The Hidden History of Shanghai’s Jewish Quarter

Leave a comment

H/T Atlas Obscura.

This is a little know fact that Jews escaping the Holocaust ended up in Shanghai. 

As Hitler rose to power, the city welcomed refugees

The Fiedler family poses in front of their home on Tongshan Road.

The Fiedler family poses in front of their home on Tongshan Road. UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, COURTESY OF ERIC GOLDSTAUB

It’s common knowledge that as Hitler’s bid to rid the world of Jews escalated, so did the world’s refusal to let them in. What’s not well known is that when those borders, ports, doors, windows, and boundaries began shutting Jews out, in part by refusing to issue them visas, Shanghai, though already swollen with people and poverty, was the only place on Earth willing to accept them with or without papers. It was an exception that, for thousands, meant the difference between life and death.

To understand the significance of this gesture, it’s important to understand the widely held but mistaken belief that Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were never, at any point, permitted to leave. Henny Wenkart, a Holocaust survivor featured in the documentary, 50 Children: Mr. and Mrs. Kraus, explained this misconception: “What people don’t understand is that at the beginning, you could get out. Everybody could get out. Nobody would let us in!”

Clockwise: Chaim-Wolf Arnfeld's Chinese travel permit tag; a permit to leave the Shanghai ghetto; a sign from the ghetto.

Clockwise: Chaim-Wolf Arnfeld’s Chinese travel permit tag; a permit to leave the Shanghai ghetto; a sign from the ghetto. UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, COURTESY OF LEO ARNFELD/UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, COURTESY OF GARY MATZDORFF

In fact, until 1941 when the routes immigrants used to get to Shanghai were closed off by the war and the Germans decreed that Jews could no longer emigrate from the Reich, Jews in occupied Europe were not only allowed to leave, but were pressured to do so through a system of intimidation and force. Although they didn’t make it easy, the Nazi party, eager to implement their plan to rid Europe of its Jewish population—to make it judenrein or “cleansed” of Jews—did allow Jews to leave under certain conditions.

“Potential refugees needed to get a variety of papers approved by governmental authorities, including the Gestapo, before they could leave,” writes Steve Hochstadt in an email. Hochstadt is Professor Emeritus of History at Illinois College and author of the book Exodus to Shanghai. “One document was the Unbedenklichkeitsbescheinigung, literally a ‘certificate of harmlessness,’ showing that there were no problems with this person, such as owing taxes. Jews needed to prove that they had registered their valuables with the authorities so they could be properly confiscated…”

Though difficult to obtain, those documents, along with proof of passage to another country and/or a visa for permission to enter another country, were enough to get one out of Europe. Surprisingly, even for those already detained in concentration camps, the door, metaphorically speaking, was open, provided they could prove they would leave Germany once released.

From left: Jewish refugees Harry Fiedler and Heim Leiter pose next to a potato vendor in Shanghai; a Jewish refugee poses on Tongshan Road in Shanghai.

From left: Jewish refugees Harry Fiedler and Heim Leiter pose next to a potato vendor in Shanghai; a Jewish refugee poses on Tongshan Road in Shanghai. UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, COURTESY OF ERIC GOLDSTAUB

But of course, to walk through the door, one had to have some place to walk to, and that, for most Jews, was their biggest obstacle. Most countries made it either virtually impossible to enter (such as Switzerland, which insisted all German Jews have a red “J” stamped in their passports), imposed untenable conditions on refugees, or just simply wouldn’t issue visas.

Shanghai—already home to a few thousand Jewish immigrants who started slowly arriving as early as the mid-19th century for business or later to escape the Russian Revolution—not only did not require visas for entry, but issued them with alacrity to those seeking asylum. In many cases, newly arrived immigrants were not even asked to show passports. It was not until 1939 that restrictions were placed on Jewish immigrants coming into Shanghai and even then these limitations were decided not by the Chinese, but by the amalgam of foreign powers that controlled the city at the time. This body, made up both of Westerners and Japanese who wanted to restrict the influx of Jews, decided that anyone with a “J” on their passport would now have to apply in advance for landing permission.

From left: Boy scout troop badge; Jewish boy scouts in China watch the watering of ricefields.

From left: Boy scout troop badge; Jewish boy scouts in China watch the watering of ricefields. UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, COURTESY OF PETER WITTING

A plaque at the Shanghai Jewish Refugees Museum in Hongkou explains the situation perfectly:

“No consulate or embassy in Vienna was prepared to grant us immigration visas until, by luck and perseverance I went to the Chinese consulate where, wonder of wonders, I was granted visas for me and my extended family. On the basis of these visas, we were able to obtain shipping accommodation on the Bianco Mano from an Italian Shipping Line [sic] expected to leave in early December 1938 from Genoa, Italy to Shanghai, China – a journey of approximately 30 days.”—Eric Goldstaub, Jewish refugee to Shanghai

And so, without the luxury of options, and desperate to evade the tightening grip of the Nazis, Jewish refugees by the thousands, as well as a small minority of non-Jews, set sail from Germany and parts of Central and Eastern Europe, settling primarily in the Hongkou neighborhood of Shanghai. Having been stripped of most of their assets upon their departure from Europe, the virtually penniless arrivals found Hongkou much more affordable than the city’s more developed districts.

Advertisement  for the "Holzblat Hatmaker," a Jewish refugee-owned hat and accessory shop for men in Shanghai.

Advertisement for the “Holzblat Hatmaker,” a Jewish refugee-owned hat and accessory shop for men in Shanghai. UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, COURTESY OF RALPH HARPUDER

Although they came in a slow but steady stream from the beginning of Hitler’s rise, it was Kristallnacht in 1938 that catapulted the Jewish population in Shanghai from a few thousand to upwards of 20,000. Over the course of two days, Jewish businesses in Germany, annexed Austria, and what was then known as the Sudetenland (a region in what was then Czechoslovakia with a large German population) were looted, Jewish homes were destroyed, and Jewish men were arrested and taken to concentration camps. The migration that arose out of this traumatic event “ … lasted only until August 1939, when all the foreign powers in Shanghai decided to implement restrictions, which severely cut down the number who could enter,” writes Hochstadt.

The Shanghai of the early 20th century was in many ways an energetic, challenging city that attracted the driven and ambitious. Shopping, theater, education, music, publishing, architecture, and even film production flourished, but as Harriet Sargeant, author of the book Shanghai explains, the assault on the city by the Japanese proved too much: “Between 1937 and 1941 the Japanese oversaw the destruction of Shanghai. One by one they stripped away the attributes which had made it great. When they finally seized Shanghai itself in 1941, they found the longed-for city no longer existed. The Shanghai of the ‘twenties and ‘thirties had gone forever.

Jewish refugees socialize in a garden in Shanghai.


Troubled from the crushing Second Sino-Japanese War, Shanghai was a raw place. The refugee Ursula Bacon in her book, Shanghai Diary: A Young Girl’s Journey from Hitler’s Hate to War-Torn China, describes the scene she discovered upon arrival in Shanghai: “Boiling under the hot sun and steamed by the humidity in the air was the combination of rotting fruit peelings, spoiled leftovers, raw bones, dead cats, drowned puppies, carcasses of rats, and the lifeless body of a newborn baby …”

Nevertheless, many of the Shanghai locals, in spite of their own hardships, welcomed their new neighbors and shared what little they had, whether that meant housing, medical care, or just simple kindness. Gradually, with that support, Jewish refugees began, little by little, to create lives in their new country, and before long, the proliferation of Jewish-owned businesses was such that the Hongkou area became known as “Little Vienna.” Like their Chinese neighbors, they did their best to survive in difficult circumstances. They established newspapers, synagogues, retail businesses, restaurants, schools, cemeteries, guilds, social clubs, and even beauty pageants. They practiced medicine, started hospitals, got married, had babies, and held bar and bat mitzvahs. They learned to cook in coal-burning ovens and to haggle with street vendors.

One Hongkou resident remembers the time and place with great fondness. The artist Peter Max, who would later become known for his signature “psychedelic” works of art, came to Shanghai with his parents after fleeing Berlin. Like many of the Jewish families who immigrated to the city, Max’s father started a business, in this case, a store that sold Western-style suits. It was, Max recalls, an auspicious choice, as Chinese men were just beginning to favor them over their traditional Mandarin clothing.

“On the ground floor of our building was a Viennese garden-café,” Max recalls, “where my father and mother met their friends in the early evenings for coffee and pastries while listening to a violinist play romantic songs from the land they had left behind. The community of Europeans that gathered and grew below our house kept me connected to our roots.”

Two German Jewish refugee women stand behind the counter of the Elite Provision Store (delicatessen) in Shanghai. UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM, COURTESY OF RALPH HARPUDER

The people of that community lived their lives as normally as possible until 1942, when the history they came so far to escape came dangerously close to repeating itself. Shortly after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Colonel Josef Meisinger, Chief Representative of Nazi Germany Gestapo to Japan, approached the Japanese authorities in Shanghai with “The Meisinger Plan,” a scheme to rid the city of its Jewish population by starvation, overwork, or medical experiments. Although the Japanese ultimately rejected that plan, starting in February 1943, they did require that every Jewish person who came to Shanghai after 1937 relocate to Hongkou, a relatively small area that already had an existing population in the hundreds of thousands.

Although much of the city’s Jewish population was already living there, the crush of one population on another also dealt a brutal blow, with both disease and lack of food becoming even more critical concerns. Suddenly, curfews were imposed. Passes to exit and enter the ghetto were required. Food rations were implemented. It was not uncommon for 30 to 40 people to sleep in the same room (reports of up to 200 people in one room exist) and “bathroom” facilities in general consisted of little else than literal pots emptied by local laborers each morning. Still, refugees bolstered themselves by remembering that, in spite of these conditions, in Shanghai, they were the one thing they could not be in Europe: safe.

The Shanghai Jewish Refugees Museum.

The Shanghai Jewish Refugees Museum. BJANKA KADIC/ ALAMY

Between the dismal state of the still-impoverished city and the beginning of the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949, the city’s post-war Jewish population eventually dwindled to just a few hundred people, although there are said to be a few thousand Jews living there today. Eager to return to Europe or start new lives on other continents, most Jewish refugees left Shanghai at the end of WWII and with their departure began the dismantling of the culture and lives they established in China.

Although the nearby apartment buildings that once housed both European Jews and Chinese alike are still in use, given Shanghai’s current construction boom, it’s not unthinkable that these monuments, too, could soon meet the wrecking ball. The White Horse Inn, a Hongkou café opened by Viennese refugees in 1939 that became not just a meeting place but something of a symbol of normalcy for the displaced Europeans, was demolished almost ten years ago for a road widening project. Other businesses of the era, once so crucial to the Jewish experience in Shanghai, are now represented only by rescued signage that hangs in the courtyard of the neighborhood’s Shanghai Jewish Refugees Museum.

The museum, which includes the Ohel Moishe Synagogue, a center of Jewish life and worship for the Hongkou refugees, has become something of a touchstone of this extraordinary circumstance of history but between the exodus of the original Jewish population after the war and the city’s lack of interest in preserving this chapter of its past, one has to wonder if it will soon be the last monument to it standing.


The diseases that saved not killed people

Leave a comment

H/T Beyond The Band Of Brothers.

These doctors were very brave creating a fake contagion to save Jews from The Holocaust.

A fake contagion saved people from the Holocaust – not once, but twice.        

In the fall of 1943, Allied forces landed in Italy. The country capitulated shortly thereafter but German troops immediately took over much of the country, continuing the fight. At around the same time, a new contagion reared its head at the Fatebenefratelli Hospital that stood on a small island in the Tiber River in downtown Rome. Named “Syndrome K” or “K Syndrome” by the local doctors, it caused convulsions, bodily deformation, dementia, paralysis and an inevitable death by asphyxiation. It was extremely contagious. It was also completely fictional, invented by hospital workers as a ploy to save Jews from Nazi persecution.

Giovanni Borromeo, the director of the hospital

The idea of a fake disease was concocted by three doctors: Giovanni Borromeo, the director of the hospital; Vittorio Sacerdoti, a young physician, and Adriano Ossicini, a psychiatrist. The two younger doctors had good reason to fear the German occupation force themselves. Sacerdoti was a Jew whose uncle was Borromeo’s old mentor. He had been given refuge on the island and the chance to work under a false name after Italy’s anti-Semitic laws deprived him of his job. Ossicini was an anti-fascist and a member of the Catholic Resistance Movement who only managed to avoid imprisonment thanks to his Vatican connections. They enjoyed a measure of protection as the hospital was built in the Middle Ages and was still owned by the Order of St. John, also known as the Brothers Hospitallers of Saint John of God, making it an extraterritorial zone where Italian laws did not apply.

Vittorio Sacerdoti

The hospital overlooked Rome’s Jewish ghetto and the doctors could see the persecution of its inhabitants whenever they looked out the window. “K Syndrome” was invented to allow Jews to take refuge in the hospital under the guise of treatment. To the Germans, the name evoked Koch’s Disease, another name for tuberculosis, and the description was enough to keep them away from the K Syndrome wards during their raids of the hospital. The doctors themselves associated the name with Albert Kesselring, the German commander in charge of occupied Italy, and Herbert Kappler, head of German security and police services in Rome, who was later responsible for the Ardeatine massacre.

Adriano Ossicini

The exact number of Jews saved by Syndrome K is unknown but is probably between two dozen and a hundred. One of them was 10-year-old Luciana Sacerdoti, Vittorio’s own cousin. She remembered a German raid with these words: “The day the Nazis came to the hospital, someone came to our room and said: ‘You have to cough, you have to cough a lot because they are afraid of the coughing, they don’t want to catch an awful disease and they won’t enter.’”

The Fatebenefratelli Hospital today

This wasn’t the only time an epidemic was faked to protect the victims of the Nazism. Two Polish doctors, Eugene Lazowsky and Stanisław Matulewicz created a false typhus epidemic to protect the inhabitants in the area of their practice. Their ruse began when a Polish man visited Lazowsky, who himself previously escaped a German POW camp by climbing over the wall and riding away on a horse cart. The man explained that he had been rounded up to work in a Nazi labor camp but was given a two-week leave to visit his family. However, as his time was up, he found himself unable to return to forced labor. If he ran away, his family would have been sent to a concentration camp. Seeing no other way out, he was contemplating suicide.

Matulewicz (left) and Lazowsky (right)

Matulewicz had earlier discovered that people injected with a vaccine made of dead typhus bacteria showed up positive on tests without actually contracting the disease. The doctors gave the man such an injection, then took a blood sample and sent it to a German lab. There it was detected as a positive and the man given a permanent reprieve from forced labor.

Lazowsky loved animals

The doctors started using the ruse on a large scale, habitually giving “protein stimulation therapy” shots to local Poles whose minor illnesses exhibited symptoms similar to typhus, such as a fever, a cough, a rash or aches. The patients weren’t told of the true nature of their shots but they reliably showed up typhus-positive on German lab tests. Eventually the entire area, comprising around twelve villages, was declared an epidemic area by the authorities and the Nazis started avoiding the area as much as they could. This came too late to save the local Jews, who were already rounded up by then, but it brought a measure of safety for local Poles, as well as any Jews who had fled there from elsewhere

Polish boy looking through the door of a building quarantined for typhus

There was, however, one big problem with the “typhus epidemic:” nobody was dying of the deadly disease. This was noticed by the German authorities and a team of doctors was sent to investigate. Lazowsky gathered the weakest, sickest-looking locals, gave them vaccine shots and left them in a dirty room. While the senior German doctors were plied with a full table of Polish food and vodka, their younger, less experienced subordinates were sent to inspect the patients. Scared of the sickly group and the unhygienic circumstances, they quickly took blood samples, which were guaranteed to be false positives, and left without conducting a serious examination. Altogether some 8,000 people in the area were given a reprieve from Nazi excesses, thanks to deadly bacteria that weren’t even there.

Matulewicz with his wife


July 23, 1944

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To Proud Hillbilly@From the Caer.

These are powerful words.


That would be the date that the forces of the Soviet Union liberated the Majdanek concentration camp near Lublin, Poland, the first of many that they would enter as Nazi Germany fell.  Efforts were made by the Nazis to destroy the evidence of their death camps, but they were forced out so quickly that too much evidence was left behind.  And many in the world were horrified.  Piles of belongings systematically taken from camp victims.  Tons of hair.  Piles of dead.  Walking, empty-eyed skeletons.  Enough evidence that some were hanged after Nuremburg.  Enough that some are still being taken to trial and convicted of crimes 70 years later.

The world had been warned – there had been voices crying in the wilderness.  But by and large the world had ignored the warnings because it could not believe that such a thing was happening.  It could not comprehend the levels of brutality accepted by the Reich and those who, in one way or another, accepted and followed it.   This despite that fact that the Allied countries were themselves not far distant from another evil, slavery, that is born out of and sustained by exactly the same core belief that fueled what became known as the Holocaust.  The belief that some human beings aren’t quite human enough.  And if they aren’t quite human enough some argument can be made for their disposal, their unwilling disposition.

Recently, videos have revealed that Planned Parenthood not only deals in the body parts of aborted human beings but that they can even offer a “less crunchy” method of dismemberment so as to ensure less damage of the body parts they are providing.  Body parts, of course, requiring a fairly advanced level of development.  Human body parts, of course, requiring a human.  None of this surprises me.  Nor would it surprise me if the supporters of Planned Parenthood stopped reading right here.   I can guarantee that Planned Parenthood isn’t the only one trafficking in the body parts of those they kill.  Nor does the cavalier, casual way in which it is discussed between sips of wine and bites of food surprise me.  It’s to be expected.  We’ve seen this over and over in the history of the world.  First, declare someone not quite human.  Then do what you will with them.  With proper rationalization, of course.  See the Wansee Conference for one of many parallels.

Nobody who calls themselves pro-choice can be made uncomfortable by these videos as they are released.  In reality, I don’t believe they will watch them anyway.  To do so might cause discomfort and require serious contemplation and reflection and we are in too much of a mass media, bread and circuses environment for that to happen.  The preference for the comfortable will take priority.  But also there is the fact that if a human being is not being killed in an abortion then there is no more reason to be bothered by it than there is to be bothered by the package of chicken livers that one picks up at the local grocery store.  If it’s not a human being and not your household pet then it’s just meat, no different from the roast or wings housed in a cooler.

If, on the other hand, it is not just meat, then what is it?  No magic happens at some point between conception and birth.  The same chromosomes – half from the mother, half from the father – and the same biology exists for 9 months.  And for every month after.  It’s just a matter of development.  A unique entity appears at conception, first dependent on and nourished by just the mother, then dependent on and nourished by both mother and father.  X and or Y chromosomes combining to form an entity carrying various characteristics of both parents.  Nothing about that changes at any point from the moment of conception to the moment of death.  There is no person alive or dead who can prove that that changes.  The only thing that is proved as time goes on is how amazing a developing human being is.

In order to support abortion under any name, one of two things has to happen.  Either “humaness” has to be denied or it has to be accepted that a human being who has never committed a crime and cannot defend itself can be killed.  And that is the exact pathology that has allowed slavery, lynchings, the Third Reich, and countless other evils to flourish and grow.  It always will.  The pro-choice person is no more than the “good German” who, while perhaps not entirely accepting the extremes of the Reich, accepted that Jews were not quite human and possibly were a problem.  Those people were otherwise kind and giving.  They went to church, they brought a sick neighbor a casserole, they socialized and they looked after one another’s children.  They lived in the proximity of death camps and maybe even made a little money on the side selling produce from their farms for the commandant’s table.  They had a vague feeling that if someone was in Dachau they deserved to be there and then they went about their lives.  Because doing otherwise was unthinkable.  And hard.  The pro-choice person is the Yankee who would never consider owning a slave and yet feels that plantation owners have a right to their own property.

Since not a single pro-choice person can verify the instant a human being magically appears, a pro-choice person, no matter what they say, has to accept that no human being exists until birth.  That particularly onerous opinion does exist in the pro-choice community and is demonstrated in partial birth abortion.  Yet there is zero evidence to support one time or another as far as when a human life begins if it does not begin at conception.  Without anything to back it up, it’s just a matter of personal opinion.  If human life, despite the evidence of biology, only begins at some middle time, then that time is tied to a clock that is tied to  exact instant of conception and to a capability for a measurement of time that we don’t have.  For a pro-choice person, human life isn’t tied to any science – it’s tied to personal feeling.  For human life to be defined at some x along the developmental way, that x has to be defined to the tiniest, most infinitesimal  fraction of time.  An instant on the wrong side of that time and a human being is dead.  In a sane world, this is ludicrous.  In the pro-choice world, it is fine.  A member of a jury is required to only convict when there is no reasonable doubt. A pro-choice person not only convicts but hands out a death sentence thousands of times a day from deep within the shadows of doubt and personal opinion.

And there lies slavery.  There lies the Final Solution. There lies Hutus and Tutsis. There lies the millions dead under Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot.  It is exactly the same evil: insidious, comforting for those that accept it, normalized.  Promoted as progress and freedom.   And funded under the name of the Reich, the Glorious Revolution, Planned Parenthood.  All the born of the same idea – some are not human enough to not be expendable.

I don’t expect anyone who calls themselves pro-choice to have finished reading this.  It will have made them too uncomfortable.  Or, if they do get this far their sense of superiority will be outraged and they will call me names, condemn me.   They are part of a clique, surrounded by waves of media and persons with whom they feel comfortable, and any challenge to that will make them angry and frustrated.  At the very best they will call me divisive.  Many will deride opinions such as mine as stupid, ignorant, anti-woman, etc., because they cannot address the core arguments.  And those who at minimum call me divisive will continue to congregate where they feel safe.  If they contemplate otherwise they run the risk of being themselves called divisive and their comfortable community and the approbation of such as John Stewart are too much to risk for them.

They also have an advantage.  They will never in this life have to look into the eyes of the victims whose deaths they supported and justify themselves.  It’s all very neat and distant and clinically described for the pro-choice community.  After the Ohrdruf labor camp was liberated in April of 1945, General Walton Walker began the practice of making local civilians view the death camps, made them face up to what they had allowed and supported.  Very very few supporters of abortion will ever have to do that in this life.  They will oppose pain capable laws but never, ever interact with a survivor of abortion, despite the fact that there are thousands in this country alone who have survived that horrific, agonizing, and sometimes crippling attempt on their lives.  Those who are pro-choice will never look into the eyes of those survivors and tell them why they had to die, why their lives are a mistake.  That would require integrity and courage.  That would require the admission that the they, those that call themselves pro-choice, are exactly the same as those neatly dressed middle-class citizens who stand looking at a pile of bodies of those who weren’t quite human enough.  That sort of integrity and honesty doesn’t exist in the pro-choice community.  It’s much too frightening.


German Jew Recounts How He Survived the Holocaust Disguised as a Member of the Hitler Youth and Even Crossed Paths With Hitler Himself

Leave a comment

This is from The Blaze.

I could never imagine the mental and physical stress  Shlomo Perel suffered.


For four years, Shlomo Perel didn’t dare go by his real name.

A German Jew by birth, Perel managed to survive the Holocaust as a teenager concealed as a member of the Hitler Youth and serving as a young translator for Nazi soldiers.

He even once saw Adolf Hitler up close.

In an interview with Israel’s Ynet, Perel, now 89, recounted how he took a photograph of Hitler from some 200 feet away when the German leader visited the Nazi division that had invaded the Soviet Union — and marked the beginning of Perel’s double life he took on to survive.

Image source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

“I looked him in the eye,” Perel said. “I was 16 years old then, a translator in the German army, with uniforms and a swastika, and I didn’t know who I was at all.”

Perel was born in Germany, but his parents took him and his three siblings to Poland after the Nuremberg Laws, which severely limited the rights of Jews in Germany.

The Germans invaded Poland three years after the Perels relocated to Lodz and forced the Jews of that city to move into a ghetto. Instead of going to the ghetto, Perel’s parents sent their 14-year-old son and his older brother Isaak to eastern Poland, then controlled by the Soviet Union.

“Before we left my father told me in Yiddish: ‘Don’t ever forget who you are.’ Meaning, ‘Stay a Jew.’ Mother added in Yiddish: ‘Go, you must live,’” Perel told Ynet. “When a mother sends her children away knowing she’ll never see them again – that’s the greatest love of all.”

The brothers made it to Grodno, now Belarus, where Perel was taken in by a Jewish orphanage.

But in 1941, the Germans invaded the Soviet Union.

Perel recalled that on the morning of the invasion, the children tried to flee to the approaching Nazis. He remembered his mother’s words.

“The German[s] surrounded us in an open field and ordered us to stand in a line, and then it was my turn. The German soldier who stood in front of me ordered me to put my hands up and asked: ‘Are you a Jew?’” Perel told Ynet.

During that selection, Jews and Communists weremurdered by Einsatzgruppen units.

While he was waiting for his turn, Perel surreptitiously destroyed his identifying documents. His answer to the Nazi’s question was that he was a German named Josef Perjell who had lost his documents during the bombings.

“And then a miracle happened — for some reason he believed me,” Perel recalled. “All of the men had to pull down their pants and those found circumcised were executed, but not only did that soldier not order me to take off my clothes, he called me a ‘Volksdeutscher,’” an ethnic German living outside Germany.

The German soldier took Perel back to his unit, where he was appointed as a Russian and Polish translator and was given the nickname Jupp.

He crossed paths with Hitler on one of the German leader’s visits to the front lines.

“Only the high-ranked generals approached him and were allowed past his wall of bodyguards. I was hiding with a camera,” Perel said.

“After the war, I was asked many times: ‘Why did you photograph Hitler instead of killing him?’ And I tell the truth: Had I shot Hitler, I’m not sure I would’ve hit him, but I would’ve surely been killed on the spot. And I didn’t want to get into the history pages as a hero, I preferred being an anti-hero and survive,” Perel told Ynet.

Identifying document for Hitler Youth member "Josef Perjell" (Shlomo Perel). The document states that he was a Catholic of pure German nationality, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. (Image source: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum)

Perel described the lengths he went to in order to avoid being discovered, including making sure nobody ever saw him undressed and reveal that he was circumcised. He said he tried pulling on his foreskin every night in a futile effort to reverse his circumcision.

The survivor recounted that an army doctor who was secretly homosexual – considered criminal by the Nazis — tried to rape Perel while he was showering. After seeing that Perel was circumcised, the doctor realized that he was Jewish.

“He didn’t inform on me so as to not expose himself as a homosexual. I knew his secret and he knew mine, and after that incident he took care of me until he was killed,” Perel told Ynet.

Perel was later taken under the wing of one of the unit’s commanders who enrolled him in a Hitler Youth school back in Germany.

“I felt like any other Hitler Youth and I was so convinced, that no one suspected I wasn’t,” Perel said. “I stopped eating kosher and believing in God, but I believed I’ll stay alive. I felt immortal, like ‘it won’t happen to me.’”

“I was schizophrenic. During the day, I was a German youth who wanted to win the war, I sang songs against Jews and yelled ‘Heil Hitler’ — and at night, in bed, I cried out of longing for my family,” he said.

“When talking about the Holocaust, there’s a clear division: The victims were Jews, and the perpetrators were the Nazis, while I was both,” Perel told Ynet. “From the moment I wore the uniforms with a swastika on, I became my own enemy and I had to escape myself to survive.”

According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Perel was singled out during a lesson on racial science where the teacher pointed to the secretly Jewish youth as a “model of a typical eastern Baltic, ethnic German.”

He was later armed and sent along with his fellow Hitler Youth to the front to fight U.S. troops.

“When the American army came, I was taken hostage, but the lie was so deeply ingrained within me that I didn’t even tell the Americans I was a Jew,” Perel told Ynet. “I sat in captivity like everyone else, but for me it was a surreal situation: A Jewish youth wearing a Nazi Army uniform in American captivity.”

After the war, Perel learned that his family had been killed except for the brother with whom he had originally escaped. Perel moved to Palestine where he joined the Haganah – the pre-state Jewish defense force – and fought in Israel’s War of Independence.

Perel later wrote his memoir which was adapted into the 1990 film “Europa Europa.”



Dutch Holocaust survivor tells what her blue eyes have seen Read more: Dutch Holocaust survivor tells what her blue eyes have seen

1 Comment

This is from The Times Of Israel.

I could never imagine the horrors that Betty Bausch has witnessed and experienced.

To these horrors I want to repeat the Jewish motto “Never Again!” 



Betty Bausch at her home in Kfar Sava, Israel. April 6, 2015. (photo credit: Renee Ghert-Zand/Times of Israel staff)

96-year-old Betty Bausch travels the world to give testimony on how she evaded the Nazis, and lost her loved ones

The first thing you notice about Betty Bausch are her exquisite blue eyes. They—along with her fearless nature and lots of luck—are what enabled her to survive the Holocaust in Holland

The second thing you notice about her is that she seems much younger than her 96 years. Clear of mind and fully mobile, she didn’t think twice about climbing up on a stool to reach a tea tin in her kitchen cupboard or to search for an old photo album on a high bookshelf when a reporter came to visit her at her apartment in Kfar Saba during Passover.

Bausch fit the interview in as she prepared to leave the next day for a two-month trip to Holland and Germany, where she will speak about her Holocaust experience to many different groups on the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps and the end of World War II. Even at her advanced age, Bausch makes four to five such trips a year.

“I am one of the very few who can still talk about it. So, when they want me, I have to go,” she said. “But I’ve given up going to the United States at this point.”

What Amsterdam-born Bausch talks to audiences about is how she managed to avoid deportation to a concentration camp by assuming several false identities and moving around German-occupied Holland more than 20 times during the final two and a half years of the war.

'Broken Silence' memoir by Betty Bausch and her sister Liesje Auerbach. (photo credit: Renee Ghert-Zand/Times of Israel staff)

‘Broken Silence’ memoir by Betty Bausch and her sister Liesje Auerbach. (photo credit: Renee Ghert-Zand/Times of Israel staff)

“I never had a chance to find out whether I was any good at my jobs as a farmhand, child nurse, housekeeper, cleaner, babysitter, aid to the elderly, housemaid or social worker,” she wrote in the Holocaust memoir she co-wrote with her younger sister Liesje (Elisheva) Auerbach about the different kinds of work she managed to do rather convincingly during the war.

Bausch had acted in some plays when she was in high school, and she put those acting skills to good use.

“In the evenings before I went to bed, I looked in the mirror and worked on not showing any fear on my face,” she recounted.

In the memoir, “Broken Silence,” Bausch’s sister Liesje described her as “full of life and energy, a strong personality who chose her own path in life without allowing other’s opinions to take preference over her own.”

“Perhaps her stubbornness and persistence is what saved her life,” she wrote.

Bausch said that even as a 16-year-old, she paid attention to Hitler’s speeches when he came to power.

“He said that the Jews were the rats of the world and had to be destroyed, and I took his threats seriously even when others didn’t,” she said.

“I told my family the Nazis would never take me.”

Indeed, Bausch was the only member of the Polak family the Nazis did not deport to the Westerbork transit camp and then on to either Sobibor or Bergen-Belsen.

The Polak children (from left): Betty, Liesje, Jaap and Juul. All but Juul survived the Holocaust. (Courtesy)

Bausch’s mother and father were killed in Sobibor in 1943, and her older sister Juul died two weeks after liberation in 1945. Her older brother Jaap (Jack) came out of Bergen-Belsen looking like a skeleton, but recovered and lived in America, married to a woman he met in the camps, until his recent death at age 102.

Liesje, the youngest in the family, made it to British Mandate Palestine in July 1944, having been one of 220 Bergen-Belsen prisoners exchanged for the same number of women and children from the German Templar community that had been left behind when the community’s men had left to join the Nazi war effort.

In Jerusalem, she continued the career path she began at the Jewish Hospital in Amsterdam and later in Bergen-Belsen and became the first Dutch woman to graduate from the Hadassah nursing school. Her luck held out once again when, in April 1948, she narrowly avoided being in the convoy of professors, doctors and nurses that was attacked by Arab forces on its way to Mount Scopus. Almost everyone in the convoy was killed.

Liesje (Elisheva) Auerbach (third from right) as a nurse at Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem, 1946. (Courtesy)

During the war, Bausch and her husband Philip (Flip) de Leeuw (whom she had married at age 20 in 1939) kept themselves alive thanks to their wits and the extensive connections de Leeuw, a reserve army officer, had in the Dutch Resistance. Early on, the couple, both using false papers, was able to stay together. Later it became too difficult because of Bausch’s ability to pass as a non-Jew and de Leeuw’s looking “too Jewish” to do so.

One might assume that Bausch’s now-white hair was once blond, but it was actually brown.

“I didn’t dye it because I realized that if I were stuck somewhere for some time and my roots began showing before I could color them again, I’d be caught,” she explained.

“But I had blue eyes. My blue eyes saved me,” she said.

Wedding of Betty Polak and Philip de Leeuw at the Great New Synagogue of Amsterdam, December 21, 1939. (Courtesy)

In the summer of 1944, the couple was reunited in Bilthoven, and de Leeuw joined the Resistance. Since he had military experience, he was given command of an eight-man combat unit. After a sabotage mission went wrong in November of that year, de Leeuw, Bausch and several others were arrested. They were interrogated at the Bilthoven police station and then at the Wolvenplein prison in Utrecht, where de Leeuw was tortured. Thanks to the help of some sympathetic guards, the husband and wife were able to pass notes between one another and coordinate their stories.

Bausch was taken to SD (Nazi SS intelligence) headquarters in Utrecht and faced interrogation by a notoriously cruel commander. She summoned her best acting skills and managed to make it out of not only the commander’s office, but also out of prison a few days later.

As she was handed her release papers bearing a Nazi stamp, the guard told her, “Make sure never to get involved again with anything illegal, and don’t ever have anything to do with those who are.”

“I thought to myself, if you only knew just how very illegal I am,” she wrote in her memoir.

Prison release document for Ada Koole (Betty Bausch's assumed name) dated November 17, 1944. (Courtesy)

With great nerve, Bausch returned some time later to the SD headquarters and asked the staff to give de Leeuw a spare pair of glasses she had brought for him. She was told that he was to be killed by a firing squad—which he was, along with five other young men, on November 20 in the woods of Prattenberg on the border between Rhenen and Veenendaal.

“The visit not only proved fruitless, it even heightened the general suspicion under which I was regarded by the Resistance,” she wrote.

“Despite having many good friends in Bilthoven, I turned my back on the place. My acquaintances in the Resistance had cut off any contact, and I too disconnected…Thus began the long period of silence in my life.”

Bausch survived the last half year of the war in hiding in a small city in the west of Holland, and also smuggling food from the eastern part of the country into the starving western part. She rode her bicycle with wooden wheels for hundreds of miles, passing checkpoints and avoiding having her bike confiscated by showing a special permit she finagled from the Nazis by telling them she was a social worker who needed to travel.

“I was such a smooth talker that the Nazis even offered me a job. I thanked them and told them I already had one,” she said.

Despite her having been brought up in a very Zionist home and having been a member of the Mizrahi Orthodox Zionist youth group, Bausch chose not to join her sister in Israel after the war. She remained in Holland, helping to rebuild the country through work she obtained in the Dutch ministry of agriculture in The Hague.

Betty Bausch in her office at the Dutch ministry of agriculture at The Hague. (Courtesy)

Over the years, Bausch, who worked mainly among men, rose to higher and higher positions in the ministry, breaking the glass ceiling. For many years, however, her personal life was less successful.

“People wouldn’t understand what the war had done to me. I couldn’t talk about it,” she said.

In 1954 she met Dolf Bausch at a conference. He was not Jewish, but he had helped Jews during the war and had worked as an informant for the Allies. He had been sent to a concentration camp, but escaped with the help of an SS man. After the war, the Dutch punished him for having testified on behalf of the German who had saved him.

“We worked in a similar field, he was a bad driver, and he understood me,” Bausch said.

The couple was married in 1961 and Bausch became mother to her new husband’s two sons from a previous marriage. They visited Israel frequently and eventually made aliya in 1981, living half the year in Holland and half the year in a house they built in Eilat.

‘There were people who gave their lives to help me. You have to be open to the needs of others. Don’t wait until they come to you’

Dolf died of kidney disease at age 69 in 1982, leaving Bausch a widow for the second time. She eventually sold the house in Eilat and moved to an apartment in a retirement village in Kfar Saba, not far from where her sister Liesje, now 93, lives. She lives off her Dutch pension, German reparation payments administered through the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, and payments from Israel’s Finance Ministry, which were recently greatly increased thanks to help from Aviv (Spring) For Holocaust Survivors, a nonprofit organization that assists survivors in accessing benefits due them.

Having outlived most other survivors who were adults during the Holocaust, the multilingual Bausch feels it is her duty to keep speaking to young people in Israel and abroad. She remained silent until her grandchildren and great-grandchildren (who live in England and Belgium) got her to open up, and now she has vowed to keep talking until she no longer can.

She believes the most important lesson from her Holocaust experience that she can impart to younger generations is the importance of being there for others.

“There were people who gave their lives to help me. You have to be open to the needs of others. Don’t wait until they come to you,” she said.

Read more: Dutch Holocaust survivor tells what her blue eyes have seen | The Times of Israel
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Did Jews Go Like Sheep to the Slaughter?

Leave a comment

This is from JPFO.

If I am in the same situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany

I want to die as bravely as Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto

By Nechama Tec. Home / Winter 2013
Article Source

“Partisans In The Forest,” Irene Lieblich, 1923–2008. Courtesy of Mahil Lieblich, © The Estate of Irene Lieblich, 2013.

Invariably, as a frequent lecturer on the Holocaust, I am asked variations of the cliché, Why did Jews go like sheep to the slaughter? Behind this question is a blatantly false assumption that the opportunities to resist were present, but Jews simply failed to take advantage of them mdash; in other words, the victims themselves were partly to blame for their own destruction.

Ironically, the phrase “like sheep to the slaughter” first appeared in the Holocaust context as a call to arms in a 1942 New Year’s Manifesto in which Aba Kovner, a 23-year-old poet and Hashomer Hatzair (Socialist Zionist organization) leader in the Vilna ghetto, called for resistance: “Jews! Defend yourselves with arms! The German and Lithuanian hangmen have arrived at the gates of the ghetto. They have come to murder us! … But we shall not go! We shall not stretch our necks like sheep for the slaughter! Jews! Defend yourself with arms!” (Ghetto in Flames: The Struggle and Destruction of the Jews in Vilna in the Holocaust.)

How did Aba Kovner’s anguished call to stand up to the enemies of the Jews later come to be used to accuse the Jews of participating in their own demise?

One of the early proponents of the view that Jews were somehow complicit in their own destruction was Bruno Bettelheim. A Jewish psychoanalyst from Vienna, he was charged by the Nazis for political transgressions, arrested in 1938, and incarcerated in various concentration camps. A year later, an American benefactor sent him a U.S. immigration visa and he was released.

In 1943, Bettelheim wrote a long article in Abnormal and Social Psychology about his life in the concentration camp. Claiming for himself the role of an objective observer, he emphasized the slave-like docility of concentration camp inmates.

Notably, however, during the time of his incarceration, all concentration camp inmates were being held on charges stemming from alleged political and/or criminal transgressions. It was not until 1942, three years after Bettelheim’s release, that Jews and other groups were marked for extermination in death factories as part of Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

Bruno Bettelheim

In the early 1960s, Bettelheim returned to the theme that Jews had passively contributed to their own doom. Anne Frank, her family, and the Jews who had shared their hiding place in Amsterdam could, he said, “have provided themselves with a gun or two, had they wished. They could have shot down at least one or two of the ‘green police’ who came for them. There was no surplus of such police. The loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks would not have been any different because they all died anyway except for Anne’s father, (but)they could have sold their lives dearly instead of walking to their death” (The Informed Heart, Avon, New York, 1960).

Clearly Bettelheim did not understand the insurmountable obstacles Jews faced under Nazi domination in the 1940s. Guns were unattainable. With very few exceptions Jews who sought to purchase weapons failed, and many who tried were murdered in the attempt.

Nonetheless, as a successful psychoanalyst, a talented writer, and someone who had presented himself as a Holocaust survivor, Bruno Bettelheim succeeded in being listened to, and his accusation of Jewish docility became an accepted view.


Another influential writer on the Holocaust was the historian Raoul Hilberg. In his magnum opus, The Destruction of the European Jews (first published in 1961, most recently updated in 2003), Hilberg wrote, “During the catastrophe of 1933–45, the instances of opposition were small and few. Above all, whenever and whichever they occurred, they were actions of last (never first) resort.”

The book’s descriptions of Jewish uprisings are brief, and critical facts do not appear. Ignored are the complexities, such as Jews being denied the means of armed resistance throughout the war. Weapons were scarce, and the Allies were unwilling to help Jews secure them. Successful resistance is contingent on the presence of several conditions, the key component being cooperation with others. Under German occupation, the emerging Jewish leaders searched in vain for cooperative parties, but none took interest in their plight or responded to their pleas for arms.

Effective armed resistance also requires guerillas to be able to vanish and blend into the local population mdash; but having been forced into Jewish ghettos, the vast majority of Jews in Eastern Europe had no place to hide.

Another precondition for successful resistance is effective leadership, and here, too, Eastern European Jewry was at a huge disadvantage. Many Jewish leaders were murdered during the first stage of the German occupation in 1939; only a few of the Judenräte (German-mandated Jewish Councils) wholeheartedly supported the Jewish underground; and most of the underground commanders lacked military experience.

Ignoring these overwhelming obstacles to Jewish armed opposition, Hilberg focused instead on one question: Did Jewish resistance diminish Germany’s overall military power? And to that he answered: When “measured in German casualties [Jewish resistance]shrinks into insignificance.”

By that definition, he was right. Jews were never in a position to undermine or diminish the effectiveness of German military might. But is it appropriate to evaluate Jewish, or, for that matter, any other kinds of resistance, only in military terms? What about the ingenious strategies the Jews were continually devising in order to survive and record the heinous crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators? What about spiritual resistance?

Hilberg didn’t even acknowledge that a military defeat of their oppressors was not the resisters’ primary aim. The Jews were fully aware of German superior power, and their own powerlessness. Through opposition, they tried to achieve a certain measure of autonomy, to the point of choosing their way of dying. As Yitzhak Zuckerman, second in command of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, commented, 25 years later: “I don’t think there is any need to analyze the uprising in military terms. This was a war of [fewer] than a thousand people against a mighty army, and no one doubted how it was likely to turn out….If there is a school to study the human spirit, there it should be a major subject. The really important things were inherent in the force shown by Jewish youths, after years of degradation, to rise up against their destroyers and determine what death they would choose: Treblinka or Uprising. I don’t know if there is a standard to measure that” (A Surplus of Memory, 1993).

In short, the goal of the Warsaw Ghetto revolt was not to win a military victory; it was to die fighting.


In 1963, influenced by Hilberg’s writings, the journalist Hannah Arendt published Eichmann in Jerusalem, which, while covering the Eichmann trial, also portrayed the Jews as collaborators in their own destruction. Stating that “undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story [the Holocaust]has now been exposed….in all its pathetic and sordid detail by Raoul Hilberg,” she went on to describe the Judenräteas cooperating with the Nazis in the destruction of their own people: “In the Nazi inspired, but not Nazi dictated manifestoes, they issued, we still can sense how they enjoyed their new power.”

Influential as they were, Bettelheim, Hilberg, and Arendt all got it wrong. Bettleheim and Arendt built their cases on hypothetical value judgments and personal views rather than historical fact, and Hilberg took an incomplete and narrow view of Jewish resistance.


What is the truth about Jewish resistance during the Holocaust? While “resistance” conjures up images of combat; in reality, armed confrontations between oppressors and their victims during the war were rare, for the reasons noted above. In general, resistance efforts focused on collecting and disseminating information, forging documents, and accumulating arms where possible. The few national armed uprisings that did occur mdash; such as the 1944 revolt in Paris, when the Allies were already at the gates; and the August 1944 Warsaw uprising, which ended with the destruction of the city and the estimated death of 200,000 Poles mdash; occurred late in the war, when the Allied victory was imminent.

In my view, the unprecedented oppression of the Jews led to equally unprecedented forms of resistance, such as gemilut chasadim, acts of kindness. One example: On September 23, 1943, the day the final liquidation of the Vilna ghetto began, the population was divided by age and sex; however, older men were thrown into a group of older women and women with children. Dina Abramovicz, then a teenager, was watching from afar as her elderly mother struggled with oversized bundles. Suddenly, the Nazis pushed a teacher she knew into the group of older women and children because he walked on crutches. Faced with having to climb a hill along with the crowd, the teacher looked around imploringly, as if asking for help. Dina tells what happened next:

“Someone responded to his pleading and it was my mother. She put down all her bundles and took the arm of the crippled man, who leaned heavily on her. As they moved toward the steep hill together mdash; the tall, crippled man and the elderly, frail woman mdash; their faces glowed with a sublime light mdash; the light of compassion and humanity that overcame the horror of their destiny. This is the light in which I remember my mother and which will not disappear from my memory as long as I live.”

In the extreme environment of the concentration camp, resistance also often took the form of personal risks to support a newly made friend. A true story: Two young girls in Auschwitz became close friends. One of them developed a violent cough, and a kapo insisted she be moved to the Auschwitz medical ward, from which few returned alive. The healthy friend visited her every day after work, risking illness and being interned in the medical ward herself. Occasionally she would bring her friend water or a little slice of bread.

One day after work, she noticed a raspberry bush next to the road and was filled with the desire to bring the fruit to her friend. Knowing that if the Germans found out it would be confiscated and she would likely be murdered, she nonetheless gently placed the fruit into her closed palm in a leaf and then rushed to her friend with the news that she had a surprise. The raspberries, however, clutched tightly in her hand, had become a paste. Nevertheless, when the sick young girl saw what was in her friend’s open palm, her face lit up with happiness. Such a gesture of kindness, an act of spiritual resistance, proved to each girl that she was not alone and rekindled her hope in humanity.

In examining the actions of the Jews during the Holocaust, it is important to view them in the appropriate context. The Holocaust scholar and survivor of the Lód’z Ghetto and Auschwitz Lucjan Dobroszicki reminds us of this when he asks: “Has anyone seen an army without arms? An army scattered over 200 isolated ghettos? An army of infants, old people, the sick? Armies whose soldiers are denied even the right to surrender?”

Equally important, we must not limit ourselves to a narrow definition of resistance. The charge that Jews were complicit in their own slaughter rings hollow when Jewish resistance is more broadly defined to include armed resistance, simple acts of kindness, ingenious survival strategies, and the commitment to retain one’s own humanity in the face of overwhelming evil.

Nechama Tec is professor emerita of Sociology, University of Connecticut, Stamford, and author of several books on the Holocaust, including the bestselling Defiance. This article is adapted from Resistance, published in June 2013 by Oxford University Press.

Admiring Manson

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

What is wrong with todays youth?

Looking up to and admiring a POS like Charles Manson

or Che Guevera.


Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad ones. I’m often reminded of that when I have a conversation that broaches the subject of human evil. As most of my readers already know, the denial of human evil is a very real problem among younger generations of Americans. Just last week, however, I had a conversation with a college student that really stopped me in my tracks. I have reproduced it below but not for anyone’s entertainment. I have some observations that follow. I hope you’ll give them careful consideration after you read the following exchange:

UNC-Wilmington Student: What courses do you teach at UNCW?

Me: Right now, I’m teaching Law of Evidence and Trials of the Century, a course that focuses on famous American criminal trials.
Student: What case are you covering now?

Me: We’re discussing Charles Manson.

Student: I sort of admire Charles Manson.

Me: What do you mean by that? Is it the murderer part or the racist part you admire most in Manson?

Student: Well, he didn’t actually murder anyone.

Me: Actually he did. Under the vicarious liability rule of criminal conspiracy, the act of entering a conspiracy substitutes in place of the act of killing in order to fulfill the actus reus requirement. Add the intent or mens rea elements and we have the two major ingredients necessary for a crime.

Student: That’s just a technicality.

Me: The same thing applies to Hitler. Certainly, you would have no reservations calling Hitler a murderer in a purely moral sense. Calling Hitler a murderer doesn’t rest on a technicality just because he had others carry out the acts.

Student: Well, the Manson family was different. They didn’t follow Manson’s instructions. He just wanted people killed. He didn’t want them butchered.

Me: I won’t concede that you are right about that but I want to better understand your position. Are you saying that gratuitous murder is reprehensible but that clean and efficient murder is admirable? Help me out, here.

Student: Manson dabbled in Buddhism and I think that put him at peace with what he did. If he’s fine with it then that’s all that matters.

Me: Once again, I’m not going to accept your factual premises but I want to get something straight. Are you referring to the Buddhist principle that evil is an illusion? Is that what you believe?

Student: (Silence).

Me: Well, let me put it another way. Since it is Veteran’s Day, let me ask you to imagine the following. An American soldier goes to liberate a Nazi concentration camp. He sees piles of bodies lying around everywhere. He smells the stench of death all around him. Are those sights and smells mere illusions or would someone visiting the same camp at the same time see and smell the very same things?

Student: Well, I’m not going to deny the Holocaust. It certainly wasn’t an illusion.

Me: Then what does Manson’s subsequent state of mind have to do with anything?

Student: I’m not following you.

Me: Well then let me help you. Just imagine that you and I get really drunk and I decide to rape you. In the morning, I can’t remember anything that happened. I was just too drunk to remember anything. Since I don’t remember the rape, I’m totally at peace with it. I can’t be upset out about it if I don’t remember that it happened. But didn’t it really happen?

Student: Yes. In the scenario you described there was a rape.

Me: Just remember that whenever you make Manson’s peace of mind an issue you insult the murder victims and their families just as you would be insulted by someone denying your rape with similar logic.

Student: Okay, I don’t admire Charles Manson.

This kind of twisted moral reasoning isn’t totally new among America’s youth. Were it so there never would have been a Manson family in the first place. As a new ex-con, Charles Manson went to Haight Asbury in 1967 because he knew it was a place where morally confused young people gathered. He knew he could find runaways who were victims of abuse or who had fallen prey to addiction. He also knew he could find youths caught up in rebellion against everything their parents had taught them.

The ideas Manson taught were not welcomed on college campuses in the 1960s. There were protests to be sure. But the campuses were not yet steeped in moral relativism. Our universities were still classically liberal. That liberalism was built on a foundation of tolerance. And, by definition, true tolerance presupposes a moral judgment. Relativism simply did not fit into the equation.

Of course, the universities have changed a lot within the last twenty years. Multicultural centers started to pop up on campuses everywhere during the early 90s. Unfortunately, the multicultural worldview (read: cultural relativism) is no longer confined to those centers. New majors have popped up with strange names, which usually begin with the name of a particular cultural group and end with the word “studies.” Basic studies requirements in areas such as “life sciences,” “natural sciences,” and “social sciences” are being replaced with strange new categories. For example, my university now has a basic studies concentration requirement called “living in a diverse world.”

We all need to be prepared for where this is going. If you think debating the question “is abortion murder?” is frustrating then imagine debating the question “is murder is really wrong?” You won’t have to imagine much longer. This is the direction in which we are headed. But those debates won’t be with strung out teenaged drug addicts on the streets of San Francisco. They will be with young adults who have college degrees. And with their multicultural education will come some degree of cultural influence.

A general rule of thumb is that the trends taking place on our campuses today will be taking place in the broader culture in twenty years. The question as always is how the church will respond. It has merely reacted to the culture for far too long. That is good news for the high priests of multi-cultural diversity.


ADOLPH HITLER: The Real Father of Universal Health Care

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

Obamacare closely mirrors some of Hitler’s health care plans.

Obama with his own words supports death panels.

Screen Shot 2013-09-26 at 9.11.40 AM

Otto von Bismarck, the Chancellor of Germany and a dictator in his own right, started socialized healthcare in 1883 with the Reichsversicherungsverordnung or Reich Insurance Act. However, only certain segments of the society were insured at that time. It was Adolf Hitler, who actually imposed socialized healthcare on the entire German population, as a part of nazification of the healthcare industry, and for that reason he should rightly be called the *real* father of universal healthcare. This collective universal healthcare concept was called “racial hygiene.” This is history that people have largely forgotten, because it is inconvenient for many to remember it.

Hitler also literally rolled out, via panzer, his now universal healthcare to occupied France, Belgium and the Netherlands — those countries with mainly “Aryan” populations. Hitler put universal healthcare in place in those very countries that he wished to aryanize and perfect by eliminating physical/mental defects in the populations via sterilization and medical killing.

The point is that universal healthcare gives any Government enormous power that can be misused, if the wrong people are in control, not that it is adminstered the same now as in Nazi Germany. This is too much power to centralize in the hands of the Government, because governments sometimes go bad.

The first mass murders of the Holocaust were carried out in the socialized German hospitals and the techniques for mass murder were developed there. Several hundred thousand handicapped and mentally ill persons were murdered in Hitler’s universal healthcare system. Retarded and mentally ill children were euthanized and the T4 project did the same for handicapped, mentally ill and elderly adults. In his orders permitting medical killing, Hitler called them “mercy killing” and “lives not worth living.” In this way Germany produced great savings in healthcare, not only due to the extermination of existing patients, but many ill persons (and their families) became afraid to even check into the hospitals.

Robert Jay Lifton, author of “The Nazi Doctors, points out that the extermination of the Jews and others of different ethnic groups was itself seen as a medical solution, a medical procedure for the collective healing of the Aryan race by elimination of the Jewish infection of Aryan blood. So, the entire Holocaust can be seen as an extension of Hitlercare. From that point of view, it is estimated that about 10 million people were murdered under Hitlercare, including six millions Jews. The Nazi plan was ultimately to exterminate about 25 million Jews and Slavs in Eastern Europe in fulfillment of the so-called “racial hygiene” principle of the the German universal healthcare system.

Because resources are limited, the concept of Universal Healthcare requires the Government to make decisions on the distribution of healthcare that will determine the survivability of different groups in society. That is, the welfare of the collective and government priorities are placed above that of the rights of any individual.

Once you have given the Government that much power, there is no natural barrier between you and the Holocaust of the Nazis. It is only a matter of degree, of how far they want to take this concept that social welfare trumps individual rights.

This is the inherent evil of universal healthcare. It gives Government the right to decide life and death for entire classes of society, as opposed to individuals contracting for their own healthcare. This is why Hitler liked universal healthcare so much that he imposed it on conquered countries, not because he was so concerned for the well being of the subjected peoples, but because it gave him the right over entire classes of people to decide, who lives and who dies. It gave him the power to engineer the composition of society to his own malicious requirements. Entire classes of people can be killed — or, allowed to die — with no judicial process being necessary. (This is death panels on steroids.)

This is also the reason that Obama and others in the Government want universal healthcare so desperately. The socialist elite need to be able to ignore the rights of the individual to engineer their new utopian society. For that purpose, the same kind of centrally-controlled healthcare system that Hitler used is required.



Following Blindly

Leave a comment

This is one of the dangers of following someone blindly.

The German people blindly followed a charismatic speaker.

As result over 6 million people died in The Holocaust.

Noe so many Americans have fallen under the spell of an incompetent

charismatic speaker.

This speaker has promised to bring Utopia to America.

This speaker has promised to keep delivering as Santa Claus by making

the rich pay their fair share.

Just like the charismatic German speaker the American charismatic

speaker promised jobs and security.

The American charismatic speaker has promised to keep children safe

from gun violence and has declared war on legal gun owners.

How many lives will be ruined and yes even destroyed by this

charismatic speaker? 

Atheist group opposes Holocaust memorial on Ohio statehouse grounds

1 Comment

This is from Fox News.

Where in any of our founding documents does the term Separation

of Church and State appear?

I have never been able to locate this term.

Another example of atheist bullying.


An atheist group believes the Holocaust memorial depicted above violates the separation of church and state. (

A Wisconsin-based atheist group has expressed its opposition to a Holocaust memorial set to be built on the ground of the Ohio statehouse, arguing that its location violates the separation of church and state and calling the Star of David “exclusionary” in memorializing victims of the Nazis.

But Ohio Gov. John Kasich and proponents of the memorial say it will teach people about man’s inhumanity to man and that, contrary to the atheists’ claim, it will include all those killed by the Nazis — including U.S. soldiers, ethnic and religious minorities, homosexuals and the mentally ill.

Joyce Garver Keller, executive director of Jewish Communities, an organization that represents Jewish groups across the state, said the memorial is intended “mostly to honor those who had survived and who had come to Ohio to build a life.”

Keller said it is appropriate to build the structure on state grounds because it will “remind lawmakers and those who work in and around government of the important role and responsibility they have in speaking out in the face of  hatred, anti-Semetism and genocide.”

“The Holocaust did not begin in concentration camps in the ovens with smoke stacks and mass graves,” Keller told “It began in the halls of government with the passage of laws that targeted Jews, taking their properties, their businesses, their home, their freedom and ultimately their lives.

Kasich first proposed the idea of a memorial during a May 4, 2011, annual Holocaust commemoration at the statehouse.

“We need to have remembrance in this statehouse,” Kasich said at the time. “I’d call on the Jewish community, along with our brothers in faith, to develop some sort of a memorial that members of our legislature and members of the public, as they pass through this great rotunda, will be able to understand not just the history of a time when people wouldn’t stand, but the fact that it’s today we must stand against evil.”

“Let’s construct something in this rotunda that can teach people about man’s inhumanity to man, best exemplified by what happened in the Holocaust,” he said.

The inscription planned for the memorial will read: “Inspired by the Ohio soldiers who were part of the American liberation and survivors who made Ohio their home. If you save one life, it is as if you have saved the world.”

“In remembrance the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust and millions more including prisoners of war, ethnic and religious minorities, homosexuals, the mentally ill, the disabled, and political dissidents were suffered under Nazi Germany.”

The Jewish Star of David will be prominently featured at the site.

Kellers and others call such a memorial “inclusive,” while the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) claims the memorial is discriminatory and has no place on government grounds.

“The Star of David is a religious symbol that is exclusionary,” Dan Barker, a spokesman for the group, told “We’re not opposed to the memorial and we have sympathy for all the victims. We would probably give money to it if it were not on state grounds.”

“A secular government is not supposed to have a religious endorsement,” Barker continued. “I have Jewish heritage myself, but just because we like the religion and we’re sympathetic to Holocaust survivors, doesn’t mean we should violate the precious American principle of separation between church and state.”

Barker said the group expressed its opposition in a letter to the state, but has no plans to sue.

Approximately 11 million people perished in the Holocaust. Historians say at least 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis, as did 1.9 million Polish civilians, mostly Christians. More than three million Soviet prisoners of war died and more than two million Soviet civilians, mostly Christians, were killed. More than one million Yugoslav civilians died and between 22,000 and 500,000 Gypsies were the victims of genocide, according to historical accounts. Approximately 70,000 men, women and children with mental and physical handicaps were murdered as well as an unknown number of political prisoners, resistance fighters, homosexuals and deportees.

According to Kasich’s office, the memorial will sit 84 yards from a bronze inscription in front of the statehouse that reads: “With God, all things are possible.” The American Civil Liberties Union had previously sued over that inscription and lost.

Read more:

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: