Saturday, 11 July 2015

Facts and Fascism by George Seldes

from Spike EP on Vimeo.

from Spike EP on Vimeo.

Although George Seldes is one of the giants in the history of American journalism, particularly in the field of press criticism, he has been neglected and blacklisted by the mainstream press. 

In this three-part series we present the American TV debut of Seldes, who was a foreign correspondent from 1917-1939 and who published the alternative newspaper "In Fact" in the 1940s and l950s. Seldes wrote over 20 books and was the model and inspiration for present day activists and muckrakers like Ralph Nader, I.F. Stone and Jack Anderson. 

In Part I, Seldes recalls the World War I "battle" of Saint-Mihiel, which was no battle at all; his interview with Lenin; and his many talks with Mussolini, who later tried to have him killed.

He analyzes press coverage of the events, showing us the lies, distortions and machinations which occurred and the people and institutions involved in them.

from Spike EP on Vimeo.

We see post-World War I Germany and the rise of Nazism through Seldes' eyes. 

He vividly recalls his talks with President General von Hindenburg, his meeting with Hitler, the huge Nazi rallies in Nuremberg and Hitler's hypnotic spell over the people. 

Seldes describes the destruction of the Weimar Republic by the wealthy German capitalists who not only exploited and helped ruin the German economy, but also supported Hitler. 

Seldes specifies the pro-Nazi segments of the American press, particularly the "Readers' Digest" and William Randolph Hearst, who accepted a "bribe" to print pro-Nazi stories. 

Next, he relates his experiences as a reporter during the Spanish Civil War and exposes the gross censorship, distortions and lies in the press about the tragic struggle.

from Spike EP on Vimeo.

Seldes relates his experiences as a press muckraker in the 1940s and 1950s. 

He recalls his coverage of the war in Mexico and the machinations of the American press there. 

He tells of starting his newsletter, "In Fact," which had a nationwide circulation of almost 176,000, and which exposed the material ignored and distorted in the regular press. 

Seldes explains why he was blacklisted in the press, even though he had written over 20 books, some of which were bestsellers. 

Finally, he recalls his experience of being called up to testify before the infamous McCarthy Committee in the Senate and how the Red Scare eventually destroyed his newspaper.



George Seldes - Hitler Ran Away LIke A Coward In The Beerhall Putsch from Spike EP on Vimeo.


Facts and Fascism by George Seldes

Chapters 1 & 2 of the book Facts and Fascism by George Seldes
In Fact, Inc., 1943  7th edition, hard cover

Part 1
The Big Money and Big Profits in Fascism
 
CHAPTER I
FASCISM ON THE HOME FRONT

THE TIME will come when people will not believe it was possible to mobilize 10,800,000 Americans to fight Fascism and not tell them the truth about the enemy. And yet, this is exactly what happened in our country in the Global War.

    The Office of War Information published millions of words, thousands of pamphlets, posters and other material, most of it very valuable and all of it intended to inspire the people and raise the morale of the soldiers of production and the soldiers of the field; but it is also a fact that to the date of this writing the OWI did not publish a single pamphlet, poster, broadside or paper telling either the civilian population or the men and women in uniform what Fascism really is, what the forces are behind the political and military movements generally known as Fascism, who puts up the money, who make the tremendous profits which Fascism has paid its backers in Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain and other nations.

    Certainly when it comes to relating foreign Fascism with native American Fascism there is a conspiracy of silence in which the OWI, the American press, and all the forces of reaction in America are united. Outside of a few books, a few pamphlets, and a few articles in the very small independent weekly press which reaches only a few thousand readers, not one word on this subject has been printed, and not one word has been heard over any of the big commercial radio stations.

    Faraway Fascism has been attacked, exposed, and denounced by the same publications (the Saturday Evening Post for example) which for years ran articles lauding Mussolini and his notable backers in all lands; and the Hearst newspapers, which published from 1934 to Pearl Harbor dozens of signed propaganda articles by Dr. Goebbels, Goering and other Nazis, now call them names, but no publication which takes money from certain Big Business elements (all of which will be named here) will dare name the native or nearby Fascists. In many instances the publications themselves are part of our own Fascism.

    But we must not be fooled into believing that American Fascism consists of a few persons, some crackpots, some mentally perverted, a few criminals such as George W. Christians and Pelley, who are in jail at present, or the 33 indicted for sedition. These are the lunatic fringes of Fascism, they are also the small fry, the unimportant figureheads, just as Hitler was before the Big Money in Germany decided to set him up in business.

    The real Fascists of America are never named in the commercial press. It will not even hint at the fact that there are many powerful elements working against a greater democracy, against an America without discrimination based on race, color and creed, an America where never again will one third of the people be without sufficient food, clothing and shelter, where never again will there be 12,000,000 unemployed and many more millions working for semi-starvation wages while the DuPont, Ford, Hearst, Mellon and Rockefeller Empires move into the billions of dollars.

    I call these elements Fascist. You may not like names and labels but technically as well as journalistically and morally they are correct. You may substitute Tories, or Economic Royalists, or Vested Interests, or whatever you like for the flag-waving anti-American Americans whose efforts and objectives parallel those of the Liga Industriale which bought out Mussolini in 1920, and the Thyssen-Krupp-Voegeler-Flick Rhineland industry and banking system which subsidized Hitler when Naziism was about to collapse. Their main object was to end the civil liberties of the nation, destroy the labor unions, end the free press, and make more money at the expense of a slave nation. Both succeeded. And in America one similar organization has already made the following historical record:

    1. Organized big business in a movement against labor.

    2. Founded the Liberty League to fight civil liberties.

    3. Subsidized anti-labor, Fascist and anti-Semitic organizations (Senator Black's Lobby Investigation).

    4. Signed a pact with Nazi agents for political and economic (cartel) penetration of U. S. (Exposed in In Fact).

    5. Founded a $1,000,000-a-year propaganda outfit to corrupt the press, radio, schools and churches.

    6. Stopped the passage of food, drug and other laws aimed to safeguard the consumer, i.e., 132,000,000 Americans.

    7. Conspired, with DuPont as leader, in September, 1942, to sabotage the war effort in order to maintain profits.

    8. Sabotage the U. S. defense plan in 1940 by refusing to convert the auto plants and by a sit-down of capital against plant expansion; sabotage the oil, aluminum and rubber expansion programs. (If any of these facts are not known to you it is because 99% of our press, in the pay of the same elements, suppressed the Tolan, Truman, Bone Committee reports, Thurman Arnold's reports, the TNEC Monopoly reports and other Government documents.)

    9. Delayed the winning of the war through the acts of $-a-year men looking out for present profits and future monopoly rather than the quick defeat of Fascism. (Documented in the labor press for two years; and again at the 1942 C.I.O. Convention.)

    Naturally enough the President of the United States and other high officials cannot name the men, organizations, pressure lobbyists, and national associations which have made this and similar records; they can only refer to "noisy traitors," Quislings, defeatists, the "Cliveden Set" or to the Tories and Economic Royalists. And you may be certain that our press will never name the defeatists because the same elements which made the above 9-point record are the main advertisers and biggest subsidizers of the newspapers and magazines. In the many instances even the general charges by the President himself have been suppressed. In Germany, in Italy until the seizure of government by the Fascists, the majority of newspapers were brave enough to be anti-Fascist, whereas in America strangely enough a large part of the press (Hearst, Scripps-Howard, McCormick-Patterson) has for years been pro-Fascist and almost all big papers live on the money of the biggest Tory and reactionary corporations and reflect their viewpoint now.

    On the anti-Fascist side, unfortunately, there is not one publication which can boast of more than one or two hundred thousand circulation, whereas the reactionary press has its New York News with 2,000,000 daily, its Saturday Evening Post with 3,000,000 weekly and its Reader's Digest with 9,000,000 monthly, which means up to 50,000,000 readers.

    It is a shameful and tragic situation that in America, with 132,000,000 persons of whom 50,000,000 read anti-labor and anti-liberal propaganda in Reader's Digest, only a few hundred thousand buy and read intelligent, honest, unbribed, uncorrupted publications, issued in the public interest.

CHAPTER II
PROFITS IN FASCISM: GERMANY
IT SEEMS to this writer that the most important thing in the world today next to destroying Fascism on the field of battle, is to fight Fascism which has not yet taken up the gun.

    This other Fascism will become more active—and drape itself in the national flag everywhere—when military Fascism has been defeated. So far as America is concerned, its first notable Fascist leader, Huey Long, a very smart demagogue, once said, "Sure we'll have Fascism here, but it will come as an anti-Fascism movement."

    To know what Fascism really is and why we must fight it and destroy it here in America, we must first of all know what it is we are fighting, what the Fascist regimes really are and do, who puts up the money and backs Fascism in every country (including the United States at this very moment), and who owns the nations under such regimes, and why the natives of all Fascist countries must be driven into harder work, less money, reduced standard of living, poverty and desperation so that the men and corporations who found, subsidize and own Fascism can grow unbelievably rich.

    This is what has happened in Germany, Italy, Japan and other countries; it is true to a great extent in Spain, Finland, Hungary, Rumania, the Polish so-called Republic, and although not one standard newspaper or magazine has ever breathed a word about it, the same Fascist movement—the march of the men of wealth and power, not the crackpot doings of the two or three dozen who have been indicted for sedition—is taking place in America.

    These matters are all related, both as systems of government and as business enterprises. It is the purpose of Part I of this book to show who really owns the Fascist International, who profits from it, and just how far the United States has gone along the Fascist line.

    The true story of Hitler-Germany is the real clue to the situation everywhere. In 1923, after his monkeyshines in the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler received his first big money from Fritz Thyssen. January 30, 1933, Hitler came into power after a deal with Hindenburg and the big Prussian landlords (Junkers). Since then, and in all of vast occupied Europe, Hitler has been paying off the men who invested in Fascism as a purely money-making enterprise. A personal dispute put Thyssen out, but his brother and the thousand biggest industrialists and bankers of Germany have as a result of financing Hitler become millionaires; the I. G. Farbenindustrie and other cartel organizations have become billionaires.

    Big money entrenched itself completely after the departure of Fritz Thyssen, with his rather quaint ideas of placing limits on corruption in business, with his repugnance to the murder of Jews as a national policy, and other rather old-fashioned ethical concepts of monopoly and exploitation which he inherited from his father and which did not encompass robbery and bloodshed as means of commercial aggression. The cartels moved forward with the troops.

    There were, of course, exposés of Hitler as a tool of Germany's Big Money, written before he became dictator, but inasmuch as publication occurred in small non-commercial weeklies which few people read, or in the radical press, which is always accused of misrepresentation (by the commercial press which is always lying) the fact remains that few people knew what really was going on. This conspiracy of silence became even more intense when the big American and other banking houses floated their great loans for Hitler—and other fascist dictators in many lands.

    As early as 1931 Gerhard Hirschfeld published in a Catholic literary weekly a tiny part of the evidence that Hitler was the political arm of the biggest branch of German capitalism. Recalling that Hitler vowed that the Krupps, the Thyssens and the Kirdorffs, the Mannesmans, the Borsigs and the Siemens (who are the Garys, Schwabs and Mellons of Germany)—would be stripped of wealth and power, Hirschfeld pointed out that "it is from the ranks of heavy industry, however, that Hitler is drawing much of the money which is making German Fascism something to be reckoned with. Hitler received considerable support from the heavy industries of Bavaria where he started the Fascist movement. The Borsig works and the Eisenheuttenleute (Association of iron forgers and founders) are important pillars of the Fascist structure. . . . From the machine industry of Wuerttemberg and from many other branches of the iron and steel industries, marks flow into the bulging coffers. In addition, money comes from abroad. Swiss friends sent him 330,000 francs just before last year's elections. Baron von Bissing, the university professor, collected many thousands of florins in the Netherlands . . . German-American friends expressed their sympathy in dollar bills . . . even directors of the French-controlled Skoda-Works (of Czechoslovakia), famous in the manufacture of armaments, may be found among Hitler's supporters."

    It requires neither integrity nor courage today to say that Hitler was made the Fuehrer of Germany by the biggest industrialists of his country. (It does require integrity and courage even today to relate the German men and forces to those in America, to point out the equivalents, and that is why no commercial newspaper or magazine has ever done so.) But as early as Summer, 1933, in the Week-End Review, a light which shows up Fascism as nothing but a military-political-economic movement to grab all the money and resources of the world was already focused on Germany by the man who wrote under the name of "Ernst Henri."

    He denies, first of all, the myth that Naziism is a "rebellion of the middle classes." The middle classes, it is true, were most united and outspoken for Hitler, they did in fact send in their contributions, but when "these sons of butchers and publicans, of post office officials and insurance agents, of doctors and lawyers" imagined they were fighting for their own interests, when "they swarmed out of the Storm Troops barracks and struck down defenseless workers, Jews, Socialists and Communists" they would not have been able to do it, had they not been mobilized by other sources. "Hitler, the idol of this mass, and himself only a petty bourgeois—a petty bourgeois posing as a Napolean—in reality followed the dictates of a higher power."

    The secret, continues Henri, "must be sought in the hidden history of Germany's industrial oligarchy, in the post-war politics of coal and steel. . . . Not Hitler, but Thyssen, the great magnate of the Ruhr, is the prime mover of German Fascism."

    Thyssen's main undertaking was the German Steel Trust, the equivalent of U. S. Steel. Vereinigte Stahlwerke Aktien Gesellschaft, incidentally, was heavily financed by American banking houses—Episcopalian, Catholic and Jewish—throughout the pre-Hitler and Hitler regimes. The Steel Trust was the basis of Germany economy, and when it found itself in a desperate situation, during the Bruening regime which preceded Hitler, the foundations of Germany were threatened. It was then that the state came to trust's aid by buying nearly half the shares of Gelsenkirchener Bergwerke, holding company, nominally worth 125,000,000 marks, at a fantastic price, estimated at double the market. Immediately thereafter the political parties of the nation began fighting for control of this weapon.

    The Bruening regime, Catholic, favored the Otto Wolff-Deutsche Bank group which was affiliated with powerful Catholic groups. The Thyssen-Flick-Voegeler group was opposed, although Thyssen himself was a Catholic. Otto Wolff is a leading Catholic, but one of his partners, Ottmar Strauss, is a Jewish liberal. Another affiliate of Wolff's was General Schleicher. The rivalry in Germany was something like that between the Morgan and Rockefeller interests in America, except that the Wolff group was known as liberal and the Thyssen group included Flick and Voegeler, political heirs of Hugo Stinnes who had been, Henri says, "perhaps the first National Socialist in Germany."

    Stinnes, Hugenberg, Thyssen and other multi-millionaire owners of Germany had never hidden their participation in political movements nor their subsidization of all reactionary anti-labor political parties. These men put their money into the parties of the right wing and were powerful enough at all times to prevent the Social-Democratic Party, which took over the nation (with the aid of the victorious Allies) in 1918 from doing anything radical to aid the majority of the people—even if the Social-Democrats had sincerely attempted to do so. The historic facts speak for themselves. Germany under Ebert and all the liberal coalitions which preceded the reactionary regimes, which naturally culminated in the advent of big business Fascism, never did more than make gestures towards the working class and permitted joblessness and poverty to increase while the Stinneses and Hugenbergs and Thyssens grew in wealth and power.

    Thyssen became interested in Hitler in the year of the Beer Hall Putsch, when Hitler was regarded as a revolver-firing clown who would end up in an insane asylum rather than the chancellor's chair. But Thyssen saw possibilities. In 1927 Thyssen took his partner in the Steel Trust, Voegeler, to Rome, they interviewed Mussolini, and when they returned it was noticeable that the Nazi Party suddenly grew rich and began its march to power.

    In 1927 Thyssen joined the Nazi Party officially and began that cooperation with Hitler which led to the latter's overthrow of the Republic in 1933.

    "Hitler," writes Henri, "never took an important step without first consulting Thyssen and his friends. Thyssen systematically financed all the election funds of the National Socialist Party. 
It was he who, by a majority decision and against the most pointed opposition on the part of Otto Wolff and Kloeckner, persuaded the two political centers of German Ruhr capital, the Bergbauverein Essen and the Nordwestgruppe der Eisen-und Stahlindustrie, to agree that every coal and steel concern had, by way of a particular obligatory tax, to deliver a certain sum into the election cash of the National Socialists. In order to raise this money, the price of coal was raised in Germany.

    "For the presidential elections of 1932 alone, Thyssen provided the Nazis within a few days with more than 3,000,000 marks. Without this help the fantastic measures resorted to by Hitler in the years 1930-1933 would never have been possible. Without Thyssen's money Hitler would never have achieved such a success, and the party would probably have broken up at the time of the Papen elections at the end of 1932, when it lost 2,000,000 votes and the Strasser group announced its secession. In January, 1933, Schleicher was on the point of hitting the Hitler movement on the head and putting it under his own command. But, just as before Thyssen had raised Hitler by his financial machinery, so now he rescued him by his political machinery.

    "To bring off this coup Thyssen employed two of his political friends and agents: Hugenberg (who is one of the directors of the Thyssen Steel Trust group) and Von Papen. In the middle of January a secret meeting between Hitler and Papen was held at Cologne in the house of Baron von Schroeder, partner of the banking House of J. H. Stein, which is closely related with Flick and Thyssen. Although, thanks to an indiscretion, the news of this meeting got into the papers, a few days later, the conspiracy against Schleicher was ready. The allied group, Thyssen-Hitler-Von Papen-Hugenberg, which was backed by the entire German reactionary force, succeeded in drawing to its side the son of President von Hindenburg, Major Oskar von Hindenburg, who had so far stood by his old regimental friend, Schleicher. In this way the sudden fall of Schleicher and the sensational nomination of Hitler came about. Thyssen had won, and Hitler set the scene for his St. Bartholomew's Day.

    "What's followed was a continual triumph of the capitalistic interests of the Thyssen group. The National Socialist Government of Germany today carries out Thyssen's policy on all matters, as though the entire nation were but a part of the Steel Trust. Every step taken by the new Government corresponds exactly to the private interests of this clique; Stinne's days have returned.

    "Thyssen had six main objectives: 

(1) to secure the Steel Trust for his own group; 

(2) to save the great coal and steel syndicates, the basis of the entire capitalist system of monopolies in Germany; 

(3) to eliminate the Catholic and Jewish rival groups and to capture the whole industrial machine for the extreme reactionary wing of heavy industry; 

(4) to crush the workers and abolish the trade unions, so as to strengthen German competition in the world's markets by means of further wage reductions, etc.; 

(5) to increase the chances of inflation, in order to devaluate the debts of heavy industry (a repetition of the astute transaction invented by Stinnes in 1923); 

and finally (6) to initiate a pronouncedly imperialist tendency in foreign politics in order to satisfy the powerful drive for expansion in Ruhr capital. All these items of his programs, without exception, have been, are, or will now be executed by the Hitler government." 

(The reader must remember that this prediction was written in early 1933, within a few months of Hitler's triumph.)

    How did Hitler repay Thyssen? There were general and specific ways. Thyssen was made sub-dictator of Germany (Reichs Minister of Economics), in charge of all industry. The labor problem for Thyssen and all employers of Germany was solved when Hitler abolished the unions, confiscated the union treasuries, reduced labor to a form of serfdom. Specifically, Hitler poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Thyssen's pocketbook by the manipulation of Gelsenkirchener. The new capitalization was 660,000,000 marks instead of 125,000,000. The state, which had owned more than half of Gelsenkirchener, came out holding less than 20% of the new corporation, and Thyssen, who had feared the collapse of his empire, came out king of coal and steel again, and therefore the most powerful industrialist in the land.

    Within a few weeks after taking power Hitler used his anti-Semitism for commercial purposes as an aid to his main financial backer, Thyssen. Oscar Wassermann, of the Catholic-Jewish Deutsche Bank, had been chief rival of the Thyssen bankers. Hitler retired him on "grounds of health." 

Thyssen's one opponent within the Steel Trust, Kloeckner, a Catholic like Thyssen, was forced to resign from the Hitler Reichstag. 

A charge of corruption was filed against Otto Wolff, who led the financial battle against Thyssen. 

Goering appointed Thyssen chief representative of private capital in his new Prussian State Council. 

And, finally, the Fighting League of the Trading Middle Class, the little business men who put up their small money and who went into the streets killing and robbing industrial working men and Jews, was ordered dissolved by Hitler early in 1933 because it might menace the upper class.

    It is with especial interest that one reads Henri's conclusion and prediction a full decade after he made it. He said in 1933: "The trade unions have been destroyed. Thyssen can dictate wages through the new 'corporations' and thus reduce still further the prices of export goods in the face of English and American competition. Armaments are being prepared; Thyssen provides the steel. Thyssen needs the Danube markets, where he owns the Alpine Montan-Gesellschaft, the greatest steel producers in Austria. But the primal objective of this new system in Germany has not yet been attained. Thyssen wants war, and it looks as though Hitler may yet provide him with one."

    The historic facts are that armaments were being prepared, although the British and French closed their eyes to this fact and believed the promise that they would be used only against Russia; the Nazi army did march into Austria and did unite the Alpine works with their own, and it is also true that Hitler did provide a war, although it was Thyssen's brother, Baron von Thyssen, and Thyssen's partner and successor as head of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke, Voegeler, who reaped the profit, and not Thyssen himself. Naziism paid all its original backers (except on man) and all its present owners colossal profits.

    The relation between money and elections was more clearly illustrated in the German elections in the decade of 1923-1933 than in any American elections—although a volume could be written to prove that the Republican or Democratic Party which wins every four years is the party (with only a very few exceptions) which has the larger number of millions to spend.

    "Seven months before he (Hitler) got there (the chancellor's seat) he polled his legitimate maximum of 13,745,781 votes, just over one third of those recorded. Four months later, in the last constitutional Reichstag election, he lost over 2,000,000 votes. That was in November, 1932. The huge Nazi Party was rapidly declining; it had been overblown with millions of mere malcontents, victims of the slump, lured in by desperation rather that Hitler's glib tongue and splendid showmanship. Yet, after the landslide of the November elections, the Party was broke to the wide and in what looked like hopeless dissolution. Hitler moodily (not for the first time nor for the last) threatened suicide. A few weeks later he was in power."

    The foregoing statement is from the Fabian Society of Great Britain. It states the situation truthfully. How then explain what followed?

    "How had the miracle happened? Goebbels grandly called it 'The National Socialist Revolution'; it was nothing of the kind. It was just a bargain with Big Business and the Junkers. Strong in money, power and influence, but with hardly any popular backing, these vested interests (with arch-intriguer Von Papen as their political representative) were worried by the Schleicher government's threat to expose the worst of their graft; they were even more worried by the possibility of a swing to the Left through a coalition of Schleicher and the Trade Unions. That's why the Papen group, having cold-shouldered the slipping Nazi Party for some time, were now keen on an alliance capable of adding a mass movement to their own financial and industrial power. That's how Hitler got his much-needed cash for his Party and his own appointment as Chancellor in a new Coalition Government."

    Hitler's entire history is one of spending big money to build up a party, big money to get millions of votes, and when his backers' money failed to put him in office, he made the conclusive deal with them, finally selling out the great majority who voted for him in the belief he would keep his 26 promises, most of them directed against Big Business, the Junkers and the other enemies of the people.

    Hitler's fascist party was never a majority party. In many countries where several political parties exist—and even in the United States at those times when three major parties are in the field—the chancellor or president elected to office represents only a minority or the electorate. Nevertheless, it is true that Hitler did succeed in fairly honest times before he was able to use bloodshed and terrorism for his "Ja" elections, in making his the largest of a score of parties.

    Why was he able to do this?

    There are of course many reasons, notably the disillusion of the nation, national egotism, the natural desire to be a great nation, the psychological moment for a dictator of any party, right or left, economic breakdown, the need of a change, and so forth. But important, if not most important, was the platform of the Nazi party which promised the people what they were hungering for.

    It must not be forgotten that the word Nazi stands for national socialist German workers party, and that Hitler, while secretly in the pay of the industrialists who wanted the unions disbanded and labor turned into serfdom, was openly boasting that his was a socialist party—socialism without Karl Marx—and a nationalist-socialist party whatever that my mean. But it did mean a great deal to millions. The followers of Marxian socialism in Germany, split into several parties, would if united constitute the greatest force in the nation, and socialism and labor were almost synonymous in Germany. Hitler knew this. He capitalized on it. He stole the word.

    Hitler was able to get thirteen million followers before 1933 by a pseudo-socialistic reform program and by great promises of aid to the common people. In the 26 points of the Nazi platform, adopted in 1920 and never repudiated, Hitler promised the miserable people of Germany:

    1. The abolition of all unearned incomes.

    2. The end of interest slavery. This was aimed against all bankers, not only Jewish bankers.

    3. Nationalization of all joint-stock companies. This meant the end of all private industry, not only the monopolies but all big business.

    4. Participation of the workers in the profits of all corporations—the mill, mine, factory, industrial worker was to become a part owner of industry.

    5. Establishment of a sound middle class. Naziism, like Italian Fascism, made a great appeal to the big middle class, the small business man, the millions caught between the millstones of Big Business and labor. The big department stores, for example, were to be smashed. This promise delighted every small shopkeeper in Germany. Bernard Shaw once said that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers. This was just as true for Germany—and German shopkeepers were more alive politically. They were for Hitler's Naziism to a man—and they supplied a large number of his murderous S.S. and S.A. troops.

    6. Death penalty for usurers and profiteers.

    7. Distinction between "raffendes" and "schaffendes" capital—between predatory and creative capital. This was the Gregor Strasser thesis: that there were two kinds of money, usury and profiteering money on one hand, and creative money on the other, and that the former had to be eliminated. Naturally all money-owners who invested in the Nazi Party were listed as creative capitalists, whereas the Jews (some of whom incidentally invested in Hitler) and all who opposed Hitler were listed as exploiters.

    The vast middle class, always caught between the aspirations of the still more vast working class and cruel greed of the small but most powerful ruling class, has throughout history made the mistake of allying itself with the latter. In America we have the same thing: all the real fascist movements are subsidized by Big Money, but powerful organizations, such as the National Small Business Men's Association, follow the program of the NAM in the hope they will benefit financially when the Ruling Families benefit.

    In all instances, however, history shows us that when the latter take over a country with a fascist army they may give the middle class privileges, benefits, a chance to earn larger profits for a while, but in the end monopoly triumphs, and the Big Money drives the Little Money into bankruptcy.

    This is one of the many important facts which Albert Norden presented in his most impressive pamphlet The Thugs of Europe, a documentary exposé of the profits in Naziism taken entirely from Nazi sources. My thanks are due to Mr. Norden—a German writer who escaped to America and who went to work in a war plant recently—for permission to quote some of the evidence. Norden takes up the matter of Naziism and its promises to the middle class:

    "If the Third Reich were for the common man, the middle-class would not have been sacrificed to the Moloch of Big Business. If the Third Reich were for the common man, the banks and industries and resources of the sub-soil would belong to the people and not be the private affair of a few score old and newly rich. . . . As it is now, it is the rich man's Reich. That is why there is such a widespread underground anti-Nazi movement among the German people.

    "This war is being waged by the Third Reich, the heart of the Axis, as a 'struggle of German Socialism against the plutocracies.' Goebbels has duped millions of young Germans with this slogan. Not only that: Nazi propaganda outside Germany and particularly in North and South America has succeeded in recruiting trusted followers with this slogan. . . .

    "The Nazi theory of a struggle of the Have-nots against the so-called 'sated' nations is as true as the myth that Goebbels is an Aryan and Goering a Socialist! The following facts, taken from official German statistics, prove that in the Third Reich there is a boundless dictatorship of the plutocrats; that a small group of magnates in the banking, industrial and chemical world had taken hold of the entire economic apparatus at the expense of the broad sections of medium and small manufacturers, artisans, storekeepers and workers, and are making unprecedented profits.

    "In his program Hitler promised the middle class preference in all government jobs, abolition of interest on loans, breaking of the power of the trusts and cartels, and dividing up the department stores. Each of these points could only have been carried out at the expense of finance-capital to which Hitler had made definite commitments which, in turn, spell ruin for the middle class and workers. . . . The Kampfbund des Gewerblichen Mittlestandes, a Nazi organization . . . had been schooled to destroy Marxism. Everywhere they had killed Socialists and Communists, demolished workers' headquarters and trade union offices. Now that Hitler had triumphed they wanted to reap the fruits. But the Nazi leaders offered them cheap laurels instead—laurels which pleased neither their senses nor their pocketbooks. . . .

    "Never yet in modern history has the middle class, relying solely on itself and without an alliance with other social strata, successfully played an independent role or triumphed in the social struggle. . . . The Nazi leaders did not hesitate one moment in their decision when the big industrialists and bankers began to complain. One after another, Hitler, Goering and Hess in May, June and July, 1933—issued sharp warnings against 'attacks on business'; and Hess ordered all activities against department stores to cease. . . . Already by August, 1933, the high hopes which millions of little people had pinned on Hitler had been rudely shattered. . . . Leaders of the struggle of the middle class against the trusts . . . were sent to concentration camps. Before the month had ended the Fighting League of the Middle Class was no more. . . . The massacre of the entire leadership of the Storm Troopers on the pretext of homosexuality closed the short chapter of independent action by the middle class with a smashing political victory by Big Capital. . . . The department store of the Jewish owner Tietz was handed over to a consortium consisting of the three largest banks, the Deutsche Bank, the Dresdener Bank and the Commerz-und Privatbank. . . . The large department store Karstadt . . . of its eight directors four are big bankers, one a large exporter and a sixth an influential figure in the Deutsche Bank. . . .

    "The more Jews were dragged off and murdered in concentration camps, the richer Germany's magnates became. They let the S.S. and S.A. mobs riot and trample all human laws under their hobnail boots—meanwhile the Dresdener Bank acquired the Berlin bank of Bleichroeder (Jewish bank, patronized by the former Kaiser) and Arnhold Bros. (Jewish bank, one of the best banks in Germany, patronized by U. S. Embassy and newspapers); the Deutsche Bank seized the Mendelssohn Bank. In the Berliner Handelsgesellschaft, an important private bank, Herbert Goering, a relative of Marshal Hermann Goering, replaced the Jewish partner Fuerstenberg. The Warburg Bank in Hamburg was taken over by the Deutsche Bank and the Dresdener Bank in conjunction with the Montan Combine of Haniel and the Siemens Trust. The latter also took out of Jewish hands the Cassierer Cable Works. . . . The armaments kings of the Ruhr did not shrink from profiting from the pogroms. As a result of Hitler's persecution of the Jews, the Mannesmann concern received the metal company of Wolff, Netter & Jacobi, and the Hahnschen Works; while the big industrialist Friedrich Flick (one of the dozen men who put up most of the money to establish Naziism), today one of the 20 richest men in the Third Reich, seized the metal company of Rawak and Gruenfeld. This list could be expanded at will. It illustrates the prosperous business which the solidly established German trusts acquired as a result of the infamous crimes against the Jews. Together with the top Nazi leaders these German financial magnates were the main beneficiaries of the sadistic persecution of the Jews. . . .

    "Moreover, the turnover tax on big business was reduced to one-half per cent on all commodities, while for little business it was raised to 2 per cent. The decree establishing price ceilings was eliminated so that Big Business under Hitler was able to raise prices on numerous occasions. Thus in two years immediately preceding the outbreak of the present war, tens of thousands of small businessmen were able to get prices which just barely covered their own costs, and sometimes were even lower. That is why small businesses were liquidated on a mass scale in Germany. . . . The government of the Third Reich, a long time before the outbreak of the war, had passed the death-sentence on over one million members of the middle class, and carried it out, thus profiting the wealthiest sections of German finance-capital. . . . The result is inevitably the same: a blood-letting without parallel and impoverishment all along the line. Hitler's regime of a 'people's community' and elimination of the class struggle has hastened, as no previous regime has done, the crystallization of classes in German society, dealing terrible blows to the middle class and favoring the upper ten thousand in striking fashion. In ten years of the Nazi regime the lower middle class in Germany has been more ruined and declassed than in the preceding 50 years.

    "In 1932 a tremendous scandal exploded in Germany. It concerned the so-called Osthilfe, government subsidies destined for the needy farmers. . . . Among the beneficiaries were the House of Hohenzollern and the President of the Republic, Field Marshal von Hindenburg, whose East Prussian property of Neudeck was involved in tax frauds. Hitler promised to suppress the entire scandal if he became Chancellor of the Reich. The interests of the aristocracy and of the munitions-kings, whose war-mongering appetites were whetted by the appointment of Hitler, coincided. So Hindenburg covered over his scandal of corruption with his disgraceful appointment of Hitler as chancellor.

    "Today the princes and their followers among the nobility are still the largest landowners in Germany. Three thousand aristocrats own 2,630,000 hectares (1 hectare equals 2.47 acres) of agriculturally tilled land. On the other hand 3,000,000 families of small farmers—60% of all those occupied in agriculture—own together only 1,—500,000 hectares. 0.15% of the landowners each possessing 5,000 hectares own altogether 10,100,000 hectares or almost 40% of the entire land under cultivation. . . . 412 Junkers owned as much land as 1,000,000 peasants (Darre admitted this).

    "The Reichstag deputies in their S.S., S.A. and army uniforms raised their arms and shouted Heil for several minutes as Hitler told them, after the outbreak of war in September, 1939: 'No one will make money out of this war.' One lie more or less makes no difference to Hitler. The fact is, the profits of the upper 10,000 in Germany have reached astronomical proportions in this war. To detect these profits, however, one must know how to read between the lines of company reports. . . . German industry wrote off 'between a half and one billion marks' above the normal amount for reserves, etc., during the period just before the outbreak of the war. This is a clear case of concealing profits. . . .
    "Exactly 24 hours before Hitler's armies attacked the Soviet Union the Nazi newspapers published a decree that was intended to prove the Socialist character of the Third Reich and to incite German soldiers to fight the 'bolshevik-plutocratic world conspiracy.' This decree called for a compulsory payment to the State of dividends that exceeded 6%. As if by magic the stock companies immediately began to increase their capital. They did not have to lay claim to their bank credits, but simply converted their hidden profits, their secret and open reserves, into additional capital. Thus the dividends decreased in percentage but remained the same in actual profit. By May, 1942, 883 stock companies had already increased their capital from 4,900,000,000 to 7,800,000,000 marks by making use of their concealed profits. . . . Baron von Thyssen-Bornemisza, Fritz Thyssen's older brother . . . increased the capital of one of his companies, the Duesseldorger Press und Walzwerk to 3 times its former amount. Thus, when he pays 5% dividends now they correspond in cold cash to 15%. . . . "

    Another pamphlet which exposes the profits in Naziism is The Economics of Barbarism by J. Kuczynski and M. Witt, who, after showing how by violence and by illegal means disguised as legal the Germans have seized the wealth of all occupied Europe, arrive at the conclusion that "The European continent in the hands of German monopoly means the end of the United States as a great economic power. It is the first step towards the enslavement of the Americas."

    The Nazi plan, after taking over all of Europe, has been to use monopoly capital to reduce imports permanently and to increase the volume of cheap exports rapidly. German monopoly would exclude American goods from all markets except within the two Americas at first, then enter the South and Central American markets as a formidable competitor and eventually, with the aid of Japan, to exclude the United States and England from both the Asiatic and British Empire markets. All this of course based on a victory of the Fascist International.

    The three principles of fascist economic strategy, according to these authors, are:

    1. To achieve the economic subjugation of a conquered nation it is essential to control the heavy industries. The first principle of Nazi economic strategy: keep intact, build up, and above all else, take into their own hands the heavy industries.

    2. Fascist economy centers on war production. Since it has no interest in the welfare of the masses of people and prefers to depress wages of workers and farmers and lower their standard of living, goods for popular consumption are of secondary importance. Since all the big industrialists are linked with Fascism, it is a policy to give the consumer goods manufacturers a monopoly for all Europe. There is therefore a tendency towards decentralization in the heavy industries, with centralization in Germany of consumer goods industry. The Nazi principle is: kill consumption goods industries outside Germany.

    3. The third principle is to increase the numbers of millions dependent upon agriculture with a corresponding increase in the holdings of the great landed proprietors. This pays back the Junkers who financed Hitler, provides materials for the chemical industry and profits the same industry in the sale of artificial fertilizers, and furthers the policy of complete self-independence or autarchy.
    These principles of barbarism, conclude the authors, would, if realized, "put back the technical and economic structure of certain parts of Europe a hundred years or more, while overdeveloping economy in other parts of the continent."

    The pamphlet, written before America was attacked by Japan, warns our country that Fascism is an epidemic disease, and that we cannot escape.

    So far as this writer knows, the only publication of any kind—book, pamphlet, newspaper story, radio address, etc.—which shows the relationship between Big Business in America and the international fascist system, is to be found in the works of Prof. Robert A. Brady. The serious student of Fascism must read both books listed below.

    The relationship of the big money system to the Fascist Party itself is more clearly shown in what happened in Italy than anywhere else. Let us look beyond the Alps.

    Fritz Thyssen, I Paid Hitler, Farrar & Rinehart, 1941.

    Week-End Review, London, August 5 and 12, 1933.

    Fabian Society, London, Tract Series No. 254, p. 5.

    Albert Norden, The Thugs of Europe, German American League for Culture, 45 Astor Place, New York City.

    J. Kuczynski and M. Witt, The Economics of Barbarism, International Publishers, New York.

    Robert A. BradyThe Spirit and Structure of German Fascism, Viking Press, 1937; Business as a System of Power, Columbia University Press, 1943.

    The Theory of Capitalist Development, by Paul M. Sweezey, Oxford University Press, 1943.

Friday, 10 July 2015

The Economist : The Future of Mind Control (2002)

"René Descartes was a philosopher who believed that he had found the exact point in the brain where the body and soul meet. Rather unromantically, the structure he chose was the humble pineal gland. 

As the author of a popular textbook on the subject dryly notes, however, “this now seems unlikely because pineal tumours do not cause the changes one would expect to find associated with distortion of the soul." "


‘The ‘secret society’ was organized on the conspiratorial pattern of circles within circles. 

The ROUND TABLE worked behind the scenes at the highest levels of British government....'







In his book None Dare Call it ConspiracyGary Allen writes: 
THE ROUND TABLE organization in England grew out of the life-long dream of gold and diamond magnate CECIL RHODES for a ‘new world order’. 

“Rhodes’ biographer, Sara Millin, was a little more direct. As she puts it: ‘the government of the world was Rhodes’ simple desire’.” “Quigley quotes: 
‘In the middle 1890’s Rhodes had a personal income of at least a million pounds sterling a year which he spent so freely for mysterious purposes that he was usually overdrawn on his account… Cecil Rhodes’ commitment to a conspiracy to establish World Government was set down in a series of wills described by Frank Aydelotte in his book American Rhodes Scholarships.’ 
‘Aydelotte writes: 
‘….In his first will Rhodes states his aim still more specifically: the extension of British rule throughout the world…(with English as the world language), the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the interest of humanity. ‘The ‘Confession of Faith’ (part of the testament) enlarges upon these ideas. The model for this proposed secret society was the Society of Jesus, though he mentions also the Masons.’ 
“Gary Allen continues: 
“It should be noted that the originator of this type of secret society was Adam Weishaupt, the monter who founded the Order of (Bavarian) Illuminati on May 1, 1776, for the purpose of conspiracy to control the world. The role of Weishaupt’s (Bavarian) Illuminati has long been recognized as models for Communist methodology. Weishaupt also used the structure of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) as the model, and rewrote his Code in Masonic terms.”
“Aydelotte continues: 
‘In 1888 Rhodes made his third will…leaving everything to LORD ROTHSCHILD (his financier in mining enterprises), with an accompanying letter enclosing ‘the written matter discussed between us.’ This, one surmises, consisted of the first will and the ‘Confession of Faith’, since in a postscript Rhodes says ‘in considering questions suggest take Constitution of the Jesuits if obtainable’… ‘Apparently for strategic reasons Lord Rothschild was subsequently removed from the forefront of the scheme. Professor Quigley reveals that Lord Rosebury, replaced his father-in-law Lord Rothschild, in Rhodes’ next (and last) will. 

‘The ‘secret society’ was organized on the conspiratorial pattern of circles within circles. Professor Quigley informs us that the central part of the ‘secret society’ was established by March, 1891, using Rhodes’ money. The organization was run for Rothschild by Lord Alfred Milner – The ROUND TABLE worked behind the scenes at the highest levels of British government, influencing foreign policy and England’s involvement and conduct of WW I.’ 
“William Bramley writes about the ROUND TABLE group:
‘Rhodes was certainly on the right track. If he had reached his goal, many of the negative effects… by the network of the ‘Brotherhood of the Snake” might have been undone. By a world language the detrimental effects touched upon in the story of the Tower of Babel, having to do with people talking in different tongues, might have been reversed. Fostering a feeling for world citizenship would help to overcome the forms of National Socialism that help to unleash wars. But something went wrong. He thought of realizing his objectives via a network of the corrupt ‘Brotherhood of the Snake’. So Rhodes set up institutions that ended up by falling into the hands of those who would use these institutions for the suppression of humanity.’”

The future of mind control

IN AN attempt to treat depression, neuroscientists once carried out a simple experiment. Using electrodes, they stimulated the brains of women in ways that caused pleasurable feelings. The subjects came to no harm—indeed their symptoms appeared to evaporate, at least temporarily—but they quickly fell in love with their experimenters.

Such a procedure (and there have been worse in the history of neuroscience) poses far more of a threat to human dignity and autonomy than does cloning. Cloning is the subject of fierce debate, with proposals for wholesale bans. Yet when it comes to neuroscience, no government or treaty stops anything. For decades, admittedly, no neuroscientist has been known to repeat the love experiment. A scientist who used a similar technique to create remote-controlled rats seemed not even to have entertained the possibility. “Humans? Who said anything about humans?” he said, in genuine shock, when questioned. “We work on rats.”

Ignoring a possibility does not, however, make it go away. If asked to guess which group of scientists is most likely to be responsible, one day, for overturning the essential nature of humanity, most people might suggest geneticists. In fact neurotechnology poses a greater threat—and also a more immediate one. Moreover, it is a challenge that is largely ignored by regulators and the public, who seem unduly obsessed by gruesome fantasies of genetic dystopias.
A person's genetic make-up certainly has something important to do with his subsequent behaviour. But genes exert their effects through the brain. If you want to predict and control a person's behaviour, the brain is the place to start. Over the course of the next decade, scientists may be able to predict, by examining a scan of a person's brain, not only whether he will tend to mental sickness or health, but also whether he will tend to depression or violence. Neural implants may within a few years be able to increase intelligence or to speed up reflexes. Drug companies are hunting for molecules to assuage brain-related ills, from paralysis to shyness (see article). 

A public debate over the ethical limits to such neuroscience is long overdue. It may be hard to shift public attention away from genetics, which has so clearly shown its sinister side in the past. The spectre of eugenics, which reached its culmination in Nazi Germany, haunts both politicians and public. The fear that the ability to monitor and select for desirable characteristics will lead to the subjugation of the undesirable—or the merely unfashionable—is well-founded. 

Not so long ago neuroscientists, too, were guilty of victimising the mentally ill and the imprisoned in the name of science. Their sins are now largely forgotten, thanks in part to the intractable controversy over the moral status of embryos. Anti-abortion lobbyists, who find stem-cell research and cloning repugnant, keep the ethics of genetic technology high on the political agenda. But for all its importance, the quarrel over abortion and embryos distorts public discussion of bioethics; it is a wonder that people in the field can discuss anything else.

In fact, they hardly do. America's National Institutes of Health has a hefty budget for studying the ethical, legal and social implications of genetics, but it earmarks nothing for the specific study of the ethics of neuroscience. The National Institute of Mental Health, one of its component bodies, has seen fit to finance a workshop on the ethical implications of “cyber-medicine”, yet it has not done the same to examine the social impact of drugs for “hyperactivity”, which 7% of American six- to eleven-year-olds now take. 

The Wellcome Trust, Britain's main source of finance for the study of biomedical ethics, has a programme devoted to the ethics of brain research, but the number of projects is dwarfed by its parallel programme devoted to genetics. 

Uncontrollable fears

The worriers have not spent these resources idly. Rather, they have produced the first widespread legislative and diplomatic efforts directed at containing scientific advance. The Council of Europe and the United Nations have declared human reproductive cloning a violation of human rights. The Senate is soon to vote on a bill that would send American scientists to prison for making cloned embryonic stem cells. 

Yet neuroscientists have been left largely to their own devices, restrained only by standard codes of medical ethics and experimentation. This relative lack of regulation and oversight has produced a curious result. When it comes to the brain, society now regards the distinction between treatment and enhancement as essentially meaningless. Taking a drug such as Prozac when you are not clinically depressed used to be called cosmetic, or non-essential, and was therefore considered an improper use of medical technology. Now it is regarded as just about as cosmetic, and as non-essential, as birth control or orthodontics. American legislators are weighing the so-called parity issue—the argument that mental treatments deserve the same coverage in health-insurance plans as any other sort of drug. Where drugs to change personality traits were once seen as medicinal fripperies, or enhancements, they are now seen as entitlements.

This flexible attitude towards neurotechnology—use it if it might work, demand it if it does—is likely to extend to all sorts of other technologies that affect health and behaviour, both genetic and otherwise. Rather than resisting their advent, people are likely to begin clamouring for those that make themselves and their children healthier and happier. 

This might be bad or it might be good. It is a question that public discussion ought to try to settle, perhaps with the help of a regulatory body such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which oversees embryo research in Britain. History teaches that worrying overmuch about technological change rarely stops it. Those who seek to halt genetics in its tracks may soon learn that lesson anew, as rogue scientists perform experiments in defiance of well-intended bans. But, if society is concerned about the pace and ethics of scientific advance, it should at least form a clearer picture of what is worth worrying about, and why.

Open your mind

IN THE genetically engineered world portrayed in “Gattaca”, a movie made in 1997, the hero and heroine attend a concert in which a pianist performs a concerto that can be played only by a person with six fingers on each hand. This is a society in which genetic perfectionists have had their way. The concert-goers have been altered before birth to be free of such ailments as baldness, obesity and diabetes, and to be tall, good-looking and intelligent. In that room, improbable as it may seem, only Ethan Hawke has lived a life free of genetic enhancement; he alone has had to take his chances with the genetic lottery of natural conception.
Compare this scene to one in which the effects of neurotechnology (technology that makes it possible to manipulate the brain) are pervasive. The old man on the left of the aisle is being saved from Alzheimer's disease by an implant that bathes his brain cells in a healthy broth of chemicals. The little girl in the circle, vows her doctor, has a cortex that will one day win her a Nobel prize in physics—if she keeps up the correct regime of “cogniceuticals”, of course. As a condition of their employment, the security guards posted at the entrance had to undergo brain scans to demonstrate that they were free of propensities to uncontrollable rage. The musicians on stage are on drugs that speed their reflexes, heighten their hearing and assuage their performance anxiety. Not that different from “Gattaca”, is it?

The mind's eye

Although often overlooked, advances in neurotechnology raise ethical and legal questions of the same nature and gravity as advances in genetics. Concerns about genetic technology fall into three main categories: first, how much screening should be allowed for certain genetic traits; second, who should have access to such information; and third, what will happen when those traits can be modified at will, possibly in ways that challenge the very idea of what it is to be human.

Neuroscientists may soon be able to screen people's brains to assess their mental health
Concerns about neurotechnology fall into the same three groups. Neuroscientists may soon be able to screen people's brains to assess their mental health; to distribute that information, possibly accidentally, to employers or insurers; and to “fix” faulty personality traits with drugs or implants on demand. They may also, according to some philosophers, expose fallacies in philosophical thinking that go to the heart of human nature by showing how the brain actually makes decisions.

Until recently, neurobiologists have been constrained in their research by the consideration that most kinds of experiment with the human brain are seen as unethical. Tradition has it that they must sit around with their fingers crossed, hoping that a patient will walk through the door sporting a tumour or other injury in a part of the brain whose function is not yet understood. Ideally, this patient will show some odd behaviour—say, being able to multiply but not add, or mistreating cats but not dogs—that can be tied to the injured area. Thus, painstakingly, a map of which parts of the brain do what can be built up.

Over the past decade, however, machines for measuring brain activity have proliferated. There are now half a dozen such technologies, ranging from old favourites, such as electro-encephalography, to new-fangled methods including magneto-encephalography, which measures the brain's magnetic fields, and single-photon-emission computerised tomography, which tracks radioactively tagged chemicals around the organ. One of the most important new techniques is functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI), which employs powerful magnetic fields to monitor the rate of blood flow in the brain, and thus to determine which parts are particularly active. 

With the help of fMRI, researchers can observe which brain areas are involved when somebody performs a particular task or thinks along particular lines. That could be a boon. It could, for example, identify children whose brains are not maturing normally—making possible early intervention with, say, special lessons. 

Researchers can observe which brain areas are involved when somebody performs a particular task or thinks along particular lines

A study to be published shortly in Neuroimage shows how this might work. Vinod Menon and his colleagues at Stanford University have been using fMRI to investigate how people's brains behave when they are subjected to the Stroop colour-word interference task. The Stroop task is a well-established psychological test that presents subjects with the names of colours printed in ink that does not match the colour named. The subjects have to name the colour of the ink, not the word that has been printed. 

As people mature, their brains get better at coping with the challenge the task poses. Dr Menon has found that children, adolescents and adults show progressively different patterns of brain activity which appear to reflect this improvement. He has discovered that a child whose brain is not maturing normally will show an unusual pattern of brain activation when performing the test. That reveals problems with brain development that an ordinary questionnaire-based psychological evaluation does not.

Nobody could object to such a worthy enterprise. But what about the following idea? Greg Siegle and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh are studying depression. In a paper published in this month's issue of Biological Psychiatry, they report that when depressed individuals are read a list of depressing words, they show a different response in a region of the brain called the amygdala from that displayed by “normal” individuals. The amygdalas of the depressed hum away for as long as 25 seconds after hearing a depressing word. Those of individuals who have never been depressed stop showing activity after ten seconds. Dr Siegle suggests that the depressed subjects ruminate on, or think repeatedly about, sad words, while the undepressed subjects simply move on.

Since the amygdala is known to be involved in processing emotion, that is not altogether startling. Suppose, though, that job-recruiting agencies were fitted with fMRI machines (unlikely at the moment, given their expense, but not unimaginable). An individual who wished to conceal evidence of depression from possible employers would have a much harder time doing so in the face of fMRI, than in the face of a little light form-filling. 

Just as genetic markers can be associated with physical states, so features of brain scans will surely be linked to a wide variety of mental states

And that may only be the start. Just as genetic markers can be associated with physical states, so features of brain scans will surely be linked to a wide variety of mental states. fMRI screening might, for example, become a foolproof method of lie detection—one that could catch out even “astute liars” who pretend to have impaired memories when put under pressure by an interrogator. Other personality traits, such as tendencies to aggression or risk-aversion, could also yield their secrets to fMRI's probing glance. 

Steal your face

Medical privacy is another area that brain scanning could compromise. One of the most immediate threats is a little-considered side-effect of the scanning process: that what is scanned and recorded is actually the head, and not merely the brain. In other words, a magnetic scan of a brain also contains enough information about the front of the skull to recreate a recognisable depiction of the scanned subject. The result is that, unlike a genetic profile, which does not, by itself, tell you who has been profiled, no magnetic-resonance image is inherently anonymous.
Neuroscientists are already building up databases of brain scans for research purposes. In 2000 John Van Horn and Michael Gazzaniga, two cognitive neuroscientists at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, launched a database called the fMRI Data Centre, to help disseminate fMRI studies among scientists. They hope that it will spur discoveries in neuroscience in the same way that GenBank, a public database of gene sequences, has spurred discoveries in genetics. The fMRI Data Centre makes raw data from such studies available to researchers, and will soon organise the data so that interesting features can be extracted from it systematically. So far, says Dr Gazzaniga, roughly 400 researchers around the world have requested data from the centre. Those data are shipped to them on compact discs to do with as they please.

One answer to the lack of anonymity of magnetic-resonance images is to scramble the picture in the part of the image that contains facial information. The managers of the Dartmouth database do just that. Such scrambling, however, makes the data useless for some sorts of analysis. It is therefore questionable whether the operators of other databases of neuro-images (several are planned) will follow suit.

Pictures of perfection

Just as with genetics, however, the spectre that most terrifies many of those who fear the advance of neurotechnology is that it will one day be capable of “enhancing” human beings. Some worry that this may blunt the differences between individuals, turning society into one homogeneous mass. Others see the opposite risk—a Gattacesque division between the privileged and the unenhanced.

Potential dystopias always make good press. But drawing the line between necessary therapy and discretionary enhancement is genuinely difficult. Some argue that society accepted the idea of so-called “cosmetic psychopharmacology” when people first began using recreational drugs. Who has not perceived himself to be wittier and more attractive than normal when under the influence of alcohol—or, indeed, seen wit and attractiveness in others in the same circumstances?

Another argument is that drugs for the brain are simply one more step down a road taken by orthodontics, face lifts, Viagra and other medical extras. That may be so. But it could be a step in seven-league boots, for pharmaceutical companies are only just beginning to mine the spectrum of psychological ailments that flesh is heir to. Drugs to combat shyness, forgetfulness, sleepiness and stress are now in or close to clinical trials, not to mention better versions of drugs that have already swept society—what Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, calls “super-Prozacs”.

One example of the trend towards making the normal treatable is research into “mild cognitive impairment”, the kind of slight deterioration in memory that goes with getting old. Or that does for now, anyway. Many companies are hunting for drugs to fend off this sort of memory loss. Researchers at Cortex Pharmaceuticals in Irvine, California, for example, are exploring molecules known as ampakines. These attach themselves to nerve-cell proteins called AMPAreceptors. That serves to amplify the transmission of signals from one nerve cell to another. In particular, it amplifies the effect of a second protein, the NMDA receptor, which is known to be associated with learning. Meanwhile, Targacept, a firm based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, is looking at another group of nerve-cell proteins, the nicotinergic receptors, whose activation has been shown to increase alertness and may fend off cognitive decline.

Another technology, known as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), also holds out the promise of enhancement. Since nerve cells use electrical signals, and magnetic fields can induce and disrupt such signals, a strong, well-aimed magnetic stimulation can affect the brain's operation. By holding a magnetic coil over somebody's skull, a researcher can affect the activity of the piece of cortex beneath, while causing no pain to the subject. Sending repeated magnetic pulses disrupts neural transmission in that area, in effect creating a small lesion on demand. Although nobody is quite sure how it works, there is evidence to suggest that certain kinds of TMS improve performance in memory and reasoning tasks. 

The death of free will?

Screening, privacy and enhancement are all important issues, to be sure. For many critics, though, they are side-shows. The really uncomfortable questions raised by brain science are those that go to the heart of what it is to be human. Or, more specifically, what philosophers and theologians have claimed is the heart of what it is to be human.

In the West, at least, that defining quality is the concept of “free will”. Although some philosophers see free will as an illusion that helps people to interact with one another, others think it is genuine—in other words, that an individual faced with a particular set of circumstances really could take any one of a range of actions. That, however, sits uncomfortably with the idea that mental decisions are purely the consequence of electrochemical interactions in the brain, since the output of such interactions might be expected to be an inevitable consequence of the input. It also sits uncomfortably with the separate, but parallel, argument that correct moral choices are the result of a sort of biological decision-making programme, shaped by evolution, rather than being arrived at by abstract reasoning.

There are already cases where neurotechnology may have a practical effect on people's moral development

Whatever the philosophical arcana of the field, there are already cases where neurotechnology may have a practical effect on people's moral development. Erik Parens of the Hastings Centre, a think-tank in Garrison, New York, is concerned that it could, for example, “reduce the number of ways acceptable to be a person”.

To illustrate this point he says that the act of giving a normal, healthy child Ritalin, a drug used to treat so-called hyperactivity, is really “a substantive moral choice”, because it tells that child that he needs to change to be acceptable. If forgetfulness, xenophobia and a whole host of the other eccentricities that make up a person's character become optional traits rather than inevitable ones, people will be more inclined to discriminate against the bearers of those traits.
Discoveries in neuroscience may also have profound legal implications. Most courts, for example, accept a claim of insanity as a defence in certain criminal cases. If a propensity towards aggression or violence is shown to have a biological basis in the brain, a lawyer may argue that his client could not control his violent urges. Courts may be asked to treat brain-image data as exculpatory evidence, which shows that a suspect is not really guilty of a crime he has committed.

Donald Kennedy, a neuroscientist who is also editor of Science, says it is likely that “some extension of the domain of exculpatory conditions” will be made as a result of neuroscientific advances. In any case, each jurisdiction treats insanity claims in its own way, so they may well disagree over whether brain-image data are exculpatory. In Texas, for example, all that a prosecutor needs to demonstrate is that a suspect knew “the difference between right and wrong” at the time of the crime. Even individuals who are clearly insane can be found guilty if they meet this test. 

Soul-searching questions

In many ways, therefore, thinkers who are wrestling with questions of free will, the soul and human nature are seeing the terms of their debate altered by modern brain science. But the history of the debate may offer consolation to those who fear that neurotechnology is a hair's breadth from catapulting society into a “post-human future”, as Francis Fukuyama termed it in the title of a recent book. The human soul—or its physiological equivalent—has proved surprisingly elusive.

René Descartes was a philosopher who believed that he had found the exact point in the brain where the body and soul meet. Rather unromantically, the structure he chose was the humble pineal gland. As the author of a popular textbook on the subject dryly notes, however, “this now seems unlikely because pineal tumours do not cause the changes one would expect to find associated with distortion of the soul.” There is a deal of searching to do yet before human nature gives up its secrets.

Larry Elder- Lawn Jockey to Irv Rubin and the Terrorist Jewish Defense League (JDL)


"When I began working with best- selling author and KABC talk show host Larry Elder in 2012, he would repeatedly tell me that the reason for our partnership was not my writing skills, which he admired, nor my filmmaking/editing abilities, which he always put to good use, but rather my good nature. “You always seem to be happy and loving life,” he would tell me. 

Larry is a lawyer as well as a brilliant political thinker. He has a mind like a steel trap. So it was a feather in my cap that I fooled the shit out of him with that whole “happy and loving life” thing.

*****

During my years as “Jewish Holocaust denier” David Cole, I was often accused of spreading “hate,” to the extent that entire college campuses would hold “anti-hate rallies” if I spoke on campus. The truth is, I neither denied the Holocaust, nor did I ever spread hate (except when referring to Nazis, who I do, indeed, hate). So great a “hater” was I assumed to be that a $25,000 bounty was placed on my head by the Jewish Defense League, whose leaders, before dying in prison after plotting terror attacks in retaliation for 9/11, assured the world that they wanted me dead in the name of “fighting hate.”

- Jewish Revisionist David Cole/Stein,
Republican Party Animal