Extremely Unwise Move: Sterilizing the Most Advanced Human Beings

Motherhood by Louis Emile Adan

by Charles Galton Darwin (1953)
endnote by Bradford Hanson

IN THE ESSENTIAL matter of survival there are two things needed, the survival of the individual and the survival of the race. We are all very well endowed with deep instincts for both, and curiously enough we are ashamed of both these instincts.

As to the survival of the individual we have a very strong, intimate and deep fear of death, evoked by any form of danger; it is not a thing we boast about, but it is certainly a very essential quality for survival, and as such it is to be regarded as important and valuable.

For the reproduction of the race, there are two instincts needed, the sexual and the parental, and the way these are organized is to say the least curious. The sexual instinct, though much complicated by all sorts of taboos, is for most of mankind nearly as violent as the fear of death, though it has the advantage of being pleasant instead of unpleasant.

Among animals it brings about the inevitable consequence of reproduction, and until very recently the same was true for man, so that the Malthusian increase of population was assured. This is still true for a large proportion of the human race, but the existence of birth-control has entirely altered the situation among the more highly developed peoples. The consequence has been to make reproduction depend for them not on an intense instinctive impulse, but rather on intellectual reasoning, and this for very many people is an exceedingly tepid motive.

The parental instinct is also somewhat ineffective, because for the majority it is only strongly stimulated by the presence of the children; that is to say, it is very important in preserving them, but it does not make any such clamant [urgent — Ed.] call on the emotions to beget them.

It has not the same intensive compulsion as the sexual instinct, and this is not very surprising because of its very different function. No one can feel any very intense emotion continuously for more than a short time; whether it is pleasure or pain, anger or grief or fear, the sharp edge of it fades in a few days, whereas the parental instinct has got to work effectively for fifteen or twenty years, if it is to serve the survival of the race. It is therefore hardly surprising that it should be steady and continuous, but not so intense an instinct as the sexual instinct or as the fear of death.

* * *

A hat-tip to Dave over at Occam’s Razor for the piece from C.G. Darwin and his thoughts on the excerpt, which I’ve edited:

A question Darwin raises that deserves sober consideration by the future leaders reading this is whether civilized European-descended people will culturally or biologically evolve to desire children enough to always beget an adequate number of them, or stay stuck in an endless cycle of Aryan civilization contracepting itself out of existence and, after a long Dark Age, being rediscovered or reinvented by barbarians. The huge danger now: Where are the Aryan barbarians who can reinvigorate our dying world?

* * *

Source: Occam’s Razor and The Next Million Years by Charles Galton Darwin

Previous post

Sweden: 18th Anniversary Memorial Held for Racial-Nationalist Murdered by Anti-Whites

Next post

Latest Statistics: Blacks and Mestizos Far More Criminal Than Whites


  1. Gerald Goldberg
    2 January, 2019 at 3:40 pm — Reply



    Article reprinted from Haaretz: G-d as surgeon by Yehuda Bauer

    The Chabad-Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson described the Holocaust by comparing G-d to a surgeon who amputates a patient’s limb in order to save his life.

    The panel discussion on “Haredim and the Holocaust” recently (May 2007) aired on Israeli TV Channel 1 should have included the views of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Chabad’s so-called “King Messiah”), Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

    On the subject of the Holocaust, the Rebbe wrote as follows:

    “It is clear that ‘no evil descends from Above,’ and buried within torment and suffering is a core of exalted spiritual good. Not all human beings are able to perceive it, but it is very much there. So it is not impossible for the physical destruction of the Holocaust to be spiritually beneficial. On the contrary, it is quite possible that physical affliction is good for the spirit” (“Mada Ve’emuna,” Machon Lubavitch, 1980, Kfar Chabad).

    Schneerson goes on to compare G-d to a surgeon who amputates a patient’s limb in order to save his life. The limb:

    “is incurably diseased … The Holy One Blessed Be He, like the professor-surgeon…seeks the good of Israel, and indeed, all He does is done for the good…. In the spiritual sense, no harm was done, because the everlasting spirit of the Jewish people was not destroyed.”

    The Rebbe’s stance, therefore, is clear: The Holocaust was a good thing because it lopped off a disease-ravaged limb of the Jewish people – in other words, the millions who perished in the Holocaust – in order to cleanse the Jewish people of its sins.

    There is logic in this theology: If G-d is indeed omnipotent, knows everything and controls the world (“G-d presides over the trials of 6 billion people all day long, every day without a moment’s rest”), which implies divine supervision on an individual and collective basis, then the Holocaust took place not only with his knowledge, but also with his approval.

    Schneerson does not accept the idea of “hester panim,” or G-d’s face being turned away, to explain why He was not present when 1.5 million Jewish children were murdered. According to some religious Jews, this hester panim was a consequence of man’s sins, and, above all, the sins of the Jewish people. Schneerson says that G-d was there, and that he wanted the Holocaust to happen. But because it is inconceivable, in his view, for G-d to commit evil, he portrays the Holocaust as a positive event, all the more so for the Jews.

    After this text was published in the summer of 1980, kicking up a storm, Chabad claimed it was based on an inaccurate Hebrew translation of talks that the Rebbe delivered in Yiddish. The Rebbe, they said, had no idea his remarks were being published. It seems hard to believe Schneerson would not go over every word published in his name, let alone a text put out in Hebrew by Machon Lubavitch in Kfar Chabad.

    In fact, there is a document written by the Rebbe himself, in Hebrew, which bears his statements about the Holocaust. The late Chaika Grossman, a leader of the underground in the Bialystok ghetto, who survived the war and served as a Knesset member for several terms, published an article in Hamishmar newspaper on August 22, 1980, quoting Schneerson and expressing her profound shock at his words.

    On August 28, 1980, the Rebbe sent her a reply on his personal stationary. The letter, apparently typewritten, contains a number of corrections in his own handwriting, and is signed by him. In it, the Rebbe confirms everything in the published text.

    His remarks, Schneerson explained, were based on the Torah. Hitler was a messenger of G-d in the same sense that Nebuchadnezzar is called “G-d’s servant” in the Book of Jeremiah (chapter 25). The “surgery” he spoke of was such a massive corrective procedure that the suffering (i.e., the murder of the Jews) was minor compared to its curative effect.

    I was invited to take part in this television debate, but my appearance was cancelled at the last moment, perhaps because of my opinions on the subject. The truth is, there are no “Haredim.” There are Haredi groups and Haredi individuals, and their conduct during and after the Holocaust took different forms. Since the Holocaust, Jews have wrestled with this issue and continue to do so. Rabbi Schneerson’s views are one of many.

    But Chabad is a large and influential Hasidic dynasty. It has a messiah who lived and died, and many look forward to his resurrection. In this respect, Chabad is a kind of semi-Christian movement. Therefore it is important to know what its leader said. The “King Messiah” did not deny the Holocaust. He justified it.

    The author is a Holocaust scholar.

    [Note: This article was published in Haaretz. Haaretz often changes the url of its articles or pulls them from its website. This appears to have something to do with the architecture of the website. This article is too important to be lost that way.]

  2. Gerald Goldberg
    2 January, 2019 at 3:42 pm — Reply


    by Yael Rosenberg, RN
    Mazornet, Inc. is proud to add to its growing MazorGuide websites this very important resource and helpful information concerning Jewish Genetic Diseases.

    There are nearly 5,000 classified genetic diseases that afflict the world’s population affecting families in all ethnic, racial, and demographic groups regardless of socioeconomic status. Certain genetic diseases occur at higher frequencies in specific ethnic, racial, or regional groups. An extraordinary effort by Israeli genetic researchers in collaboration with Jewish and non-Jewish scientists around the globe have identified a number of inherited disorders more prevalent in the Jewish population.
    The genetic diseases described on MazorGuide’s Jewish Genetic Diseases are those that occur more frequently in individuals of Jewish ancestry. Thus as a service to the global Jewish community, Mazornet is gathering and compiling data regarding Jewish genetic disorders and support groups for those affected.
    In addition, MazorGuide joins community leaders, health professionals, and family service organizations in recommending carrier screenings for all individuals who plan on having children. Prevention is the first step to reduce incidence of inherited disorders. See list of genetic screening facilities.

    Jewish Genetic Diseases, creator of the best Jewish Celebrations Vendor Directory, and the Kosher Restaurant Directory, in order to provide helpful services to the Jewish community, is also proud to present this important website.

    Mazornet’s staff is dedicated to compile helpful information and resources concerning Jewish Genetic Diseases.

    The first step towards unraveling the mysteries behind genetic disorders is to find the problem genes. Many defective genes have been identified and work is ongoing to discover feasible methods for “cures”. While investigations of genetic treatments continue, people are in a position to begin using the current facts for their benefit.
    There are nearly 4,000 genetic diseases known that afflict the world’s population. However, in almost every ethnic, racial, or demographic group, certain genetic diseases occur at higher frequencies among their members than in the general population. Such is the case for the Jewish people.

    The genetic diseases described on Mazornet’s Jewish Diseases are disorders which occur more frequently in individuals of Jewish ancestry. Most diseases are severely incapacitating and some are tragically debilitating, leading to death in infancy or early childhood. Tay-Sachs may be the most notorious of the lot, but other diseases, just as prevalent and just as devastating, shatter the lives of Jewish families.
    Children and adults with a rare genetic disease have multiple needs to address: health concerns, primarily, but others as well. As a service to the global Jewish community, is committed to gathering and compiling data about Jewish genetic disorders. More importantly,’s mission is to serve as the ultimate information resource by surfacing areas of assistance online and in the real world. It is not’s intent to choose resources, but rather to make support information and resources of any kind available to the people and to the families afflicted by these diseases. There is hope, and there is help.
    There has been much debate about whether Jews are a race. Well, Jews are far
    from being a pure race. They are a hybrid people, consisting of Edomites,
    Hittites, Canaanites, Judahites, Babylonians, Ishmaelites, Huns, Khazars, etc.

    However, they do have a distinctive gene pool. According to Dr. Richard Goodman,
    in a study, (“Genetic Disorders Among The Jewish People”), he made for John
    Hopkins University in Baltimore, there are 112 hereditary diseases within the
    Jewish race, which originate from causes found in the Jewish brain and central
    nervous system. The Jewish Encyclopedia verifies this as well by stating:

    “The Jews are more subject to diseases of the nervous system than other races and
    peoples among which they dwell. Hysteria and neuroasthenia appear to be most
    frequent. Some physicians of large experience among the Jews have even gone so
    far as to state that most of them are neuroasthenia and hysterical (female
    trait). In addition, Dr. Alexander Pilez, world famous psychiatrist from Vienna,
    states in his outstanding work, “Weiner Klinische Rundschau,” page 888:

    “Cases where acute psychoses lend to idiocy and lunacy are of particular frequency with the Jews.”

    For additional information, go to the The National Foundation for Jewish Genetic Diseases, Inc website at:

    By contrast, there are no hereditary diseases which exist exclusively within the
    white race. The Negro race has only one- Sickle Cell Anemia. Highly mongrelized
    people would be more prone to diseases than pure races. The same is true with
    hybridized plants and animals. God cursed each of these former composite tribes
    that make up the Jewish people. Is it any wonder, the Israelites were warned by
    God not to intermarry with them? Now, are they a race? I’ll let you answer that
    for yourself.

    Jews are a race for the following reasons.

    Jews consider themselves a race.
    Prior to World War II, most books written by jews clearly stated jews constituted a racial group. The jewish leader and author, Rabbi Joachim Prinz, who headed the American Jewish Congress in the 1930s stated in his book, “We Jews,”

    “We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A state built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his kind . . . No subterfuge can save us now. In place of assimilation we desire a new concept: recognition of the Jewish nation and Jewish race!”

    Now, some Jews will try to argue “that this is the opinion of one rabbi”. The fact remains is most books written by Jews prior to WWII stated that the Jews were indeed a race. Also, note what rabbi Joachim Prinz reveals concerning the Jewish nature to use subterfuge in disguising who they really are. Hence, the common practice of Jews adopting the ethnic names of host nations is substantiated here.
    After WWII the Jews changed their strategy to: “We are a people” – or – “We are a nation!” This is a more disguised appeal of hiding the truth under the words “people” and “nation.”

    The work of the Jewish researcher and author, Dr, Richard Goodman of the Hopkins University wrote a 494 comprehensive page book titled, “Genetic Diseases Among The Jewish People.” This book solely proves that the Jews are indeed a race. Dr. Goodman states that Ashkenazi (Khazar) Jews from Russia make up 82% of world Jewry. The other 18% are mainly from Spain-Portugal and are called Sephardim Jews. Now, there are 112 hereditary diseases within the Jewish race, which originate from causes found within the Jewish brain and central nervous system. Note, the high probability of passing these diseases on to children is a tremendous risk factor, which is another reason not to intermarry.

    Jews contemplating marriage with their own kind are encouraged to be tested to ensure they are not carriers of any of these diseases.

    Familial Dysautonomia is also known as Riley Day Syndrome. Sufferers of this condition can not produce tears, have trouble swallowing and drool and sweat excessively. Other symptoms may include variable blood pressure, scoliosis, poor growth, and reduced mental capacity. Almost all reported cases have arisen within the Jewish population. There are various forms of testing including genetic testing for family members of people who have been diagnosed.

    Niemann-Pick – suffer from crippling neurological disintegration that will end their lives well before their teens. About one in a thousand Jews of Ashkenazi descent carry the genetic mutation that can result in Niemann-Pick diseases. Autosomal recessive Prevalence: 1 out of 75 Ashkenazi Jews are carriers.

    Canavan – is caused by an enzyme deficiency. One in forty Ashkenazis carry the genetic mutation that causes Canavan. Children with Canavan are inflicted with the gradual deterioration of their nervous systems and do not usually reach the age of five.

    Gaucher – Although severely debilitating, Gaucher disease is not often deadly. Individuals with Gaucher suffer from metabolic errors that cause joint problems. These problems include frequent breakage and a thinning of the bones, similar to that found in osteoporosis. One in ten Jews of Eastern European descent carry the genetic mutation causing Gaucher Disease. Death usually occurs by age 45.

    Tay-Sachs – the most widely known genetic disease more particular to the Ashkenazi Jewish population, is manifested by the gradual collapse of the central nervous system. Children with Tay-Sachs do not customarily reach the age of five. The genetic mutation for Tay-Sachs disease is ten times more frequently found in the Ashkenazi Jewish population than in other populations.

    Bloom syndrome – Affects a very large number of Jews. It results in dwarfism. Bloom syndrome victims have a high-pitched voice. It is a cancer-prone genetic disorder that is inherited as an autosomal recessive disease. Its most remarkable feature is genetic instability in the form of increased frequencies of breaks and interchanges that occur either spontaneously or, in the laboratory, after treatment with various DNA-damaging agents. Those with the full-blown disease die by the age 16. The trait is carried by one out of every 120 Jews. However, large numbers of Jews have a lesser trait of the disease, in which Jewish dwarfism is commonly seen and with their small bodies and disproportionately large sized heads, it may account for their troll like appearance.

    Jews like Madeleine Albright, comedian Jerry Stiller, and Menachem Begin have this appearance. In Jewish communities such as in New York and Miami very short Jews are seen waddling about. Examples of people who ostensibly have this disease trait are former Prime Minister Shamir at 5’1″ tall and California Senator Barbara Boxer, who is under 5 feet tall. Leon Trotsky and many other Jewish leaders in the Bolshevik revolution were very short as well.

    Clinically, children with Bloom syndrome have small bodies, usually exhibit an erythematous (red skin produced by capillary congestion) “butterfly rash” that is sensitive to sunlight, excessive hyper- and hypo-pigmented skin lesions located anywhere on the body, and a high rate of bacterial infections due to immunodeficiency. These children are prone to cancer, chronic lung disease, and diabetes. Bloom syndrome is more common among Ashkenazi Jews than any other population.

    Idiopathic torsion dystonia – A slowly-progressing movement disorder characterized by dystonia and tremor. Initially believed to be a manifestation of hysteria, idiopathic torsion dystonia gradually became established as a neurologic entity with a genetic basis. DMD or Oppenheim disease are terms now used for childhood- and adolescent-onset dystonia due to the DYT1 gene. Childhood- and adolescent-onset primary dystonia has been found to be more common in Jews of Eastern European or Ashkenazi ancestry. In a large study of 957 cases of primary dystonia from Europe, a significant female predilection for segmental and focal dystonia was reported, suggesting that focal dystonia should not be treated as a homogenous group and that sex-linked factors may play a role. (ESDE collaborative group)

    Factor XI deficiency – an inherited bleeding disorder. It also goes by the name of Hemophilia C. The disorder is particularly common among Ashkenazi Jews, of Eastern European origin. It is estimated that 8% of the people in this ethnic group carry the defective Factor XI gene.

    Mucolipidosis IV (ML4) – is a progressive neurological disorder with symptoms beginning in infancy. Characteristics include muscle weakness, mild to moderate mental retardation, and eye problems. The severity of the disorder and the lifespan vary. There is no cure for the condition, but supportive care can be provided to optimize quality of life. ML4 is more common among Ashkenazi Jews than other ethnic groups.

    Dystonia – is also known as a movement disorder, which affects nerve signals from the basal ganglia in the brain to various muscles. Sasmodic torticollis (or cervical dystonia) affects muscles in neck, head, and spine that cause the head to turn to one side. Blepharospasm causes involuntary contraction of the eyelids holding them closed for indefinite periods. Oromandibular dystonia affects jaw, lips, or tongue causing the jaw to be held open or clamped shut. Orofacial-buccal dystonia (Meige’s or Brughel’s syndrome) a combination of blepharospasm and oromandibular dystonia. Spasmodic dysphonia affects muscles that control the vocal cords causing halting, strained, or a breathless whisper voice. Writer’s cramp (or occupational dystonia) symptoms are triggered when the sufferer attempts to write or perform other fine hand functions, such as playing a musical instrument

    Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) – is caused by excessive production of androgenic hormones due to a lack of an enzyme involved in the production of cortisol. CAH can lead to imbalance in the body’s concentration of salts which, in turn, can rapidly result in shock and death. CAH can also cause excessive masculinization in both males and females and, if not adequately treated, significant growth and developmental abnormalities. It affects one in every 27 Ashkenazic Jewish people. As opposed to at least one in every 1,000 people. one of every 53 Hispanics, one of every 63 Yugoslavs, and one in every 333 Italians. Why would Yugoslavs and Hispanics have a higher rate than northern Europeans (1 in every 1,000)? Could it be because of Moorish and Turkic intermarriage?

    Individuals with the genetic mutation in their DNA that causes one of the aforementioned illnesses are known as carriers. Although carriers do not actually have the disease associated with the particular genetic mutation, when two carriers with the same mutation have children, the children are at increased risk for having the disease in question. In particular, if both parents are carriers, they have a one in four chance of bearing a child with the disease. The illness will be caused by the inheritance of two genetic mutations, one from each parent. In addition, there is a one in two chance that a child will also be a carrier. The frequencies of the common mutations of most of these diseases are between 1/16 and 1/110 among Ashkenazi Jews.

    Fanconi anaemia – Fanconi anaemia is a chromosome instability syndrome with progressive bone marrow failure and an increased risk of cancers. It has been estimated that the frequency of carriers is between 1 in 100 and 1 in 600 in the general population. In a family in which both parents are carriers of the Fanconi gene, on average 1 in 4 of their children will have completely normal genes, and cannot develop the disease or pass it on, 1 in 4 will have Fanconi anaemia, and 2 in 4 will have one normal and one affected gene and will be healthy but will be carriers.Growth retardation (70% of cases), skin abnormalities: hyperpigmentation and/or caf� au lait spots in 80%, squeletal malformations (60%), particularly radius axis defects (absent or hypoplastic thumb or radius…) no immune deficiency (in contrast with most other chromosome instability syndromes) progressive bone marrow failure; mean age of onset of anemia: 8 yrs; diagnosis made before onset of haematologic manifestations in only 30% other: renal anomalies, hypogonadism, mental impairment, heart defects, and perhaps diabetes mellitus, also occur in 10 to 30% of cases. Fanconi anaemia which may be noted at birth. These include: short stature, missing thumbs and/or arm bone, other skeletal anomalies, kidney problems, abnormal skin coloration, small head or eyes, learning disabilities, low birth weight, gut abnormalities, small reproductive organs in males, heart defects.

    Inflammatory bowel disease or IBD includes:
    1. Crohn’s Disease (regional enteritis) – This latter, and to a lesser extent the former as well, are Jewish diseases. In fact, Crohn’s disease is 8 times more common in Ashkenazi Jews than any other people.
    2. Ulcerative colitis –
    Both diseases cause pain and diarrhea, often mixed with blood. Ulcerative colitis only affects the large bowel, but Crohn’s disease can affect any part of the gastrointestinal tract. The body’s own attack of the bowel is vicious — it can cause perforations of the bowel wall from the intense attack as well as obstructing the bowel; or causing massive bleeding, pain, fever, or even eating its way through to other organs or even through the skin. Most commonly, however, there are episodes of pain and vomiting which often require hospitalization. What is of interest is that these diseases can cause effects far from the bowel, including their own brand of arthritis, skin nodules and mouth ulcers. Crohn’s can affect the eye.
    Cystic fibrosis (also called fibrocystic disease of the pancreas mucoviscidosis) or Clarke-Hadfield disease – is inherited in an autosomal recessive manner.
    Hemorrhoids – Jews are also found to suffer from hemorrhoids at a higher rate than non-Jews.

    In the 15th century, Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel wrote:

    ‘It is always found that Jews suffer from acute fever, pestilence, and hemorrhoids more than any other nation’.

    In the 14th century Bernard de Gordon suggested the following reasons:

    ‘they are generally sedentary … they are usually in fear and anxiety and therefore the melancholy blood becomes increased’.

    Depression and various neuroses have been attributed to Jews in excess, and studies have supported this contention. Schizophrenia, on the other hand, is said to be rare among Jews than among the general population.

    The many Jewish diseases alone tell us that the Jews cannot be the chosen Israelites. The many genetic diseases within the Jewish race portends that these people are a polluted and cursed race.

    Has their Yahweh God blessed them or CURSED them with these diseases?.

  3. Gerald Goldberg
    2 January, 2019 at 3:43 pm — Reply


    According to the Israeli daily newspaper quoted below, before the Nazi Third Reich in Germany plotted to create a Master Race from the European gene pool, Zionists had already established a racial purification program to create the perfect Jewish bloodline.

    A shocking new study reveals how key figures in the pre-state Zionist establishment proposed castrating the mentally ill, sterilizing the poor and doing everything possible to ensure reproduction only among the `best of people.’

    Castrating the mentally ill, encouraging reproduction among families “numbered among the intelligentsia” and limiting the size of “families of Eastern origin” and “preventing … lives that are lacking in purpose” – these proposals are not from some program of the Third Reich but rather were brought up by key figures in the Zionist establishment of the Land of Israel during the period of the British Mandate. It turns out there was a great deal of enthusiasm here for the improvement of the hereditary characteristics of a particular race (eugenics). This support, which has been kept under wraps for many years, is revealed in a study that examines the ideological and intellectual roots at the basis of the establishment of the health system in Israel.

    In the Yishuv (pre-state Jewish community) in the 1930s there were “consultation stations” operating on a Viennese model of advice centers for couples that wished to marry and become parents. In Austria, with the Nazis’ rise to power, they served for forced treatment. Here the stations were aimed at “giving advice on matters of sex and marriage, especially in the matter of preventing pregnancy in certain cases.” They distributed birth-control devices for free to the penniless and at reduced prices to those of limited means. In Tel Aviv the advice stations were opened in centers of immigrant populations: Ajami in Jaffa, the Hatikvah Quarter and Neveh Sha’anan.

    These are some of the findings of a doctoral thesis written by Sachlav Stoler-Liss about the history of the health services in the 1950s, under the supervision of Prof. Shifra Shvarts, head of the department of health system management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. They were presented at the annual conference of the Israel Anthropological Association at Ben-Gurion College.

    The father of the theory of eugenics was British scholar Francis Galton. It was he who coined the term – which literally means “well-born” – at the end of the 19th century. The aim of the eugenics movement was to better the human race. Galton proposed a plan to encourage reproduction among “the best people” in society and to prevent reproduction among “the worst elements.”

    Between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, Galton drew many followers and his ideas spread rapidly to other countries in Europe (among them Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium), to the United States and to some countries in South America. In various countries laws were passed that allowed for the forced sterilization of “hereditary paupers, criminals, the feeble-minded, tuberculous, shiftless and ne’er-do-wells.” In the United States, up until 1935, about 20,000 people – “insane,” “feeble-minded,” immigrants, members of ethnic minorities and people with low IQs – were forcibly sterilized, most of them in California. The Californian law was revoked only in 1979. According to Dr. Philip Reilly, a doctor and executive director of the Shriver Center for Mental Retardation, in 1985 at least 19 states in the United States had laws that allowed the sterilization of people with mental retardation, (among them Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Vermont, Utah and Montana).

    “Eugenics is considered to be something that only happened in Germany,” says Stoler-Liss.

    “Germany was indeed the most murderous manifestation of eugenics, but in fact it was a movement that attracted many followers. In every place it took on a unique, local aspect. It is interesting to note that both in Germany and in Israel a link was made between eugenics, health and nationalism.”

    Stoler-Liss first encountered the eugenics texts of doctors from the Yishuv when looking for instruction books for parents for a research project for her master’s degree.

    “I presented a text at a thesis seminar and then the instructor of the workshop said to me, `But why aren’t you saying that this is a translated text?’

    I replied: `No, no, the text isn’t translated.’ `

    “In Israel,” he said, `there are no such things.'”

    She decided to look into whether there was only anecdotal and non- representative evidence, doctors and public figures here and there who supported eugenics – and she found many publications that promoted eugenics. Supporters of the idea were key figures in the emerging medical establishment in Palestine; the people who managed and created the Israeli health system.

    One of the most prominent eugenicists of the Mandatory period was Dr. Joseph Meir, a well-known doctor who acquired his education in Vienna, served for about 30 years as the head of the Kupat Holim Clalit health maintenance organization, and after whom the Meir Hospital in Kfar Sava is named.

    “From his position at the very heart of the Zionist medical establishment in the land of Israel in the mid-1930s, he brought young mothers the gospel of eugenics, warned them about degeneracy and transmitted the message to them about their obligation and responsibility for bearing only healthy children,” says Stoler-Liss.

    Thus, for example, in 1934 Dr. Meir published the following text on the first page of “Mother and Child,” a guide for parents that he edited for publication by Kupat Holim:

    “Who is entitled to give birth to children? The correct answer is sought by eugenics, the science of improving the race and preserving it from degeneration. This science is still young, but its positive results are already great and important – These cases [referring to marriages of people with hereditary disorders – T.T.] are not at all rare in all nations and in particular in the Hebrew nation that has lived a life of exile for 1,800 years. And now our nation has returned to be reborn, to a natural life in the land of the Patriarchs. Is it not our obligation to see to it that we have whole and healthy children in body and soul? For us, eugenics as a whole, and the prevention of the transmission of hereditary disorders in particular, even greater value than for all other nations! … Doctors, people involved in sport and the national leaders must make broad propaganda for the idea: Do not have children if you are not certain that they will be healthy in body and soul!”

    In its full version, the article, which was published in the “Health Guard” section of the now defunct labor Zionist newspaper Davar, the doctor proposed castrating the mentally ill. Stoler-Liss found many more examples in the “Mother and Child” books that were published in 1934 and 1935 and in journals like Eitanim, which was edited by Dr. Meir.

    “The support of Dr. Meir and other senior people in the health system for these ideas has been kept under wraps for many years,” claims Stoler-Liss.

    No one today talks about this chapter in the history of the Yishuv. In the mid-1950s Dr. Meir’s articles were collected into a book that came out in his memory. The article mentioned above was not included in it. Stoler-Liss found a card file with notes scribbled by the editors of the volume. They defined the article as “problematic and dangerous.”

    “Now, after Nazi eugenics,” wrote one of the editors, “it is dangerous to publish this article.”

    During the latter part of the 1930s, adds Stoler-Liss, when word came out about the horrors that eugenics in its extreme form is likely to cause, they stopped using this word, which was attributed to the Nazis. Overnight eugenics organizations and journals changed their names and tried to shake off any signs of this theory. Dr. Meir, however, during all the years he was active, continued to promote the ideas of eugenics. At the beginning of the 1950s he published an article in which he harshly criticized the reproduction prize of 100 lirot that David Ben-Gurion promised to every mother who gave birth to 10 children.

    “We have no interest in the 10th child or even in the seventh in poor families from the East … In today’s reality we should pray frequently for a second child in a family that is a part of the intelligentsia. The poor classes of the population must not be instructed to have many children, but rather restricted.”

    “I’m not making a value judgment,” says Stoler-Liss.

    “Zionism arose at a certain period, in a certain ideological atmosphere – there were all kinds of ideas in the air and there were also eugenicist Zionists. Some of the doctors were educated in Europe, and at that time the medical schools taught not only medicine but also the theory of eugenics.”

    Dr. Meir was not the first Zionist leader who supported eugenics. According to studies by Dr. Rapahel Falk, a geneticist and historian of science and medicine at Hebrew University, other major Zionist thinkers – among them Dr. Max Nordau, Theodor Herzl’s colleague, a doctor and a publicist, and Dr. Arthur Ruppin, the head of the World Zionist Organization office in the Land of Israel – presented the ideas of eugenics as one of the aims of the Jewish movement for national renewal and the settlement of the land.

    Prof. Meira Weiss, an anthropologist of medicine at Hebrew University, describes in her book “The Chosen Body” how the settlement of the land and work on the land were perceived by these Zionist thinkers as the “cure” that would restore the health of the Jewish body that had degenerated in the Diaspora. In Nordau’s terms, a “Judaism of muscle” would replace “the Jew of the coffee house: the pale, skinny, Diaspora Jew. ”

    “At a time when many Europeans are calling for a policy of eugenics, the Jews have never taken part in the `cleansing’ of their race but rather allowed every child, be it the sickest, to grow up and marry and have children like himself. Even the mentally retarded, the blind and the deaf were allowed to marry,” wrote Ruppin in his book “The Sociology of the Jews.”

    “In order to preserve the purity of our race, such Jews [with signs of degeneracy – T.T.] must refrain from having children.”

    “Many people dealt with eugenics as a theoretical issue,” says Stoler-Liss.

    “They even set up a Nordau Club with the aim of researching the racial aspects of the Jewish people and ways of improving it. What was special about Dr. Meir and the group that joined him was that for them eugenics was a very practical matter.”

    They wanted to pursue applied eugenics.

    The main institution was the advice station. The first station was opened in 1931 in Beit Strauss on Balfour Street in Tel Aviv. The aim was to work in “pleasant ways,” through persuasion and choice. As Stoler-Liss explains:

    “Why should people work against their personal interests? It is here that the connection to the national interest comes in. If I understand that by having a baby I will harm the national interest, the building of the land, the `new Jew,’ I will refrain from giving birth. But just to make certain, Meir told the doctors, in the event that a woman comes to you who is `a risk’ for giving birth to a sick baby, it is your obligation to make certain that she has an abortion.”

    “Gynecologist Miriam Aharonova also wrote extensively on the subject of eugenics,” adds Stoler-Liss.

    “In articles for parents under headings such as `The Hygiene of Marriage’ she gives a list of eugenic instructions for parents – from the recommended age for giving birth (between 20 and 25), to the recommended difference in age between the father and the mother (the reason for which is the betterment of the race) to a list of diseases that could infect the spouse or “be transmitted through heredity to their descendants after them.”

    In the diseases, she mentions:

    “syphilis, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, alcoholism, narcotics addiction (fondness for morphine, cocaine, etc.) and diseases of the mind and the nerves.”
    In the volume of “Mother and Child” published in 1935, says Stoler-Liss, the publication and discussions by doctors who supported eugenics was greatly expanded. Why, in fact, did they not use force? The establishment had a great deal of power over immigrants and refugees.

    “The medical establishment’s power was limited at that time. This was an establishment that developed hand in hand with the system it was supposed to strengthen and suffered from constant shortages: a shortage of doctors, a shortage of nurses and a shortage of equipment. It had to examine, treat, inoculate and so on. We are talking about the period of the British Mandate. When at long last there was a state, eugenics theory declined. My explanation is the change of generations: that generation had come to an end professionally, and a new generation with more national motivation came along that was not educated at the European universities during that period. They had already seen what the Nazis had done with it and the ideological identification was lower. The ideas themselves seeped in but they’re not using the same rhetoric.”

    The eugenic chapter in the history of Western culture has been closed, but have eugenics really disappeared?

    “Eugenic thinking is alive and well today,” asserts Stoler-Liss.

    “It is expressed mainly in the very high rate of pre-natal tests and genetic filtering [of genetically deviant fetuses]. Mothers are very highly motivated to give birth only to healthy children and the attitude toward the exceptional, the different and the handicapped in Israeli society is problematic.”

    At hospitals today future parents are offered a plethora of genetic tests that diagnose the fetus before birth. Some of them are aimed at identifying serious disorders, like Tay-Sachs disease, a degenerative disease that causes a painful death in infancy. Others, however, are aimed at screening fetuses with conditions like deafness and sterility, the bearers of which can lead full and satisfying lives.

    SOURCE: Haaretz

    Where has everyone been?
    Try Actually READING the “BIBLE”!

    (1)It is one of the “tenets” of Judaism that BOTH parents be Jewish. The Jewish mother determines that a person is Jewish, and the father determines the “tribe” of Judaism.

    (2) It is unfair and wrong to compare Israel to the Nazis.
    The correct comparison is that of the Nazis to the Israelis:
    The Nazis just copied the Jewish “Manual” point by point

    Leviticus c.20 v.13 well, really the whole chapter

    Exodus c.32 v.27
    Numbers c.11 v.1-2
    Numbers c.16 all
    Numbers c.21 v.5-6
    Numbers v.26 v.10

    KILL anyone who engages in “DIVERSITY” or “INTEGRATION”
    Numbers v25 v.4-8
    Deuteronomy c.14 v.2

    Numbers c.21 v.03 Canaanites
    Numbers c.21 v.24 Amorites
    Numbers c.21 v.33-35 Bashan
    Numbers c.31 all Midianites
    Numbers c.32 v. more Amorites
    Deuteronomy c.2 v.34 People of Heshbon
    Deuteronomy c.3 v.6 really the whole chapter. threescore cities
    Joshua c.12 A list of victims of Israeli GENOCIDE
    Where are THEIR “holocaust” Memorials!

    Numbers c.21 v.25
    Numbers c.32 v.39
    Numbers c.33 v. 53
    (just to name a FEW)

    Numbers c.33 v.31-34
    Deuteronomy c.7 v.2
    Deuteronomy c.12 v.28-30
    Deuteronomy c.20 v.11-16

    Deuteronomy c.2 v.2
    Deuteronomy c.7 v.1
    Jews self-anointed “The CHOSEN People of GOD”
    Nazis self-anointed “The GENETICALLY CHOSEN People of God”.

  4. Gerald Goldberg
    2 January, 2019 at 3:44 pm — Reply

    Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
    August 2007
    © Copyright. 2007. Chaim Simons

    In an article in the English edition of “Mishpacha” in January 2005 appeared the following:
    “The Left is still loyal to the State of Israel in varying levels of faithfulness, but it hates Eretz Yisrael. The difference between these two is clear: Eretz Yisrael is a reminder of the Left’s Jewish past, which it wishes to forget. … The Left’s disconnection from the Jewish nation has reached the point where they are prepared for settlers to be killed during the evacuation effort [Gaza area and North Shomron]. Spokesmen of the Left have already announced that this will not be a war of brother against brother since ‘the settlers are not our brothers’.” (1)
    Unfortunately this is not a new phenomenon. It has always been an integral part of the secular Zionist agenda. They wanted a Jewish State (according to some of them, even if it were to be in Uganda or Argentina) but it had to be administered according to their programme and perception for the “New Jew.”

    Although much of the material appearing in this paper can be found in other books or articles, the material is often brought down as secondary or even tertiary sources. In addition, the primary sources are on a number of occasions incorrectly quoted and there are even cases where the quotations given do not occur in the sources given. Even when quotations from primary sources are given, it is rare for a facsimile of the document to be shown.

    The novelty in this paper is not only to identify accurately the primary sources regarding the statements made by the secular Zionists but also to give a facsimile of them.

    In many cases the original documents are no longer extant or could not be located, despite extensive searching. In such cases the information alleged to be contained in them has been completely omitted from this paper.

    If * appears after the number of the reference, it means that a photocopy of the appropriate part of the document has been reproduced at the end of this paper. Generally, the extract reproduced is limited to the part of the quote brought in the text of this paper (together with the beginning or end of the line containing the quote). A broken line indicates a non-continuity of the photocopied document. However, unless stated to the contrary, that which appears under the broken line, is a continuation of the same speaker appearing above the broken line.
    In the English quotes, Palestine usually appears when referring to Eretz Yisrael and it has of course be left as it appears in the original.
    The following words appearing in the Hebrew quotes have not been translated:
    Aliyah – Jewish immigration to Eretz Yisrael
    Hachshara – Training given to people in preparation for Aliyah
    Shlichim – Jewish emissaries sent abroad to Jewish communities
    Yishuv – Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael

    Eretz Yisrael was Divinely given to the Jewish people(2) and every Jew has an equal right to live there. However as we shall see, the secular Zionists thought otherwise.
    At the eighteenth Zionist Congress held in Prague in August 1933, Ben-Gurion said

    “Eretz Yisrael today needs not ordinary immigrants, but pioneers. The difference between them is simple – an immigrant comes to take from the land, whereas a pioneer comes to give to the land. Therefore we demand priority for Aliyah to pioneers.”(3)

    The question here is how would Ben-Gurion define an “ordinary immigrant” and how a “pioneer”? From his speech, it is obvious that a person working the land on a kibbutz is a pioneer. However, it would almost certainly appear that an old person coming to spend his last years in the Holy Land or even a Yeshiva student would be classed as a mere “ordinary immigrant”!(4)

    A few months later in mid-October 1933 a meeting took place between, amongst others, the High Commissioner for Palestine, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Shertok (Sharett). The Minutes of the meeting were written up by Shertok.

    During the course of this meeting Ben-Gurion spoke about the three million Jews then living in Poland and stated that:

    “Palestine offered no solution for all Polish Jews. Immigration into Palestine was necessarily limited, therefore it had to and could be a selected immigration. Zionism was not a philanthropic enterprise, they really wanted here the best type of Jew to develop the Jewish National Home, but they had to be given sufficient scope to bring over people of whom the country was in need.”(5)

    The question which remains is who would decide who was “the best type of Jew”? As will soon be seen, such a Jew was someone who was a secular Zionist!
    It was a few years later at the 20th Zionist Congress held in Zurich in August 1937, that Weizmann spelled out more specifically what was meant by “selective Aliyah.”

    “I told the members of the Royal [Peel] Commission that six million Jews want to go on Aliyah. One of the members asked me ‘ Do you think you could bring all of them to Eretz Yisrael?’ On this I answered … that two million young people… we want to save. The old people will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They have already become like dust, economic and moral dust in this cruel world.”(6)

    A similar rejection of elderly Jews to go on Aliyah was made by Henry Montor, the Executive Vice-Chairman of the United Jewish Appeal for Refugees towards the beginning of 1940. A ship full of refugees not certified by the Zionist organisations, were on the high seas. Many of the passengers were elderly. The captain of the ship required money to bring them to Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Baruch Rabinowitz of Maryland took the matter in hand and tried to get the necessary money from Montor to pay the captain. In his long rambling letter of reply, Montor wrote about the Jewish Agency’s policy of “selectivity” –

    “the choice of young men and women who are trained in Europe for productive purposes either in agriculture or industry.”

    With regard to the elderly Jews on board this ship, Montor wrote:

    “There could be no more deadly ammunition provided to the enemies of Zionism, whether they be in the ranks of the British Government or the Arabs, or even in the ranks of the Jewish people, if Palestine were to be flooded with very old people or with undesirables who would make impossible the conditions of life in Palestine and destroy the prospect of creating such economic circumstances as would insure a continuity of immigration.”(7)

    Maybe it would have been appropriate for him to have renamed his organisation “United Jewish Appeal for Selected Refugees”! At least the donors would then have had a better idea of what they were giving money for.

    The secular Zionists were not even ashamed to put out a memorandum in which they quite openly had a section “Who to save”. This memorandum (of April/May 1943) was headed that its distribution was “intended for Zionist functionaries only” and it included instructions “not to pass it on to non-Zionist groups who participate in the Working Committee.”(8) Although it came out under the name of A. [Apolinary] Hartglas, it has been suggested that in fact it was Yitzchak Gruenbaum who actually wrote it.(9) Under this section, he wrote:

    “…. to my sorrow we have to say that if we are able to save only ten thousand people and we need to save fifty thousand [those chosen] should be of use in building up the land and the revival of the nation.… First and foremost one must rescue children since they are the best material for the Yishuv. One must rescue the pioneering youth, especially those who have had training and are idealistically qualified for Zionist work. One should rescue the Zionist functionaries since they deserve something from the Zionist movement for their work…. Pure philanthropic rescue, for example, saving the Jews of Germany, if carried out in an indiscriminate manner, could from a Zionist prospective only cause harm.”(10)

    As can be seen, just as with both Weizmann and Montor, Hartglas was not interested in old people coming to Eretz Yisrael. Even amongst the younger generation, he was only interested in those who would work the land – Yeshivah students were of no use to him.
    Further exclusions to Aliyah by the secular Zionists were people who were not members of the Zionist camp. Some Jews who succeeded in arriving in Eretz Yisrael in the second half of 1944 gave evidence on this question.

    Pinchas Gross who had been one of the public workers of Agudat Yisrael in Rumania stated:

    “The first principle of the Zionist Aliyah Committee in Bucharest was not to allow members of Agudat Yisrael to go on Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. This was despite the agreement which had been made before the war between Agudat Yisrael and the Jewish Agency on the Aliyah quotas for members of Agudat Yisrael… Shlichim from the [Aliyah] Committee in Bucharest arrived in Transylvania with large sums of money in order to transfer hundreds of pioneers to Bucharest for the purpose of Aliyah. We also asked for our members the possibility of Aliyah but we were rudely rejected.”(11)

    One might think that this money was “Zionist money” and therefore it was proper to reject such a request. However, this was shown not to be the case just a few weeks later when Weissberg who was a member of the Aliyah Committee in Bucharest, gave evidence before the Rescue Committee in Jerusalem. During this evidence he stated

    “It is true that the Agudah was not granted equal rights with regards to receiving money for assistance in Rumania. We did not know that the money which arrived from Eretz Yisrael was money from the Rescue Committee in which all the Yishuv participated. We thought that the money was Jewish Agency money.… I must inform you that help was not given to the pioneers and youth of Agudat Yisrael. We did not know that Agudah is a partner in matters of rescue and in particular in matters of Aliyah. Also regarding the Aliyah of the pioneers of Agudah, we did not know that they were entitled to go on Aliyah, until we arrived in Eretz Yisrael.”(12)

    We can thus see that the secular Zionists did nothing to even inform the Agudah what they were entitled to, let alone implement such an entitlement.

    There were also others who had been misled in believing that the money was “Zionist money”. For example, the Vishnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Eliezer Hager, testified that when he asked why the ultra-Orthodox were not receiving any money, received the answer,

    “This money is Zionist and it is set aside solely for Zionists.”(13)

    Pinchas Gross further stated:

    “The ultra-Orthodox youth were not at all considered for this [financial] assistance either in their home town or for the possibility of Aliyah. We applied… for assistance for our youth who before the war did a period of Hachshara and were no less fit for Aliyah than other pioneers – but we did not even receive an answer. The excuse was that the money was Zionist money and was solely for them.”(14)

    This attitude of the secular Zionists in their use of public money for their kith and kin and of their “priorities” did not pass without comment, even from non-Orthodox sources.

    Dr. Judah Leon Magnes in addressing a meeting of the Rescue Committee in July 1944 was very critical of those who wanted:

    “first of all to save the Zionists, and afterwards, if possible – also the others, but above all the Zionists. I spoke to somebody…. The man said… we will save our men…. I said to him … the others are also Jews. He said: It is so, they are Jews, but this is a universal argument, a perpetual argument and we will not give in on this.” (15)
    Magnes’ comments on the necessity for non-selectivity when doing rescue work are illustrated by the work performed during the Second World War by Recha Sternbuch, who succeeded in rescuing thousands of Jews from the Nazis. Recha was associated with the strictly Orthodox Agudat Yisrael party. However, unlike the secular Zionists, she rescued Jews (and even some non-Jews) regardless of their level of religious observance or Zionist party affiliation.(16)

    A few months after the beginning of the Second World War the Zionists received entry visas to Eretz Yisrael for 2,900 German Jews. It was necessary to have a meeting with the British Colonial Secretary, Malcolm MacDonald, in connection with these visas and in November 1939, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Shertok met to discuss this question. Ben-Gurion strongly opposed such a meeting with MacDonald and he told Shertok that:

    “our political future is more important than saving 2,900 Jews.”

    Shertok, who completely disagreed with Ben-Gurion, commented in his diary,

    “he [Ben-Gurion] was prepared to forgo them [the 2,900 Jews].” (17)

    Even in July 1944, which was towards the end of this war, when the Holocaust was still in full progress and its implementation was already well known, Ben-Gurion still had the same attitude. A meeting of the Executive of the Jewish Agency was held in Jerusalem at the beginning of July 1944. On its agenda was the subject of the rescue of Jews.

    Rabbi Baruch Yehoshua Yerachmiel Rabinowicz, the Munkaczer Rebbe in Hungary, was involved in this rescue effort and the question of a meeting with him was mentioned at this Jewish Agency meeting. In answer Ben-Gurion stated that he did not oppose such a meeting,

    “We must do everything in this matter [of rescue] including things which seem fantastic.” Had Ben-Gurion said no more, it would have been praiseworthy, but he then continued,

    “But there is one condition: the work will not cause damage to Zionism.” (18)

    In a letter to the Israeli daily newspaper “Ha’aretz” in 1983, the historian Professor Yigal Eilam confirmed that this was the attitude of the Zionist leaders during the period of the Holocaust. He wrote:

    “The policy of the Zionists during the long period of the Holocaust gave priority to the building up of the land and the establishment of a State, over the saving of Jews…. One already needs to tell these things in a open and direct manner. The Zionists did very little in the saving of Jews, not because they were unable to do more, but because they were concentrating on the Zionist enterprise.” (19)

    In a similar vein, in an article by the historian Dina Porat which appeared in “Ha’aretz” in 1991, she wrote:

    “From the moment that the State became the primary objective, the life of a Jew became secondary in accordance with the principal ‘the State of Israel is above everything’”.(20)

    The shortsightedness of the secular Zionist leaders in this matter was written about in 1984 by Rabbi Morris Sherer, the President of Agudat Yisrael, in his comments on the report by Professor Seymour Maxwell Finger entitled “American Jewry during the Holocaust.” Rabbi Sherer commented:

    “Alas, they [the secular Zionist leaders] did not perceive how utterly ridiculous and heartless it was for Jewish leaders to concentrate on a postwar homeland, when the people for whom they were seeking this home were being slaughtered like sheep!” (21)

    Unlike Ben-Gurion who put Zionism first, and Jewish lives just in second place, the Rabbis of the period immediately put “Pikuach Nefesh” (the saving of lives) first. Sabbath observance is one of the fundamentals of Jewish observance, with the most stringent of punishments for their non-observance, yet despite this, Pikuach Nefesh overrides the Sabbath.(22) In order to save lives during the Holocaust, two leading British Rabbis, Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld and Rabbi Isadore Grunfeld, who were occupied in forging passports to save Jews, continued their work on the Sabbath.(23) Rabbis Boruch Kaplan and Rabbi Alexander Linchner rode around Brooklyn in New York in a car on the Sabbath from house to house collecting money to save Jews.(24) (These actions are normally forbidden on the Sabbath.)

    In 1933, Hitler rose to power and during the subsequent years, more and more draconian measures, such as the Nuremberg laws were enacted against the Jews. In 1938 Hitler marched into Austria to the cheers of the non-Jewish population.

    The situation for the Jews under Hitler’s domination became unbearable and places of refuge became a grave necessity. It was thus at this period that President Franklin Roosevelt convened a conference of thirty-two nations at the French resort town of Evian to try and find places of refuge for Jews wanting to flee from Hitler.

    One would naturally have thought that the Zionist leaders of the time would make the most of this opportunity and devote all their time and energy to ensure that successful results would emerge from this Conference. But sadly this was not to be.

    Already in mid-June 1938, before the opening of the Conference, Dr. Georg Landauer wrote to Dr. Stephen Wise, who was head of the Zionist Organization of America. In it he wrote:

    “I am writing this letter to you at the request of Dr. Weizmann, as we are very much concerned in case the issue is presented at the [Evian] Conference in a manner which may harm the work for Palestine. Even if the Conference will not place countries other than Palestine in the front for Jewish immigration, there will certainly be public appeals which will tend to overshadow the importance of Palestine…. We feel all the more concern as it may bind Jewish organisations to collect large sums of money for assisting Jewish refugees, and these collections are likely to interfere with our own campaigns.” (25)
    Two weeks later the Jewish Agency Executive met in Jerusalem and opposition to the planned Evian Conference was openly stated.

    Yitzchak Gruenbaum said:

    “The Evian Conference can be expected to cause us grave damage – Eretz Yisrael could be eliminated as a country for Jewish immigration … [we are] very apprehensive that in this Conference, it could be relegated to the end of the line. We have to prevent this damage… There is the danger that whilst searching for a destination country, some new territory will be found to which Jewish immigration will be directed. We must defend our principle that Jewish settlement can only succeed in Eretz Yisrael and that no other settlement can come into the calculation.” (26)

    Menachem Ussishkin then addressed the meeting in a similar vein. The Evian Conference very much worried him and he supported the words of Gruenbaum.

    “Mr. Gruenbaum is right when he says that there is the danger that Eretz Yisrael will be removed from the agenda even by the Jews and one should see this as a tremendous blow to us.” (27)

    Of course the ideal solution was for Jews to go to Eretz Yisrael. However in view of the then political situation, immigration there was not a feasible proposition. Surely the only question then should have been how to save and help as many Jews as possible. It was this fact that should have been the only concern of the speakers at that Jewish Agency Executive meeting – but it wasn’t!

    A few weeks later, Weizmann wrote to Stephen Wise. Towards the beginning of his letter he wrote:

    “I made arrangements, before leaving for my holiday, to put in a few days at Evian.” (28)

    If one thinks for a moment about this sentence, one can see that it is horrific. Surely, if there was even the slightest opportunity of saving even one Jew, Weizmann who was the President of the Zionist Organization should have immediately cancelled his personal holiday arrangements and spent all his time at Evian trying to lobby the various delegates to accept Jews in their countries. But what do we see? – he will just before going on holiday “put in a few days at Evian.”

    In fact he was later persuaded by his friends not to even “put in a few days” there, to which advice he followed.(29) The reason was stated by Dr. Arthur Ruppin at a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive on 21 August. Ruppin stated:

    “we then decided that it would not be to our prestige for Dr. Weizmann to appear in Evian” (30) – the reason being that he would only have been allowed to speak in a sub-committee! Jewish lives were at stake and to worry about prestige!!

    One can immediately contrast this attitude with that of the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Rabbi Aharon Kotler had come under some criticism for meeting in the course of his rescue work with Stephen Wise, a leader of the Reform movement. He shrugged

    such reprobation saying,

    “I would prostrate myself before the Pope if I knew it would help to save even the fingernail of one Jewish child.” (31)

    Unfortunately nothing concrete came out of the Evian Conference. The situation of the Jews in Germany got even worse and on 9 November 1938 there was the infamous Kristallnacht.

    A few days later, Weizmann heard that there was a scheme to resettle German Jews in a country other than Eretz Yisrael. This he did not like and he immediately sent off a telegram to stop any financial backing for such a scheme. This telegram was sent to Samuel Vandenbergh in Wassemar:

    “Understand you are embarking large financial effort for settlement German Jews. Beg of you to be careful not disperse and dissipate energies which can nowhere be applied with greater effectiveness both immediately and lasting than in Palestine.” (32)

    Since at that period emigration to Eretz Yisrael was unfortunately not a practical proposition, Weizmann is effectively saying that rather than immigrate to another country, the Jews must remain in Nazi Germany.

    We can see that also Ben-Gurion thought on these same lines as the other secular Zionist leaders. It was at this period that Ben-Gurion addressed the Mapai Central Committee. He realised the seriousness of the situation and said:

    “On these awesome days at the start of the threatened destruction of European Jewry…. If I would know that it would be possible to save all the German [Jewish] children by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, I would choose the second option – since before us is not just these children but the history of the Jewish people.” (33)

    At this period, the Germans had already established concentration camps and were sending Jews to them. In order to pre-empt this, it was necessary to find the means of arranging their emigration from Germany. Ben-Gurion, however, felt this could cause a diversion of resources and endanger Zionism. A few days after his above quoted speech to the Mapai Central Committee, he addressed the Executive of the Jewish Agency:

    “Zionism now stands in danger.… If the Jews will have to choose on the one hand the refugee question,[namely] saving Jews from concentration camps and on the other hand assisting a national museum in Eretz Yisrael, mercy would decide the matter and all the energy of the [Jewish] people would be diverted to saving Jews in the various countries. Zionism would be struck off the agenda, not only in world opinion in England and America, but also in Jewish public opinion. The existence of Zionism would be at risk if we allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Eretz Yisrael problem.” (34)

    The mass extermination of the Jews of Europe was already well known by the end of 1942. Saving Jews could and should have been top priority. But in order to save large numbers of people from extermination costs money – whether normal expenses or money for bribery. Needless to say, the money has to come from somewhere. All the time money was donated by world Jewry to funds such as the Keren Hayesod, the JNF, and so on. It is true that this money had been specifically donated for Eretz Yisrael, but here was a case of Pikuach Nefesh and it would have been quite legitimate, indeed mandatory, to have utilised this money for the saving of Jewish lives. The Jews then living in Eretz Yisrael were even saying so.

    However Yitzchak Gruenbaum, who was head of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency thought otherwise. In a speech to the Zionist Smaller Actions Committee in January 1943 he expressed his views:

    “Meanwhile a mood has begun to sweep over Eretz Yisrael which I think is very dangerous to Zionism…. How is it possible that such a thing can occur in Eretz Yisrael, that in a meeting they will call out to me, ‘If you don’t have any money [for rescuing European Jewry] take the money of the Keren Hayesod, take the money from the bank – there, there is money, in the Keren Hayedod there is money.’ … These days in Eretz Yisrael it is being said, ‘don’t put Eretz Yisrael at the top of your priorities at this difficult time, at the period of a Holocaust and destruction of European Jewry,’ …. I don’t accept such a thing. And when they asked me to give money of the Keren Hayesod to save Diaspora Jewry, I said no and I again said no…. I am not going to defend myself, in the same way that I will not justify or defend myself if they accuse me of murdering my mother …. But I think it is necessary to say here: Zionism is above everything.” (35)

    The only consolation from reading Gruenbaum’s speech, is that the Jews living in Eretz Yisrael were demanding the diverting of Keren Hayesod money to rescue efforts, even though this meant that less money would arrive in Eretz Yisrael and could accordingly affect their living standards. In contrast Gruenbaum commented:

    “Zionism is above everything” even though this meant not rescuing European Jewry from the Holocaust.

    In his book “Perfidy”, Ben Hecht quoted how Gruenbaum said “No” to the giving of money for rescue activities.(36) In a critical “Analysis” of this book by the American Section of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, they write that this quoted sentence by Ben Hecht:

    “has been most viciously torn out of context”. The writer of this Analysis then tries to prove, quoting other parts of Gruenbaum’s speech that he wanted to do everything to save European Jewry. (37) However he conveniently omitted one crucial part of the speech: “Zionism is above everything” – namely we will certainly do everything to save European Jewry provided that it is not at the expense of Zionism!

    One might add that in 1961, Gruenbaum gave an interview to the paper “Etgar” from the comfort of his house in Gan Shmuel, in which he repeated these statements he made during the war, without even hinting he had been wrong.

    “Interviewer: Was there then no money in the kitty of the Jewish Agency, the JNF, the Keren Hayesod?

    Gruenbaum: Yes. Even then the argument went: Isn’t there any money? Take it from the JNF. I said: No! They did not want to forgive me for this and until this day, there are murmurings about this. The money was needed for Zionism.

    Interviewer: What is the meaning of “for Zionism” when the saving of lives is at stake? Does Zionism want Jews alive or dead?

    Gruenbaum: The saving of life does not override Zion. For Jews, the State is essential. Therefore, in accordance with my manner I said the truth – that is No!”(38)

    Gruenbaum went on to say that he then went to South Africa to raise money for rescue purposes. However we all know that the raising of money, especially when one has to travel to another continent takes time and every day taken meant more Jews were being sent to the gas chambers. Surely the correct thing was to immediately take money from these Zionist kitties and if at a later date one succeeded in raising money, one could return it to the Zionist funds.

    Even before the war, when Jews were already being persecuted in Germany and Austria, it was widely accepted that money to save Jewish lives came before money for Zionism. In was in late October 1938 that the treasurer of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) said:

    “The upbuilding of Palestine was all very well, but Jews in Europe were starving and persecuted – and they, JDC felt, had first claim on whatever funds were available.” (39)

    Placing Zionism above the saving the lives of Jews was also a phenomenon of the British secular Zionists. Towards the end of 1942, when the Nazi extermination plans became known, British Jewry decided to make representations to the British Government. At a meeting of the British section of the Jewish Agency held in December 1942, the “Nazi Extermination Policy” was on the agenda. Here is an extract from the official minutes of this meeting when discussing this item:

    “Dr. Brodetsky … made it quite clear that if Palestine was not properly mentioned then he would not be a member of the Delegation to Mr. Eden….
    Lord Melchett said it would be disastrous for any body of Jews to go to Mr. Eden and not put Palestine in the forefront of their plans. Such a body would not represent the views of the Jews either here or elsewhere…..
    Mr. Marks said he fully agreed, and if this condition was not satisfied, then he would not be a member of the delegation. Unless Palestine was properly dealt with, they should criticise the delegation up and down the country and cause a revolution inside the Board of Deputies…. The dignity of the Jewish people was at stake and it was only in Palestine that the Jews could get their dignity back.”(40)

    As we well see, the above British secular Zionists would only attend a meeting with British Government officials to save Jews from the “Nazi Extermination Policy” if Eretz Yisrael was to be given a prominent place at these meetings. Furthermore it was Jewish lives which were “at stake” and it was no time to worry about “dignity” being “at stake”.
    It was at the same period that the British secular Zionists sabotaged negotiations that Rabbi Dr. Solomon Schonfeld was making with the British Government for the rescue of the endangered Jews in Nazi Europe. Such rescue of Jews was not a new thing with Rabbi Schonfeld. Just before the Second World War, he had organised Kinder transports and brought over to England from Germany and Austria thousands of children.(41) To accommodate some of them he even utilized his own house with him sleeping in the attic.(42)

    Towards the end of 1942, Rabbi Schonfeld organised steps to rescue Jews from Nazi Europe. To this end he worked exceptionally hard to organise wide support for a Motion to be tabled in the British Parliament for the British Government to be prepared to find temporary refuge in its territories or territories under its control for those endangered by the Nazis. Within two weeks he amassed a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures of all parties for this Motion.(43)

    One would have thought that the British secular Zionists would have welcomed and co-operated in such an initiative. Sadly this was not the case. In a letter to the “Jewish Chronicle” at that period, Rabbi Schonfeld wrote:

    “This effort was met by a persistent attempt on the part of Professor Brodetsky [President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews] and some of his colleagues to sabotage the entire move. Without even full knowledge of the details, he and his collaborators asked Members of the House [of Parliament] to desist from supporting the new effort.”(44)

    Rabbi Schonfeld further elaborated on this in a letter to “The Times” of London at the time of the Eichmann trial in 1961.

    “Already while the Parliamentary motion was gathering momentum voices of dissent were heard from Zionist quarters: ‘Why not Palestine?’ The obvious answers that the most urgent concern was humanitarian and not political, that the Mufti-Nazi alliance ruled out Palestine for the immediate saving of lives….When the next steps were being energetically pursued by over 100 M.Ps [Members of Parliament] and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion on the grounds of its omitting to refer to Palestine …. and thereafter the motion was dead.” (45)

    Rabbi Schonfeld’s initiative came up at a meeting of the British Executive of the Jewish Agency in January 1943. At this meeting, Berl Locker said that he and two of his colleagues:

    “had asked him [Rabbi Schonfeld] to postpone the meeting in the House of Commons and not to continue working off his own bat. They had also pointed out that the resolution which he had proposed did not mention Palestine…. Mr. Locker wondered whether it would be a good thing for him or Dr. Brodetsky to write a letter to the Chief Rabbi, who might be able to do something to stop this mischief.” (46)

    What was this “mischief” of Rabbi Dr. Schonfeld’s that these British secular Zionists wanted “stopped”? This “mischief” was his trying to save the lives of Jews who were in Nazi Europe!!

    In an interview given by someone who worked with the late Klausenberger Rebbe for half a century, he said in answer to a question on the Holocaust,

    “When the Sabra and Shatila affair rocked the nation, and hundreds of thousands of Israelis demonstrated in Tel Aviv, demanding a commission of inquiry into the government’s lack of response to the massacre of Palestinians by Phalangist militants in Lebanon, the Rebbe couldn’t restrain himself. During a Shiur he delivered in Bnei Brak, he asked pointedly why there was no call for a commission of inquiry into the lack of response of the Zionist leaders in Eretz Yisrael during the murder of millions of Jews in the Nazi-occupied lands. They had ignored the matter completely.” (47)

    1) Rabbi Moshe Grylak, “How do they “know” it all?” Mishpacha (English edition), (Monsey, NY: Tikshoret VeChinuch Dati-Yehudi), 12 January 2005, pp.6-7.
    2) e.g. Genesis chap.12 verse 7.
    3) * Stenographisches Protokoll XVIII Zionistenkongresses, [Official Minutes of the 18th Zionist Congress], (London: Zentralbureau der Zionistischen Organisation), p.219.
    4) David Kranzler, Thy Brother’s Blood, (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1987), pp.61-62, 241, 244.
    5) * Minutes of Interview with His Excellency the High Commissioner, 17 October 1933, pp.4-5 (Labour Archives – Lavon Institute IV-104-49-2-64. There is also a copy in Ben-Gurion Archives). At a later date Ben-Gurion wrote up these minutes (in Hebrew) in his memoirs without any suggestion that they were not what he had said at this meeting, (David Ben-Gurion, Memoirs, vol.1, (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1971), p.672).
    6) * Official Minutes of the 20th Zionist Congress, (Jerusalem: Executive of the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency), pp.32-33.
    7) * Montor to Rabinowitz, 1 February 1940, pp.2, 4, (Jabotinsky Archives, HT-10/16).
    8) * A. Hartglas, Comments concerning assistance and rescue, (April/May 1943 – possibly 24 April 1943), p.1, (CZA S26/1306 [previous no. S26/1232]).
    9) Aryeh Morgenstern, “Vaad hahatzalah hameuchad .…,” Yalkut Moreshet, (Tel Aviv: Moreshet), vol.13, June 1971, p.95 fn.67.
    10) * Hartglas, op. cit., p.3.
    11) * Evidence of Pinchas Gross, a public worker of Agudat Yisrael of Rumania, given in Tel Aviv on 27 July 1944, p.2, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no. S26/1079]).
    12) * Minutes, Presidium of the Rescue Committee, Jerusalem, 25 August 1944, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no. S26/1079]).
    13) * Evidence of Vishnitzer Rebbe taken in Tel Aviv in April 1944, p.1, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no, S26/1079]).
    14) * Pinchas Gross, op. cit.
    15) * Minutes, Rescue Committee, Jerusalem, 14 July 1944, p.7, (CZA S26/1327 [previous no. S26/1238aleph]).
    16) Kranzler, op. cit., pp194-95.
    17) * Moshe Shertok Handwritten diary, 13 November 1939, p.66, (CZA S25/198/3. [Shertok also made a handwritten copy of his own diary CZA A245/14]
    18) * Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive. Jerusalem, 2 July 1944. p.8, (CZA).
    19) Yigal Eilam, Letters to the Editor, Haaretz, (Tel Aviv), 15 April 1983, p.24.
    20) Dina Porat, “Manipulatzit Haadmorim,” Haaretz, (Tel Aviv), 12 April 1991, p.3b.
    21) Seymour Maxwell Finger, American Jewry during the Holocaust, (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, second printing May 1984), Comment by Rabbi Morris Sherer, p.16.
    22) Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, chap.328, para.2.
    23) S. Fordsham, Inbox, Mishpacha (English edition), op. cit., 9 May 2007, p.10
    24) Kranzler, op. cit., p.6.
    25) * Landauer to Wise, 13 June 1938, p.1, (CZA S53/1552aleph).
    26) * Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, 26 June 1938, p.6, (CZA)
    27) * Ibid., p.7.
    28) * Weizmann to Wise. 14 July 1938, p.1, (CZA Z4/17198).
    29) * Ibid., p.2.
    30) * Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, 21 August 1938, p.7. (CZA).
    31) Kranzler, op. cit., p.146.
    32) * Telegram, Weizmann to Vandenburgh, 16 November 1938, (CZA Z4/17335).
    33) * Minutes, Mapai Central Committee, 7 December 1938, p.41, (Labour Party Archives – Bet Berl 2-23-1938-21 bet).
    34) * Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, 11 December 1938, p.4, (CZA)
    35) * Minutes, Zionist Smaller Actions Committee, 18 January 1943, pp.12-13, (CZA).
    36) Ben Hecht, Perfidy, (New York: Julian Messner, 1962), p.50.
    37) The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency. Ben Hecht’s ‘Perfidy’ – An analysis of his rewriting of history, (New York: [s.n.], 1962), p.9.
    38) * “Mi asham b’hafkara,” conversation with Yitzchak Gruenbaum, Etgar, (Tel Aviv: Mercaz Hapeula Hashemit), no.8, 29 June 1961, p.5.
    39) Yehuda Bauer, My Brother’s Keeper, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1974), p.255.
    40) * Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, London, 21 December 1942, pp.2-3. (CZA Z4/302/26).
    41) e.g. David Kranzler. Holocaust Hero, (New Jersey: Ktav, 2004).
    42) Ibid., pp.38-39.
    43) * Solomon Schonfeld, Letters to the Editor, The Times, (London), 6 June 1961, p.13.
    44) * Solomon Schonfeld, Letters to the Editor, The Jewish Chronicle, (London), 29 January 1943, p.5.
    45) * Schonfeld, The Times, op. cit.
    46) * Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, London, 21 January 1943, (CZA Z4/302/26).
    47) “A strength beyond nature,” Mishpacha (English edition), op. cit., 20 June 2007, p.16.

  5. Truthweed
    1 June, 2019 at 8:32 pm — Reply

    After a request by the US embassy in Berlin, Hitler and Himmler ordered a Jewish German officer named Bloch to rescue the Chabad-Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson and his family from Warsaw. He sent them from Sweden, Finland to the USA -OOPS!!

    Did Schneerson ever thank his rescuers?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.