In light of the recent "Truthout" article sent by Ed (What Happened to
Canada?) coupled with the article "The Scary Danger of Meat (Even for
Those Who Don't Eat It)"
<http://www.truthout.org/scary-danger-meat-even-those-who-dont-eat-it/1328373353>,
I have to wonder who it was that was pulling Hitler's strings. It really
makes little sense that someone beginning a career from the point Hitler
began (and in the military) that he could rise to the position of power
he did without an external aid of financial and power backing; perhaps
even implantation of ideas. We have seen Obama as a puppet and although
I consider Harper to be a lapdog, I quite certain he too is just a pawn
of someone or something much more insanely powerful than he wishes he
could be.
So, any ideason which bankers were doing what back then?
D.
On 04/02/2012 12:02 PM, Ray Harrell wrote:
My source is Michael H. Kater and the Twisted Muse, Musicians and
Their Music in the Third Reich; Oxford Press. 1997 pgs. 3-14.
He's written a second excellent book called "Composers of the Nazi
Era, Eight Portraits"; Oxford, 2000. These are just two of several
stereotype breaking books about this time that throw a more revealing
[and disturbing for the present] light on this time in history. I
would also offer Father Leo F. Lefebure's "Revelation, The Religions,
and Violence" Orbis, 2000, pgs. 10-13, for a look at the
"justification" that I drew attention to. Lefebure is quite blunt
about it.
There are things that are said and affects that come from what are
done. American Indians are experts in having benign theories put
forward about the cause and effect of things as we watched our
property stolen, our children murdered and our culture dispersed.
The cause was economic but you find almost none of that in the
writings. Rarely are Americans as direct as Senator Dawes [see
below] or Ron Paul. Usually they cover their venal duplicity up
with words. The issue is one of simple truth as all of the stories
come to light as we get distance from the events.
It's true that the Wehrmacht formed a structural basis for what was
essentially a military doctrine. But I would argue that no Jews were
going to be in that military. Kater hints at and I smell the old
positivist professional pattern of supporting one group over another -
breaking the original social contracts that make diverse societies
possible. Hitler's group got the jobs that were given up by Jewish
musicians, Intellectuals etc. [A good book on this is Donald Schön's
chapter two in "The Reflective Practitioner." Schön both documents
the fall of Technical Rationality in Positivist thought and the
history that led to the professional hierarchy in government and
schools that still exists on this list.]
In the section of the first chapter of the Twisted Muse entitled
"music, economics and political opportunism" Kater makes the point
that the Jews were not replaced with idiots or incompetents and that
even Hitler didn't tolerate opportunistic dilettantes who tried to
use him to further their drivel through a dedication of their
efforts. (Pgs 12-13) Kater is not doing a political tract but a
work of history in a specialty. He more than makes the point that
the stereotypes of the Reich are just that. But seeing things as
they are [and not simply as they were justified] is the work of history.
I find the pursuit of the truth of things to be the best way for me to
understand how things got the way they are. And my lack of a
comfortable retirement at seventy guarantees that an advancing
rigidity will do nothing but make my family incapable of supporting
ourselves in a rapidly changing environment.
I'm constantly running into Russians from the Soviet Union who poke
holes in the Western propaganda about the "fat, stupid women" of the
Soviet Union as well as their musicians. Can one imagine Anna
Netrebko in all of that? How about the complete flood of great and
beautiful opera singers taking American jobs at our Metropolitan
Opera? With all of the Madison Avenue and Right Wing tripe about
the inferiority of Communist anythings how can we justify Valery
Gergiev? A gift of a God they don't believe in because they are
"scientists?" I am told that the billionaire Koch brothers of Koch
Industries self identify as "men of science."
If we don't know how we got here with an accurate history then how can
we know who we are and what our purpose is? Kater makes the point
that Hitler's build up was forbidden by the earlier treaties from
WWI. Eventually he ignored them but for some time he hid them under
various pretenses. Much as he hid the convenience of getting rid of
competitors until the Allied armies marched into the camps. It is
not generally known that America's mega-highway system was developed
by an Army General President Ike who wanted roads that tanks could
move through quickly. There are highway sections in New York above
the George Washington Bridge, that are many feet thick for that very
reason. Of course the private sector benefitted from all of these
as it always does and it usually figures out a way to take credit for
it with an "official story."
But thanks for the comment. I agree about your comment about the
purpose of the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht was his church and his
instrument of change. But the underlying principles were economic.
I don't agree about the effect of the loss of a highly skilled
minority who had taken a large portion of professional jobs and whose
affect had circumvented many of the typical cultural ploys that make
cultures able to lie to themselves. The Vienna Circle was
outrageous in their aggressive and even hostile language about
intellectual pursuits and science and I would add, for political and
economic purposes in the academies of the day. There is always the
psychological response of "reaction formation" to such things. Not
unlike the books on treason put out by American political operatives
today. Such language is so hostile that it makes the murder of the
leader of the Vienna Circle not seem so surprising. That root of
violent language was exercised in scientific circles for personal gain
prior to WWII. Before that it was Catholic Church paranoia about
protestants and pagans. The same thing is happening today.
If you look at each specific you can explain them away. The murdered
Guard at the Holocaust museum. The dead children who were killed
performing the Broadway show "Annie" in a liberal church in Knoxville
Tennessee. Congress woman Gabby Gifford in Arizona, etc., etc.
But if you feel the whole of things there is something that lies
beneath it all. I would say this uncivilized response is basically
self interest and more than ever personal profit. I've quoted this
so often I would think the list would have it memorized. After they
wrote this they banned our religion for 95 years. No longer making
a complaint. Just pointing out a pattern. In the European Union
today the garbage is about the Romany. Tomorrow it will be someone
else but it will always be "for profit." "Nothing personal, just
business."
REH
/"The head chief told us that there was not a family in that whole
nation that had not a home of its own. There was not a pauper in that
nation, and the nation did not owe a dollar. It built its own
capitol, in which we had this examination, and it built its schools
and its hospitals. Yet the defect of the system was apparent. They
have got as far as they can go, because they own their land in
common. It is Henry George's system, and under that there is no
enterprise to make your home any better than that of your neighbors.
There is no selfishness, which is at the bottom of civilization. Till
this people will consent to give up their lands, and divide them among
their citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates, they will
not make much more progress." /(36)
(36) 1900, pp. 25-32; Lake Mohonk Conference, /Report, /1904, pp
5-6; Department of the Interior, /Annual Report/, 1900, pp. 655-735.
*From:*Keith Hudson [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Saturday, February 04, 2012 5:24 AM
*To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Ray Harrell
*Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Tribes?
At 08:28 04/02/2012, REH wrote:
I didn't like the Bell Curve much. It didn't make educational sense
to me. At present I'm reviewing the Reflective Practitioner Books
for my class at JTS and a new book on Walter Benjamin and Aesthetics
by S. Brent Plate. I'm also finding the economic basis for so much
that has gone wrong including the genocides. I don't find society
interesting these days.
Today seems very dangerous along those lines.
Hitler achieved full employment by taking out the Jews.
Keith replies:
Not so. He took out the Jews all right, but this had nothing to do
with full employment. The latter was achieved by massive armaments
production and building large-scale infrastructure (autobahns, etc)
paid for by the printing of as many Reichsmarks as necessary by a
pliable central banker, Hjalmar Schacht. (He was acquitted at the
Nuremberg Trials instead of being hanged like the rest and, as is so
often the way with many bankers, enjoyed many more prosperous years
[by way of highly-paid lectures and consultations by countries wanting
to set up central banks of their own].)
Keith
Americans don't seem to know much about the Jewish content of much
of the great intellectual work that was being done in Austria and
Germany at the beginning of the 20th century. As I study the Vienna
Circle, Walter Benjamin and so many, I'm just stunned at the depth of
such a small group of people.
I see the same kind of 1930s nonsense applied to the black community
here that has come from the absolute dregs of the 1950s to being
represented in leadership positions in every major aspect of the
nation's life, even without Obama. This can't be laid at the feet of
Affirmative Action. It's too competence oriented. Blacks are
taking white jobs for the same reason Asians are taking white jobs.
They are doing them better and they network with each other to help
each other succeed. That was a large part of Hitler's complaint as
well about the Jews. Can you imagine the gun toting yahoos here
being able to do anything serious in the modern world other than
menial factory widget jobs? How far up the ladder would these people
like the Koch brothers climb if they hadn't started at the top with
the requisite capital to begin with?
I'm moving further and further away from Cable and the pulp press. I
still like the professor types like Krugman, but I made myself clear
as to what I think of the concept that the lower 98 percent of the
nation constitutes a tribe ala Brooks/Murray. I feel the same way
about "Indian" Tribes. "Tribe" is a term the government uses to
de-nationalize cultures that go back ten thousand years. Long before
the world according to the Yonega was created. It's in their
book! I have very little patience for rigid, ignorant, bigotry given
my health and limited time.
How's your married life:>))
REH
*From:* [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *de
Bivort Lawrence
*Sent:* Saturday, February 04, 2012 3:54 AM
*To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
*Cc:* Steve & Edith Kurtz; Mike Hollinshead
*Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Tribes?
Many thanks for the heads up on this book, Ray. I just ordered it.
I read the Bell Curve some time ago, but not his Real Education. Any
thoughts?
Cheers,
Lawry
On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:50 AM, Ray Harrell wrote:
When they don't like you they call you a Tribe. But if you're dumb
you call yourself one. If you're proud and desire a future, you
call yourself and your people a Nation. REH
<image001.gif> <http://www.nytimes.com/>
January 30, 2012
The Great Divorce
By DAVID BROOKS
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
I'll be shocked if there's another book this year as important as
Charles Murray's "Coming Apart." I'll be shocked if there's another
book that so compellingly describes the most important trends in
American society.
Murray's basic argument is not new, that America is dividing into a
two-caste society. What's impressive is the incredible data he
produces to illustrate that trend and deepen our understanding of it.
His story starts in 1963. There was a gap between rich and poor then,
but it wasn't that big. A house in an upper-crust suburb cost only
twice as much as the average new American home. The tippy-top luxury
car, the Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz, cost about $47,000 in 2010
dollars. That's pricey, but nowhere near the price of the top luxury
cars today.
More important, the income gaps did not lead to big behavior gaps.
Roughly 98 percent of men between the ages of 30 and 49 were in the
labor force, upper class and lower class alike. Only about 3 percent
of white kids were born outside of marriage. The rates were similar,
upper class and lower class.
Since then, America has polarized. The word "class" doesn't even
capture the divide Murray describes. You might say the country has
bifurcated into different social tribes, with a tenuous common culture
linking them.
The upper tribe is now segregated from the lower tribe. In 1963, rich
people who lived on the Upper East Side of Manhattan lived close to
members of the middle class. Most adult Manhattanites who lived south
of 96th Street back then hadn't even completed high school. Today,
almost all of Manhattan south of 96th Street is an upper-tribe enclave.
Today, Murray demonstrates, there is an archipelago of affluent
enclaves clustered around the coastal cities, Chicago, Dallas and so
on. If you're born into one of them, you will probably go to college
with people from one of the enclaves; you'll marry someone from one of
the enclaves; you'll go off and live in one of the enclaves.
Worse, there are vast behavioral gaps between the educated upper tribe
(20 percent of the country) and the lower tribe (30 percent of the
country). This is where Murray is at his best, and he's mostly using
data on white Americans, so the effects of race and other complicating
factors don't come into play.
Roughly 7 percent of the white kids in the upper tribe are born out of
wedlock, compared with roughly 45 percent of the kids in the lower
tribe. In the upper tribe, nearly every man aged 30 to 49 is in the
labor force. In the lower tribe, men in their prime working ages have
been steadily dropping out of the labor force, in good times and bad.
People in the lower tribe are much less likely to get married, less
likely to go to church, less likely to be active in their communities,
more likely to watch TV excessively, more likely to be obese.
Murray's story contradicts the ideologies of both parties. Republicans
claim that America is threatened by a decadent cultural elite that
corrupts regular Americans, who love God, country and traditional
values. That story is false. The cultural elites live more
conservative, traditionalist lives than the cultural masses.
Democrats claim America is threatened by the financial elite, who hog
society's resources. But that's a distraction. The real social gap is
between the top 20 percent and the lower 30 percent. The liberal
members of the upper tribe latch onto this top 1 percent narrative
because it excuses them from the central role they themselves are
playing in driving inequality and unfairness.
It's wrong to describe an America in which the salt of the earth
common people are preyed upon by this or that nefarious elite. It's
wrong to tell the familiar underdog morality tale in which the
problems of the masses are caused by the elites.
The truth is, members of the upper tribe have made themselves
phenomenally productive. They may mimic bohemian manners, but they
have returned to 1950s traditionalist values and practices. They have
low divorce rates, arduous work ethics and strict codes to regulate
their kids.
Members of the lower tribe work hard and dream big, but are more
removed from traditional bourgeois norms. They live in disorganized,
postmodern neighborhoods in which it is much harder to be
self-disciplined and productive.
I doubt Murray would agree, but we need a National Service Program. We
need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the
lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years. We need a
program in which people from both tribes work together to spread out
the values, practices and institutions that lead to achievement.
If we could jam the tribes together, we'd have a better elite and a
better mass.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4784 - Release Date: 02/03/12
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
<http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4788 - Release Date: 02/04/12
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
