Who was Joachim Gottschalk?

He was a famous German actor in Nazi Germany, who died along with his family, when he refused to be separated from his Jewish wife and their son. Seventy seven years ago today. From Wikipedia:

Joachim Gottschalk

Joachim Gottschalk (10 April 1904 – 6 November 1941) was a German stage and film actor during the late 1930s, a romantic lead in the style of Leslie Howard.

[...]

Gottschalk, the son of a physician, was born in the small town of Calau, in the Prussian province of Brandenburg. He attended the Gymnasium high school in Cottbus and from 1924 worked for four years on seagoing vessels. He later began an theatrical education in Cottbus and Berlin. During an engagement in Stuttgart, he met with his later wife, the Jewish actress Meta Wolff (1902–1941). Both married on 3 May 1930 in Halberstadt, shortly before Hitler came to power. They had a son, Michael, who was born in February 1933.

After the Nazi Machtergreifung in 1933, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels promoted the establishment of the Reichskulturkammer institution. Actors were required to apply for membership in the Theaterkammer on presentation of an "Aryan certificate" which meant a prohibition (Berufsverbot) to Gottschalk's wife. The couple managed to avoid the anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws and rising tide of anti-semitic violence in Nazi Germany. From 1934 Gottschalk performed at the Schauspielhaus Frankfurt and in 1938 joined the Volksbühne ensemble in Berlin. In the same year he began his film career starring in the romance You and I directed by Wolfgang Liebeneiner, side by side with the popular German actress Brigitte Horney.

While World War II began with the German Invasion of Poland in 1939, Gottschalk and Horney appeared as a "dream couple" in a string of successful movies. Gottschalk took his Jewish wife to a social function and introduced her to some of the prominent Nazis who were present. Although the Nazis were charmed, Goebbels (a virulent anti-Semite) learned about this incident, and decreed that Gottschalk would be required to separate from his Jewish wife. When Gottschalk refused, Goebbels ordered Gottschalk's wife and child transported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp[citation needed]. The minister's Special Representative Hans Hinkel insisted on the divorce and Gottschalk was threatened to play no further roles[citation needed]. Gottschalk insisted on accompanying Meta and Michael to Theresienstadt, but Goebbels ordered Gottschalk inducted into the German Army, the Wehrmacht[citation needed].

[...]

On 6 November 1941, minutes before the expected arrival of the Gestapo at their house in Berlin-Grunewald, Gottschalk and his wife committed suicide by gas poisoning after sedating their son, who died with them. They are buried at the Stahnsdorf South-Western Cemetery. Though warned by Minister Goebbels, Brigitte Horney and Wolfgang Liebeneiner, as well as other artists like Gustav Knuth, Hans Brausewetter, Werner Hinz, and Ruth Hellberg attended the funeral.

Goebbels ordered no further mentions of Gottschalk in the German newspapers, but word got out anyway and millions of German women mourned his death. Because of Nazi censorship, most of his devoted fans did not learn the awful circumstances of his death until after the war. In 1947 Kurt Maetzig directed the DEFA melodram Marriage in the Shadows after a novella by Hans Schweikart evoking the couple's fate. The 2002 drama Times Like These written by John O'Keefe is based on their individual tragedy. [...]

When I was in college, I did a term paper on the subject of Nazi Cinema. It dealt with the fate of people in the German film industry who refused to cooperate with the Nazis, and didn't leave Germany. Joachin's story was just one of many.

   

Are voters really that dumb, or is it spin?

Unbelievable:

Lawmakers snipe, Wall St. frets as deadline nears

[...] Despite McConnell's assertions that the debt problem belongs to Obama, fresh polling from Quinnipiac University suggested voters would be more apt to hold Republicans responsible than Obama, by 48 percent to 34 percent, if the debt limit is not raised. The same survey showed voters were about evenly split on whether they're more concerned about raising the limit and increasing government debt, or seeing the government go into default and damaging the economy.

"The American people aren't very happy about their leaders, but President Barack Obama is viewed as the best of the worst, especially when it comes to the economy," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.

That helps explain why McConnell put forward a plan that would give Obama new powers to overcome Republican opposition to raising the debt ceiling.

The proposal would place the burden on Obama to win debt ceiling increases up to three times, provided he was able to override congressional vetoes — a threshold Obama could manage to overcome even without a single Republican vote and without massive spending cuts. Conservatives promptly criticized the plan for giving up the leverage to reduce deficits. But the plan raised the prospect of combining it with some of the spending cuts already identified by the White House in order to win support from conservatives in the House.

In an interview with radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham, McConnell described his plan in stark political terms, warning fellow conservatives that failure to raise the debt limit would probably ensure Obama's re-election in 2012. He predicted that a default would allow Obama to argue that Republicans were making the economy worse.

"You know, it's an argument he has a good chance of winning, and all of a sudden we (Republicans) have co-ownership of a bad economy," McConnell said. "That's a very bad positioning going into an election." [...]

What the hell is "Quinnipiac's Polling Institute"? Never heard of them. Just some university poll being used for White House spin? Gallop polls are more widely recognized, see what they say:

U.S. Debt Ceiling Increase Remains Unpopular With Americans
More are concerned about higher level of spending than risk of economic crisis

PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure. This 20-percentage-point edge in opposition to raising the debt ceiling in Gallup's July 7-10 poll is slightly less than the 28-point lead (47% vs. 19%) seen in May. [...]

Sounds more believable to me. But a whopping 1/3 "unsure"? That's scary.

Even with 42% of voters against raising the debt ceiling, the Republicans will still allow Obama to do it, IF he also agrees to significant spending cuts. But he just can't (or won't) do it.

The press frequently called Bush "divisive", even as he frequently gave in to Democrats. But this president gives in to nothing, demonstrates no flexibility, and somehow, he's supposed to be a "uniter"? I'm not seeing it. And that's too bad, because a uniter is what we desperately need.

Gallup also said this:

On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' preferences for deficit reduction clearly favor spending cuts to tax increases, but most Americans favor a mix of the two approaches. Twenty percent favor an approach that relies only on spending cuts and 4% favor an approach that uses tax increases alone.

[...]

Responses on both sides to a large degree reflect the arguments political leaders are making. Two of the most common, and arguably the dominant themes of the open-ended responses, are concerns about the effect that not raising the debt limit will have on the economy versus concerns that raising it will not sufficiently address government spending. In the same poll, Gallup asked Americans which of these two risks concerned them more, and the public expressed greater concern about raising the debt ceiling without a plan for major cuts in future government spending (51%) than about the potential harm to the economy if the debt ceiling is not raised (32%).

Implications

Government spending seems to be the primary worry for Americans when their opinions are probed about raising the debt limit. Government leaders appear to be listening, as party leaders are proposing major cuts in future government spending as a way to persuade members of Congress to vote for an increase in the nation's debt limit. In terms of deficit reduction, Americans seem to generally back an approach that relies more on spending cuts than tax increases. A key question to be answered in the days ahead is whether an agreement to raise the debt ceiling will include any tax increases. This is something many Republican members of Congress oppose, but most Americans do not seem to share this view. [...]

Large cuts in spending, along with some tax increases, would be a compromise that most Americans would accept. A true compromise would have to encompass both. The Republicans won't be able to budge from their position, unless Obama agrees to huge spending cuts. The President needs to take the lead in getting us there, but I doubt that he has what it takes.
     

Demoralization: The root of our problems?

I tend to think it is. The literal definition of "demoralize" is:

de·mor·al·ize

1. to deprive (a person or persons) of spirit, courage, discipline, etc.; destroy the morale of: The continuous barrage demoralized the infantry.

2. to throw (a person) into disorder or confusion; bewilder: We were so demoralized by that one wrong turn that we were lost for hours.

3. to corrupt or undermine the morals of.

People whose thinking is disordered, who are bewildered and confused, are more apt to act irrationally and emotionally, and are more susceptible to emotional manipulation. Facts be damned.

"Demoralization" is when the truth and facts don't matter anymore. In politics demoralization has become all too pervasive, and it makes reasoned debate impossible. It's impossible to win an argument with, or to even persuade, someone who has no interest in discerning what is true, and what is false. Demoralization is a rotten foundation on which nothing can stand, and is at the root of much that ails America today.

A few months ago I came across and interesting video of a former KGB man, Yuri Bezmenov, describing the process of demoralization as a tool that was promoted by the soviets, for undermining, collapsing and taking over a country.

A summary of the four step process promoted by the Soviets can be found at the American Thinker:

From Russia with no love

[...] They describe the process as:

1. Demoralization.

2. Destabilization.

3. Crisis.

4. Normalization.

The point of this "Ideological Subversion" was to weaken an enemy country, strip its culture and corrupt their values to a point of complete vulnerability. Mr. Schuman describes it as:

[An] overt...slow process...[to] change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country.

The first step, Demoralization, has already been completed in America and continues to perpetuate itself. The Obama Administration policies are accelerating the second step of Destabilization and rapidly approaching the third phase of Crisis. [...]

The video is here:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk

The interview is edited, so I looked for a complete transcript of the interview, and I found this:

Interview with Yuri Bezmenov: Part Three

Bezmenov describes was steps of Demoralization, Destabilization, Crisis, and Normalization in detail. Some excerpts:

[...] But in reality, the main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion and [the] opinion of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower [are] spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process, which we call either ‘ideological subversion,’ or ‘active measures’—‘[?]’ in the language of the KGB—or ‘psychological warfare.’ What it basically means is, to change the perception of reality, of every American, to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country.

It’s a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is] demoralization; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).

The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals) are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people... the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.

Griffin: And yet these people who have been ‘programmed,’ and as you say [are] in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept... these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?

Bezmenov: Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in [the] future what the beautiful society of ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’ means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people, and the Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously they will join the leagues of dissenters (dissidents).

Unlike in [the] present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy-rich like Jane Fonda for being ‘dissident,’ for criticizing your Pentagon. In [the] future these people will be simply [squashing sound] squashed like cockroaches. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality. This they don't understand and it will be [the] greatest shock for them, of course.

The demoralization process in [the] United States is basically completed already. For the last 25 years... actually, it's over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to [a] lack of moral standards.

As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his fan-bottom. When a military boot crashes his... then he will understand. But not before that. That's the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization.

So basically America is stuck with demoralization and unless... even if you start right now, here, this minute, you start educating [a] new generation of American[s], it will still take you fifteen to twenty years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism.

The next stage is destabilization. This time [the] subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption; whether you eat junk food and get fat and flabby doesn’t matter any more. This time—and it takes only from two to five years to destabilize a nation—what matters [are] essentials: economy, foreign relations, [and] defense systems. And you can see it quite clearly that in some areas, in such sensitive areas as defense and [the] economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in [the] United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it fourteen years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process [would have gone] that fast.

The next stage, of course, is crisis. It may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis. You can see it in Central America now.

And, after crisis, with a violent change of power, structure, and economy, you have [the so-called] period of normalization. It may last indefinitely. Normalization is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda. When the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in ‘68, Comrade Brezhnev said, ‘Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalized.’

This is what will happen in [the] United States if you allow all these schmucks to bring the country to crisis, to promise people all kind[s] of goodies and the paradise on earth, to destabilize your economy, to eliminate the principle of free market competition, and to put [a] Big Brother government in Washington, D.C. with benevolent dictators like Walter Mondale, who will promise lots of thing[s], never mind whether the promises are fulfillable or not. He will go to Moscow to kiss the bottoms of [a] new generation of Soviet assassins, never mind... he will create false illusions that the situation is under control. [The] situation is not under control. [The] situation is disgustingly out of control.[...]

Of course Walter Mondale didn't win. Yet the rest of that paragraph sounds very much like what is happening in Washington D.C. now. There isn't a Soviet Union anymore, but there are plenty of Marxists and Marxist sympathizers worldwide, wanting to collapse current governments and economies, and replace them with... something else.

I would say we are now in the destabilization phase, and approaching the crisis phase. The crushing of dissent comes in the Normalization phase. Bezmenov makes recommendations about what we should do to avert these phases. But that was 25 years ago. Is it too late now?

The above link to the transcript is to part three, but it's worth reading parts one and two as well. Bezmenov's story is fascinating, and there are photos too, as well as links to the other parts of the transcript.

Even though this interview is from 25 years ago, and the "Soviets" no longer exist, these techniques and practices have been adopted by the continuing International socialist/communist Left. American Activist Leftists like Cloward-Piven adopted many of these methods into their own plans, and are using them now, even inside our government, to rot it from within.

It matters little who is doing it, because the end result will be the same. What matters it to recognize it and respond appropriately.

In a review of one of Bezmenov's books, Love Letter to America", the reviewer suggests that perhaps Bezmenov makes too great a case for Soviet power and influence; that perhaps demoralization is an already existing process in Western Democracies, and the Soviets were simply trying to exploit it to their advantage; that the rot is often aimless, and there are patriots who counteract it.

I don't disagree with that. I would just say that more important than where it comes from, or even how intentionally it is (or isn't) orchestrated, is to recognize the rot where it occurs, and treat it before it spreads. Just like you would fix rot in your home, before it spreads and weakens the supporting structures of your house. Regardless of what caused the rot, or how it got there, you would fix it to preserve the structure of your home. You would be vigilant and take steps to prevent rot from even taking hold. In such matters, vigilance is always a virtue.

Demoralization is just a kind of rot that occurs through a lack or neglect of real education, the result of which obfuscates clear thinking and reasoning, and by default allows confusion and emotional manipulation to seep in. Like rain water seeping in through the roof, it can be prevented, but work must be done to maintain the roof. Like so many things in this world that are worth preserving, it requires eternal vigilance, and conscious, continual effort. It's the never-ending story. It's work to preserve and promote the good, but it's still better than trying to deal with resulting chaos of neglect and indifference. It's why we persevere.

     

Palin and the Negligent Malevolence of the MSM

I have recently read a "Straw Man" argument on the Politico blog:

Why the media should apologize
Sarah Palin gave a really good speech. Why go beyond that, asks Simon.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn’t be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols. [...]

It goes on, and on, and ON like that. What complete and utter BS. Not to mention arrogance and disdain.

I've never said the media shouldn't ask questions, and I don't know ANYONE who has. So what the hell is he talking about? What has Palin supporters upset is not questions, but the lies, smear and distortions about Governor Palin that are demonstrably untrue, that the media is so quick to embrace, promote and acclaim.

That's quite a different thing from being upset about questions being asked. Note to Simon: don't talk down to us or at us like we're ignorant morons, too stupid to understand the value of questioning. It's just that sort of weaselly, disingenuous elitist BS that's got so many of us angry with the MSM. Many of us understand the difference between real journalism and partisan propaganda.

When I went to college in the late 1970's my major was "Mass Communications". A great deal of that dealt with journalism basics. How to gather information and check facts to assemble and present a news story that could withstand scrutiny.

That is something fundamentally rudimentary to what a journalist does (or should) do.

So it's with this background that I look upon "journalism" by the main stream media today. I'm appalled at what I'm seeing.

So-called journalists seem to simply be lifting and repeating George-Soros Democrat talking points verbatim. They are repeating smears and rumors without doing any research, fact checking or verification. If I, who have even fewer fact checking resources available to me than professional journalists have, can go on line and search through public records and see, in context, what things Sarah Palin has said and done as a mayor and as Governor of Alaska, certainly journalists can do the same?

The talking point today is that she's hiding. The media has sharpened every knife in their drawer, and they now demand that she present herself for a stabbing-fest.

If she's not in a hurry to rush into that, I can't blame her. She's not hiding, she has been available talking to voters on campaign events, but the media doesn't want to cover that.

A lot has happened in her life in a short time since the nomination. She's still Governor of Alaska, and still a mother with kids, including a son about to go off to war. She's juggling a lot of things right now. If she needs some time to prepare herself before facing the decidedly hostile media, so be it. Obama has had a lot more time to prepare for the spotlight in a national campaign, much more than she is going to get. We understand that the MSM would rather deal with her as unprepared and vulnerable as possible, and therfore don't want to wait. But they will have to for a bit.

In the meantime, what the media could do, is actually get off their backsides and do some REAL journalistic WORK. Many of the supposed questions they are asking already have answers; they don't all have to be answered personally by Sarah Palin. If I, a non-journalist, can find the answers to so many of their questions, answers that are in things she has already said publicly, then surely the journalists could do the same - if they were sincerely interested in actually finding factual, true answers.

The MSM has revealed their bias for some time now. Remember Dan Rather-Gate? Fake memos about President Bush, being pushed by CBS as true during the 2004 election?

What about all the things about Barrack Obama that the media neglected to tell us, about his lengthy associations with hate-mongers and terrorists? I was able to find these things out on my own, before they became widely known to the general public. Surely journalists could have done the same? Those things only became know in the MSM because bloggers kept talking about issues that the MSM would not, until it became impossible for the MSM not to address them.

It seems that many journalists knew about John Edward's mistress and her baby. But they deliberately made a decision to not tell us about it. They decide to spoon feed us only what they want us to know or believe.

All things considered, it seems that most journalists in the MSM can't be trusted to dig for information and present facts that don't support their own personal political agenda.

Regarding Palin, it seems that the MSM has already chosen Obama for us; and if we want something different, they are going to fight it. Real journalism be damned.

One of the courses I took in college was called "Propaganda and Public Opinion". I learned how public opinion could be manipulated by withholding information, presenting information out-of-context, and mixing up lies with facts, and repeating lies until they become generally accepted. With such creative mixing and editing of facts and lies, you could make JFK look like Hitler, and Hitler look like JFK. It was a real eye opener.

We need real journalism, not propaganda. Of COURSE the media does need to question Palin; I have no doubt they will have plenty of opportunity soon enough. But let them be warned; we want real journalism, not just regurgitated George Soros talking points. Not neglectful research, partial facts, rumors, unsubstantiated gossip, or opinion masquerading as fact.

Some advice for the MSM:

Just as Sarah Palin needs to prepare to be questioned, Journalists also need to DO THEIR HOMEWORK before they question her; not waste her time and ours by asking questions they could have easily found the answers to on their own, like so many of the rest of us have done already. DON'T WASTE OUR TIME.

I should also add "Don't waste our time asking stupid chauvinistic questions from the 1950's that offend and bore those of us who are already living in the 21st century." I can't believe some of the stuff I've been hearing. Is this really the 21st century? Sheesh!

Journalists need to report on the whole, larger picture, not just fragments they can spin to suit their own agendas. That may have worked in Hitler's Germany, but we expect something better.

They need to be equally vigorous in their questioning to BOTH political parties, and seek to find real answers, not opinion and conjecture. There ARE such things as FACTS. We are tired of their attempts to merely sway public opinion toward the answers they want us to embrace.

To the journalists who want more respect, I say: Start actually DOING your JOB, and you might get it. Ask tough, intelligent questions, of ALL the candidates. Let us decide from the facts, stop talking down to us, stop presenting your opinions as facts, and stop making things up!

I realize that it's human nature to be biased. Save your bias for opinion pieces and editorials; that's where it belongs. Being a PROFESSIONAL in journalism actually needs to mean something; when it does, you will find you are respected more.

More journalism, less BS, please. Thank goodness we are going to see actual debates to base decisions on, not just media sound bites. At least, I hope we are.


Related Links:

Hell freezes over

Sarah Palin Smears, Lies, Rumors and Gossip

Governors, Senators, Qualifications & Reforms