. Von Vershuer; H. Nachstein; see also The Nazi Connection, Stefan Kuhl, Oxford 1994.
5. Johnson Immigration Act I924: Hon. Albert Johnson (author of the act); Harry Laughlin; C.M. Goethe; Madison Grant
6. Rockefeller Foundation Annual Reports 1927-36; The Nazi Connection, Stefan Kuhl, Oxford, 1994 pp. 20-21
7. "The importance of racial hygiene has only become known in Germany to all intelligent Germans through the political work of Adolph Hitler, and it was only through him that our more than thirty year old dream has become a reality and racial hygiene principles have been translated into action", E. Rudin quoted in The Men Behind Hitler- A German Warning to the World, B. Schreiber
8. The Nazi Connection, Stefan Kuhl, Oxford, 1994, p. 39, p. 87
9. from "Patriotism and Racial Standards", C.M. Goethe, (AES, E)Presidential address to Eugenics Research Association 1936, Eugenical News, v. 21, #4, p. 65, 1936
10. Some have claimed that the Nazi programme was not a eugenical program but a crude misunderstanding of eugenics implemented by non scientists. This claim is made in the Encyclopaedia Britannica section on eugenics - a section written by Frederick Osborn. This claim is refuted by the fact that both before and after the Nazi era, Nazi supporters were accepted members of eugenics societies. For example, Von Verschuer, who planned Josef Mengele's twin experiments at Auschwitz was a post war member of the American Eugenics Society. Furthermore, prominent American eugenicists praised the Nazi programme. For example in 1935, C.M. Goethe wrote the following to E.S. Gosney (AES, ES):

    "You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought, and particularly by the work of the Human Betterment Foundation. I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60,000,000 people." (from the Human Betterment Foundation Annual Report 1935)

11. Fredrick Osborn (Phelps Dodge), Fairfield Osborn (Phelps Dodge); C.E. Dodge (Phelps Dodge), and Wycliffe Draper (textiles) were members of the American Eugenics Society in 1956. Others, such as John D. Rockefeller III, did not join the Society, as had his father and grandfather, but instead supported eugenics through foundation grants to society members, society fronts such as the IPPF and the Population Council, or society projects such as population control.
12. For example, in 1984 Senator Al Gore voted for an amendment to the Civil Rights Act to define a 'person' to include `an unborn child from the moment of conception'. But in 1995 Vice President Gore called pro-lifers "extremists" (from "A New Offensive on Behalf of Foster" Philadelphia Inquirer, 2114/95). Richard Gephart and Jesse Jackson have made similar flip flops.
13. "Harriman Suit: Misconduct, or just bad luck investing ?" "It was when the trust fund checks stopped coming last fall to the elderly daughters of Gov. W. Averill Harriman, the railroad heir and financier that the family began to sweat ... The family discovered that funds that had once held $25 million had dwindled to scarcely $3 million ... the fortune had been overseen by Pamela Harriman ... and Clark Clifford... a law suit ... Landed in Federal Court in Manhattan this month ... months and probably years of Harriman family litigation [will result]", (from New York Times, 10/25/94)
14. Francis Galton quoted in "List of Members of the American Eugenics Society", published in 1930 by the American Eugenics Society. Deposited in Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress Container 62-63, Reel 41, "American Eugenics Society, Feb. 1928- May 1936"
15. Eugenics Then and Now, C. J. Bajema, Stroudsberg, 1976 p. 2, quoted in A History of the American Eugenics Society 1921-40, Barry Mehler, PhD Thesis, 1988 available from UMI Dissertation Services; see also "Evolution of Humans May at Last Be Faltering", (New York Times, 3114/95, Science section) for an interesting article on evolution and fertility control which discusses eugenics without ever using the word.
16. The leading figures in the fields of abortion, contraception, sterilisation and sex education were eugenics society members. Some important figures are:
    Abortion: Alan Guttmacher, Christopher Tietze; ALRA: F.W. Stella Browne, Clinton and Janet Chance, Martin Cole, Vera Houghton, Julian Huxley, Alice Jenkins, Dorothy Kerslake (who invented the technique of suction abortion), Francois Lafitte, Frida Laski, Glanville Williams; Abortionists: Dugald Baird, Peter Diggory, W.C. W. Nixon; Facility Owners or Directors: M. Cole, F. Lafitte, DM Potts, M. Simms
    Contraception: Margaret Sanger, Abraham Stone, Sheldon Segal, Lady Denman, Marie Stopes, David Malcolm Potts (Malcolm Potts), Margaret Pyke
    Sterilisation: Bishop E.W. Barnes, A.G. Church, Sir Lawrence Brock, Leonard Darwin, C.V. Drysdale, Havelock Ellis, Francois Lafitte, Marion Norton (New Jersey Sterilisation League), Margaret Sanger, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe
    Sex Education: Havelock Ellis, Margaret Sanger, Abraham Stone, Janet Chance, Eustace Chesser, Francois Lafitte, Marie Stopes, David Mace, Martin Cole.
17. The Bell Curve, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, Free Press, 1994. The two most frequently cited authors in The Bell Curve are Arthur Jensen< and Richard Lynn. In addition, 40 other past and present members of eugenic societies are cited.
    English: F. Galton, C. Spearman, Roger Pearson, C. Mascie-Taylor, Maxwell, H.J. Eysenck, D. Vining, R.B. Cattell, S. Itzkoff, C.D. Darlington.
    American: H. Laughlin, C Brigham, J. Hirsch (opposed), T.J. Bouchard, W.H. Sewell, R. Hauser, P. Hauser, L. Terman, O.D. Duncan, R. Plomin, Loehlin, D. C Rowe, J.N. Spuhler, DeFries, F. Ahern, Johnson, S.H. Preston, R. Retherford, Lykken , H. Goddard , R Gordon., Mc Gurk, G. Lindzey, R. Lewontin, S. Scarr, Linda Gottfredson, Mangold , F. Bean, R. Cook, C. Bajema, J.V. Higgins, S. Reed. The Bell Curve also cites Judith Blake, the wife of Kingsley Davis.
18. from "Of Genes and IQ", William Safire, New York Times I0/20/ 1994
19. A director of the American Eugenics Society from 1971-82 and in 1985-86. In 1973 the American Eugenics Society renamed itself "The Society for the Study of Social Biology".
20. "What is equality?", Sandra Scarr, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, 1994-95, p 85 (a book review of The Bell Curve)
21. The Bell Curve, p. 550
22. The Voice of Destruction, Hermann Rauschning, G.P. Putnam, 1940, p. 136-38
23. Oct. 12, 1980, San Diego Union quoted in Life Advocate, Oct. 1994, p.21
24. Eugenics Review 1934, p. 164 by CBS Hodson
25. The Bell Curve, p. 523, 526
26. The Bell Curve, p. 523
27. The remark became the subject of an intense controversy and was widely quoted. See for example, New York Times 21/11/95 (Metro)
28. "Greenpeace succeeded three times in placing small inflatable between the whalers and the whales, each time protecting a whale from the harpoon and saving its life.", from Greenpeace Newsletter, vol. 3, #3, Nov./Dec. 1994
29. It even helped found the British pro life Group, SPUC. as the following letter from the time of the founding of Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) indicates: "it is proposed to form a Society provisionally entitled the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, with the following aims: 1) To uphold the principle that human life ought not to be taken except in cases of urgent necessity." (from a letter to the Daily Jan. 11, 1967 signed by CB Goodhart, Peter Huntingford, and Aleck Bourne among others.) What is meant by urgent necessity? ... "...we support clause (a), which seeks to clarify the case-law position regard (sic) to abortion in the case of serious risk to life or health of the mother" from letter to the Church Times 30/9/66) The case law apparently allowed abortion in the case of rape. So SPUC was supporting abortion in the case of rape. See C.B. Goodhart
30. Abortion Industry:
    England: see paragraphs above;
    America: Planned Parenthood owns 49 abortion clinics and launched many of the landmark cases which "legalised" abortion; other cases were launched by Population Services International; and others by physicians at Planned Parenthood clinics.
    Contraception: see note 16
    Genetic Screening: C.O. Carter
    In Vitro fertilisation: R.G. Edwards; A.S. Parkes
    Sterilisation: see note 16
    Euthanasia: Killick Millard and C. J. Bond (Founders of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society); Julian Huxley
31. Obstetrics: Eardley Holland (Pres., RCOG), Alan Brews, J.H. Peel (Pres., RCOG)
    Psychiatry: I.R.C. Batchelor, C.P. Blacker
    Sociology: Alan Carr-Saunders, Lord Beveridge, Richard Titmuss, David Glass, Francois Lafitte
    Genetics: Ronald Fisher, Thoday
    Education: Sutherland
32. Eardley Holland speaking at the National Conference on Maternity and Child Welfare reported in Eugenics Review, Oct. 1943, p. 85
33. Eugenics Review, Vol. 35-36, p. 59, 1943-45

Civil Rights Roundtable 1963

______________________

Freedom Rider: “Sacred” Ground Zero

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/freedom-rider-%E2%80%9Csacred%E2%80%9D-ground-zero#comments

http://truthseeker241212365.blogspot.com/2008/02/malcolm-x.html


______________________


I understand it, but do you understand that they are not teaching "whites" anything about their culture either? What is being taught is not "whiteness" but simply how to comply with corporate power so you can have a job. How to kiss ass, in other words.

Whites are completely ignorant about their true history. In the immediate past, the history of their labor struggles and abuse as workers. Further back, how the aristocracy (foreign invaders and occupiers) kept them in virtual slavery for centuries. And so on.

They are taught that Rome is their Daddy and so they need to check their credit report often and make sure to bend over VERY far for the bosses.

That's all the "white culture" they have.

A sane educational system would be teaching what you desire for blacks and the same thing for whites, but in fact it is failing both of them. And the whites are even more duped... led to think that this society is theirs, that some sort of white culture is dominant, when in fact they're living in corporate commercial culture.

Even in European cities it is the same, though there is some culture left in the small rural towns sometimes.

-Ish tov

Mc Gaheysville, VA

_________________________________________

Thats the basis of what i'm speaking about, thank you!

How can one in a dominant society based on their color, not indictrinate themselves with what the education system shells out for them, and by the same token the minority not grasp that same mindset, only in an inferiority way, because their is no equal access to their HISTORY and CONTRIBUTIONS to society!

And thats just the education part....lol....smh....then you have everything social that derives from that!

BAPF!

-216 Elite

___________________

Yes true, but just even that scope of learning is still "DOMINANT" enough to infuse superiority in the mind, and then we haven't even delved into the color mechanism for which has been created and indoctrinated into their way of being!

And its all just the opposite with the minority african in this country!

No balance whatsoever, equals no EQUALITY ON ALL LEVELS!

BAPF!

-216 Elite

______________________________

Yes, balance... of course what should be taught is the truth about all cultures. The bad and good.

The racism in the USA is institutionalized and that means even institutionalized in the inculcated cultures of both black and white. Yep.

We overcome that by knowledge and keeping an open mind. There are always voices in the background telling us: "whites ARE superior," "whites ARE evil," "blacks ARE (insert negative stereotype here)", or alternatively, "blacks are SUPERIOR and whitey should die"...

EDUCATION!!! Believe me I tried. The only time and administrator gave me an active show of approval for teaching cultural truths to students was an Afrocentric principal, with whom I disagreed on a number of points, HOWEVER she observed the African history I was teaching and was very happy to have a teacher who even knew about it... and so did not get in my way when I was teaching Native, Mexican, even European, etc., culture.

Otherwise, even from allegedly very liberal whites, I've gotten a fearful reaction when they heard me teaching about Iroquois history and culture or Africa...

The most ridiculous comment was from a white female teacher in S Central L.A., who told me, Oh Mr. Sinajuavi, don't teach them about slavery, they'll hate us... I said, haven't you been listening, many of them already hate you. LOL

But I wasn't teaching about slavery in fact, I was teaching about black resistance to it... And I wasn't teaching them to hate the whites, rather to understand their own history, and that a white person could be good or bad... you find out by engaging them openly not reacting and closing your mind the minute you see a white face.

So I think that white teacher by her blandness was probably doing far more harm to the image of white people among the black students than I was by teaching them the truth of history, including some of the vile shit whites had done.

I also taught them about John Brown and going back to Europe, Wat Turner, Spartacus, etc.

I actually would see LIBERAL white female teachers peeking around the doorframe into my classroom to see what I was teaching them about the teachings of the Iroquois Peacemaker. They could handle John Brown and Dr. King, but this suggestion that truth and wisdom was coming from outside the frame of their Western experience was just too much...

These same type of liberal whites often will go on all day about how much they love César Chávez and appreciate Mexican people and oh aren't they wonderful and their culture is so fascinating...

...but when an actual Mexican gets around them, they don't know what the hell to do. Me and some others used to sit back and laugh, watching them vibrate with angst.

Well I'm picking on the whites here, while a lot of people, including blacks, Mexicans and others, are similarly vibrating with confusion and reactionism.

-Ish Tov

______________________________

Listening to people make excuses and rationalizations for the Arabs in Africa is "amusing"... When compared with the white racist excuses for slavery ("It's not our fault... other Africans SOLD them to us"), I see no difference.

The history of Arab imperialism is JUST as dirty as that of Euroimperialism.

CAPITALISM does not equal free markets or freedom. Are you insane? The capitalists control the market for commodities and labor, there is nothing free about it. It is rigged with government complicity. You'll notice that the capitalists called in GOVERNMENT agents (Police, army, etc.) to smash unionists and strikers...

Capitalists usurp monopoly control of wealth (including resources), then "create jobs" and tell you they're providing you a better life! LOL Trace back their wealth... it all comes from the colonial era, and was stolen.

An EVOLUTION of feudalism into capitalism occurred... not a REVOLUTION. The feudal and imperialist (Roman) roots of modern capitalism are very clear for those who analyze it rationally.

Clear you mind of the conservative brainwash and look at it from the point of view of the vast majority of WORKERS in the world who are still exploited grievously by your precious "capitalism".

Yeah, bozino... and today's "globalization", or "the internationalization of capital", is just another process of the imperialist/capitalist system evolving with the times...

Nothing new under the sun...

-Ish Tov

__________________________

Judged:

1

COINTELPRO???

That's the Counterintelligence Program unleased not only against the Black Power Movement mentioned by 216 Elite, but against Dr. King and Malcolm X before the Black Power Movement emerged. It was used against the peace movement, the movement in opposition to the Vietnam War.
Perhaps it's primary target after the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the Black Panther Party founded by Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton in 1966.
In my area, we have a political prisoner named MARSHALL EDDY CONWAY, former leader of the Baltimore Black Panther Party who was charged and imprisoned for the murder of a police officer even though he was no where near the scene of the murder. And there was no ballistic trail leading to him whatsoever.
However, Eddy Conway got wind of some COINTELPRO agents infiltrating the Black Panther Party and attempted to expose them to the national leadership. Whether he got a chance to expose them before he was himself picked in a police raid, I don't know.
If you want to know what happened to the Black community over the past 35 years, and why (except in the area of civil liberties, then only partly) our situation seems worst in some respects than before the 1960s, a very important part of the puzzle is that CONSCIOUS brothers and sisters like Eddy Conway, Dr. King, Malcolmx, Fannie lou Hamer were removed and replaced by pimps, thugs, jackleg preacher,half-witted entertainers, as self-seeking negro bourgeois opportunists.
We must build a new MOVEMENT for economic justice and civil freedoms, a movement based on the MASSES of the people. But this time we must be more aware of INTERNAL CLASS CONTRADICTIONS than most of our predecessors were during the 1960s. For the appalling state of the MASSES of our people is due primarily to both the treachery of the negro elite, and the coercive measures of racist corporate imperailist government.
The true parasites are the capitalists, racist and stone age reactionaries like Kuku Munga.
I draw the one quite clearly. If you're not in moral solidarity with the poor, the exploited and the dispossessed, then you're on the wrong side of history.You're either irrelevant or an enemy of the people and an enemy of democracy.
As the old labor song goes: Which SIDE on you on, boys? Which side are you on?



-Savant

More links

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20708

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20638

Pike

http://www.saintsagainsttyranny.com/Albert%20Pike.htm

Nazi History

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1930sp5.html

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html

The Martin Luther King Jr.'s Interviews

http://www.africawithin.com/bios/martin_luther_king.htm

More News

http://truthseeker241212365.blogspot.com/2008/02/malcolm-x.html

http://www.mlkonline.net/quotes.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS5BkeZSaDs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_xEjgbnBPY&feature=related

http://truthseeker241212365.blogspot.com/2008/02/malcolm-x.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/index-bda.html

http://watch-unto-prayer.org/cast.html


________________________________________________









Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., speaks at City Temple Hall, London, UK, on Dec. 7, 1964. Like another video posted by Getty Images (see "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on British 'Racial Problems'"), this one was erroneously dated as April 7, 1964.

Dr. King, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), had been invited to stopover at Britain by Canon John Collins, head of Christian Action, a group that supported activists fighting against South African apartheid, or forced "racial" segregation, the policy of that nation's then-"white"-minority-ruled government.

Dr. King's speech was mostly about the South African struggle (not in this video), which had reached a new stage the previous April with the conviction and imprisonment of several liberation movement figures, including Nelson Mandela, deputy national president of the "banned," or outlawed, African National Congress (ANC) and head of Umkhonto we Sizwe, or MK ("Spear of the Nation"), the group's armed wing.

However, Dr. King also found time in his speech to discuss racism at the U. S., and troubling signs of growing "racialism" at Britain.

The following day, Dr. King flew to Oslo, Norway, to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, making him the third "black" person to receive this award. The second, four years earlier, was Albert Lutuli (also Luthuli), then the "banned" national president of the ANC.

(Independent Television News Video Courtesy Getty Images)

Category:



_________________________________________________







__________________________

North Korea, etc.

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2010/05/conflicts-hope-and-new-time.html

Religious News

http://truthseeker241212365.blogspot.com/2008/02/megachurch-crowd.html

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2010/06/jfk-assassination-and-vatican.html

Pilgrim Society Research

http://www.silver-investor.com/charlessavoie/cs_december05_ninebillionounces.htm

http://www.silver-investor.com/charlessavoie/cs_may05_pilgrims.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna110.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_masonsknightstemplar03.htm

http://www.silver-investor.com/archives/index.html

http://www.silver-investor.com/charlessavoie/cs_jan05.htm


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/2facesfreemasonry01.pdf

Other News

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2010/04/freedoms-okc-bombing-and-other-news.html

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizona-and-immigration-debate.html#comments

More News

http://www.thefreezoneblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/grahammason.html (I don't agree with 7th Adventism though)

http://www.tribtowns.com/comments/read_comments.asp?ref=14824723&sec=D=g#1525735

http://www.alternet.org/story/146616/what_if_the_tea_party_were_black?page=3

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/opinion-rand-and-ron-paul-hide-racism-in-libertarianism/

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/rand-and-ron-paul-hide-racism-in-libertarianismbirch-society-fascist-front-ties

THe Illuminati

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/illuminati.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyrVOHr4gzc&feature=related

http://web.archive.org/web/20080724204545/www.despatch.cth.com.au/Articles_V/BritishIsraelismExtractIrvine.html



Planned Parenthood

________________________



From http://web.archive.org/web/20021004122605/http://members.tripod.com/RobertGillette/Illuminati.html

A Link on History and the Jesuits

http://www.pacinst.com/terrorists/preamble.html

I don't agree with its promotion of 7th Day Adventism though.

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2006/06/must-read-jesuit-information-from-eric.html

Bacon

Comment
RKG
11-15-6

Dear Mr. Rense

I would like to respond the Ted Twietmeyer's article, _Did Francis Bacon Fry the Bible?_

To put the case bluntly, Mr. Twietmeyer is an ignoramus. I shall examine some of his statements to prove my point. Quotations from his article are marked with *

*Many ministers essentially bark at their people on Sunday, "You're all worthless and weak. Now drop and give me 10!" *

Acknowledging one's need for God does not make a person worthless. Quite the contrary. If God thought people were worthless, he would never have sent Jesus in the first place.

The Lord taught to turn the other cheek, but He never once taught people to lie down and be a doormat.

No, but Jesus did warn us about false Christs and false teachers. And the Apostle Paul warned us about false teachers as well. He said, "But examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thessalonias 5:21, NASB). Naiveté is the result of cultural conditioning, not Biblical teaching. If people are taken advantage of, it's usually their own fault.

*Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek (at least that's what the KJV translation has told us.) The overall Biblical reality is that the other cheek wasn't always turned. Instead, swords were picked up. The Bible is a very bloody Book indeed. Seemingly endless wars and death are documented, many of which were claimed to be committed in the name of God. And so were those hanged in Salem for witchcraft, killed by the Spanish Inquisition and countless others. Naturally. Perhaps all this even inspired Steven King's books? *

The reason the Bible is so bloody is twofold: first, The Bible describes people as they really are, not as they see themselves. History is full of violence, not all of it religiously based. Second, it is not unusual for God to use a nation to judge other nations. If Mr. Twietmeyer doesn't understand this concept, it's because he is ignorant of the Bible's cultural context (after all, it was written by ancient Semites, not modern westerners).

*Bacon certainly was no angel and lived his life much like other people of both his time and ours, except that he was in a far higher tax bracket for his time. How can one live such a life, and still be expected to do an accurate translation of the Bible's manuscripts? *

This argument is foolish. Morality is not a necessary prerequisite to being a Biblical scholar; knowledge is.

*Pen names are used all throughout the literary world even today. So why couldn't Bacon be Shakespeare? *

Does Mr. Twietmeyer have any proof of this? Is it relevant?

*One of the most contentious and heated arguments among church lay-people and born again Christians is regarding the completeness and accuracy of the Bible. The tired phrase "nothing can be added to the Bible or taken away" has been chanted for years by Christians. Repeated endlessly, this reminds one of the Hari-Krishna airport terminal types. Usually this is chanted by born-again Christians that have it all figured out - and they won't hesitate to tell you so. Scholars and historians will tell you that more blood has been shed throughout history in the name of religion, than for any other reason. Anyone claiming Biblical completeness is simply ignorant of the true facts about the Scrolls. If we look at just one small panel of the Dead Sea Scrolls Book of Exodus (below) we can see that the scrolls are in the same condition as a cheap paperback book left in a hot attic would be after 40 years, flaking apart at the edges. Can any idiot using any portion of their working brain ever honestly declare the Bible is COMPLETE? *

So Mr. Twietmeyer manages to attack both Christians and Hari-Krishnas in one fell swoop! How clever!

Any Christian who thinks they have it "all figured out" is naive, to say the least. Mature Christians realize that as with any field of knowledge, the more they learn, the less they know -- no one ever "arrives."

And, the Bible is NOT based on the Dead Sea Scrolls! Rather, the Dead Sea Scrolls, when compared to more recent Hebrew Old Testament documents, show the accuracy and reliability of the transmission process. The relevant documents are as follows:

* /*The Dead Sea Scrolls*/: date from 200 B.C. - 70 A.D. and contain the entire book of Isaiah and portions of every other Old Testament book but Esther. * /*Geniza Fragments*/: portions the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, discovered in 1947 in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which date from about 400 A.D. * /*Ben Asher Manuscripts*/: five or six generations of this family made copies of the Old Testament using the Masoretic Hebrew text, from 700-950 A.D. The following are examples of the Hebrew Masoretic text-type: o /*Aleppo Codex*/: contains the complete Old Testament and is dated around 950 A.D. Unfortunately over one quarter of this Codex was destroyed in anti-Jewish riots in 1947. o /*Codex Leningradensis*/: The complete Old Testament in Hebrew copied by the last member of the Ben Asher family in A.D. 1008.

The method the Jews used to copy the Old Testament is extremely meticulous. Every /*letter*/ of every page had to be in /*exactly the same position as the original*/, otherwise the copy would be destroyed and the scribes would have to start over again.

The differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and more recent copies are very minor, and /*do not in any way*/ affect the meaning of the text! Please refer to the website History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html
for further information on this subject.

*How did these fragments [the Dead Sea Scrolls] become a nice, complete Book with perfect sentences and a nice even number of chapters - 40? *

Mr. Twietmeyer is apparently confusing the book of Exodus, which contains 40 chapters, with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is in fact several books, not just one.

The original documents were written with perfect (that is, complete) sentences. The Jews arranged the material into columns. The chapter and verse divisions were officially added later, around the 16th century. More information on this subject can be found here http://www.bible-researcher.com/chapter-verse.html and here. http://www.williamtyndale.com/0transmissionofbible.htm

Also, general information about the Dead Sea Scrolls can be found at Wikipedia.com here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls


*One doesn't need to be a scholar to see that countless sentences in the Dead Sea Scrolls are either unreadable or missing. In the standard KJV Bible words shown in italics were added by James' translators to compensate for missing fragments, or to "clarify" meaning. No, God didn't come down and put those words in to make it perfect as many wish to be the case. If one looks carefully at the modified sentences (which are numerous and on almost every page) and reads these modified sentences both with and without these added words, the entire meaning of the sentence can change quite dramatically yet in clever, subtle ways. Pastors, priests and ministers never talk about these italic words on Sunday mornings, however. *

Again, the Bible is NOT based on the Dead Sea Scrolls! Italicized words in the King James Version were NOT added to compensate for missing fragments; they were added to make the English more readable, since the KJV is a literal /*word-for-word*/ translation, and Hebrew and Greek grammar is different than English grammar. They were certainly never added to change the meaning of the original!

Let me give an example of what I'm talking about. Years ago, a song was written in Spanish entitled, "Eres Tu." In English, the title is translated as "It Is You." However, that is a literal, /* word-for-word*/ translation. A better translation would be "It Is Always You," since the verb is future indefinite. In King James parlance, the word "always" would be italicized. Accurate translations are possible, but there's no such thing as a perfect translation.

*KJV/Bacon version:* *"Rev. 6:4 And there went out another horse THAT WAS red, and POWER was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword."*

*Let's re-read that same verse again without the words THAT WAS and THE SON* [He meant to write "POWER"]:

*"Rev. 6:4 And there went out another horse red, and was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword."* * * *So we see that the horse may have been red in the un-embellished version. But removing the word POWER changes the meaning of the second part of the verse. After all, what is a deity without special powers? And without the word POWER, it indicates that no power was given to him to take peace from the Earth! And what of the one who "sat thereon?" It appears all he will get is a red horse to do his job. How did Bacon know what words to add throughout the Bible - and where? Perhaps the word POWER could also have been FIRE, DISEASE, PESTILENCE, etc... Any of these can take peace from the Earth and make people kill one another, too.*

*Although almost every page in the Bible has numerous examples of tinkering, we continue to hear from well-meaning Christians that "nothing can be added or taken away from the Bible." These people can shut their pie holes now, because it's too late. Bacon already tinkered with the Bible centuries ago! No one in their right mind can believe that "creative writing" will always have the same meaning an "inspired work" has.*

These people can shut their pie holes? Mr. Twietmeyer doesn't seem to have any respect for those well-meaning Christians! Perhaps he doesn't deserve any respect in return?

"And there went out another horse red, and was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword."

What does the phrase "and was given to him" refer to? Is it speaking of the red horse ("and [the red horse] was given to him")? In that case, this person's ability to take peace from the earth rests entirely on whether or not he had a red horse to sit on!

Or rather, does it refer to the person's ability to take peace, regardless of the horse's color? A better rendering would be, "And there went out another horse [that was] red, and [authority] was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth..."

The phrase "was given" is from the Greek word "didomi," which means "to give, to bestow, to grant, the have power," etc. Thus the rendering "...and power was given to him..." is quite correct.

Mr. Twietmeyer would know this if he bothered to consult _Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible_, or _Zondervan's Parallel New Testament in Greek and English_, _or Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words_, among others. I used e-Sword, free Bible software which can be downloaded here.

*How did Bacon know what words to add throughout the Bible - and where?

*Because Francis Bacon and the other scholars could read Hebrew and Greek. Duh!* *

We do know that after the first five Books of the Bible, the organization of the Bible ceases to be chronological. It was organized that way by King James' and his employees who decided it will be that way. I don't think anyone really knows why to this day. Perhaps it's simply the order they randomly unwound the scrolls and did their translation. Today, there are some scholars that fear some of these lost Books ended up in a fireplace or were tossed aside and lost, because the teachings they contained were too heretical for that era.

The Books of the Bible were organized first, by category, and second, by chronology. This arrangement, while not perfectly chronological, is nevertheless logical. Who came up with this arrangement or when or why is /*entirely irrelevant. */

Certain books were kept out of the Biblical Canon for good reason. Either they were not relevant to the larger context of the Bible (some were mere histories), or they were never accepted by the Jewish community, or, in the case of some Old Testament books and the Gnostic Gospels, they have no historical credibility.

*The principle of tithing (giving 10%) as stated in Genesis 14:20 [7] appears to have been completely removed from the Torah, as used by Jewish orthodoxy today. *

Do you know this for a fact? The changes in Judaism which I'm familiar with are found in the Talmud, Mishnah and other Rabbinical writings, not the Torah. These were the teachings which Jesus criticized because the scribes and Pharisees placed them above the Torah (see Matthew 15:1-9, for example).

*Quite likely somewhere in the past the Jews have done their fair share of "editing" of the scriptures, too. By taking the principle of tithing out of the Torah, Rabbis everywhere are free to demand money whenever they like. And they don't hesitate to do it. *

Do you have any evidence that the Jews have deliberately "edited" the Old Testament? The Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence to the contrary (see above)! These statements about the Jews changing the scriptures for financial gain are anti-Semitic, unless you can prove them to be true (I'm referring to Jews living today, not the ones Jesus was talking about 2,000 years ago). And even if they are, that doesn't prove that all Rabbis are corrupt!

Regardless of the statement, many KJV bible churches and believers never speak of it [tithing], in the proper context. Instead of asking the members to pay just 10%, they make them sign pledge cards forcing them to commit to far higher amounts than they can afford.

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 states, "But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a /*cheerful*/ giver" (NASB; emphasis mine). /*Nowhere*/ in the New Testament does it state that Christians are required to give financially.

We owe such much to "scholars" like Bacon and his colleagues for helping to create this ecumenical disaster. He was a closet free mason whose beliefs and un-inspired editing of the Bible helped to ignite the chaos we have in religion today.

What ecumenical disaster? Again, Mr. Twietmeyer is quite misinformed. The King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, which just happens to be the source for the New Kings James Version. The other modern translations generally use the Alexandrian documents. And, those "scholars" he refers to were /* genuine scholars*/, something which Mr. Twietmeyer certainly is not.

In conclusion, Mr. Twietmeyer's allegations consist of nothing more than uninformed, unintelligent straw man arguments. His ignorance of all things Biblical is abysmal, to say the least.

In the future, I humbly ask that if anyone wishes to criticize the Bible or Christianity, that they would please, please, please take the time to thoroughly research the topic first. If they can use the internet to share their ideas, they can certainly use it to acquire information which both is accurate and relevant.

The only intelligent, well-written and well-researched article which I've read on Rense.com in this genre is _Who's Right About Jesus - The Quran Or New Testament?_ by Dick Eastman. I don't agree with Mr. Eastman about the deity of Christ, but he does bring up some really good points, and I respect him for that

Masonry

http://bibleprobe.com/freemasonry.htm

The similarities between Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King (that the mainstream media doesn't show)

http://truthseeker24s3rdmillenniumtidbits.blogspot.com/2009/06/malcolm-x-cointelpro-operation-against.html

My extra research on Malcolm X and others

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12848322/Assassinations

A Debate about Economics

LastTrueLiberal (1 year ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
I agree, but in the same way, politicians aren't economists or philosopher kings. They're total idiots who do not understand one shred of economic theory. I must have missed it, but can you tell me when you heard Obama or McCain or Biden or Hillary ever utter one single word about fractional reserve banking, fiat money, monetary policy.. how about Mises or Hayek? Obama is just as ignorant as all the radio hosts you've mention.

northmeister (1 year ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
Von Mises and Hayek? Are you kiddin' us? They are political hacks whose theories have proven untrue and have lead to the insane trade policies that have destroyed our manufacturing base. The policies of Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson, and Lincoln I prefer. Government is suppose to supervise the economy - to encourage the growth thereof, to monitor it to prevent monopoly, to invest in infrastructure (roads,brides,schools,rail like Lincoln's GOP did), to protect citizens rights ie. workers etc.

LastTrueLiberal (1 year ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
I don't listen to talk radio.. I particularly dislike Sean Hannity. I do however understand history. FDR imposed price fixing measures, engaged heavily in public work programs to alleviate unemployment, raised corporate taxes, created and appealed to unions, cartelized many industries and subsidized others, imposed many sorts of various industry and employment regulations, and assumed near dictatorial control over the nation's economy. In economic terms, this is simply called "fascism."

northmeister (1 year ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
Not true. Libertarianism is not based on American history - it is rooted in Mises and Hayek, non-Americans - men who never built a nation. Their theories and others in classical economics caused the mess we are in today - deregulate, privatization (now Germans own the power I get - not my fellow citizens - so much for our Children), and free trade. Our Fathers were made of better stuff. Read them sometime. Especially Hamilton or Jefferson whose party came up with protectionism to oppose subsidy.

northmeister (1 year ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Me thinks your to fearful. Just pledge allegiance to the Constitution - You know, the one that gives the Congress the power to regulate the value of currency, the power to regulate commerce, the power to establish Justice, the power to "Promote the General Welfare" or prosperity/economy of the nation - you know the one Hamilton helped to write with Madison - explained in the Federalist Papers by those Patriots.

jimmyjoe1975 (7 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
Okay, your argument here speaks about productivity and how it benefits all. Government spending on things the government decides on is not productive. Neither is jacking up prices so that farmers can grow useless products like corn. Or protecting steel workers from overseas competition, when all it does in raise the costs of ALL US goods. You can have faith in government, but it does not make it true.

northmeister (7 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
Depends on your defintion of productivity...if it puts my fellow man to work so as to support himself and/or his family..consuming so as to provide the funds to support others at their work...well thats productive. If the money invested whether from citizen driven government investment determined by citizen leaders or by citizen driven businesses run by citizen entrepreneurs, enables the creative to gain wealth n a living wage to the common man...improving as we go...ITS PRODUCTIVE.

northmeister (7 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
It is rather non-productive to allow our childrens inheritance to be sold off and run by foreigners..that applies both ways...the children of America have a right to run their own Steel plants, Auto plants, Electronics plants, and the future inventors and creative ones having a place to make their creations become reality and the FUNDS to bring them to market - either through grant or loan, through private banks or government doesnt matter. True wealth is skills, thought, production.

jimmyjoe1975 (7 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
Right. Except you know not what you speak of. When Bush put steel tariffs in place, they lasted only a few months because the cost of raw materials for US manufacturers of consumer products sky rocketed. It was a catastrophe. Everyone benefits from trade uninhibited by invisible boundaries. And no, there is no right to succeed. There SHOULD be a right to make your own way through life, but that does not exist either. Oh, and WE do not have children together. My kids our my own.

northmeister (7 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
Believe what you want to...but empirical evidence from history, OUR OWN, makes the truth clear...and from German history, and from Japanese history, and from British history and the list goes on. Free trade and markets are not American ideas nor were they practiced in the USA as capitalism..Hamilton recc. Subsidy with Revenue Tariff, Jefferson Protective Tariffs (see his Treas. Sec.) - Lincoln went that way and subsidy (rails etc.) and we became the most prosperous nation on Earth.
northmeister (7 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
The Bush steel tariffs were right, our industry has been decimated by STATE RUN (China) or supported (Japan n Germany) steel industry...you must live in the real world, not the world of utopia and fantasy and the false axioms of Adam Smith and his crowd our fathers rejected. YOUR CHILDREN are not YOURS, they are THEIRS...they belong to themselves..you have the priveledge of raising them and hopefully to be good citizens who seek the truth not idealogy. Buy where you pay the easiest, not cheapest

northmeister (7 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
"Everyone benefits from trade"....NONSENSE. Tell that to my fellow central New Yorkers, who no longer have middle class substaining jobs but have to work two or three jobs to get by...tell that to the autoworkers, tell that to the once great electronics industry destroyed, tell that to textiles in SC, tell that to shoes in NH, tell that to and the list goes on... TRADE IS WASTEFUL of fuel to transport the goods and the wealth which could remain here for our CHILDREN. Make it here, sell it here.

northmeister (7 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
Another note on Bush policies...the War in Iraq and aftermath drove up prices for wood and other construction items due to demand for them there. The most important factor of price increases during the Bush years - OIL...its cost skyrocketed, because he did nothing about it...another failure of Government to do as it is suppose to do..anyway, OIL not steel tariffs caused consumer prices to go up...first see the truth, from there proceed..Make it here to sell it here, there to sell it there.


_______________________________


mh240bravo (1 month ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
To DJBW what the United States has today is not truly capitalism but a distorted shadow of what we once had. True capitalism is supposed to allot everyone the equal chance of starting their own business while at the other end paying a fair price and receiving a quality good or service. However, because many large companies have political officials on their pay roll ( I would as of now say that the republicans are most guilty of this) many companies receive unfair protection from the government..

_______________

jimmydore (2 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
And when various forms of this creative banking triggered economic crisis, the banks went to Washington for a handout. All the while, top executives kept their jobs and retained their bonuses. Even though the tax dollars that supported the bailout came largely from middle class families -- from people already working hard to make ends meet -- the beneficiaries of those tax dollars are now lobbying Congress to preserve the rules that had let those huge banks feast off the middle class.

stanleythughes (2 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
You know you and your friends on the left use the same rants as Hitler. He also went on and on about the evil bankers. Kind of scary the similarity of the views you and the Nazis share

jimmydore (2 months ago) Show Hide
0 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
Families understand with crystalline clarity that the rules they have played by are not the same rules that govern Wall Street. They understand that no American family is "too big to fail." They recognize that business models have shifted and that big banks are pulling out all the stops to squeeze families and boost revenues.They understand that their economic security is under assault and that leaving consumer debt effectively unregulated does not work.

_________________



califbaby1969 (4 months ago) Show Hide
+1 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
It is the oligarchy -- the very thing the French revolted against; listen to Simon Johnson's American Oligarchy; former IMF Chairman lays out how American banking has taken over the American government; why do you think the "bailout" money went to the financial house and largest banks? Credit Default Swaps ( $62 trillion worth) were issued without regulation to banks who packaged loans; the problem was that paper was worthless; CDS were to insure the lender against defaults; a big nasty scam;

1916jutland (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
+1 Marked as spam
Reply Spam
JFK was President for less than 3 years.He delt with the steel companies when they increased the price of steel. He signed the Test Ban Treaty which saved our atmosphere. He put the civil rights bill in congress and donated all his salary to charity. No President has ever done that. RFK did the same thing & his salary was a lot less. He saved us from nuclear war, cracked down on the mob and Hoffa. I've already mentioned Vietnam. He was nothing like the Bush's. A lot of people loved him.