Science and Technology news... :: View topic - If one can>t afford children, one should not have children.

RFHall · Guest

If one can>t afford children, one should not have children.

Thanks to Julian, halfawake, possum, Keynes, Raan, and Evelyn for your
responses.

The ability to "afford children" can be defined as the ability to
shelter, clothe, feed, and educate children. I have chosen to use the
pronoun "one" in the predicate because it is a decision that should be
considered by each of the prospective participating parents.

This simple moral imperative seems extremely reasonable and rational,
yet it has the potential of causing considerable angst and is
generally not noticed. I am presenting it primarily in opposition of
the idea that one should "go forth and multiply and the Lord will
provide". This is the commonly promoted moral imperative. However,
apparently, the Lord doesn>t always provide.

It would have been advantageous if this moral imperative were the
eleventh commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a
footnote in a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn>t see this
statement then, or now.

The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation,
poverty, crime, and human suffering could be drastically reduced if
this simple rule were shouted from every religious and secular media
till it reached the mind of every human on earth and became "common
sense".

Some people will claim that the goal of this predicate is impossible
to achieve due to the question of biological imperatives and
practicalities. These doubters would suppose somebody who can barely
feed themselves will never have the discipline, or desire, to acquire
and use condoms or abstain. No food, no sex, and no children would be
too much to expect. This is only an assertion. The effect of
education can not be undersold.

Some people will think this moral imperative is somehow discriminatory
toward the poor. However, even though those who can>t afford children
are usually poor; poor people can often afford to feed, clothe,
educate, and shelter their children.

Some people worry that this moral imperative is the "slippery slope"
toward forced sterilization of the poor? Vasectomies and tubal
legations should be available for everyone, poor or otherwise. There
have been condoms and abortions freely available to some populations.
There is evidence that many women would take advantage of tubal
legations if they were freely offered on a voluntary basis. Women,
much more than men, have a direct emotional reaction to watching their
children starve. Men are often absent and self-absorbed.

The principle does not preclude efforts to effect socio-economic
change toward a more equal and prosperous society where everyone can
afford children. Some affluent countries have achieved this.
Naturally when one can afford children it no longer applies. It
should be noted that there are a variety of conditions under which
people who can>t afford children exist. One end of the continuum
takes place in some areas near the equator where children are born
into horrid squalor with no possibility of relief other than charity
for a few. The other end of the continuum is affluent countries where
single mothers are given housing, clothes, education, and food to
raise their children. The former end elicits empathy and sadness for
the condition of the children, while the latter end is upsetting to
some in that society is asked to take responsibility for their poor
decisions.

There will always be those who point out exceptional individuals who
were conceived in squalor and saved through charity. The point being
that they would not be alive if this moral imperative were in general
acceptance. In this retroactive thinking, there>s always a question
as to whether so many children should suffer so horribly so one child
can thrive. This even opens the door to the rights of unconceived
children. This is irrational.

Eugenic aspects have been suggested in that this imperative would
diminish the population in specific ways. This might be the case if
one were to dissuade those who know they have heritable diseases from
having children. Other than that, no consistent genetic
characteristics can be specifically assigned to this population.

The only hope is that the rationality and enlightenment represented by
this moral imperative, as much as anything else, simply serves to
abate ignorance and suffering. If enough people in positions of
influence repeated it; then, it could eventually become the
politically correct view and its logical simplicity would become
broadly accepted.

http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
Realistic Idealism
Philosophy based on evidence.

Julian · Guest

RFHall wrote:
[quote]If one can>t afford children, one should not have children.

Thanks to Julian, halfawake, possum, Keynes, Raan, and Evelyn for your
responses.

The ability to "afford children" can be defined as the ability to
shelter, clothe, feed, and educate children.
[/quote]
Thank God the Judeo-Christian heritage is not my heritage.

As for spamming websites... I can do that.

http://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

RFHall · Guest

Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k

http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
Realistic Idealism
Philosophy based on evidence.

Julian · Guest

RFHall wrote:
[quote]Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k
[/quote]
LOL

Leona wouldn>t have made it as far a conception
under the regime propsed by you!

Julian · Guest

RFHall wrote:
[quote]Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k
[/quote]
ps. Congratulations on turning the old
"The Devil has the best tunes" adage on it>s head.

RaaN · Guest

On Jul 26, 9:08 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]By Walter Ruthard

I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.

This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens..

Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children..

Another very popular social program of the government was "Kraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it>s citizens to see what it also could have
done for them..

The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe.. The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash..

My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village..

Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn>t nailed down..

It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.

There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.

Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35..

Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.

If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers.. In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.

And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.

That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
[/quote]
This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups
Terms Of Use.
--
RaaN

RaaN · Guest

On Jul 26, 4:46 am, Julian <julianlz...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]RFHall wrote:
Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k

LOL

Leona wouldn>t have made it as far a conception
under the regime propsed by you!
[/quote]
Would you please just quit it?! No one but you is proposing a
regime. How many kids out of wedlock do you have that you>re trying
so hard to justify it>s gone beyond ridiculousness anyway? Give it up
and try flogging it on your own without spewing all over the newsgroup
already. Pretty sick if you actually get off on undernourished
children with low life expectancies. Does my reasoning here seem
faulty to you? It should. I am imitating your own. Now go back to
chanting nonsense syllables already. You>re falling behind ;)
--
RaaN

Topaz · Guest

By Walter Ruthard

I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.

This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens..

Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children..

Another very popular social program of the government was "Kraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it>s citizens to see what it also could have
done for them..

The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe.. The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash..

My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village..

Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn>t nailed down..

It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.

There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.

Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35..

Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.

If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers.. In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.

And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.

That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

Julian · Guest

RaaN wrote:
[quote]On Jul 26, 4:46 am, Julian <julianlz...@gmail.com> wrote:
RFHall wrote:
Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k
LOL

Leona wouldn>t have made it as far a conception
under the regime propsed by you!

Would you please just quit it?!
[/quote]
Possible but unlikely at this time..

[quote]No one but you is proposing a
regime. How many kids out of wedlock do you have that you>re trying
so hard to justify it>s gone beyond ridiculousness anyway? Give it up
and try flogging it on your own without spewing all over the newsgroup
already. Pretty sick if you actually get off on undernourished
children with low life expectancies. Does my reasoning here seem
faulty to you? It should. I am imitating your own. Now go back to
chanting nonsense syllables already. You>re falling behind ;)
[/quote]
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Julian · Guest

tara wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:46:04 -0400, Julian wrote
(in article <sLGdnRV00cHTWBbVnZ2dnUVZ8qvinZ2d@bt.com>):

RaaN wrote:
On Jul 26, 4:46 am, Julian <julianlz...@gmail.com> wrote:
RFHall wrote:
Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k
LOL

Leona wouldn>t have made it as far a conception
under the regime propsed by you!
Would you please just quit it?!
Possible but unlikely at this time..

No one but you is proposing a
regime. How many kids out of wedlock do you have that you>re trying
so hard to justify it>s gone beyond ridiculousness anyway? Give it up
and try flogging it on your own without spewing all over the newsgroup
already. Pretty sick if you actually get off on undernourished
children with low life expectancies. Does my reasoning here seem
faulty to you? It should. I am imitating your own. Now go back to
chanting nonsense syllables already. You>re falling behind ;)
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I understand Robert>s point of view on this subject and I also understand
Raan>s.
I have known intimately young mothers who 'work the system' and continue to
have kids because the government will support them. (this has nothing to do
about whether they love their kids ot not).

It>s kind of like: "This is something I can do - have kids. Makes me
important somehow. The government thinks so, so must be so,

There is a certain mentality with these mothers that seems to continue thru
generation upon generation. Raan is right about this. They truly think that
society owes them.
Maybe we do. They are not the majority who receive mother>s allowance
benefits.
But what do you do? In a democracy, there will always be those who abuse.

What other choice have we?
"The poor will always be with us"
[/quote]
There maybe a few "local" issues in some developed countries, the UK for
example,
but I>d be very surprised is the "welfare mom" problem was statistically
significant
generally. I suspect the vast majority of children are born without such
facilities.

I didn>t really catch much of an impression that Hall was particularly
concerned
with the "welfare mom" issue but he reeked of a far more vicious mindset.

halfawake · Guest

Julian wrote:

[quote]RFHall wrote:

If one can>t afford children, one should not have children.

Thanks to Julian, halfawake, possum, Keynes, Raan, and Evelyn for your
responses.

The ability to "afford children" can be defined as the ability to
shelter, clothe, feed, and educate children.

Thank God the Judeo-Christian heritage is not my heritage.

As for spamming websites... I can do that.

http://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/
[/quote]

Julian, your art rocks. Being reminded of your web address is the only
"spam" I>ve really appreciated in a while.

Robert

= = = = = = = =

tara · Guest

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:46:04 -0400, Julian wrote
(in article <sLGdnRV00cHTWBbVnZ2dnUVZ8qvinZ2d@bt.com>):

[quote]RaaN wrote:
On Jul 26, 4:46 am, Julian <julianlz...@gmail.com> wrote:
RFHall wrote:
Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k
LOL

Leona wouldn>t have made it as far a conception
under the regime propsed by you!

Would you please just quit it?!

Possible but unlikely at this time..

No one but you is proposing a
regime. How many kids out of wedlock do you have that you>re trying
so hard to justify it>s gone beyond ridiculousness anyway? Give it up
and try flogging it on your own without spewing all over the newsgroup
already. Pretty sick if you actually get off on undernourished
children with low life expectancies. Does my reasoning here seem
faulty to you? It should. I am imitating your own. Now go back to
chanting nonsense syllables already. You>re falling behind ;)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
[/quote]

I understand Robert>s point of view on this subject and I also understand
Raan>s.
I have known intimately young mothers who 'work the system' and continue to
have kids because the government will support them. (this has nothing to do
about whether they love their kids ot not).

It>s kind of like: "This is something I can do - have kids. Makes me
important somehow. The government thinks so, so must be so,

There is a certain mentality with these mothers that seems to continue thru
generation upon generation. Raan is right about this. They truly think that
society owes them.

Maybe we do. They are not the majority who receive mother>s allowance
benefits.
But what do you do? In a democracy, there will always be those who abuse.

What other choice have we?
"The poor will always be with us"

ara

Evelyn · Guest

On Jul 27, 2:18 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Julian wrote:
RFHall wrote:

If one can>t afford children, one should not have children.

Thanks to Julian, halfawake, possum, Keynes, Raan, and Evelyn for your
responses.

The ability to "afford children" can be defined as the ability to
shelter, clothe, feed, and educate children.

Thank God the Judeo-Christian heritage is not my heritage.

As for spamming websites... I can do that.

http://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/

Julian, your art rocks. Being reminded of your web address is the only
"spam" I>ve really appreciated in a while.

Robert

= = = = = = = =- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
It sure does. I still have a color print of one of his pieces
hanging on the wall next to my computer. A series of descending
buddha faces, with wonderful rays of color in the background. Good
stuff, Julian.

Evelyn

halfawake · Guest

tara wrote:

[quote]On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:46:04 -0400, Julian wrote
(in article <sLGdnRV00cHTWBbVnZ2dnUVZ8qvinZ2d@bt.com>):

RaaN wrote:

On Jul 26, 4:46 am, Julian <julianlz...@gmail.com> wrote:

RFHall wrote:

Someone suggested this movement should have an anthem:
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d08X2lN669k

LOL

Leona wouldn>t have made it as far a conception
under the regime propsed by you!

Would you please just quit it?!

Possible but unlikely at this time..

No one but you is proposing a

regime. How many kids out of wedlock do you have that you>re trying
so hard to justify it>s gone beyond ridiculousness anyway? Give it up
and try flogging it on your own without spewing all over the newsgroup
already. Pretty sick if you actually get off on undernourished
children with low life expectancies. Does my reasoning here seem
faulty to you? It should. I am imitating your own. Now go back to
chanting nonsense syllables already. You>re falling behind ;)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I understand Robert>s point of view on this subject and I also understand
Raan>s.
I have known intimately young mothers who 'work the system' and continue to
have kids because the government will support them. (this has nothing to do
about whether they love their kids ot not).

It>s kind of like: "This is something I can do - have kids. Makes me
important somehow. The government thinks so, so must be so,

There is a certain mentality with these mothers that seems to continue thru
generation upon generation. Raan is right about this. They truly think that
society owes them.

Maybe we do. They are not the majority who receive mother>s allowance
benefits.
But what do you do? In a democracy, there will always be those who abuse.

What other choice have we?
"The poor will always be with us"

ara

[/quote]

Hi Tara.
Well, I>d just like to re-emphasize that I never advocated young single
women having children. I *would* actually discourage that, whether they
were going to get government assistance or not. My advocacy of the
right to bear children was most centrally directed towards poor couples
who wanted to raise a family. I don>t doubt that others have rights to
have children, but I don>t feel as strong a need to advocate for them.
I most especially want to protect the right of poor people to have
*families,* not just to *have children.* I hope that makes my view a
little bit more clear. I do think it>s irresponsible to have a child
without thinking about it, planning it, and making sure that you are
going to take on the responsibility of raising that child with love and
care. I just don>t think that one>s income should be the main
determining factor in making that decision.

Robert

= = = = = = = = = = = =
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Topaz · Guest

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:53:18 -0700 (PDT), RaaN <raan2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[quote]On Jul 26, 9:08 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
By Walter Ruthard

I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.

This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens..

Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children..

Another very popular social program of the government was "Kraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it>s citizens to see what it also could have
done for them..

The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe.. The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash..

My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village..

Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn>t nailed down..

It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.

There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.

Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35..

Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.

If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers.. In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.

And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.

That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups
Terms Of Use.
[/quote]
No, it>s a Jew thing.

Crusading 1990s paper was mercilessly attacked -- and destroyed --
when it led one crusade into forbidden territory; a personal story.by
Jack Killey

QUESTION: Do you really believe the Jews own the media?

Answer: Most of it, yes. But they don>t have to own it to control it.

An object lesson in this distinction was the downfall of northeastern
Ohio>s The Gateway Press, a general interest newsweekly to which I
devoted seven years of part-time work. A fierce smear campaign and
unremitting advertising boycott by Cleveland-area Jews -- many not
even in our circulation region -- caused the forced sale of a
newspaper that many readers trusted to deliver at least an
approximation of the truth about events in their communities...

But only 850 words on Clinton>s appointments reduced our county, after
twelve years of an alternative, to its former bland diet of
one-newspaper pabulum. A barely measurable percentage of our
readership, none of whom ever refuted the commentary on its
particulars, managed to deprive some 48,000 readers of a reliable news
source in their communities. The Jews' "persecuted minority" mantle
is, I suppose, apropos for a race that showed a gift for the
theatrical long before they created Broadway and Hollywood...

The commentary in question was published, as all my many commentaries
were, as my personal opinion, not as the editorial position of the
newspaper. The piece can be easily synopsized. I pointed out the high
percentage of Jews among Clinton>s appointees, hardly representative
of his stated goal to have an administration that "looks like
America." I wondered how this might affect American foreign policy
towards Israel, and (this was the part that brought in the big guns
against us) ventured the opinion that this facet of the Clinton
administration was being deliberately obscured by a Jewish-dominated
American media establishment.

You>d think I>d written a glowing reconsideration of Mein Kampf. My
editor>s phone started jumping off her desk. Sales reps were screamed
at and thrown from premises by red-faced merchants who had previously
described us as an asset to the community. One of the more prominent
Jewish businessmen in the area wrote the editor a venomous letter
(specifying, of course, that it was not for publication) telling her,
"You can>t say whether or not you>re an anti-Semite. Only we can
decide that."

Do you think the surrounding media establishment came to the defense
of one of their own embattled members as the pot began to boil beyond
the boundaries of Portage County, Ohio? Do you suppose that perhaps
they>d defend the First Amendment right of a 12-year-old mainstream
newspaper to publish controversial opinion articles? Think again.

It took the Newhouse-owned Cleveland Plain Dealer about ten working
days to run a lead editorial titled "One For the Fish," written by
Plain Dealer staffer Carolyn Davis, a Jewess who in a personal whine
piece once stated her wish that every gun be wiped off the face of the
Earth (no liberal bias here). Carolyn was mad, and maybe a little
jealous that I could write circles around her. She at least quoted the
commentary>s best sentence, which was that Clinton "seated enough
white European males to ensure that America will be ruined in a
competent, intelligent, and well-organized fashion." Otherwise it was
the stock denunciation of "anti-Semitic . . . crap," seething with
horrified disbelief that anyone could suggest that Jews control
America>s media. Let>s see, a Jewess writer for Ohio>s largest - and
Jew-owned --newspaper attacks a rural Gentile-owned weekly in a lead
editorial . . . doesn>t sound like control to me.

The Cleveland Jewish News was even more generous, allotting a full
page to editor Cynthia Dettelbach herself rather than an underling. An
equally unexceptional attack it was, bristling with weasel words and
broad smears, but contradicting none of the commentary>s content with
opposing facts regarding Clinton>s appointees. I imagine the Jewish
News, like most of the other Jewish organs in the country, ran
bannered praise of Clinton>s favoritism towards Jews in his
administration. I guess it>s only impolitic for Gentile publications
to notice it, another point I made in the commentary.

This sort of notice by large media organs goes beyond "coverage" of a
hot topic. Neither publication took any interest in the community
served by The Gateway and probably cared even less who we, the paper
covering it, were.

The Newhouse-owned Akron Beacon Journal ran no editorial hate pieces,
but they stayed on top of the unfolding events around that
"anti-Semitic" newspaper in Streetsboro. The Plain Dealer nominally
covered our county, but we beat them regularly in an area they usually
assigned to worn-out hacks in their Summit County bureau. The point
is, the sudden interest and overbearing coverage of a heretofore
unnoticed region of their circulation area was looking mighty
selective. We had touched on a topic that was . . . unpermitted. A
Jewish topic. And they were going to make sure that the publication
impertinent enough to raise the thorny issue of Jewish power in the
American oval office and the American media wouldn>t publish for long.

The point man in the effort -- the visible one, anyway -- was Jerry
Brodsky, a Jewish principal in the largest and most affluent public
school district in our county. His most recent claim to fame had been
his opposition to the display of a Christmas tree at the predominantly
Gentile school he governed.

Also an attorney and a resident of Beachwood, a heavily-Jewish and
affluent Cleveland bedroom suburb, "Jerry the Jew," as he became
less-than-affectionately known in the Gateway office, mounted a
secondary advertising boycott against us, sending high-minded letters
to many of our advertisers warning them of the business to be lost if
they continued to advertise with us. He wrote the letters under his
legal letterhead, though he took care to remind recipients this wasn>t
official business (although he did remind them of his important
position in the school district).

I don>t think Jerry the Jew really scared anyone off, but he kept up
the momentum; the big advertisers who dropped us did so on their own
hoof. Jewish Rite Aid CEO Alex Grass suddenly took a personal interest
in the ad account of his rundown shop fifteen miles from us and pulled
their ads, declaring his offense at the article in a letter to us; Jew
Albert Klaben of Klaben Auto Stores, one of the region>s
biggest-volume auto-supply chains, was equally miffed and yanked his
ads. Both were important accounts. Several smaller but regular
advertisers pulled one by one, and a large Cleveland-area grocery
chain, Gentile-owned but with stores in heavily Jewish Cleveland
suburbs, began shuffling their feet and "reconsidering" their account
in phone calls and letters to my editor. Nervous local Gentile bankers
and realtors called with weak offers of continuing support, but whined
about all the "bad publicity" we were getting...

I thought back to a mysterious anonymous caller, a not-unfriendly
and apparently Gentile woman with a patrician accent who contacted me
early in the fray. She calmly told me the history of "the boycott,"
meaning not the current one against us but the
historical prototype of it, and said, "Your paper will be out of
business in eighteen months." It took, I think, fourteen.

What I found significant throughout this process was the outsized
influence wielded by a small clique, and a clique who would normally
have had no special interest in our paper or in our region, which is
largely rural and probably 99 percent Gentile. Even had a genuine
boycott been carried out its effect would have been negligible. Bad
publicity seems to have been the boycott>s purpose; since the largest
advertisers who pulled were Jews, a phone call to them from Brodsky or
the Jewish News or the Cleveland ADL probably would have sufficed.

Another feature of the boycott that struck me was the powerlessness of
our Gentile readers, many of whom were outraged by the attack on us.
We weren>t lacking in support from our readership, some of whom were
courageous enough to register their agreement with the commentary in
our letters column. I found encouraging the number of readers who told
me privately their feelings on Jewish power in U.S. politics.
Unfortunately, they didn>t wield the power the Jews do among U.S.
merchandisers, bankers, car dealers, and realtors, the people whose ad
dollars support small (and large) newspapers. It shouldn>t have
surprised me.

I had to laugh at Carloyn Davis>s description of "Jewish media power"
in the Plain Dealer editorial as a "bigoted buzz phrase that goes back
decades." One doesn>t have to sample overtly "racist" writings to
encounter references to Jewish media control, and they date back much
farther than decades. When I see past allusions to Jewish press power
from the pens of such august and "establishment" figures as historian
W.E.H. Lecky, Winston Churchill, Hillaire Belloc, or Sir Richard
Burton (among many others), two things cross my mind.

One is the casual manner of its mention, as though these writers are
noting that the sky is blue. Lecky, for example, in his late
nineteenth-century masterpiece "Democracy and Liberty," devotes a
paragraph or two to Jewish domination of the Russian press under the
Czars (he attributes at least some of the resentment the average
Russian felt for the Jews during the pogroms to this influence). No
earnest attempt is made to convince the reader of a doubtful precept,
no long lists of proofs are proffered: not because they couldn>t be
produced, one senses, but because it simply isn>t necessary to
document what appears to have been a commonly-known fact among the
less-numerous, but better-informed, literate members of earlier
generations.

A more troubling thought that strikes me about this situation is that
contemporary authors of comparative standing could not publish similar
observations, or at least not without sudden relegation to vanity
presses and maybe community college jobs. Probably only the eminence
and the solid corpus of work produced by earlier authors, and perhaps
less fear among Gentile publishers, allowed them to make such
references without destroying their careers.

At any rate, Jewish press control is hardly a malicious myth that>s
been propagated for decades (centuries?) by anti-Semites; it is rather
a truth that has been relentlessly obscured by increasingly powerful
Jewish interests within and outside the press. No one who has closely
studied the pertinent history at any length can convincingly argue
otherwise, even if the student limits himself to "permitted" books and
authors rather than documents some find inherently questionable (i.e.,
the Protocols. ) The extent to which an offending author is pushed to
the margins or isolated from the public by a self-interested Jewish
minority probably depends on a variety of factors, but one thing is
certain: he won>t emerge from the process quite intact.

So what has this to do with the experiences of a small-time writer for
a little newspaper in Streetsboro, Ohio? Only that I saw firsthand
what happens and has happened to many writers who dare to write and
publish on the fact of Jewish media and political influence. It was in
one sense a privilege to be in courageous company living and dead: to
be allocated the ire bestowed on people like Hillaire Belloc, G. K.
Chesterton, William Pierce, Douglas Reed, and Wilmot Robertson was a
badge of honor of sorts.

In other senses, not least the sacrifice of a good newspaper on the
altar of Jewish sensibilities, it was a tragedy. But not for me.
Although it>s virtually certain that despite fifteen years of some
pretty good journalism on my part, I>ll never work again for a
"respectable" journal, given the litmus tests and the rules imposed by
such publications, who would want to? If anything my experience in
fifteen years in the field has been one of progressive distaste for
the media, and in that sentiment at least I join a growing number of
Americans.

Unfortunately, most readers and television viewers will probably
continue to be guided by a thirst for entertainment and stimulation
despite their stated disgust for the mainstream media. But there>s no
doubt that awareness of the true nature and agenda of America>s
"mainstream," i.e., Jewish, media is growing, and perhaps we can take
a page from the Chosen Ones themselves when it comes to the
retribution a committed and aligned minority can impose.

2005 NationalVanguard.org.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Philosophy - Meta Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3