"when will all this extermination

cease?" Dr. Nyiszli asked Dr. Mengele

in Auschwitz. And Dr. Mengele
answered: "My friend! It will go on, and
on, and on."
"Murderous Science: Elimination by
Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies
and Others, Germany 1933-45" (Oxford
University Press, 1988) by Benno
Muller-Hill, professor of genetics at the
Institute of Genetics at the University
of Cologne, is the kind of book -- and
the above quote is from it -- that will
keep you up late reading it (for me,
4:05 a.m.). Then, when you've read it,
you can't sleep.
And this book will certainly not be a
favorite of the fetal-tissue experimenters
and their supporters, who foam at the
mouth when Nazi analogies are men-
tioned.
But the Nazi analogies are right on
target. They are frighteningly accurate.
For example, in writing about his ex-
amination of what he calls this "aberra-
tion in the history of science which
involved some of the leading figures in
the German academic establishment, es-
pecially in the fields of anthropology
[including human genetics] and
psychiatry" -- and how these individuals
"aided and abetted the racial policy of
the Nazi state" -- Mr. Muller-Hill ex-
plains just exactly who did what:
. "The division of labor during the
scientific process also reinforced its ob-
jectivity. The medical expert did not
make a report on his own patients
which might lead to their death. Nor did
the expert who gave the opinion carry
out .the killing to which it led. If he
gave no opinion at all, then others
would give it, perhaps with fewer
scruples. Thus, the expert plays a part
in extermination, but can do so without
facing up to the end results.
"Professors C. Schneider [a medical
doctor and Nazi Party member who
committed suicide in 1946] and von
Verschuer [a medical doctor and anthro-
pologist] did not kill anyone them-
selves in order to obtain the eyes, blood
and brains which they wanted. Others
did it for them (emphasis mine). Even
their assistants, who did the scientific
work, did not do the killing. In this
respect, Dr. Mengele was an exception.
"For these scientists, objectivity
opened the door to every conceivable
form of barbaric practice. These German
scientists and physicians lived in a
world without values. Jewish values
were not theirs. Neither were Christian
values upheld by their peers . .. . these
scientists and physicians were ready to
do anything at all, motivated by their
belief in pure objectivity."
Sound familiar? You bet it does.
Very familiar. Today, those, most of
them, who would use the tissues of
aborted, murdered, unborn human be-
ings, would not actually murder these
little images of God Somebody else
would do that. The fetal-tissue users
would simply use the tissues from
these dead babies.
Writing about the massive killing by
the Nazis of mental patients, Jews,
Gypsies, Slavs and other "asocial
individuals" -- which, as he puts it,
"opened up new perspectives for psy-
chiatric and anthropological research" -
- Mr. Muller-Hill says that the De-
partments of Brain Anatomy [Psychia-
try) and Brain Research of the KWI
[Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Ad-
vancement of Science] "had no scruples
about working with the brains of mur-
der victims." A research report of the
KWI [Psychiatry] reads:
"The number of post-mortems on
children in the mental hospital in Haar
has risen substantially. As a result it
has been possible to obtain much rare
apd valuable material pertaining to the
problems of brain injuries in early
infancy and to congenital malformation.
tl
In a report on Dec. 8, 1942, a
Professor Hallervorden of the KWI
[Brain Research] wrote that in the
course of that summer, "I have been
able to dissect 500 brains from feeble-
minded individuals and to prepare them
for examination." On March 9, 1944,
he wrote to another professor that "I
have received 697 brains in all, in-
cluding those which I took out myself
in Brandenburg . ... whether I will be
able to make a histological study of
them all, only time will tell."
Mr. Hallervorden later said to his
American interrogators who did some of
this killing, "I heard that they were
going to do that and so I went up to
them (and said]: 'Look here now, boys,
if you are going to kill all these people
at least take the brains out, so that the
material could be utilized.' They asked
me: 'How many can you examine?' And
so I told them an unlimited number -
-'the more the better.' I gave them fiXa-
tives, jars and boxes, and instructions
for removing and fiXing the brains and
they came bringing them like the de-
livery van from the furniture company.
. . . . There was wonderful material
among those brains, beautiful mental
defectives, malformations and early in-
fantile diseases .. .''
A Professor C. Schneider had what is
called "a weightier project" in mind.
He, with another professor, "wanted to
create research centers in the mental hos-
pitals ofWiesloch [near Heidelberg] and
Gorden in which patients could undergo
thorough psychological and physiologi-
cal investigations before being killed."
And a Professor Lenz wrote, in 1931,
that "we cannot doubt that National
Socialism is honestly striving for a
healthier race."
Mr. Muller-Hill say that anthropolo-
gists and psychiatrists "gave a scientific
. gloss and tidiness to the Nazi program"
because, among other reasons, they
- The Counsel of Chalcedon, December, 1988
P ~ e 3 7
"hoped for an enonnous expansion of
their research" and they believed Hitler
"would realize and give due prominence
to their ideas.''
Regarding what he calls "the most
important question of all" -- that is,
what cati we learn from all of this.
carnage? -- Mr. Muiler-H:lll writes that
the problem was not with "defects in
the character of a few individuals, but
rather with defects in psychiatry and
anthropology as a whole" {emphasis
mine). He concludes:
"It seems to me that the inexorable
encroachment of science, which began
iTi the 18th century during the Age of
the Enlightenment. .. has had unfore-
seen and devastating effects. In science
. . all _ .. Js
estirig, accurate results as qu,ickly as
possible; there is simply no time to
talk to patients. . . . . This attitude
reduces the person to a subservient de-
personalized object Such a process
formed the bond which held the psy-
chiatrists, anthropologists and Hitler to-
gether."
Like I said, using the Nazi analogy
regarding today's fetal tissue experi-
menters, and their supporters, is right
on target. This book is chilling and, as
current as today's headlines and nightly
TV news programs. But start it early in
the evening. Because you won't put it
down until you've ftnished it
[Reprinte<1 with _])ermissionl from The
W ashiilgton 1 imes, OCtober 14, 988.]
Jesus and the -Tax R,evolt
. by R.J. Rushdoony
. . . .
. In Matt 2'2:1S-22, we 'read of a chal-
lenge to our Lord to give. grounds to
justify a tax revolt. In view of the fact
that this episode is sometimes cited by
conteinporary tax revolt advocates, it is
important to examine it closely to see
what meaning is.
We are told that its purpose was to
"entangle" Jesus, i.e., to place II.Un iTi
an intolerable predicament. Paying
taxes to Caesar, a foreign ruler, was
highly unpopular with many; to deny
. ilie--viilldliy' of a iii revolf woiild-cosf
Jesus, the Pharisees reasoned, pq:>ular
suppon. The populace in disgust would
regard Him as an appeaser, an ally of an
unpopular and hated regime. However,
to favor the tax revolt would invite re-
prisals against Jesus by Roman authori-
ties, The question, then, was carefully
designed to be deadly in its conse-
quences to Jesus, and was asked with
flattering guile, asking Him to tell the
truth without fear of conseqUences:
"Master, we know that thou art true,
and teachest the way of God in truth,
neither carest thou for any man; for
thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us, therefore, what thinkest thou?
Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar.
or not?". {Matt. 22:16-17)
Je5us, aften::onctemning the Pharisees
as hypocrites, went directly to the heart
of the inatter. to understand His an-
swer, we must appreciate the distinction
the[) and now by tax revolt advo-
cates. They were not anarchists. They
were ready to pay taxes to a legitimate
civil government, but not an illegal
one,. i.e., one illegal in their eyes.
Similarly, contemporary tax revolt ad-
vocates are able to document at length
the unconStitutional aspects of the
federal government of the United States
and to give a lengthy of legal
justifiCation for denying taxes to an
unconstitutional regime.
The distinction made by the Judeans
then was one which we Still have with
us in Latin form, comrt10n to our dic-
tionaries now as good is the
distinction between a dl!facto civil gov-
ernment and a de jure one. A de jure
civil govemmen.t is ooe which rules
rightfully and legally, by right of law;
modem Americans would say thatit is
a truly constitutional civil government.
A de facto order is one, which actualJ,y
exists and is in comriland and is . not
necessarily or at all legal. Thus, to cite.
an extreme case, the communiSt
over Polan.a iS a. -ae-facto one,
jure. Rome was an outsider . in
Palestine, a foreign invader and con-
queror; its rule was plainly de
Although Rome was ttying to giv.e
good administration and to win over the
people to its rule, its rule was all the
same . de facto, not de jure, and there
were many among the Jews who &rgued
that taxes paid to a de facto ruler were
not legal and hence should not be pruci.
Hence the framing of the question in
terms of the tax revolt theory of the
day: "Is it lawful to give tribute. unto
Caesar, ot not?" The argument WaS that
it was an unlawful tax. The reasoning
was identical .with what we encounter
today. The de jure. argument is ilsed,. by
the way, by radicals and
alike. It is an easy argument History i&
so rife with iiie'gality and evll, that
there is little that cannot be nullified by
an appeal to a de jwe argument One
man once' argued "wjtb me that,:
white Americans had no legal title tci
America but seized it from the
the Indians should be compensat at
current value fot ft ipointed O!lt,
that the current value was a prochic( of
the white settlers' work, and,
the Indians themselves had seized the
continent and kllled off entirelya
vious dweller, a pygmy people. Should
we kick. out both Indian and white, and
locate pygmies to or 'to
use to resettle S"-ch . argu-,
(Continued on page 13)
Page 38 _____________ ........._ _________ _
The Counsel of Chalc:edon, 1988 ....:..._