05 April 2014

More Abuse of DNA-Evidence by Anti-White Media

There is no evidence that Eva Braun had any Jewish ancestry, regardless of what BBC-4 may say.

BBC Television's Channel 4 has a new series called Dead Famous DNA, hosted by  Mark Evans, a veterinary scientist who previously hosted a show called Bigfoot Files. The new show depicts in trivial detail Evans' efforts to acquire samples of DNA from famous dead people, and then to have them tested, either just to find out whatever can be learned or to resolve some specific question, like whether a diesel-mechanic in Michigan is the son of Elvis Presley. The show's content is padded with scenes of the histrionic Dr. Evans belaboring some point or acting as if he were haunted by something. The show's intro, read by Evans himself, hardly conveys scientific objectivity:

"Could the DNA reveal what made Marilyn Monroe so attractive, Albert Einstein so intelligent, or Adolf Hitler so evil?"

British news-outlets report that the show recently featured a discussion of the DNA of hair found in a brush that is believed to have been used by Eva Braun, the beloved of Adolf Hitler who became Mrs. Hitler shortly before both of them ended their lives in 1945.

The brush had been looted, reputedly, from Hitler's Bavarian retreat, the Berghof, by an American soldier, Captain Paul Baer, who sold it to somebody named John Reznikoff, who then sold eight strands of the hair for $2000 to Mark Evans. (In the second episode of Dead Famous DNA this same Reznikoff was said to have three samples of Napoleon's hair that did not resemble each other: the implication was that much of what Reznikoff sells is not authentic.)1

Evans' statement at the end of the show about Eva Braun's DNA and its supposed Jewishness is emphatic and unambiguous. "But ethnically, if that's her hair, on her hairbrush, Eva was Jewish." He says that this finding is "the final nail in the coffin of Nazi ideology."

In the first place, Evans is using a definition of Jewishness that is far stricter than that promulgated in the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, whereby a person without at least one Jewish grandparent was not considered a Jew or even a Mischling. Even if Evans' scientific finding were correct, it would have no bearing on National-Socialist ideology or practice. The notion of "Nazi ideology" that Evans attacks is a straw-man. But there is a much more serious indictment of Evans' work than its vulgar reliance on bad history.

There is also a scientific problem with what Evans says that makes him appear deliberately dishonest. 

Evans' conclusion about Eva Braun, as he states it in the show, is short on details. He does not say which sequence found in Eva Braun's mitochondrial DNA is "only shared by Ashkenazi Jews." That is a key detail, on which the whole argument hinges.

News-reports about the show revealed that detail.  It is reported that the piece of DNA attributed to Eva Braun that supposedly belongs only to Ashkenazi Jews is a sequence called N1b1. (The Independent, 5 April 2014)

The premise that N1b1 belongs only to Ashkenazi Jews is not even close to being accurate. The following relevant information is drawn from a fairly recent (2012) article in The American Journal of Human Genetics:

N1b ... dates to 19-25 ka ago and is primarily found in Southwest Asia.... N1b itself has three basal branches: N1b1, N1b2, and a third, which we labeled N1b3, represented by a single sample from Anatolia. N1b2 is found mainly in Ashkenazi Jews, and its estimated age of ~2ka indicates a recent founder effect among Ashkenazi ancestors. The main subclade, N1b1, dates to ~13-14 ka ago and includes several branches from the Near East, Europe (rarely, mainly in central and eastern Mediterranean Europe), Arabia, and northern Africa (Figure 2C).2
Frequency Map for Haplogroup  N1b, from the American Journal of Human Genetics, 10 February 2012

N1b1 could hardly be Jewish, since it is at least 13 thousand years old, and neither Ashkenazi Jews nor Jews in general have  existed anywhere near that long. The geographic distribution of N1b (mostly N1b1) also shows that it is not specifically Jewish but regional, with its strongest European showing in Albania (not known for having a large Jewish population). Eva Braun could easily have inherited her mitochondrial DNA from the population that brought agriculture into Europe from southwest Asia during the Neolithic period.

It is the N1b2 DNA-sequence, which originated only about 2000 years ago, that is strongly associated with Ashkenazi Jews and is believed to have developed within a Jewish population in Europe. It appears that Dr. Mark Evans made a mistake.

That is, if we assume that this was not deliberate misrepresentation. The tendency to misconstrue DNA-evidence in specious justification of absurd conclusions is something that we have been seeing recently, in the cases of Adolf Hitler's Y-chromosome and Craig Cobb's ostensible DNA-test-result on the Trisha show. The reverence for any finding that is called scientific, and the general public's ignorance about DNA, are being exploited in a very reckless way for anti-White propaganda. This kind of innuendo, of Jewish or Negro ancestry, was a favorite form of propaganda against prominent National-Socialists long before DNA-testing became possible. The way DNA-results have been abused recently amounts to dressing up rumor-mongering in a white lab-coat. Perhaps Mark Evans deliberately omitted from his show the detail about which DNA-sequence was supposed to belong only to Ashkenazi Jews, because he knew that giving that detail would make his conclusion easy to debunk.

On the other hand it seems that some people connected with the production are simply incompetent. A spokesman for Channel 4 (repeating what Evans had said in the show) is quoted thus: 

“In the nineteenth century, many Ashkenazi Jews in Germany converted to Catholicism, so Eva Braun is highly unlikely to have known her ancestry and - despite research he instigated into Braun’s race - neither would Hitler.”[The Independent, 5 April 2014]

That is a very ignorant statement.The Catholic and Lutheran churches in Germany keep birth-records extending back hundreds of years. If Eva Braun had a Jewess as a matrilineal ancestor anytime after the end of the Thirty Years' War in 1648 (and possibly earlier) it would be a matter of record. 
1. The looter of the brush from the Berghof, Captain Paul Baer, is described as a "German-Born Jew" (The Telegraph, 5 April 2014). Reznikoff, who bought the brush from Baer and sold it to Mark Evans, claims in the show that his family are "Holocaust-survivors."

2. V. Fernandez, F. Alshamali, M. Alves, M. Costa, J. Pereira, N. Silva, L. Cherni, N, Harich, V. Cerny, P. Soares, M. Richards, L. Pereira, "The Arabian Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa", The American Journal of Human Genetics, 10 February 2012.

Upload MP3 and download MP3 using free MP3 hosting from Tindeck.

29 March 2014

The Appalling Ignorance of Abby Martin

"See, this bombshell leak describes something known as a false-flag operation. A false-flag is a covert military operation designed to appear as if it were carried out by other parties, and is usually used as a pretext for military intervention, with the citizens of the country unaware of their government's premeditated actions. See Gulf of Tonkin used to invade Vietnam, and the Reichstag Fire in Hitler's Germany as a pretext to invade Poland." (Abby Martin, 29 March 2014)

This statement from Abby Martin's Breaking the Set show on Russia Today reveals an appalling carelessness about historical accuracy, and also a certain lamentable bias.

Most strikingly, the claim that the Reichstag Fire was used as a pretext to invade Poland shows that Miss Martin is totally ignorant of the events of the 1930s to which she refers. The Reichstag Fire occurred in 1933 and the invasion of Poland occurred in 1939. The man convicted of setting the fire was from the Netherlands, not Poland. If anybody before Miss Martin ever claimed that the Reichstag Fire was used as a pretext for invading Poland, it is very much a fringe view. Most likely it is a product of Miss Martin's own muddled incomprehension of the history of that period.

Furthermore, the Reichstag Fire is well known not to have been a false-flag operation. The rumor that it was a false-flag operation was circulated by Communists at the time, but it was never really credible since Marinus Van Der Lubbe, a very active Marxist organizer, had been caught inside the Reichstag and confessed his involvement. German authorities did not believe that he had acted alone however, and charged several prominent German Communists as co-conspirators, but ended up acquitting them for lack of evidence. Yes: apparently they got fair trials. The verdict of mainstream historiography has long been that the Reichstag Fire was not a false-flag operation.

The bias that Miss Martin displays is kosher. 

By referring to the Reichstag Fire as a supposed false-flag operation she ultimately reinforces Zionist war-propaganda, which consistently relies on such invidious comparisons to Hitler. The leader of the targeted government is always "another Hitler." The same demonization-propaganda has the very convenient feature for Jews that it represents them as the ultimate unjustly persecuted victims. By endorsing and repeating the old propagandist characterization of Adolf Hitler, Miss Martin is, advertently or inadvertently, helping Zionist Jews to continue their warmongering.
If she had wanted to invoke a genuine example from history, Miss Martin could have referred to one of the generally recognized false-flag operations staged by the State of Israel, like the Lavon Affair, instead of using the same kind of comparison that the Zionist warmongers always use.

I note that Miss Martin also uses the kosher-leftist expression "corporate media," as if all the United States' Middle-East wars were motivated by corporate interests, when in fact it is easy to establish that Jews dominate American mass-media and that it was Zionist Jews who spent fifteen years (1988-2003) agitating for invasion of Iraq.

I say that Miss Martin's bias is kosher, but it seems more a matter of reckless ignorance* than premeditation on her part. The claim that the Reichstag Fire (1933) was used as a pretext for invading Poland (1939)  is so patently ridiculous that it seems unlikely that anyone would say it as a deliberate lie.
* The suggestion that Miss Martin speaks out of ignorance also arose recently after she bit the hand of her Russian employer by declaring in her live show on 3 March 2014 that Russia's intervention in the Crimea (securing Russian interests against the effects of what seems to be a Zionist-instigated coup in the Ukraine) was "wrong." When Russia Today subsequently invited Abby Martin to visit the Crimea to get some knowledge of the situation, she declined the offer, claiming that military intervention was always wrong, thus obviating the need to base her opinion on any real understanding of the situation. (Belfast Telegraph 5 March 2014)

Upload MP3 and download MP3 using free MP3 hosting from Tindeck.

26 March 2014

Anti-Assad Propaganda: BBC's Falsification Exposed

The BBC cultivates a reputation for impartial accuracy most of the time so that when they lie they will be believed. 

In the period following 11 September 2001, the BBC was broadcasting the absurd lie that the Taliban were responsible for production of opium, even though it was already well known that the Taliban had outlawed poppy-farming in the 90% of Afghanistan that they controlled. 

This clip from RT's The Truthseeker calls attention to a similarly demonstrable misrepresentation, the alteration of a video-clip that the BBC had already aired, for the purpose of portraying Syria's president Dr. Assad as a monster who "gassed his own people."

Truthseeker's host, Daniel Bushell, asks: "Why do we get almost identical claims before each war, which then prove [to be] lies?" That kind of skepticism should lead one to question the anti-Hitler propaganda of the Second World War, which seems to have provided the foundation for most subsequent American and British war-propaganda.

15 March 2014

Hollywood Directors Faked Scenes for War-Propaganda, says new book

Scenes from John Huston's 100% staged, fake documentary, The Battle of San Pietro, complete with grateful townspeople. While the film portrays a happy ending -- See how we are helping these people? -- in reality the American bombardment left San Pietro in ruins that are unoccupied to this day.

Five Came Back by Mark Harris (a columnist for Entertainment Weekly) says that film-directors John Ford, John Huston, Frank Capra, William Wyler and George ­Stevens faked scenes for propaganda-films that they made for the government of the United States during the Second World War.

Mark Harris on how John Huston faked The Battle of San Pietro:

"San Pietro was seen as a new pinnacle of realism. In some ways it was, insofar as John Huston's faked war-footage looked more like what we now think of as war-footage than anything that Americans had seen. He knew that you needed to have a shaky camera. He knew what a kind of vérité-style for war-footage should look like. But the fact is, it was all faked. He and his crew got to the battle after it was over. They had gone to Italy with the assigned mission to find a town that the Allies were about to liberate, and to film the victory, the liberation of the town, and the joyous return of the villagers. And when they got to San Pietro what they found instead was an abandoned town that had been shelled to bits, the Germans already in retreat, corpses of American soldiers all over the place, and mines and boobytraps everywhere they looked. So, the movie that became San Pietro was a restaged version of that battle that was shot over the next six weeks." [Mark Harris, NPR 22 February 2014]

Harris suggests that a realistic representation of what was happening might have damaged public support for the war:

“When you take away the whole question of fakery, it makes the combat look rough and frightening and punishing and makes the advance of a line of ­soldiers look slow and ­hesitant in ways that set it apart from Hollywood war movies and even from a lot of other documentaries.” [Express, 9 March 2014]

There are aspects of film-fakery during the Second World War that Harris likely does not discuss to any great extent in his book.

In addition to simulating battles, the directors would simulate atrocity-footage. Frank Capra used footage of Chinese Nationalist troops executing Chinese Communists to portray Japanese troops wantonly killing Chinese civilians. He accomplished this by cropping the frames and adding dramatized segments that induced viewers to interpret what they were seeing as a Japanese atrocity rather than what it was. (Details here.)

Capra was also not above misrepresenting clips from German newsreels, showing the suffering in eastern Poland under Soviet rule, as scenes of suffering under German rule.

At the end of the war, professional film-directors were also employed to make the Germans appear as monsters, thus justifying the war. Alfred Hitchcock was engaged to make a film that represented Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald as places where gassings had occurred -- which is officially acknowledged now not to be true -- but Hitchcock (not a Jew) never finished the film and it was never shown until PBS Frontline got hold of it in the 1980s, a few years after Hitchcock's death. Billy Wilder, a Jew who had left Germany a few years earlier to become a famous director in Hollywood, was similarly engaged.

02 March 2014

An American Professor looks at National-Socialist Labor-Policy (1938)

This article was published in the Michigan Alumnus Quarterly Review of 10 December 1938. I consider it a relatively unbiased look at the National-Socialist agenda of reducing conflict between workers and employers.


1. National-Socialist Germany did not experience the labor-unrest that plagued other countries in the 1930s (because of measures taken by Germany's National-Socialist government).
2. The Marxist leaders of German labor-unions were removed and all labor-unions subsumed under the German Labor-Front directed by Dr. Robert Ley. The German Labor-Front offered goods and services to workers in lieu of higher pay, along with the traditional insurance and legal aid.
3. The government created projects (especially rearmament, according to Heneman, but see my objection below) to employ the unemployed and to revive dormant industry.
4. The principle of aggressive pursuit of particular interests (e.g. labor against management, or management against labor), which divided the nation ("the state" says Heneman, but this is not how national-socialists think), and played into the hands of the Marxists, was replaced by the principle of cooperation based on shared national identity. The affiliation of workers with international labor was replaced by the idea of the Betriebsgemeinschaft, the works-community. Workers in any business with more than twenty employees were guaranteed representation in determining a company's labor-policies.*
5. Labor trustees were appointed by the national chancellor (Adolf Hitler) on recommendation of the minister of labor (Franz Seldte). A labor trustee had dictatorial power to intervene as necessary for preservation of the harmonious functioning of a workplace.
6. A system of social honor courts (fifteen courts plus a supreme court in Berlin) was established for the resolution of labor-disputes. Heneman says that nine-tenths of cases brought before the social honor courts were complaints brought against management, and that convicted managers faced fines in 48% of cases and removal from their positions in 31% of cases. "It is not correct to say ... that labor has been treated unfairly in these courts."
7. While the idea is to educate labor and management to behave as a community of shared interest (thus requiring minimal intervention from the state), the state is the ultimate guarantor of the reasonable conduct of one toward the other.

The lot of workers in National-Socialist Germany was improved, not by raising their wages but by arranging for them to receive benefits and low-priced goods. The state was uniquely positioned to accomplish this, taking advantage of economy of scale and the possibility of putting unemployed men to work for the benefit of those already employed.

It can be argued that Heneman accepts an exaggerated view of the importance of rearmament in the National-Socialist economic recovery, since Hitler did not reintroduce military conscription or declare the intention to rearm until two years after coming to power. German rearmament was motivated mainly by the fact that other nations required to reduce armaments under the Treaty of Versailles had never done so, and were even increasing their armies. Hitler decided to rearm Germany because it was imprudent to do otherwise. For simply putting people to work, National-Socialist Germany had other options.

I have re-edited the article insofar as I replaced the propaganda-term "Nazi" with the correct National-Socialist and the vague "socialist" with the more precise Social-Democratic, and made orthographic corrections to some German terms.

Prof. Harlow J. Heneman, Pol. Sci., U. Mich.
Labor Relations in National-Socialist Germany

Harlow J. Heneman

In recent years when such countries as the United States, France, and Sweden have been beset by industrial strife, National-Socialist Germany has enjoyed the blessings of peace on the economic front. National-Socialists have prided themselves upon their ability to escape the labor unrest to be found elsewhere. They point to the post-19 “new deal” in Germany's system of employer-employee relations as an example of what can be done to reconcile the interests of economic groups. It is not without interest to review the efforts of the Hitler regime in the sphere of labor relations in order to gain some understanding of what it is the National-Socialists have accomplished. The recent alterations in the German system of labor relations will only be properly understood, however, if the motives which prompted intervention by the government and the National-Socialist party are kept in mind. The necessity for action is largely to be found in the compelling pressure of political expediency, in certain aspects of National-Socialist economic and political policy, and in the tenets of National-Socialist ideology.

Once the National-Socialists were in office it was imperative that they consolidate their position by liquidating or curbing all possible sources of opposition. Attention was directed at once to the old trade unions whose opposition to the National-Socialist movement was well known. Millions of their members had long been under Social-Democratic control, and in 1932 and 1933 many had shown an inclination to accept the political leadership of the Communist party. It was apparent to the National-Socialists, therefore, that the old labor-union organization would have to be abolished. It was deemed to be of vital importance, however, that some alternative organization be provided at once to take care of the members of the liquidated unions. As we shall see, the unions were soon eliminated, an a new organization of labor made its appearance in due time.

As for the economic motive, it was self-evident in the Germany of 1933 that something would have to be done to revive dormant industry. Party leaders believed this could be accomplished by creating jobs, by instituting a public-works program, and by heavy rearmament. It was hoped that the impetus given to Germany heavy industry by a gigantic arms program would stimulate the economy of the country all along the line. Further, arms would, so the National-Socialists believed, assure the Reich that political Freiheit and equality which had been promised the country. But it was clear that if this program was to be carried out successfully the country's economic system would have to be “disciplined.” No obstructions could be tolerated. A way would have to be found to organize employers and employees so that relations between the two groups would be responsive to the government's wishes.

Although there were very practical reasons for a reorientation in labor relations it must not be overlooked that philosophical grounds for a change existed as well. For years there had been an ideological war between National-Socialist theories of the state and community on one hand and the views of liberal democrats and Marxists on the other. To the National-Socialist it seemed that the individual liberty and the freedom of action available under democracy were but indications of weaknesses in the system. Under the liberal democratic state the authority of the government was subordinated in favor of the will of the individual. Accordingly, opposing economic groups took advantage of this freedom to organize for selfish purposes. The National-Socialists believed that the greater the reliance upon the principles of democracy the more pronounced the tendency would become for economic groups to intensify their respective organizations. Self-help by labor and business, if carried to its logical conclusion, would precipitate a struggle that would undermine the very foundations of the state. Further, this struggle would inevitably play into the hands of the Marxists.

Although principles of democracy were found to be “decadent” by the National-Socialists, their dislike of Marxian socialism was even more intense. The idea of the class struggle and the rule of the proletariat was anathema to the Nazis. These were teachings which, if accepted, would destroy the unity of the state by keeping its citizens in a constant turmoil. That a worker should feel primary loyalty to a proletarian colleague in a foreign country rather than to his own state was a view which Hitler emphatically rejected. The national state was uppermost in National-Socialist ideology. The National-Socialists characterized Communism as “an international Jewish disease”; and more than that by way of damnation could not be said.

National-Socialists have advanced an alternative philosophical basis for the system of employer-employee relations erected in the past five years. As might be assumed, these theories place an emphasis upon the national state and prescribe limitations upon free initiative and the use of property. The National-Socialists hold that the economic system is not an end in itself but that it must serve the common good. The economic order must no longer be thought of as a meeting ground for labor and business, each intently engaged in a struggle for selfish purposes. Rather, the world of industry and commerce must bring employees and employers together ina co-operative effort to serve the good of the national community. The basic unit in the new German industrial order is the Betriebsgemeinschaft, the “works-community,” which is to be thought of as a cell in a larger organism, the Volksgemeinschaft. Each Betriebsgemeinschaft is not complete if one part of the cell is missing. According to National-Socialist theory, the works-community is a place of employment which includes the owner or employer, or someone acting as his representative, and workers, united in the performance of productive functions under the guidance of the state. Instead of the class struggle there is common service for the Fatherland or, as the National-Socialists themselves put it, there is the realization that “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz.” It is true that the National-Socialist doctrine may be expressing an ideal that is not in accordance with the facts, but Hitlerites have said that the structure created by them in the sphere of labor relations has for its purpose the translation of their theories into practice.


Little time was lost in bringing the “blessings of National-Socialism” to the German wage-earning classes. Adolf Hitler became national chancellor at the end of January, 1933. The following May the existing trade unions were largely liquidated, and their assets were seized. The first of May was declared to be a day which no longer would be utilized to honor the international proletariat, but would be made an occasion for the commemoration of German national labor in its service for the Fatherland. A law of May 19, 1933, provided for the appointment by the national chancellor of labor trustees who were to serve as economic dictators over the districts under their jurisdiction. They were given full powers to maintain industrial peace and to regulate detailed phases of labor relations. Within a period of four months rapid strides along the road to national-socialization of employer-employee relations had been made. The early successes, as well as later progress, were possible, according to Dr. Ley, the head of the political organization of the party, because the government followed a policy based upon “a healthy combination of freedom and compulsion.” The government and the party sought success for their policies by altering German labor law and by the use of persuasion. If these measures proved ineffective, there were always the stormtroopers. By the end of 1934 the forms of the new edifice stood out quite clearly. The German Labor Front had been established, the “new social constitution” or Law for the Regulation of National Labor had been enacted, labor trustees were at work, and the social honor courts were functioning. Each of these institutions will be discussed in the pages which follow.

Prior to 1933, National-Socialist attempts to organize labor proved to be futile. But a small number of German workers had joined the National-Socialism Industrial Cell Organization (NSBO). In 1934 it was apparent that the National-Socialist organization among handicraft workers (NSHago) also was not meeting with success. With the abolition of the trade unions it seemed advisable, therefore, to provide a new organization to absorb the membership of these defunct bodies. The German Labor Front was accordingly created, and the bulk of German workers are now numbered among its members. The purposes of the Labor Front are to be found in a decree of October 24, 1934, and limitations upon its activities are implied in the provisions of the Arbeitsordnungsgesetz (AOG) or labor regulation law of January 20 of the same year. The Labor Front assumed the assets and the liabilities of the dissolved labor unions.

The leadership principle (Führerprinzip) used in National-Socialist political rule has been applied to the Labor Front as well. The leader of the Labor Front is Dr. Ley, who is also the head of the political organization of the National-Socialist party. German employers and employees are his followers. The leader commands from above, the followers obey. As a matter of practical interest, the Labor Front is controlled almost entirely through the political organization of the party. Its officials are drawn largely from the NSBO, the NSHago, the SA, and the SS (Sturmabteilung, Schutzstaffel). Very few former free trade unionists have been entrusted with office. Membership in the Labor Front is open to employers, as well as employees, who are Aryans and who are not disqualified from citizenship. Theoretically, membership is on a voluntary basis. Actually it is inexpedient not to belong to this “union of brain and brawn.” At the end of 1937 Dr. Ley was proud to announce that 24,000,000 Germans were enrolled as his followers. The bulk of these members pay dues which are determined by a scale graduated according to income. Most of the revenue of the Labor Front is derived from the low-wage-earning groups (those receiving under 200 marks per month). In talking with German workers the writer frequently encountered complaints concerning the amounts of the dues and assessments and the lack of information regarding the expenditures of the money thus obtained.

The Labor Front is not merely an organization to facilitate the party's control over employers. It performs numerous functions for its members. Among the more important of these are its propagandist activities and its attempts to “educate” its members in accordance with National-Socialist doctrine. The Labor Front has been likened to a “training school” where German workers and businessmen can absorb the principles of the National-Socialist way of life. The Labor Front also provides a plan of insurance for its members comparable to the schemes previously available uner the labor unions. There is also a legal-aid bureau with headquarters in Berlin and with offices in each of the district bureaus of the Labor Front. The legal-aid service is divided into two branches, one for employers and one for employees. The personnel of this service is to give legal advice to members, to act as investigators and arbitrators in labor disputes, and to represent members in court if necessary. The writer was told by the head of the legal-aid bureau that it was the intention of his service to reduce the amount of labor litigation which was finding its way to the courts. If the figures he made available are correct there are thousands fewer cases coming before tribunals at present than there were in 1932.

Italian vacation offered to  German workers.
Closely associated with the Labor Front and administered by it is the Kraft durch Freude (“strength through joy”) organization. This movement has made it possible for persons of small means to enjoy educational and recreational facilities which might ordinarily be denied them. Cruises to foreign countries, holidays by the seaside, hiking trips, and excursions are arranged for those who belong to the Labor Front. Athletic grounds have been built near places of employment, library facilities have been made available for workers, concerts have been provided for, and touring theatrical companies have been sent to workers' communities. According to Dr. Ley, within two years approximately 52,700,000 persons had attended the 142,000 entertainments organized by the entertainment section. He has also said that in the same period more than 6,000,000 persons took advantage of the travel facilities offered. These figures, if accurate, indicate that the “strength through joy” movement is not inactive. Labor Front leaders hope that these benefits will be acceptable as substitutes for real wages, which have not risen appreciably since Hitler entered office.


The provisions of the labor law of January 20, 1934, and its amending decrees and statutes have been hailed as the bases for Germany's “new social constitution.” This legislation must therefore be examined with some interest. Under this “constitution,” employers retain their position as managers of their enterprises, but are now known as leaders of a Betrieb or shop. Their employees are their followers. Leader and followers must co-operate for the common good of the nation. The leader must act in such a way as to safeguard the welfare of his followers, and the latter, in turn, owe him obedience and loyalty. Strikes and lockouts, although not expressly forbidden, are frowned upon and almost never occur.
According to law, employees are to participate in the management of a Betrieb
through membership in a confidential council (Vertrauensrat*). Each place employing an average of twenty workers must have such a council. Council members are elected by the workers from a list of candidates prepared for them by their employer acting in co-operation with the local head of the NSBO.
How labor in a factory was organized under the DAF.
To be eligible for membership on the council in his shop a worker must , among other qualifications, be a member of the Labor Front and promise to support the national state without reservation. Should there be difficulty in agreeing upon candidates or should the candidates not receive a majority vote, the members of the council may be appointed by the district labor trustee. The confidential councils meet at the request of the leader of the Betrieb or upon demand of one-half of the councilors. Decisions of the council have no validity if the labor trustee disapproves. If the councilors act in a manner disturbing to the peace of the works-community they may be unseated by action of the labor trustee or their district. Both the employer and the councilors may appeal to the labor trustee against one another's decisions.

No single subordinate authority in Germany possesses as much power in the field of labor relations as do the labor trustees. The AOG supplants the law of May 19, 1933, but in so doing reaffirms the position of the trustees. The labor trustees are appointed by the national chancellor upon nomination by the minister of labor. Each of the regular trustees has jurisdiction over labor relatiosn in a large economic district. Up to a recent date fifteen such districts ha been created with headquarters at the following strategically located economic centers: Königsberg, Breslau, Berlin, Stettin, Hamburg, Hannover, Essen, Köln, Frankfurt am Main, Magdeburg, Weimar, Dresden, München, Karlsruhe, and Saarbrücken. The minister of labor has been given the power to appoint special labor trustees for specific purposes should it seem advisable to do so. The regular trustees are national officials with supervision over labor relations in their respective districts. Each trustee is aided by an advisory council and by a committee of experts. Representatives of business and labor in his district are members of these bodies. The council and the committee may give advice, but the trustee is not obliged to follow their suggestions. Trustees are required to keep the national cabinet, as well as the minister of labor and the minister of economic affairs, informed of political and economic conditions in their districts. In the performance of their duties they have the full co-operation of representatives of the Labor Front.

In their relations with employees and employers labor trustees exercise extensive powers. Under certain circumstances they may select the confidential councilors, and they may oust them. They may also alter the decisions of these employees' councils. Employers, too, do not escape the attentions of the trustees. Each employer is required to post a shop ordinance (Betriebsordnung) in which is outlined the policy of his Betrieb in regard to such matters as wages, hours of work, pay for overtime, conditions of work, time for recreation, and vacations. Shop ordinances must be approved by the labor trustee, and under certain conditions the trustee may issue the ordinance for the employer. In slightly over three years more than 3,000 such ordinances were issued by labor trustees. If a social honor court, in a case regularly before it, decides that a leader of a Betrieb should be ousted from his position the labor trustee executes that decision. His approval is needed for the successor selected by the ousted Betriebsführer.

Before the social honor courts, the labor trustees act in the capacity of prosecutors. They bring cases before the courts, may present evidence, and may take cases on appeal to the national supreme honor court. Labor trustees may act in collaboration wit the chairman of a social honor court to serve as an investigational and arbitrating committee or may initiate formal court proceedings.

Members of a works-community cannot afford to take the wishes of a labor trustee lightly. An employer or employee who persistently disobeys the written orders of a labor trustee is deemed to have disturbed the peace of the Betriebsgemeinschaft and may be hailed before a social honor court. These courts have consistently held that to disregard the orders of a labor trustee is to reveal hostility to the spirit of the social constitution and is, therefore, an act to be severely punished. One writer has referred to a labor trustee as a “social political Statthalter” who must be obeyed unless one desires to run the risk of being looked upon as an enemy of the policies of the national cabinet and the Führer himself. The powers of the labor trustees are limited by the provisions of the AOG and by the policies laid down by the national cabinet in regard to wages an prices.

The social honor courts are a striking contribution made by the National-Socialists to the conduct of labor relations. Minister of Labor Franz Seldte has designated the social honor courts and the office of labor trustee “the most important creations in the sphere of National-Socialist-controlled social life.” These tribunals have not replaced the labor courts, although the activity of the older bodies has declined considerably since 1934. An honor court is to be found at the seat of each economic district under the jurisdiction of the labor trustees. In addition to the fifteen lower courts there is a national supreme honor court in Berlin. Each of the lower honor courts consists of three members. Two of these are laymen, one being a member of a confidential council and the other the leader of a works-community. They are chosen by the chairman of the court from a panel submitted to him by the Labor Front. The head of the court is a legal official of the government and is appointed by the minister of justice acting in co-operation with the minister of labor. Justices may be unseated by action of the supreme honor court. The supreme court (Reichsehrengerichtshof) is composed of one confidential councilor, one Führer of a Betrieb, both of whom are chosen as in the lower courts, a third member selected by the national cabinet, and two professional judicial officers appointed by the minister of justice in conjunction with the minister of labor.

The honor courts have jurisdiction only over cases arising under the law for the regulation of national labor. The violation of the letter or spirit of that law constitutes a violation of the social honor of the Betriebsgemeinschaft and therefore may be brought before these tribunals by the appropriate labor trustee. The AOG has indicated, by way of example, the type of act to be called a violation of social honor. A leader of a Betrieb who maliciously abuses his position of power by exploiting or mistreating his following violates social honor. Followers who purposely disturb the peace of a Betriebsgemeinschaft or who undermine the morale of fellow employees also are included in this category. Confidential councilors who divulge confidential information gained by virtue of their positions are punishable under the law. Any member of a works-community who makes baseless charges to the labor trustee or who persistently ignores or disobeys the written orders of a trustee also is a violator of social honor. Persons found guilty by the honor courts may be punished with a “warning,” a “reprimand,” a fine up to 10,000 marks, the withdrawal of the right to continue as the leader of a Betrieb or as a confidential councilor, and banishment from a given works-community or a varying length of time. As a rule whenever conflicts of jurisdiction with the regular courts arise the honor courts step aside. Should a defendant be acquitted in a regular court he may still be tried in an honor court for those acts which are alleged to be violations of the AOG.

Some commentators on the German scene have referred to the social honor courts as tribunals which are unfair in that they discriminate against workers and favor employers. In studying more than two hundred representative cases coming before these courts the writer found that nine-tenths of them were actions brought against employers or their agents. Of the employers convicted, 48 per cent were fined and 31 per cent were denied the right to continue as leaders of places of employment. Fines were imposed upon 20 per cent of the employees convicted, and 40 per cent were discharged from the place of employment. The milder penalties available under the law have not often been used. As would be expected, employers make the greater number of appeals to the supreme court. The higher court has shown a pronounced tendency to reverse the lower courts, usually by reducing the penalties. It is not correct to say, however, that labor has been treated unfairly in these courts.

In the decisions of the honor courts the view is frequently expressed that these tribunals must function less to punish severely than to educate employers and employees. It is hoped that through numerous decisions and with the passage of time the courts may aid in persuading labor and business to co-operate for the common good. The courts have said that employers and employees must become conscious of their obligations to each other and to the state. Only when they show themselves to be utterly unable to comprehend the principles of the new social and economic order should they be unconditionally rejected as members of the works-community.


Engineer and Laborer: "We remain comrades."
The institutions and the practices introduced in the field of labor relations by the National-Socialists present a well-defined picture of the National-Socialist idea of what is desirable in this sphere. No longer is there to be employer-employee conflict on a nation-wide scale. The accepted view now is that the fundamental unit under the new social constitution is the Betriebsgemeinschaft. The maintenance of good labor relations between the leader and his following in the works-community is therefore essential. Excessive state control is not held to be desirable. However, National-Socialists do not shrink from the prospect of sudden and drastic state intervention if a Betriebsführer or a following is lax about fulfilling the role designed in the AOG. The state has retained for itself “the highest regulatory power. It indicates the purpose, it designates the goal and the meaning of the regulations, and it creates the guarantees which these regulations will enforce. The law regulating labor names the special organs of the state for these purposes: the labor trustees and the social honor courts.”

German students of political and economic problems have indicated that in the institutions described above the Reich has set an example for the world and has established practices that might be imitated elsewhere. The AOG has been called “the Magna Charta of Germany's social policy.”

Dr. Robert Ley
Dr. Ley has said that since 1933 a new era for workers and employers has dawned, for “where there was hopelessness and despair, there is now faith, a joyful outlook on life, and renewed hope. Formerly, there was mutual enmity, jealousy, envy, and hatred, but today everybody tries to make himself useful to his fellows, to be their loyal comrade, and to render them some small service whenever he can.” Dr. Ley cannot be accepted as an unbiased critic, however, and his views are certainly not acceptable to the International Labor Office situated at Geneva.

It is apparent that Germany's social constitution is more interested in stressing duties and obligations than it is in protecting rights. Certainly, there is no room for freedom of action by employees under the new system. Employers are told that labor has now been made “responsible.” On the other hand, labor is asked to believe that although the old unions have disappeared and independence is a thing of the past, labor is not at the mercy of employers. The eyes of both groups must be turned toward the state. 
* In postwar Germany an institution like the Vertrauensrat  has been retained, but it is now called an Aufsichtsrat. The Aufsichtsrat makes decisions about hiring, firing, and wages. This body is divided evenly between representatives of the workers and representatives of management. 

18 February 2014

Was Hitler a Drug-Addict?

The answer seems to be no.

Adolf Hitler with the trusted Dr. Theo Morell behind him. The trust was apparently not misplaced.

When people start from the premise given to us by old war-propaganda, that Hitler was a madman who made mad decisions, there is an impetus to try to determine what exactly caused this madness. Propaganda once accepted thus leads to grasping at straws in an effort to validate a lie. There is also a peculiar gratification for small souls in attributing madness or other character-defects to great men. Given the great multitude of small souls, there is also considerable profit in catering to such predilections.

In 1969 David Irving, perhaps exploiting the concerns of the time, wrote for Stern magazine that Hitler was addicted to cocaine and took hormones to stimulate his sex-drive (The Age, 18 June 1969). This later became the theme of one of Irving's books (Wie krank war Hitler wirklich?) and the claim that Hitler was a cocaine-addict still reverberates in sensationalist mass-media.

In 1979 psychiatrist Leonard Heston, relying on the memoir of the unreliable Albert Speer, speculated that Hitler's judgment was distorted by amphetamines. Heston came to this conclusion because, while accepting the premise that Hitler's judgment was bad, he determined that Hitler did not have syphilis1, schizophrenia, or manic-depressive disorder. Overuse of amphetamines was thus left as a possible explanation for Hitler's presumed poor judgment, which could also account for his trembling hands. (AP, 15 June 1979) Heston rejected Parkinson's disease as the explanation for Hitler's tremors, claiming that the tremors did not fit the disease's normal pattern: other physicians have disagreed with Heston about this.

In 1985 Ernst Günther Schenk, a physician in charge of nutrition for the German Army who was present at Hitler's last medical consultation in April 1945 and later wrote a book (Patient A) about Hitler's relationship with his personal physician, was quoted in American Medical News to the effect that Hitler was neither clinically insane nor chemically dependent on drugs. Schenk says that  Hitler's regular injections consisted of vitamins mixed with glucose and caffeine. Hitler was not a regular user of any stronger drug, but was given them on occasion: codeine and cocaine for colds, strong painkillers and barbiturates for cramps and colitis (an intermittent condition in most people that suffer it). By the end of his life, Hitler showed obvious symptoms of Parkinson's disease, and also had a heart problem that was treated with nitroglycerin and digitalis. Schenk says that medically there was nothing unusual about Hitler. (AP, 10 October 1985)

In 2010 the book War Hitler Krank? by Henrik Eberle and Hans-Joachim Neumann (published in English in 2012 as Was Hitler Ill?), offered generally the same assessment as Schenk. They write that "at no time did Hitler suffer from pathological delusions,"2 and they find no indication that Dr. Theodor Morell was anything other than a competent and ethical physician. 

There is some controversy about Hitler's alleged use of methamphetamine (also known as methyl-amphetamine), which had been available in Germany as an over-the-counter drug under the brand-name Pervitin since 1938. The quantity of methamphetamine in the pills seems not to have been very great, because novelist Heinrich Böll, who used Pervitin during the war, has described the stimulation as equivalent to several cups of coffee. It is clear that Pervitin was not perceived as excessively dangerous at the time,3 and even for several decades after the war, since it was only taken off the market in the 1970s. In any case, Morell records administering that over-the-counter stimulant on only one occasion. (C. Gunkel, "Hitlers Krankheiten: Therapie mit Rattengift," Der Spiegel January 2010; there is also an abridged English translation)

To summarize, Hitler's physician gave him various strong drugs on occasion, but not on a regular basis, and there is no reason to believe that drugs adversely affected Hitler's judgment. The strongest drug that Hitler received on a regular basis was caffeine, taken with vitamins.
1. According to an article from  the California State Journal of Medicine (August 1910) which the U.S. National Institutes of Health presents on its website, the Wasserman test for syphilis, administered to Adolf Hitler by Dr, Morell, was designed to detect 98% of syphilis-cases. That is the basis of Dr. Leonard Heston's view that Adolf Hitler did not have syphilis.

2. "Eine Besessenheit im Sinne eines krankheitsbedingten Wahns gab es bei Hitler zu keinem Zeitpunkt." (Henrik Eberle & Hans-Joachim Neumann, 2010)

3.  The appeal of such drugs was not limited to Axis nations. In the United States, the use of Pervitin by German military men stimulated the U.S. Government's Office of Scientific Research and Development to work on an American equivalent (Alexander George, Wide World Features, 22 August 1942).  The U.S. Army has contemplated the benefits of amphetamines at least as recently as 1988 (AP, 7 September 1988). As of 2014 methamphetamine in the United States is a prescription-drug, used for treatment of ADHD and for weight-loss.

31 January 2014

A Slightly Less-Evolved White Man

This is the face of a man who lived in the Iberian Peninsula 7000 years ago.
CNN is currently running a news-item on the subject of European physical anthropology that is just begging, through misunderstanding caused by lack of context, to be abused by those anti-White propagandists who insist that we all have Negro ancestry. The article quotes a Spanish scientist who says that a 7000-year-old skeleton found in northern Spain, whose closest modern genetic relatives live in Sweden and Finland, carries "African" genes for complexion, and therefore had "dark skin." How dark is not known.

"The biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we cannot know the exact shade." [Carles Lalueza-Fox, quoted by CNN, 27 January 2014]

The man also differed from his modern Swedish and Finnish relatives in being lactose-intolerant, as are many Southern Europeans today. (The ability in adults to drink unfermented milk is a trait evolved in cold climates, where milk does not sour rapidly. About half of French people, for example, are lactose-intolerant.) Other Sources  report that this man also lacked the enzyme amylase for digesting starch, which became a highly advantageous trait after man settled into farming with the New Stone-Age (which had started in the Near East but had not yet reached Western Europe when this individual lived).*

The problem with CNN's article is that it does not explain (1) what is meant by "African" DNA, or (2) how this European is supposed to have gotten this "African" DNA. These are important questions, because the abuse of vague terminology and vague concepts is the stuff of which anti-White propaganda is made.

We know for example that African is a word with a variety of meanings. Africa originally was the name of a Roman province that included parts of modern Tunisia and Libya. In modern usage Africa can mean a continent or, euphemistically, if one wishes to avoid a racially unmistakable word like Negro, African can refer to a race found especially on that continent. 

The fact that there are other races that have inhabited Africa since prehistoric times – including Berbers in the north and east, who migrated into Africa from Europe during the Ice Age, retaining to this day blond hair, blue-eyes, and fair skin in the more remote, mountain-dwelling populations – is not well known to many Americans. Just as little known is the fact that the geographic distribution of Negroes was once much more limited than today, before the European colonial beneficence that caused an explosion of the Negro population in Subsaharan Africa (e.g. a 20-fold increase in Kenya between 1900 and 1952). Generally speaking, the farther back in time one looks, the less plausible the identification of African with Negro becomes.

That is why the use of the word African in this context is, perhaps unintentionally, misleading. In current American parlance "African" is a euphemism for Negro. By presenting the word African without any explanation that this is not what the scientist meant, CNN is inviting misunderstanding. We all know what is going to happen. This  example of a European with an “African” trait is going to be used as spurious evidence that White people all have Negro ancestry (and therefore we should not be repelled by the prospect of further mixing with Negroes). Get ready to hear it ad nauseam.

That theme of anti-White propaganda seems to be getting more and more common. We saw it, for example, in the recent trash-TV show where Craig Cobb was absurdly told that his DNA was 14% “Subsaharan African,” and in 2010 we were told that Adolf Hitler's Y-chromosome meant that he probably had Negro or Jewish ancestry, exactly two years after the same journalist had told us that it proved that he did not have a Jewish grandfather as rumored. (In fact Hitler's E1b1b chromosome is not rare but possessed by 5-10% of Germans, and its prevalence in the north and east of Africa suggests that it was brought thither from Europe by the primordially blond Berber people.)

Getting back to the man from La Braña, it can be verified, by checking other sources, that the quoted scientist, Carles Lalueza-Fox, in fact did not mean what many will assume when they read CNN's report. Clearer statements were quoted by other news-outlets, including the BBC:

"One explanation is that the lighter skin colour evolved much later than was previously assumed."
"It has been assumed that it is something that happens in response to going from Africa to higher latitudes where the UV radiation is very low and you need to synthesise vitamin D in your skin. Your skin becomes lighter quite soon," explained Dr Lalueza-Fox.

"It is obvious that this is not the case, because this guy has been in Europe for 40,000 years and he still has dark skin."[Carles Lalueza-Fox, quoted by Rebecca Morelle, BBC]

The long-standing belief has been that man was dark when he arrived in Europe and became pale as an adaptation to the low levels of sunlight in the north. What Lalueza-Fox is saying  is that unlike his relatives in modern Sweden and Finland this particular specimen of European man had not yet lost the gene for dark skin that his ancestors had in Africa. The persistence of that gene in some individuals has nothing whatsoever to do with Negro ancestry. No racial admixture in La Braña Man,  just retention of an archaic trait at a surprisingly late date, in a man who already had blue eyes.

But after all, in the Iberian Peninsula he wasn't very far north. The evolutionary pressure for fair skin was certainly less, if any, there compared to the Baltic rim. An interesting question in physical anthropology might be whether some of the swarthiness found in parts of Europe is explicable through such retention of an archaic trait, rather than the admixture that we know explains much of it.

In any case, as much as all the world loves blue or green eyes, and blond or auburn hair, complexion is not race. A Negro with albinism is still very recognizable as a Negro, and the man from La Braña, regardless of what his skin-tone may have been, is very recognizable as a member of our race, although in certain respects less evolved.
* An interesting and potentially inflammatory detail would be the man's cranial capacity. It was in the north that Europeans evolved, along with pale skin, the capacity for self-control represented by a more substantial prefrontal cortex. Does this man's dark complexion, which suggests less influence of the cold north, come with a less developed brain?