December 26, 1997

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

I was shoveling through my e-mail, picking out this one and that one that I recognized as having come from a friend or a comrade - and I came across the ruminations of two writers who are both, and who kindly sent me a copy of reflections on the events of the past two or three weeks.

Toward the end of this letter, which covers a wide spectrum of the disintegration of liberal thought, one of them wrote:

"We're fast approaching a critical mass when too many will be far too informed on issues to make it possible to credibly format news information in the old liberal way. The information managers . . . will, I feel certain, continue doing just that, however; but it will eventually spell the death-knell of their credibility; I say, sooner rather than later.

That is, they will be done in by a hubristic, overweening pride; believing the old liberal storyline, with its knee-jerking egalitarianism, and its Holocaust guilt-mongering and socio-historical engineering serving as the norm, as a kind of spiritual, moral and intellectual benchmark. (They believe that this liberal storyline) can still "fly" in the public mind, only to discover that what they viewed as hawks and eagles, the by now very informed public (sees) as merely earthbound, superannuated dodo birds."

Here is one such dodo bird for you: The endless flogging of eugenics as having been birthed by National Socialism, based on the now denatured and thoroughly discredited story of the Holocaust.

As yet another Revisionist pioneer, Dr. Charles Weber, pointed out, an important cause of present irrational, perverted thinking about racial and biological questions invariably goes like this:

". . . two years later, Hitler invaded Poland. from then on, eugenics would be equated with concentration camps, Nazi doctors, Holocaust, and war crimes."

Eugenics principles have nothing whatsoever do to with what happened or did not happen at Auschwitz. Yet the two are linked in the public perception: "Auschwitz was wicked! Therefore, eugenics is wicked!"

Writes Weber:

"During 1941-45, we Americans fought a merciless, destructive war against Germany. Now we are going to have to come to grips with the fact that just because our adversaries said something was "true" does not necessarily mean that it was false.

We cannot arrive at rational attitudes toward racial and dysgenic problems without putting National Socialism into its proper historical perspective. National Socialism was not an isolated phenomenon. Rather, much of what many people think are peculiar characteristics of it, actually reflects a number of attitudes that were current and widely accepted in the 1920s and 1930s.

There were even significant (American) influences *on* National Socialism, such as the attitudes toward Jewish behavior examined in detail in publications supported by Henry Ford, notably in the four volumes of the "International Jew", which were based on articles published in the Dearborn Independent during 1920-22 . . .

Was Hitler's invasion of Poland (after attempts to solve the Corridor problem by peaceful resolution ) the cause of decline of eugenic thought? Did the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 (and of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania some time later) bring about a disavowal of Lysenkoism? (Lysenkoism, as I understand it: A theory of organic evolution holding that environment will enhance inherited biological traits) (...)

For reasons too numerous and complicated to analyze here, powerful propaganda organs still keep beating the dead horse, National Socialism, more than a half century after the end of the Second World War. What National Socialism stood for, or is alleged to have stood for, is constantly used in irrational arguments in questions of race and eugenics."

The idea that principles of eugenics are bad just because there was an Auschwitz is just one dodo bird of many.

It is like this, by example: Many brutal acts, real or imagined, have been laid at the feet of the British Empire during the height of their colonial glory. Some deeds the British did to India were very bad indeed. Does that take anything away from the enormous gift and blessing the British conquerors bestowed on India by giving it a unifying language, English?

Before there was colonialism, there a hodgepodge Babel of some 2000 languages that made this country all but impossible to govern. With the one unifying language, English, came a uniform tax system, a uniform civil service, and a uniform judicial system, all of which made modern India possible. Thus, with British-style "colonial democracy" came order. That order was a gift.

A gift is a gift. An injustice is an injustice. One has nothing to do with the other.

National Socialism gave the world many gifts, among them an expanded and refined view of eugenics and, at least, the beginnings of the understanding of the importance of race in the life of nations - an understanding that we ignore at our peril if we take a false pride in praising dodo birds as eagles.

Ingrid

Thought for the Day:

"Legislation that raises the birthrate of the poor relative to that of the affluent is selective-breeding legislation, whether or not it is so called by its proponents."

((R.A. McConnell. "A Legislator's Listening Guide to the I.Q. Controversy")

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the Dec. 1997 ZGrams