Translate

Nov 1, 2010

The Evolutionary Psychology Blog

 

Epbanner
***
***

The Evolutionary Psychology Blog

The official Evolutionary Psychology blog can be found here. Here is a list of this month's posts:

Human & Squirrel Masturbation

The Sound of Science

And the Ig Nobel Goes To…

Embodied Cognition

Self Control Requires A Resource. Except That Self Control Does Not Require A Resource

Nest Potatoes

Do Evolutionary Psychologists Think Women Hate Sex?

Sex, Drugs, and Moral Goals. And Going Blind

Precognitive Adaptations -or- Can Extroverts Predict Where the Porn Will Be?

Another (yawn) Anti-EP Article

A Critique of Pure Buller, Part I

Defining Morality and Altruism

Shrek II, from an Evolutionary Perspective

It's Easy, True, and Useless to Call Glenn Beck Stupid

Why Don't We Carve Pumpkins Into the Shape of Trans Fats?

Assassins at Macquarie University

Pathogens & Politics

***
***

Readership Data

Evolutionary Psychology receives around 250,000 page views annually. We receive visitors from over 100 countries/territories. Two thirds of these visitors are new visitors. A summary of this information can always be found at our Visitor Information page. Thank you for your continued support!

Evolutionary Psychology in the news

Current Press Release: Women: Hope to marry young? Head to Alaska, steer clear of Alabama

***

Table of Contents

Original article
Brewer, G., and Riley, C. (2010). Sexual dimorphism in stature (SDS), jealousy and mate retention. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4): 530-544.

Original article
Olliges, S. (2010). Strengths and weaknesses of McNamara's evolutionary psychological model of dreaming. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4): 545-560.

Original article
Kelley, T.C., and Hare, J.F. (2010). Pair-bonded humans conform to sexual stereotypes in web-based advertisements for extra-marital partners. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4): 561-572.

Original article
Burke, D., and Sulikowski, D. (2010). A new viewpoint on the evolution of sexually dimorphic human faces. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4): 573-585.

Original article
Dubbs, S.L., and Buunk, A.P. (2010). Parents just don't understand: Parent-offspring conflict over mate choice. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4): 586-598.

Original article
Tybur, J. M., Merriman, L. A., Hooper, A. E. C., McDonald, M. M., and Navarrete, C. D. (2010). Extending the the behavioral immune system to political psychology: Are political conservatism and disgust sensitivity really related? Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4): 599-616.

***


-- 
Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.


Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.


Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

.

__,_._,___

Horst Mahler's Last Statement Before Life Sentence

 

From: Dr. Gunther Kümel <sapere--aude@web.de>
Date: Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:06 AM
Subject: Horst Mahler's Last Statement Before Life Sentence
To: sapere--aude@web.de


Horst Mahler's Last Statement Before Life Sentence for nonviolently, and scholarly, expressing a historical thesis, the truth!

In a message dated 10/29/2010 8:42:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, TheTruthSoldiersClub-owner@yahoogroups.ca  writes:


 
Horst Mahler's Legacy

His Last Statement Before Verdict and Imprisonment on
25 Feb. 2009

{As part of the growing civil disobedience movement in
Germany,
Mahler had filed charges against himself for "Holocaust Denial."}


Translated from the German by J M Damon


I am sending this at the last moment.  I am now being sentenced
and I shall be imprisoned immediately. After this I shall no longer
have opportunity to address the public, so I am using this opportunity
to briefly explain once more what is
really at stake here.

Many of my supporters disapprove of what I have done.
They ask me: "Why are you doing this?"

Some of my supporters point out that I would be more effective on the
outside than the inside of prison.
They say the government will now put me away and no benefit will come from it.
I explain to them that they are considering the matter from the wrong
point of view..

The most important issue is no longer the fact that the present
regime has taken away our right of free speech!
This state has always had the power to do that, in any number of
ways, regardless of whether one is expressing an opinion.
Something greater than the right to utter dissident remarks is at stake here.
If one realizes, as I do, that the "Holocaust" Religion is the
principal weapon for the moral and cultural destruction of the German
nation, then it is clear that what is at stake here is nothing less
than the collective right of self-defense, that is,
Germany's right
to survive.

Survival affects everyone!

Does the world really believe that we Germans will unresistingly
allow ourselves to be destroyed as a Volk, that we will passively
allow our national spirit to be extinguished without a struggle?
What kind of jurists argue that self-defense is a criminal act?

As a Volk and a living collective entity we have a national and a
spiritual nature. The surest way to extinguish
Germany as a spiritual
entity is to
destroy our national soul and identity, so that we no longer know who
or what we are.
Destroying our national spirit is precisely the intent of our enemy
in demanding that we unquestioningly accept his alien "Holocaust"
dogma and desist from pointing out that his fantastic "Holocaust"
never happened.

There is no evidence of it!

Once we realize that we are faced with the threat of annihilation, we
no longer have doubts about who our enemy is: it is the ancient
murderer of nations.
Once we realize this, we no longer passively listen to the enemy's
lies and misrepresentations.
We look for a weapon and a way protect our
Germany, to deprive the
enemy of the power he has over us.

Lo and behold, we have the only weapon we need to protect ourselves
from annihilation.
We have he truth.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!"

A rather unusual aspect of my life history is that I entered politics
from the left of the political spectrum, by way of the Red Army
Faction (RAF). (1)  Briefly stated, the RAF took the path of armed
struggle against "the
System" , as it was called in those days.

The idea that motivated us to take the path of armed struggle was our
belief in "Holocaust."
We actually believed what "the System" had taught us in school and
what was constantly proclaimed in the enemy-controlled media.
Like others in the RAF, I believed this anti German propaganda.
As the American "culture bearers" say, "I bought it."
I truly believed it as I sought a way to break out of the unbearable
guilt complex associated with the "murder of six million Jews."

I cannot go into the details of this period of my life here -- the
point to be made is that I was a "true believer" in "Holocaust" when
I was young.

In 2001, in the course of my career as attorney, I was asked to
defend a musical patriot.
This was the singer Frank Rennicke, who had been convicted and
sentenced in the lower courts for "Holocaust Denial."

My response to his request was: "Of course I will defend you!"

The task of defending Frank made it necessary for me to investigate
all the facts, evidence and allegations connected with "Holocaust."
This is what my investigations revealed:

There is no supporting evidence for the fantastic allegations of "Holocaust!"
There are only proclamations released by the victors' tribunal at
Nuremberg to the effect that such an event occurred and was
sufficiently "investigated."

With his proverbial chutzpah our enemy tells us: "No other event in
all history has been as thoroughly investigated as 'Holocaust.'"
[The same chutzpah leads the enemy to claim that the huge amounts of
insecticide
Germany used to protect the health of internees during
World War II were used to murder Jews!]

If we examine the actual facts, we discover that it is all a lie.
It is atrocity propaganda that is still being disseminated, 65 years
after
Germany's defeat.

When the servile Bundesgericht (German High Court) declares that a
thousand "eyewitnesses" support the "proven event," it is another
bald-faced lie!

Our so-called Bundesgericht (High Court) understands perfectly well
that our so-called Bundesrepublik (
Federal Republic) is not a
sovereign state and therefore not a legitimate government.
Prof. Carlo Schmid, the internationally recognized expert on
international law and author of our Grundgesetz (Basic Law), stated
clearly that the
Federal Republic is not a valid state.
In a speech he gave on the occasion of its creation in 1949, he
specifically describes it as an "Organisationsform einer Modalität
der Fremdherrschaft" (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign
Rule), that is to say, a vehicle for domination by our enemies.
Prof. Schmid  composed this diplomatic expression to avoid
using the term "puppet government."

Our Basic Law was not written by a convention of elected
representatives and it was not approved by plebiscite.
Enemy occupiers imposed it on us and it does not meet the
prerequisites for a legitimate state.

Since the
Federal Republic is not a legitimate state, the
institutions and stipulations that our enemies forced upon us are
likewise not legitimate under international law.

It is clear that the victors or victor of World War II (the only real
victor was world Jewry) took great pains to assure that the basis for
Jewish domination, namely the religious cult of "Holocaust," would be
legalistically unassailable.
This was their intent when they created the
Federal Republic, and it
is clear that the High Court long ago adopted a judicature designed
to perpetuate "Holocaust."

The mission to protect "Holocaust" lies at the heart of both the
Federal Republic and the Basic Law.
This is the basis of
Germany's domination by its enemies.
Germany's foreign minister Joschka Fischer explained this very
clearly when he referred to "Holocaust" and sponsorship of
Israel as
the raison d'etre of the
Federal Republic.

What is happening now is nothing other than the destruction of the
moral foundation of our Volk through genocidal assault on our
national soul.
There is nothing surprising about this.
We would have to consider our enemies really stupid, especially our
most powerful and dangerous enemy, if he did not take decisive
measures to maintain domination over us.

Our enemies did not launch World War II against us in order to
abandon their war aims after the inevitable victory of their
overpowering resources of numbers and materiel.
They went to great lengths to avoid giving us the possibility of
exonerating ourselves from the Great Lie through authentic trials
conducted by a professional and independent judiciary.
Our greatest enemy is not stupid!
He took painstaking precautions, and he is all too familiar with
elaborate methods to assure compliance with his peculiar brand of
"justice."

No one who perceives that our enemy is still perpetrating genocide
against us as part of his war aims can expect a German to obey the
proscription against questioning "Holocaust.."
No one can expect that a German who wants to be German will not
object to this assault against our nation.
This assault is nothing less than cultural genocide, and it threatens us all.

If possible, I ask you to dare to imagine what necessarily follows
from this, if it is really the case.
What a wretched excuse for a human being I would be if I, knowing of
this threat to our nation in all its implications, would keep quiet
and sink back in my easy chair and just wait for the day when the
truth would come to light of its own accord!
Every German has an obligation to do his duty to the Fatherland!
We have a right and sacred to defend ourselves, to preserve our
nation and our Volk!
In every civilized country, there is a legal obligation to come to
the aid of those who are in danger.

In fact, the law prescribes punishments for those who fail to render aid.
Failure to assist and render aid is a serious violation of law; it
constitutes a corpus delicti in itself.
I would be guilty of a serious crime if I failed to render aid to my
Volk - if I kept quiet and failed to come to its aid, knowing that
the monstrous fraud called "Holocaust" did not really occur.
In that case, I would be a truly depraved criminal!

In the present situation, it would be pointless for me to plod along
and attempt to gain a majority in this or that political party, or to
found a new and independent party that would somehow make its way
through our corrupt and labyrinthine parliament to repeal genocidal
anti-German laws.
Working alone, my only course of action is to continue doing what I have done.
Relying on myself alone, I can do nothing except repeat the truth
over and over again.
I have sworn a sacred oath that can be read on the Internet, our only
source of uncensored information, that I will never desist from
repeating this truth:
"Holocaust" is a lie, and so is the claim that it has been "proven."
There is no supporting evidence.
In his undaunted defense of the Christian faith, the traditionalist
Bishop Richard Williamson recently stated the same truth that I
discovered long ago.

In the Rennicke case I was professionally obligated to investigate
the evidence of "Holocaust" and it turned out that no such evidence
exists.
After reviewing several similar trials, we were able to produce a
letter written by a professor of contemporary history, Prof. Gerhard
Jagschitz of Vienna, whose research had also led to the conclusion
that there is no evidence to support "Holocaust."
When I contacted him he said: "Yes, of course, we already know that."

Prof. Jagschitz had been commissioned by the court as an expert
witness to determine whether "Holocaust" is "manifestly obvious" as
an actual event of contemporary history.
He spent three years researching all the available literature
concerning "Holocaust" in order to determine the actual truth.
After these three years he informed the court that he could no longer
defend his original assumption in support of the validity of
"Holocaust."
He arrived at the emphatic conclusion that, within the guidelines of
a society of laws, it is not permissible to use the "manifest
self-evidence" of "Holocaust" as a basis for sentencing those found
guilty of questioning it.

In those days it was Prof. Jagschitz and now it is Bishop Williamson,
and soon there will be many other prominent persons who arrive at
this same conclusion.

Self-defense is an inalienable right.
As a German who wants to be German I am personally affected by this
assault against my Volk.  The German nation is not only entitled to
defend itself, it is in fact obligated to defend itself.
Because of our cultural substance, we as a nation in central Europe
have the duty and obligation to resist attempts to destroy us
culturally, to annihilate us as a Volk and a spiritual entity.
This is what is at stake!

I do not choose to wait for others to defend the German nation - I
choose to do it myself!
I am telling the truth as I perceive it, and the truth is that the
so-called "Holocaust" never happened.
That is the obvious reason why there is no evidence of it!
There is nothing to support "Holocaust" except the verdicts of Moscow
type show trials.
These verdicts are constantly hammered into our heads by the Jewish
media as "proof" that "Holocaust" was real and that there is an
abundance of evidence to support it.

Those who enforce and perpetuate this blood libel are guilty of
treason against the German nation.
Most notorious among these traitors are the judges of the High Court,
who sanctify and reinforce the decisions of the lower courts
concerning the absurd "manifest obviousness" of "Holocaust."
This is worse than merely perverting justice -- it is carrying out
deliberate genocide against the German people.
I have proven the guilt of the robed traitors in Karlsruhe numerous
times and I shall continue to stress this even while in prison.

I am facing twelve years' imprisonment.
How willl it all end?
I am 73 years old, and so this is a life sentence for me.
My sentence proves that in Germany today, life imprisonment can be
imposed for anyone who refuses do obeisance to the Great Lie.

The Jews, of course, are always willing to "bargain."
First the dissident is lightly punished, perhaps with just a fine.
Or there can be a prison sentence of just a few months, which can be probated.
One always has a chance of getting off easily by kowtowing to the
Great Lie and giving assurances that there will be no more
difficulties in the future.
This is precisely what the enemy wants.
Anyone who is convinced that life under the Great Lie is not worth
living must be kept behind bars forever.
Since I have openly expressed this sentiment countless times, knowing
full well that the cudgel would fall, the enemy will most assuredly
keep me in prison for the rest of my life.
The enemy must demonstrate to the cowed public what is really at stake here!

Obviously we Germans are now in a situation in which we must rot away
our entire lives if we do not submit to the Great Lie.
Whatever happens to me - I can only say, as our Savior says in the
Evangel of St. Matthew:
"Whoever is not willing to take up his cross is not worthy of me!"
We are not worthy to call ourselves Germans if we do not stand up for
the truth, but unresistingly submit to the Great Lie!

However, I am confident that Germany's historic plight is about to change.
The struggle over the authenticity of "Holocaust" and dominance of
"Holocaust" dogma is now raging within the Catholic Church.
The Church is still a great power, even though its leadership has
been corrupted and undermined by the Jews.
With its great wealth and hundreds of millions of faithful followers,
the Church is the rock on which the ship of the Great Lie will crash
and perish.

The Jews are about to experience their Waterloo.

Once "Holocaust" is openly discussed, knowledge of its true nature
can no longer be suppressed.
When the Bishop Williamson affair reaches the point at which a
sitting pope is forced to again excommunicate him, as the head of ADL
(Anti Defamation League: the fighting organization of world Jewry)
demands; or if, under pressure of the Jewish media and corrupt
politicians, Pope Benedict XVI abdicates the Throne of Peter, this
will be an excruciating shock for the Catholic world, and the truth
will break through on this account!

Christian faith is based on the Truth, the Rock of Ages.
The Truth will make us free and the will to be free will grow
stronger until it is irresistible, and then we will prevail.

As for me, I have done everything I could do.
I have set an example.
I have often said that ours is the easiest revolution that was ever
carried out.
We need only for a few thousand persons to rise up and speak the
truth as clearly and openly as Bishop Williamson has done and I have
attempted to do, along with the others who have filed legal
complaints against themselves for telling the truth and distributing
Germar Rudolf's "Lectures on the Holocaust."

The ultimate victory of the truth is inevitable, as is the defeat of
the global Zionist Empire.
However, we have no way of knowing how much more time must pass, or
the exact circumstances that will usher in the victory of the truth.
We have to wait and see.

At present we are witnessing another collapse of the global Jewish
financial system.
The Jewish power base, the temple of their god Jahweh-Mammon, has
been struck in the heart by the collapse of their predatory banking
system.
Jewish power is based on money power, which buys them control of the
politicians and media.
At present they are losing this money power.
Once they lose it, they also lose control of government and public opinion.
Their control of public opinion has already been weakened by the rise
of the uncensored Internet, which they are unable to suppress.
When they lose control of the media, they will be in a pitiable
condition indeed!

When that happens, the Jews will be grateful that we understand and
accept their historic role in world redemption.
We recognize their destructive tyranny as a revelation of the path of
God through the world to Himself, as the philosopher Hegel explained.
We respect the Jews as the followers of Satan and we accept them in
the certainty that we can redeem them as well as ourselves, by
bringing the Truth into the world through our deeds.

The Jews are in dire need of redemption, and they will one day be
grateful to us!

****************

Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!
ROBERT BURNS (1759-96)

=====

(1)  {Mahler's critics never tire of stressing this political transition,
although the definitions of "left" and "right" have changed
drastically in the last twenty-five years.
These critics would do well to consider Ralph Waldo Emerson's
aphorism "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
A wise man learns new things as he goes through life and changes his
ideas accordingly.}

 

*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only *** CAVEAT LECTOR *** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser. Please check for daily real news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time to email all posts) at http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr    or  http://tinyurl.com/yzbolzu ; You can also subscribe to the multiple daily emails by sending  an email to total_truth_sciences+subscribe@googlegroups.com ; free book download:  http://www.lulu.com/content/165077  *** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes only. ***  NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency (NSA) may have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse, nor protection.......... IF anyone other than the addressee of this e-mail is reading it, you are in violation of the 1st & 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R. 1955 Disclaimer Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody & satire & are all intended for intellectual entertainment only. To be removed from the weekly list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"

 




--

Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro

An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.--Michael Santomauro

Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish. Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is "nothing more than a screen to present chosen views." The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually "think outside of the (Jewish) box." --Michael Santomauro

Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

.

__,_._,___

Mein Kampf as Evidence

 

Hitler's Mein Kampf was among the documents presented by the Prosecution at the first Nuremberg Trial. A few of the Defendants actually denied that they had ever read it, such as Speer, but such protestations were not taken seriously by the Judges. The reason that a Defendant would attempt to claim that they had neglected to read Mein Kampf is simple; after having read Mein Kampf, one could not plausibly deny that they did not have "adequate foreknowledge" of Hitler's ideas and intentions before joining in what the Prosecutors called the Criminal Conspiracy.

Below is the full transcript of the introduction of Hitler's Mein Kampf into evidence at the trial. It is interesting not merely in relation to which particular passages were selected by the Prosecution to introduce as evidence, but for the interpretation given to the selected passages. I have personally read this putrid bit of paranoid delusion in print at least a half-dozen times for research reasons, and would certainly not recommend it to anyone (it could perhaps be used as a cure for insomnia, but nightmares are a probable side-effect). However, it is valuable to have some knowledge of the main ideas it propagates, and the presentation below is succinct, eloquent, well ordered, and more than adequate for that purpose.

Wally
 


-------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday January 8, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On the 29th day of the trial, Major F. Elwyn Jones, Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom, introduces Hitler's book Mein Kampf into evidence:

Major Jones: May it please the Tribunal, it is now my duty to draw to the Tribunal's attention a document which became the statement of faith of these defendants. I refer to Hitler's Mein Kampf. It is perhaps appropriate that this should be considered at this stage of the Trial just before the Prosecution presents to the Tribunal the evidence against the individual defendants under Counts One and Two of the Indictment, for this book, Mein Kampf, gave to the defendants adequate foreknowledge of the unlawful aims of the Nazi leadership. It was not only Hitler's political testament; by adoption it became theirs.

This book, Mein Kampf, might be described as the blueprint of Nazi aggression. Its whole tenor and content enforce the Prosecution's submission that the Nazi pursuit of aggressive designs was no mere accident arising out of the immediate political situation in Europe and the world which existed during the period of Nazi power. Mein Kampf establishes unequivocally that the use of aggressive war to serve their aims in foreign policy was part of the very creed of the Nazi Party.

A great German philosopher has said that "ideas have hands and feet." It became the deliberate aim of these defendants to see to it that the ideas, doctrines, and policies of Mein Kampf should become the active faith and guide for action of the German nation, and particularly of its malleable youth.

As my American colleagues have already submitted to the Tribunal, from 1933 to 1939 an extensive indoctrination in the ideas of Mein Kampf was pursued in the schools and universities of Germany, as well as in the Hitler Youth under the direction of the Defendant Baldur von Schirach and in the SA and SS and amongst the German population as a whole by the agency of the Defendant Rosenberg.

A copy of this book Mein Kampf was officially presented to all newly married couples in Germany, and I now hand to the Tribunal such a wedding present from the Nazis to the newlyweds of Germany and for the purposes of the record it will be Exhibit GB-128 (Document Number D-660). The Tribunal will see that the dedication on the flyleaf of that copy reads:

"To the newly-married couple, Friedrich Rosebrock and Else nee zum Beck, with best wishes for a happy and blessed marriage. Presented by the Communal Administration on the occasion of their marriage on the 14th of November 1940. For the Mayor, the Registrar."

The Tribunal will see, at the bottom of the page opposite to the contents page, that that edition of Mein Kampf, which was the 1940 edition, brought the number of copies of Mein Kampf published to 6,250,000. This was the scale upon which this book was distributed. It was blasphemously called "the bible of the German people".

As a result of the efforts of the defendants and their confederates, this book poisoned a generation and distorted the outlook of a whole people.

As the SS General Von dem Bach-Zelewski indicated yesterday, if you preach for years, as long as 10 years, that the Slav peoples are inferior races and that the Jews are subhuman, then it must logically follow that the killing of millions of these human beings is accepted as a natural phenomenon.

From Mein Kampf the my leads directly to the furnaces of Auschwitz and the gas chambers of Maidanek.

What the commandments of Mein Kampf were I shall seek to indicate to the Tribunal by quotations from the book, which are set out in the extracts which I trust are now before the Tribunal.

Those extracts are set out in the order in which I shall, with the Tribunal's permission, refer to them.

Now these quotations fall into two main categories. The first category is that of general expression of Hitler's belief in the necessity of force as the means of solving international problems. The second category is that of Hitler's more explicit declarations on the policy which Germany must pursue.

Most of the quotations in the second category come from the last three Chapters, 13, 14, and 15 of Part II of Mein Kampf, in which Hitler's views on foreign policy were expounded. The significance of that fact will be realized if the Tribunal looks at the German edition of Mein Kampf. The Tribunal will observe that Part II of Mein Kampf was first published in 1927, that is to say, less than 2 years after the Locarno Pact and within a few months of Germany's entry into the League of Nations. The date of the publication of these passages, therefore, brands them as a repudiation of the policy of international co-operation embarked upon by Stresemann and as a deliberate defiance of the attempt to establish, through the League of Nations, the rule of law in international affairs.

First I place before the Tribunal some quotations showing the general views held by Hitler and accepted and propagated by the defendants about war and aggression generally. The first quotation, from Page 556 of Mein Kampf, reads:

"The soil on which we now live was not a gift bestowed by Heaven on our forefathers. But they had to conquer it by risking their lives. So also in the future our people will not obtain territory and therewith the means of existence as a favor from any other people, but will have to win it by the power of a triumphant sword."

On Page 145 Hitler revealed his own personal attitude to war. Of the years of peace before 1914 he wrote:

"Thus I used to think it an ill-deserved stroke of bad luck that I had arrived too late on this terrestrial globe, and I felt chagrined at the idea that my life would have to run its course along peaceful and orderly lines. As a boy I was anything but a pacifist and all attempts to make me so proved futile."

Generally, Hitler wrote of war in this way. On Page 162 we find:

"In regard to the part played by humane feeling, Moltke stated that in time of war the essential thing is to get a decision as quickly as possible and that the most ruthless methods of fighting are at the same time the most humane. When people attempt to answer this reasoning by 'highfalutin' talk about aesthetics, et cetera, only one answer can be given. It is that the vital questions involved in the struggle of a nation for its existence must not be subordinated to any aesthetic consideration"

How faithfully these precepts of ruthlessness were followed by the defendants the Prosecution will prove in the course of this Trial.

Hitler's assumption of an inevitable law of struggle for survival linked up in Chapter 11 of Book I of Mein Kampf, with the doctrine of Aryan superiority over other races and the right of Germans, in virtue of this superiority, to dominate and use other peoples as instruments for their own ends. The whole of Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf is dedicated to this master race theory, and, indeed, many of the later speeches of Hitler, his addresses to his generals and so forth, were mainly repetitive of Chapter 11.

If the Court will look at the extract from Page 256, it reads as follows:

"Had it not been possible for them to employ members of the inferior race which they conquered, the Aryans would never have been in a position to take the first steps on the road which led them to a later type of culture; just as, without the help of certain suitable animals which they were able to tame, they would never have come to the invention of mechanical power, which has subsequently enabled them to do without these beasts . . . .

For the establishment of superior types of civilization the members of inferior races formed one of the most essential prerequisites."

And in a later passage in Mein Kampf, at Page 344, Hitler applies these general ideas to Germany:

"If in its historical development the German people had possessed the unity of the herd by which other people have so much benefited, then the German Reich would probably be mistress of the globe today. World history would have taken another course, and in this case no man can tell if what many blinded pacifists hope to attain by petitioning, whining, and crying may not have been reached in this way: namely, a peace which would not be based upon the waving of olive branches by tearful misery-mongering of pacifist old women, but a peace that would be guaranteed by the triumphant sword of a people endowed with the power to master the world and administer it in the service of a higher civilization."

In these passages which I have quoted, the Tribunal will have noticed Hitler's love of war and scorn of those whom he described as pacifists. The underlying message of the whole of this book, which appears again and again, is: Firstly, that the struggle for existence requires the organization and use of force; secondly, that the Aryan German is superior to other races and has the right to conquer and rule them; thirdly, that all doctrines which preach peaceable solutions of international problems represent a disastrous weakness in the nation that adopts them.

Implicit in the whole of the argument is a fundamental and arrogant denial of the possibility of any rule of lava in international affairs. It is in the light of the general doctrines of Mein Kampf that I invite the Tribunal to consider the more definite passages in which Hitler deals with specific problems of German foreign policy.

The very first page of the book contains a remarkable forecast of Nazi policy. It reads--Page 1, Column 1:

"German Austria must be restored to the great German motherland; and not, indeed, on any grounds of economic calculation whatsoever. No, no. Even if the union were a matter of economic indifference, and even if it were to be disadvantageous from the economic standpoint, still it ought to take place. People of the same blood should be in the same Reich. The German people will have no right to engage in a colonial policy until they shall have brought all their children together in one state. When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise from the need of the people, to acquire foreign territory. The plough is then the sword; and the tears of war will produce the daily bread for the generations to come."

Hitler in this book also roundly declares that the mere restoration of Germany's frontiers as they were in 1914 would be wholly insufficient for his purposes. At Page 553 he writes:

"In regard to this point I should like to make the following statement: To demand that the 1914 frontiers should be restored is a glaring political absurdity that is fraught with . such consequences as to make the claim itself appear criminal. The confines of the Reich as they existed in 1914 were thoroughly illogical because they were not really complete, in the sense of including all the members of the German nation. Nor were they reasonable, in view of the geographical exigencies of military defense. They were not the consequences of a political plan which had been well considered and carried out, but they were temporary frontiers established in virtue of a political struggle that had not been brought to a finish; and indeed, they were partly the chance result of circumstances."

In further elaboration of Nazi policy, Hitler does not merely denounce the Treaty of Versailles; he desires to see a Germany which is a world power with territory sufficient for a future German people, of a magnitude which he does not define.

In the next quotation, from Page 554, the first sentence reads:

"For the future of the German nation the 1914 frontiers are of no significance."

And in the third paragraph the Court sees:

"We National Socialists must stick firmly to the aim that we have set for our foreign policy, namely, that the German people must be assured the territorial area which is necessary for it to exist on this earth. And only for such action as is undertaken to secure those ends can it be lawful in the eyes of God and our German posterity to allow the blood of our people to be shed once again; before God, because we are sent into this world with the commission to struggle for our daily bread, as creatures to whom nothing is donated and who must be able to win and hold their position as lords of the earth only through their own intelligence and courage.

And this justification must be established also before our German posterity, on the grounds that for each one who has shed his blood the life of a thousand others will be guaranteed to posterity. The territory on which one day our German peasants will be able to bring forth and nourish their sturdy sons will justify the blood of the sons of the peasants that has to be shed today. And the statesmen who have decreed this sacrifice may be persecuted by their contemporaries, but posterity will absolve them from all guilt for having demanded this offering from their people."


Then, the next quotation; Hitler writes at Page 557:

"Germany will either become a world power or will not continue to exist at all. But, in order to become a world power, it needs that territorial magnitude which gives it the necessary importance today and assures the existence of its citizens."

And, finally, he writes:

". . . we must take our stand on the principles already mentioned in regard to foreign policy, namely, the necessity of bringing our territorial area into just proportion with the number of our population. From the past we can learn only one lesson, and this is that the aim which is to be pursued in our political conduct must be twofold, namely: (1) The acquisition of territory as the objective of our foreign policy, and (2) the establishment of a new and uniform foundation as the objective of our political activities at home, in accordance with our doctrine of nationhood."

Now these passages from Mein Kampf raise the question: Where did Hitler expect to find the increased territory beyond the 1914 boundaries of Germany? To this Hitler's answer is sufficiently explicit. Reviewing the history of the German Empire from 1871 to 1918, he wrote in an early passage of Mein Kampf, at Page 132:

"Therefore, the only possibility which Germany had of carrying a sound territorial policy into effect was that of acquiring new territory in Europe itself. Colonies cannot serve this purpose so long as they are not suited for settlement by Europeans on a large scale. In the nineteenth century it was no longer possible to acquire such colonies by peaceful means. Therefore, any attempt at such a colonial expansion would have meant an enormous military struggle. Consequently, it would have been more practical to undertake that military struggle for new territory in Europe rather than to wage war for the acquisition of possessions abroad.

Such a decision naturally demanded that the nation's undivided energies should be devoted to it. A policy of that kind, which requires for its fulfillment every ounce of available energy on the part of everybody concerned, cannot be carried into effect by half measures or in a hesitant manner. The political leadership of the German Empire should then have been directed exclusively to this goal. No political step should have been taken in response to considerations other than this task and the means of accomplishing it. Germany should have been alive to the fact that such a goal could have been reached only by war, and the prospect of war should have been faced with calm and collected determination.

The whole system of alliances should have been envisaged and valued from that standpoint." And then this is the vital sentence: "If new territory were to be acquired in Europe, it must have been mainly at Russia's cost, and once again the new German Empire should have set out on its march along the same road as was formerly trodden by the Teutonic Knights, this time to acquire soil for the German plough by means of the German sword and thus provide the nation with its daily bread."


To this program of expansion in the East, Hitler returned again at the end of Mein Kampf. After discussing the insufficiency of Germany's pre-war frontiers, he again points the path to the East and declares that the 'Drang nach Osten' (the drive to the East) must be resumed; and he writes:

"Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through the line of conduct followed by pre-war Germany in foreign policy .... We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe and turn our eyes towards the lands of the East. We finally put a stop to the colonial and trade policy of pre-war times and pass over to the territorial policy of the future. But when we speak of new territory in Europe today we must principally think of Russia and the border states subject to her."

Now Hitler was shrewd enough to see that his aggressive designs in the East might be endangered by a defensive alliance between Russia, France, and England. His foreign policy, as outlined in Mein Kampf, therefore was to detach England and Italy from France and Russia and to change the attitude of Germany towards France from the defensive to the offensive.

The final quotation from Mein Kampf comes from Page 570:

"As long as the eternal conflict between France and Germany is waged only in the form of a German defense against the French attack, that conflict can never be decided, and from century to century Germany will lose one position after another. If we study the changes that have taken place, from the 12th century up to our day, in the frontiers within which the German language is spoken, we can hardly hope for a successful issue to result from the acceptance and development of a line of conduct which has hitherto been so detrimental for us. "Only when the Germans have taken all this fully into account will they cease allowing the national will-to-live to wear itself out in merely passive defense and will rally together for a last decisive contest with France. And in this contest the essential objective of the German nation will be fought for. Only then will it be possible to put an end to the eternal Franco-German conflict which has hitherto proved so sterile. "Of course it is here presumed that Germany sees in the suppression of France nothing more than a means which will make it possible for our people finally to expand in another quarter. Today there are 80 million Germans in Europe. And our foreign policy will be recognized as rightly conducted only when, after barely a hundred years, there will be 250 million Germans living on this continent, not packed together as the coolies in the factories of another continent, but as tillers of the soil and workers whose labor will be a mutual assurance for their existence."

I submit, therefore, that, quite apart from the evidence already submitted to the Tribunal, the evidence of Mein Kampf, taken in conjunction with the facts of Nazi Germany's subsequent behavior towards other countries, goes to show that from the very first moment that they attained power, and indeed long before that time, Hitler and his confederates, the defendants, were engaged in planning and preparing aggressive war as is alleged against them in this Indictment.

Events have proved in the blood and misery of millions of men, women, and children that Mein Kampf was no mere literary exercise to be treated with easy indifference, as unfortunately it was treated before the war by those who were imperiled, but was the expression of a fanatical faith in force and fraud as the means to Nazi dominance in Europe, if not in the whole world. The Prosecution's submission is that, accepting and propagating the jungle philosophy of Mein Kampf, the Nazi confederates who are indicted here deliberately pushed our civilization over the precipice of war.

[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-08-46.asp]
 
 
Note: The Propagander!™ includes diverse and controversial materials--such as excerpts from the writings of racists and anti-Semites--so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and anti-Semitic discourse. It is our sincere belief that only the informed citizen can prevail over the ignorance of Racialist "thought." Far from approving these writings, The Propagander!™ condemns racism in all of its forms and manifestations.




--

Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro

An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.--Michael Santomauro

Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish. Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is "nothing more than a screen to present chosen views." The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually "think outside of the (Jewish) box." --Michael Santomauro

Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro
253 W. 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___