fascinating stuff, who knows how many stories where lost

The secret history of the Nazi mascot
By Nick Bryant
BBC News, Melbourne

Alex Kurzem came to Australia in 1949 carrying just a small brown briefcase, but weighed down by some harrowing psychological and emotional baggage.

Tucked away in his briefcase were the secrets of his past - fragments of his life that he kept hidden for decades.

In 1997, after raising a family in Melbourne with his Australian bride, he finally revealed himself. He told how, at the age of five, he had been adopted by the SS and became a Nazi mascot.

His personal history, one of the most remarkable stories to emerge from World War II, was published recently in a book entitled The Mascot.

"They gave me a uniform, a little gun and little pistol," Alex told the BBC.

"They gave me little jobs to do - to polish shoes, carry water or light a fire. But my main job was to entertain the soldiers. To make them feel a bit happier."

Painful memories

In newsreels, he was paraded as 'the Reich's youngest Nazi' and he witnessed some unspeakable atrocities.

But his SS masters never discovered the most essential detail about his life: their little Nazi mascot was Jewish.

"They didn't know that I was a Jewish boy who had escaped a Nazi death squad. They thought I was a Russian orphan."

His story starts where his childhood memories begin - in a village in Belarus on 20 October 1941, the day it was invaded by the German army.

"I remember the German army invading the village, lining up all the men in the city square and shooting them. My mother told me that my father had been killed, and that we would all be killed."

"I didn't want to die, so in the middle of the night I tried to escape. I went to kiss my mother goodbye, and ran up into the hill overlooking the village until the morning came."

That was the day his family was massacred - his mother, his brother, his sister.

"I was very traumatised. I remember biting my hand so I couldn't cry out loud, because if I did they would have seen me hiding in the forest. I can't remember exactly what happened. I think I must have passed out a few times. It was terrible."

False identity

"When the shooting stopped I had no idea where to go so I went to live in the forests, because I couldn't go back. I was the only one left. I must have been five or six."

"I went into the forest but no-one wanted me. I knocked on peoples' doors and they gave me bits of bread but they told me to move on. Nobody took me in."

He survived by scavenging clothes from the bodies of dead soldiers.

After about nine months in the forest, a local man handed him over to the Latvian police brigade, which later became incorporated in the Nazi SS.

That very day, people were being lined up for execution, and Alex thought he, too, was about to die.

"There was a soldier near me and I said, 'Before you kill me, can you give me a bit of bread?' He looked at me, and took me around the back of the school. He examined me and saw that I was Jewish. "No good, no good," he said. 'Look I don't want to kill, but I can't leave you here because you will perish.

"'I'll take you with me, give you a new name and tell the other soldiers that you are a Russian orphan.'"

Joining the circus

To this day, Alex Kurzem has no idea why Sergeant Jekabs Kulis took pity on him. Whatever his motives, it certainly helped that Alex had Aryan looks. And together, they kept the secret.

"Every moment I had to remind myself not to let my guard down, because if ever anyone found out, I was dead. I was scared of the Russians shooting me and the Germans discovering I was Jewish. I had no-one to turn to."

Young Alex saw action on the Russian front, and was even used by the SS to lure Jewish people to their deaths.

Outside the cattle trains which carried victims to the concentration camps, he handed out chocolate bars to tempt them in.

Then, in 1944, with the Nazis facing almost certain defeat, the commander of the SS unit sent him to live with a Latvian family.

Five years later, he managed to reach Australia. For a time, he worked in a circus and eventually became a television repair man in Melbourne.

All the time, he kept his past life to himself, not even telling his Australian wife, Patricia.

"When I left Europe I said 'forget about your past. You are going to a new country and a new life. Switch off and don't even think about it.'

"I managed to do it. I told people I lost my parents in the war, but I didn't go into detail. I kept the secret and never told anyone."

It was not until 1997 that he finally told his family, and along with his son, Mark, set about discovering more about his past life.

After visiting the village where he was born, they found out his real name was Ilya Galperin, and even uncovered a film in a Latvian archive of Alex in full SS regalia.

source

oh please please please

It is a tight race currently for the democratic nomination, and i am seriously considering registering as a democrat just so i can caucus for Obama. This article from a local paper gives me hope:

THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats in Iowa.

THE NUMBERS: --

Barack Obama, 30 percent

Hillary Clinton, 26 percent

John Edwards, 22 percent

Bill Richardson, 11 percent

OF INTEREST:

It remains a three-person race for Iowa's precinct caucuses, although Obama's lead over Edwards was beyond the margin of sampling error. The poll also asked Iowans whether they're more interested in new direction or experience, with new direction now favored by 55 percent compared to 33 percent who prefer experience. Among the "new direction" voters, 43 percent favor Obama and 17 percent back Clinton.

Richardson was in fourth place, and no other Democrat received more than 5 percent support.

The ABC News/Washington Post telephone poll of 500 adults likely to participate in the caucuses was conducted Nov. 14-18. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

source

I was at a church this past weekend, one I have gone to before. After the service one of the ministries was having a fundraising lunch. The head pastor was there and glad-handed my husband and I and congratulated our recent marriage, ending with "Good for God", the mysterious meaning of that phrase deserves its own blog post. In my 15 second interaction with this man I felt like I was being campaigned to by a stereotypical politician, performing what he thought the polls were telling him the voters wanted - Someone to shake hands, offer huddle prayers, and be passionately involved in peoples' lives for the 15 second interaction. This is not the first pastor I have met that gives me this impression, perhaps they teach this at seminary. What got me was that I left the church building very shortly after the handshake experience, and to my surprise as I pulled out of the parking lot, there was the pastor, leaving as well.

This really gets my goat. In the two/three years I have known him he rarely participates in events unless he is the lead prosecution,speaker/pastor. Several times I have been to group studies, Sunday evening worship, and after church lunches and unless he was presenting he ducks out after being there for a few minutes to "make an appearance" or doesnt come at all.

Im not claiming that to be head pastor one needs to be at every single event, that's impossible and unhealthy. But to apply heavy pressure to your colleagues employees to be present at all sorts of things without a break does seem to be inconsistent.

And what the heck does Good for God mean? Maybe it has something to do with Kingdom Worship

brian unger report

Brian Unger used to be on the Daily Show, now he does work on NPR. I thought this was funny and creative. Sometimes political satire is very lazy and goes for cheap shots.

Go to this link and click listen to hear what I am talking about

fenced in

Now Saudi Arabia, like India, is building not one, but two separate border fences on different fronts. The first is on its southern border and is intended to try and get its illegal immigration of 400,000 people a year from neighboring Yemen under control. The second, far more ambitious one, is along the Saudi border with Iraq and is an attempt to prevent Islamist extremists in Iraq, both Sunni and Shiite, from exporting their violence and doctrines back into Saudi Arabia.

However, modern barriers are not just about orders for barbed wire and concrete: They are also about night-vision enhancers and sensors, and every kind of high-tech electronic gadgetry to detect explosives, weapons, drugs and whatever else terrorist organizations and drug gangs try to get across closely monitored borders.

It seems like border fences are popping up everywhere in the world. I hadn't thought about this much beyond the border fence under construction on my country's southern border. The justification for these walls is to keep things perceived as bad out of the home territory.

For some reason it made me think of the Berlin Wall. It was built to keep things, and people, in - not out. It was just as much of a survival technique then as it is now for a society. East Germany was labeled a closed society for many reasons, including the wall. If we continue to wall ourselves off can we be fairly called a closed society?

It doesnt seem to me that closed equals healthy. When I walk into a closed up room the first thing I notice is the musty dead air, and I open a window or a door to let new air in.

When I have a scrape, it heals more quickly when I dont bandage it, but let it have contact with the air.

My business is more successful when I leave the office and meet people, or pick up the phone and call.

I guess my point is that walls concern me as a policy solution. It has a lot of negative impact and feels unnatural.

unless it is the battle of helmsdeep, then I am totally pro-wall.

Source

Jesus in '08

Apparent of my spiritual development has been my growing knowledge that having faith doesnt equate with a specific political point of view. It has bothered me for some time that people blindly vote for a candidate that has wooed over a certain group of leaders and they say " a vote for this person is a vote for jesus!".... i was reading slate.com this morning and two writers were debating a new book about a extremely conservative college, John Henry College. One of them made some remarks that I liked,



"Virtually all surveys show that 30 percent to 40 percent of Americans go to church once a week. There are a lot of evangelicals out there even if, as you point out, they lead lives that are virtually indistinguishable from other Americans when it comes to divorce, abortion, and the like. I've argued that part of the reason for that is the political obsession of many evangelical leaders, which has in turn seduced so many evangelicals. It is that obsession and seduction that is so beautifully and horribly laid out in God's Harvard. As you recounted over and over, there was no differentiation between Jesus and politics. There was the absolute understanding that to serve Jesus meant to grasp power and manipulate the political system for God's gain. Sadly, this isn't anything new. It is precisely the sort of thing that Jesus came to defeat.
Click Here!

About halfway through the book, something struck me. Not a single student quoted Jesus' sayings to you in justifying their politics. Their justification came from Old Testament admonitions about power. They didn't quote Jesus—at least as related in the book.

Why? It is because it would be impossible to quote Jesus urging young Christian men and women to tackle the political battlefield as if going unto war. It is because Jesus' commands have everything to do with sacrificially loving others and nothing to do with influencing the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am not saying that Christians shouldn't have a political voice. They should. But they should do it as citizens with opinions in public policy and not as "Christians" presuming they have Jesus' answer to problems—because on virtually every position, they do not. It is perfectly possible to be a Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, born-again Christian and have different perspectives on everything from abortion to Iraq. And that perspective is what is missing from Patrick Henry."

source

I just came across this fact in my morning news reading:

Slavery formed 40 percent of of the gross national product in England during the 18th Century


Holy Crap. that is a lot of GNP. I wonder what America's was. no wonder the south was economically devastated after the civil war.

"the existence of God can be proven 100 percent, absolutely without the use of faith."

please read

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/08/workman.execution/index.html

Contemplating Thinking about Thinking

I have debated in my head for the last month or so the nature of my discourse on several topics. In the past year I have gone through a steady, and at times overwhelming, change in my spiritual, political, and social diet. I am unlearning many things and rethinking others.

The nagging feeling in my mind has been that I am coming to a point of building now, the time of rejecting is coming to an end. I am noticing that when I read or hear about actually living out beliefs as a lifestyle that my brain and heart respond.

I also am concerned that if I do to much criticizing of those i dont agree with that I will grow an unhealthy pride and smugness, that criticizing and reacting will be all i do.

As I told my boyfriend recently, I feel like the time of reaction is over, and it is time to take action, become a part of the conversation, a participant instead of spectator.

I was thinking in the shower this morning and had this thought, " I havent ever hesitated to participate in a debate, even when I am not sure what I believe. "
This realization has caused me to resolve to not jump in right away, but to practice restraint and listen. Paradoxically, what seems like inaction - restraint and listening- is more active than clanging like a cymbal.

I never even heard of this... what else haven't i heard of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism_Reoriented

Partial Birth Abortion

I have never read a story from someone who has had this procedure performed. It was interesting to read.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18278305/site/newsweek/?nav=slate?from=rss

update on chocolate jesus

Sunday, Bloody Sunday

This past Sunday I attended a worship service I am sure I wont forget for quite awhile. This service marked the first time, that I can recall, that I was absolutely and completely shut down emotionally and spiritually by the goings-on in front of me.

At the beginning of the service a video was shown, and as it began I was quite confused. "Oh, "I thought, its Abraham Lincoln, maybe today's sermon will ..... no wait no Ghandi's on the screen and the pastor is reciting the words written. Next comes Martin Luther King. My boyfriend whispered, " i wonder if Jesus is next?" and he was right. As soon as Christ was on the screen my heart dropped and I couldnt believe my eyes. The pastor got to the front of the sanctuary and did big arms yelling " OUR HERO LIVES!!" The entire audience, I mean congregation, erupted into cheers and clapping. I looked around for the concessions guy so I could buy a beer.

Then we were launched into "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" which is a wonderful song. And honestly this is what put me over the edge. Up front strumming his guitar just to get thru the song and singing as quickly as he could, was my friend.

Two years ago my friend was a funny outgoing hopeful person. Then he got a job at a church. Systematically his humor, joy, peace, and hopefulness where taken from him. The man standing on that stage Easter Sunday was a shell of my friend with his Sunday smile firmly planted on his face. I have steadily grown angrier and angrier at the church and people who would do this to a person. Easter Sunday was the catalyst for all these feelings. Just like my friend, the video took Christ, a man of sorrows, healing, pain, anger, love and grace, the most complex and wonderful being to ever walk the face of this earth, and stripped away all this, leaving him a utility belt and cape.

Christ was not a firefighter who saved 3 kids, or a cop who took a bullet for his partner. He was not a mere mortal that did something above and beyond the daily duty therefore attaining hero status with a parade and medals on his jacket. And above all, on the cross he did not think of me.

Christ was God incarnate, Emmanuel- with us. He did what was his chosen duty and in fact laid down every strength he had to become weak and then die. He didnt go above and beyond. He went down and so far below himself that I cannot even fathom it.

The word hero, just like the word freedom, has lost so much of its meaning in recent history. Everyone is a frickin hero anymore, even if they are just doing their job sometimes. TV shows, documentaries, T-shirt vendors they all profit off this idea.

Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Abe Lincoln are all admirable men, and maybe they are heros, but Christ is not comparable to them nor are they comparable to Christ.

Im sorry but I refuse to make Christ a hero.

He is a savior, a king, the morning star. I can worship a Savior, not a hero.

Darfur/New Orleans

Google Earth has a cool new feature written about in this CNN article
in light of recent allegations that Google used old satellite footage of New Orleans recently I think its interesting they updated their site with this map. I havent heard any news on the investigation into the New Orleans images, i wish I knew more.

i know i am putting up too many links but...

I read Letters from Leavers

It is a good site and and an interesting read quite often, the following is an excerpt from a recent letter. I like the part about sacrilegious humor. I enjoy it, too.

"So I left the church in search of God. Armed with nothing but a bitter taste in my mouth of what I did not want and a wisp of faith that God was capable of revealing God’s true Self to me through whatever means necessary, I launched out on my journey. This was my dark night of the soul; this was my mustard seed genesis that has grown into a tree-sized system of belief and action that governs my every move and decision.

There are many among us, and I was one, who have heads full of the knowledge of what the scriptures say about God, but who have very little sense of what it is to lead a God-surrendered or Spirit-filled life. I was taught much of what I knew about God by people who were quite possibly agnostics; at least they seemed unsure of what they believed when you got them down out of the pulpit where you could touch them, look them in the eye, and ask them questions. I find this to be true today of some of the loudest and most confident-appearing preachers. They seem to be preaching in order to convince themselves to believe. I don’t have a problem with this but I do think it’s ridiculous to let only one doubter, the one getting paid to be there, do all the talking in church.

Doubts are part of what makes faith authentic. “I believe, now help me with what I don’t believe.” (Mark 9:24 paraphrased) People who have biblical answers for every situation make me nervous. I prefer to hang out with spiritual seekers who are not uncomfortable with questions and who can laugh at the oldest of the sacred cows. Sacrilegious humor in my opinion is the most soul-cleansing."

holy crap this stuff is unreal. i dont know if its real, but i have a bad feeling it is.

Jesus is gonna get you!

there are more here

the sad part about this is for a few minutes i thought this website was the real deal. This is an amazing parody.

I died over the title of this article

Im confused

I thought that evangelicals believe that homosexuality is a choice, and not biology. While browsing through Slate.com I found this in the newsbriefs section:

Some conservative Christian leaders are endorsing prenatal treatment to prevent homosexuality. Rev. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes, "If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin." In an AP interview, Mohler says this would be morally no different from curing fetal blindness or any other "medical problem." A leading Catholic thinker agrees: "Same-sex activity is considered disordered. If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."

The article does also state that Mohler clarified his remarks by saying that he preferred genetic/hormonal (or whatever form) treatment instead of people aborting their "gay baby". The world gets crazier and crazier.

found this guest article on CNN today. interesting read.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/04/martin.jesus/index.html

creationist museum opens in Ohio

This video highlights one of the biggest problems i see in the greatest generation and older baby boomer generation. I am speaking of the "us" verus "them" mentality. The prisoner's dilemna in full effect. I think I understand the circumstances that led to this mentality, the cold war was a very grim and bleak period, and if someone underestimated someone else then there was no second chance.

Why I think this is a problem is because we dont live in a cold war world frozen into two camps of domination. We live in an increasingly complex world defined on the micro level that doesnt allow for broad heavy handed measures. What does this have to do with a museum opening about the origins of the world/life?

I think its related because the people behind the museum built it as a part of a larger agenda to destroy what they perceive as an end game where the enemy are atheist darwinian evolutionists. The purpose of the museum is to reinforce and ensure (through the teaching of children) the viability of their worldview.

I am not saying their worldview is wrong or they shouldnt be allowed to build a museum to express it. What I am saying is that the kind of reactionary ideology in practice here is very dangerous.

This goes for both side of the origins debate. They are locked in a death spiral that will not accomplish anything.

Both sides have effectively declared "war" - culture war on each other. A book I recently read made this point about this kind of approach to debate:

"When you declare war on someone, there are two ways to end it. You either arrest them[take them prisoner] or you kill them. "

- Searching for God Know What by Donald Miller


Are these our only choices? Our language and culture are saturated in war rhetoric, paranoia, and fear. There has to be another way. Thats the only point I want to make here.

I don't take slavery with my coffee, either

Recently, I have found several websites that have intrigued me greatly. The first I am going to talk about is "Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Church".

This is a really creative group of people and they have mastered a lot of PR techniques. Their message is that unquenchable consumerism is not the democracy, freedom, and prosperity that our culture/society believes it is. Rather our spending habits and demands for cheap prices are very damaging to the parts of the world where many of our favorite products come from.

They walk through shopping centers in choir robes and sing, " Change-a-lujah!" They perform exorcisms on cash registers, and one of their favorite targets is Starbucks.

They charge that Starbucks doesn't pay a fair price for their coffee, and that only 3.7% of coffee imports are fair-trade certifiable. Another interesting accusation is that Starbucks has stolen coffee type names from Ethiopia and is blocking Ethiopia's attempts to protect its heritage through copyright controls. Read more here.

I myself have privately thought that Starbucks doesnt live up to the fair trade name it gladly ties on to sooth customers with social conscience... they have always been to slick and smooth, growing way too fast to not cut some corners.

I just read an article on CNN about a coffee shop that took the "mormon angel" - a figure I am not familiar with- and drew him drinking coffee. In response, " The church informed Beazer that the angel's image is a registered trademark." - a direct quote. Registered trademark. Are there any other religious symbols out there that are trademarked? Registered trademark means it is a creation from the mind of man, invented and therefore registered to protect the inventing party's interests. I wonder if the coffee shop pays them a copyright fee they will let him use it. This idea of registered trademarks in religion is odd to me. I will definitely need to think about it.

social networking

In my work, I am realizing that I can become a specialist in the things that interest me. I am very interested in studying new social networks and online social media, as well as the shift to a creative economy and its effect on business structure. Because this information and phenomenon is so relatively new, it began about 10 years ago and only within the last five years has really taken off, there is no college or university for me to attend to learn. So i am practicing new social networking and media and conversing with othrers about the new creative economy. I recently read this blog and a comparison with the pettiness of high school interests struck a cord with me.

It is quite obvious when a child is young that they imitate their parents. As they grow and their world expands, so do the number of influences on their behavior. Whether teens like to admit it or not, their parents still influence them into adulthood.

Does it stand to reason that teens in high school that form cliques and social hierarchies are merely reflecting what they see in the adult relationships around them? Specifically parents' work environments?

We all remember watching our parents coming home exhausted from work, and a work social structure that chews people up and spits them out. Does this example communicate subconsciously to teens and translate into social actions?

As teens are we trying to protect ourselves from this work exhaustion by forming cliques that provide stability and a measure of safety from persecution?

Also, do teens subconsciously play out the adult roles they will soon take on like small children play house?

So if the adult social network begins to shift, will teens adapt and become more like the new demoratically structured organizations forming in the work world?

Or perhaps, as is a true sign of all things purely emerging and starfish-like, perhaps it is the teens who are adapting before the adults to new forms of social networking and media, and the change is bleeding upward?

I can only hope that someday high school will not represent the ugly social hell that historically it has for so many.

As I walked along the sidewalk today I had a thought. One of those thoughts that simmers for quite awhile before you actually become conscious of it. It lurks in the back of the mind and escapes like a gas bubble trapped under melting ice. The global warming debate holds two major thoughts:

a. mankind is causing the current climate change and we need to do what we can now in order to minimize it or we are toast.

b. the planet has cooled down and heated up over the eons, we are witnessing the transition between two natural states.

The thought that came into my head was, if this is a natural change, wouldnt we want to stop it anyway? From what I have seen and heard, it doesnt really matter if it started naturally or artifically, it is happening and it doesnt look good for humans.

My thought also posed a question: if this change is natural do we have the right to change it? We have assumed the right countless times in the past to change our environment, why shy away now?

The very people who say leave the earth/environment alone, global warming is a natural event are also the ones that support exploratory oil drilling, deforestation, and wholesale suburbanization. These things change the earth/environment tremendously. What is the difference between the two?

The answer to that is easy enough. It is the answer to a lot of hard questions.

Inconvenience vs. Convenience

I Love Me *edit*

I found this article today and it caused me to instantly think of this girl I know. Her screen saver says "I Love Me!". The first time I saw it, I didnt believe it. I thought, really? that is what you want your screen saver to say? Since then I have come to understand that her screen saver is a very appropriate statement of her.

This girl has little to no regard for how her actions affect others, usually quite negatively, is a expert lip service user, and is harmful to society as a whole with her irresponsible spending habits and social choices.

Whenever I encounter someone who approaches life from such a different way than I do, I study them and what they do. I am very interested to understand why they do what they do and what effects their actions have. My conclusion on this one is that she operates with one cardinal rule: If it benefits me, and mainly me, I will do it. If it doesn't, I won't.

After reading the article above, I realize that there might be a lot of other people just like this girl out there who function the same way. This makes me sad, and glad that I didn't go to school during the "I am special" wave. I remember parts of it, but my self worth foundations were laid before the self esteem wars began.

I also am reminded of the ubiquitous myspace foto pages that are filled with nothing but different poses of the same person taken in their bathroom mirror. Philosophically I have to ask, how far will this trend go? Will there be an equal and opposite backlash? Are there trends that are so destructive there is not opportunity for backlash? Are we all self addicted to some extent, but most of us are closeted, while people like the screen saver girl are 'out and proud'?