I Read It, I Get It, But I Refuse To Accept It - A Survivors Response To The IARC Report On Cancer

Whenever anyone shows up to the party with bad news I always question the news they bring. Some people are like that, they really don't wish to see anyone having a good time so they tell you about the orphanage that burnt down or how bad the economy is or how bleak our future looks.

When the persons doing the talking are supposed to be the experts on the subject you are almost forced to take what is being said for granite. Thus what you have is optimism being oppressed by reality, a truly sad state of affairs.

Such is the case of the International Agency For Research on Cancer (IARC) and their report on the 20 year outlook for cancer fatalities.

The IARC is I believe an arm of the United Nations. ( No not where all the superheroes live, that's the justice league.) The article came out of London last week and boldly states that fatalities from cancer will double by the year 2030 with my arch nemesis, lung cancer, leading the way. Here's a startling little fact for you from the article, in 2008, lung cancer was the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer worldwide at 1.61 million cases. Lung cancer also accounted for the most fatalities at 1.38 million. Let's see a little quick math and that's roughly a 14 % survival rate if you are a true optimist. The overall figure of all cancers combined for 2008, 12.7 million diagnosed with 7.6 million fatalities. Now fast forward twenty years and we are faced with a staggering figure of 21.4 million worldwide cases along with 13.2 million fatalities.

If the director of the IARC, Christopher Wild, has provided us with his best assessment of the future then he is no longer invited to the party.

The research done to provide such a report I'm sure was completed by highly intelligent people, probably a panel of experts, top scientists, researchers, doctors, people who's walls hold many more plaques and certificates then mine ever will. Now let me tell you why I cannot accept their look into the crystal ball of our future.

As a current lung cancer survivor, I sometimes replace rational, practical thinking for straight passion in what I do and what I believe in. When I read a projection of this nature, it is a direct assault not only upon me but against every cancer group and organization worldwide. It's an indictment against who we are and what we stand for. If you are going to stand up and say, "Sorry, every mile you walked, every minute you've volunteered along with every dime that you have ever raised or donated to fund one of the many worthy cancer organizations or institutions that provide research that are out there was for nothing." Are you attempting to convince me that in a world of the future we have made no advances in the treatment of various cancers. Is what your saying to me and every other person, family, child, loved one on the face of the earth that we still have no answers, no cure, in fact it is getting worse? Are you telling me that the scientists and researchers who have dedicated their lives, spent the long, long hours in the laboratories the world over have lived a life in vain?

Why would I accept any of that? You might as well try to convince me that fighting for survival was not worth the fight.

The Human Factor.

Whenever I hear the phrase the "The Human Factor," it seems to be meant to conjure up that "We just could win this thing feeling." The feeling that even against overwhelming odds the human spirit will find a way to overcome and be successful. In this instance I believe the human factor has a darker idea behind it. It would seem to me that if we cannot reduce the fatalities from cancer in the future then the human factor is in play. In this case it would mean that the people who benefit more by us not finding a cure have won and are keeping the status quo meanwhile continuing to profit from overpriced treatments and medications billed on your behalf to insurance companies that are happy to pay it and then just raise the patients premiums to pay for it. A finely greased money machine. Let's face it there is plenty of money to be made at the cost of someone else's misery and if someday an executive should happen to find themselves battling a severe case of guilty conscience, Well, we feel bad for old Charlie, but Betty is waiting in the wings to keep the machine running please pass the torch.

If there are no significant advances made, you can bet your bottom dollar it's because curing cancer is not cost effective.

So if the human factor comes into play as it has over the past twenty years then what are some other things that we might have to look forward to in 2030?

To change our future some thing would have to change today. Before we start to discuss the need for alternative energy sources, health care, recycling, food and water safety, we must first discuss a fundamental change in the way we conduct business, starting at the top and working backwards.

First all lobbyist should be removed from the political system and anyone who has taken large amounts of lobby money from places like oil companies should be removed from office. So take the money and the special interest groups out of the politics and your left hopefully with people making decisions based on what is in our best interest. That would be a great advancement for our society.

In the future if we could change the current human factor thought process from "the one who dies with the most stuff wins," to "the one who gives back the most stuff wins," wouldn't that help brighten the future?

In the future, one day, what if we realized that just because we can afford to super size our meals,does not mean that it is in our best interest to do so.

What if in the future we outlawed plastic containers? No more water bottles, plastic storage devices, plastic food containers. Lets go back to glass. Why, you ask. For what's left of our environment. How about this, so we do not continue to add to the floating country the size of Texas that is made up of plastic garbage that has been dumped in the ocean where it gathers in the pacific out of sight out of mind. If you are not aware of this do some homework. If it's Texas sized now, in twenty years what will it be?

In the future if we took a step back and once again began growing our own food at least enough to supplement some of what is being purchased, could we not begin to alter the effects of all the chemicals placed in our food? Bring back the family farm and you will re grow strong communities, teaching our children how to be self sufficient and live a life based off of being good neighbors and not what some mindless bimbo is doing on reality TV. If you grew corn and your neighbor grew wheat maybe you would take the time to get to know them again and arrange a practical arrangement, without the fear of being sewed for stepping on their property.

With a change to the current "Human Factor", maybe we would have a universal healthcare system in this country like the rest of the civilized world. Maybe the wellbeing of each citizen would mean enough to us to disband the health insurance industry altogether and restructure the way the health system works.

Twenty years from now if we changed our thought process from being disposable consumers to being people more in tune with the world around them willing to give up a little in return for a better not necessarily easier life, would we see the results of that effort in our lifetime? Would our children or grandchildren?

Twenty years from now, will having it all, still mean the same thing? Or will decades of having it all finally have caught up with us and forced us to change what we were so unwilling to change when the decision was ours?

One of the greatest things about the country we live in is that we have the freedom to alter our future by simply opening our eyes to the present and as individuals making the necessary changes to our lifestyle, not necessarily the easiest changes to improve our life and health.

Twenty years is the blink of an eye, twenty years passes like the moon on a warm summers night. We could have such an impact in twenty years if we chose to. We could commit to alternative fuel sources, we could eliminate things from our lives that destroy our environment. We could change our eating habits to become healthier. We could change our buying habits to fit a lifestyle that doesn't end up being our downfall.

Twenty years from now we could reduce the cancer fatality rate by twenty five percent and we could do it without the need for new toxic remedies or even finding a cure after the cancer cells have been activated. Many of us talk about it all the time. I am constantly seeing articles referring to three things. Proper diet, exercise, natural vitamin sources. But the fact of the matter is this, you are probably reading this article and others like it because you have a connection to cancer already either you yourself have been effected or someone close to you. You are likely to already be aware of the effect of proper diet on the body, It is getting information out to everyone else who have not been directly effected but could easily find themselves as statistics twenty years from now.

Here's how you can have a direct impact on the future, help those who have not had a direct cancer impact, understand how to help themselves avoid it.

Cancer once it has begun, once the cells are active and spreading is unpredictable at best. Lung cancer is so lethal of a killer that it claims over seventy percent of those diagnosed. If we do not change some things right away, then I'm afraid that the U.N. report will be dead on accurate (please forgive the poor choice of phrase)if not understated. But the things that need to be changed need to come from each one of us. We have to be the ones who take charge of our lives, if we are waiting for the government to intervene then we are fools. If we are waiting for large health care or pharmaceutical companies to save us with a mystical cure, It is not in their best interest to cure it, just find new and expensive ways to treat it. Our best chance for a cure seems to me to be found on one of the many college campuses where research is performed. Of course the fear being that a cure will be found and then tied up and obscured in the red tape world we live in. A cure for cancer, is going to cost some big businesses a whole lot of cash when discovered.

Let's talk about that way to reduce the fatality rate. Cancer cells have the capability of killing you once they become active and begin to multiply and spread. Cancer cells are present in everyone's body but they are held at bay by our immune systems. It is when we have a fundamental breakdown in our immune systems that the flood gates open for the multiplication of cancer cells.

If you allow enough cancer cells to gather and that's when you have problems my friend. Now pay attention please. The best way to reduce cancer fatalities, the best way to fight cancer.....avoid it. You cannot avoid having bad cells in your body, what you can avoid is letting your immune system go to hell and opening yourself up for an attack.

For the future, let's just concentrate on what we know and what we can control. First of all, you can greatly reduce many life threatening illnesses including cancer by keeping your bodies ph balance level. If you began today to make healthier dietary choices and began to reduce your intake of fast foods or questionably prepared foods you would be taking a step in the right direction. If you started questioning where the meat you purchase comes from, how it is raised, how it is prepared for market and what type of chemicals are used in raising it, you would be making a step in the right direction. Farm fresh does not substitute for organic. I believe and I'm not alone, that the immune system is effected greatly by our intake of various chemicals in our industrial farm produced foods. Take control of what you eat. Reduce the amount of coffee you drink maybe supplement green tea for coffee. You need to find ways to reduce the amount of acid you are adding to your body. Cancer cells thrive in an acidic environment. Meat is also a high acid contributor which is why fish and chicken are considered better for you then beef and pork.

Vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants are vital to helping grow and unleash the cells in our bodies that kill things like cancer cells keeping them in check.

Exercise and sunlight, these two things can not be understated. Unfortunately, we have found a way to make exercise a multi billion dollar industry and we as a society have changed the definition of exercise to joining a gym or buying a ton of equipment. Let me help you out with this, walk, learn some deep breathing exercises, cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Walk and preferably take a walk in the sunshine, the body needs sunshine it helps keep everything in check. What else does the body need? Water. We are organic beings and if you look at it in that manner, Sunshine, water proper intake of minerals avoidance of harmful toxins. Couple some dietary alterations with finding ways to reduce stress in your life and your well on your way to avoiding becoming a 2030 statistic.

If in places where it were possible we could alter our over eating and poor choice eating habits I think we reduce cancer as well as other major disease fatalities greatly. If we remain too busy to care, too busy to teach our children better habits, too busy to stop and look at the world we have forged for ourselves, then I am afraid that everything will be in vain. I'm afraid we will visit a future where over thirteen million people dieing from cancer alone will be just a small piece of a much larger problem.

I am not asking you to donate money, I'm not asking you to walk a marathon. I'm not asking you to completely change or live your life afraid that the sky might be falling. What I am asking for is that you open your mind to finding better ways to live in the future by making small changes now starting with your health and the health of the people you are responsible for. Then let's look at the way we do things, the way we govern ourselves and our actions and the things we need to do to reduce cancer by fifty percent in the year 2050.

Tim Giardina is the co-founder and President of the GFLCCO as well as a current small cell lung cancer survivor. The GFLCCO is developing a World Wide network of supporters with facts and information regarding lung cancer, lung cancer treatment, proper diets and exercise and alternative medicines and treatments as well as valuable links to a deep pool of resourses for patients and their families. The primary function of the GFLCCO is to support Scientists by funding research for a cure. If you would like to learn more about the GFLCCO, need information or support or would be interested in reading more of Tim's work, please visit us at http://www.gflcco.com. We are a non profit organization that also relies on the support of others to carry on with our work, if you find our site useful, your support would be greatly appreciated.

The Response of Communists, Socialists, Conservatives and Liberals to German Fascism Up to 1939

The opposition in Germany to the rise of National Socialism came from almost every section of society, including communists, socialists, conservatives and liberals, and took a number of different forms, ranging from passive resistance to open hostility to the regime. It is clear, however, that this opposition did not have the desired effect as the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (the Nazi Party) and its dictator Adolf Hitler came to power and created a totalitarian state with little difficulty and disastrous consequences. The failure of the resistance to Nazism can be attributed to a number of factors, such as isolation, inability to withstand Nazi repression and the unwillingness of different sections of the resistance to work together. It was most certainly the weakness of the opposition to National Socialism that ensured its success.

Leon Trotsky relates that in its ninth plenum in February 1928, the Executive Committee of the Third Communist International 'gave the signal for an intensified, extraordinary, irreconcilable struggle against 'social fascism.' The German Communist Party certainly did have the potential to organise such an opposition to National Socialism, however the struggle that eventuated certainly did not fit that description. After the German Communist Party was banned and their deputies expelled from the Reichstag in March of 1933, Communist opposition most often took the form of illegal publications published either within or outside of Germany and distributed widely. Members of the Communist resistance organised themselves into underground networks. Michael Thomsett recounts that 'cells of the underground contained only three people, trained to work together with absolute efficiency, with limited contact outside of the group itself.' This was known as the troika system. J. P. Stern speaks of Communist resistance in the form of 'industrial sabotage... [and] contact with foreign workers or prisoners of war,' and he puts their numbers in 'the ten thousands.'

Peter Hoffman notes that 'the Communist Party had long been in the forefront in preparing and arming for civil war against 'fascism.' Yet when 'fascism' came to power, nothing really significant was done.' There can be identified several reasons for why the only resistance the Communists offered came in the form of illegal publications and the formation of networks. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, as a member of the Third Communist International, the German Communist Party was controlled and directed by the Central Committee of the Stalinist Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Hoffman relates that it was the Central Committee's assessment that 'the advent of a fascist government should promote Germany's internal self-destruction and prepare the ground for a communist seizure of power.' It was also their analysis that the victory of fascism in Germany would cause the majority of the population to become disillusioned with bourgeois democracy, and thus withdraw their support from the Social Democratic Party of Germany (the occurrence of which the Communists felt was an integral stage in the proletarian revolution.) Hans Rothfels observes that the culmination of these opportunist assessments resulted in 'the phase of the Hitler-Stalin alliance (from August, 1939 to June, 1941) [that] brought the extremes considerably closer together even in internal politics. On instructions from Moscow, many Communist crossed over at that time to the National Socialist side.'

Moreover, the incredible repression the Communists suffered at the hands of the National Socialists made resistance difficult for those members of the Communist Party who refused to accept the Moscow party line. The Reichstag fire of February 28 1933 allowed the Nazi Party 'to take far sterner action against the communists than they had probably planned to do at this early stage of their rule.' Throughout 1933 and 1934, Thomsett reports, 'large numbers of communists were arrested and sentenced to prison in mass trials... for crimes such as listening to foreign radio broadcasts or distributing information described as 'seditious.'' As a result of this ruthless suppression, and the ensuing logistics of operating underground, Communist resisters were forced to deal with incredible isolation that further weakened their ability to oppose the Nazi regime. Gabriel Almond describes this isolation as 'an elementary principal of safety' and that because of it Communists only 'knew in general terms that other Communist groups and cells were operating in their area' and refers to 'the absence of any connection' between them.

A further explanation for the weakness of the opposition to National Socialism offered by the Communists was their unwillingness to work with the Social Democratic Party. Writing in 1933, Trotsky is damning in his criticism of the failure to form a united front against fascism. He proclaims that in the German Communist Party 'everything is wrong: the evaluation of the situation is incorrect, the immediate aim incorrectly posed, the means to achieve it incorrectly chosen.' Nothing other than the two anti-fascist organisations working together could win a victory against the Nazi Party. A victory Trotsky assessed was possible 'not after their coming to power, not after five, ten, or twenty years of their rule, but now.' Trotsky declared that 'it is necessary to show by deeds a complete readiness to make a bloc with the Social Democrats against the fascists in all cases in which they will accept a bloc.'

The attempts made by the German Communist Party to form a united front were half-hearted and doomed to failure. On July 21 1931 the Communists made a proposal for a united front which included certain restrictive conditions. These conditions were unacceptable to the Social Democratic Party, and as a result the Communists instead 'formed a united front with the fascists against Social Democracy.' In January 1933 another proposal was made which the Social Democratic Party was willing to consider, with the condition of a 'non-aggression pact' between the two organisations. The Communist Party refused. The Social Democratic Party repeated their offer to accept on February 12 1933, and was again refused. Jane Degras relates that Trotsky reacted with disgust to these events, claiming the offer 'should have been welcomed with open arms' and that the German Communist Party's conditions for the formation of a united front 'were for a united front with themselves.'

Further, when the Nazi Party finally rose to indisputable power, the German Communist Party attributed its rise to the Social Democrats, taking no responsibility themselves. Minutes of the Third Communist International explain Hitler's triumph as caused by the fact that 'German Social Democracy, which had the majority of the proletariat behind it in the November 1918 revolution, split the working class and, instead of driving the revolution forward to the proletarian dictatorship... allied itself with the bourgeoisie and the Wilhelmian generals to crush the rising of the revolutionary masses and opened the deep split in the working class.' Trotsky, however, points to the incorrect policy of the German Communist Party and claims 'its leaders had been blind.' He argues vehemently that 'fascism was assisted to power by the united efforts of the leaders of both the workers' parties.'

The response of the Social Democrats to the rise of National Socialism was in some ways similar to that of the Communists. The Social Democratic Party was banned on June 22 1933 and after this time also operated underground. Once again, the resistance that was organised was a shadow of what would have been possible given a different strategic approach, especially given the extensive support that the Social Democratic Party originally had among the working class. Opposition, when it did occur, manifested itself in 'a flood of illegal brochures and pamphlets.' Walter Schmedemann was the leader of the Social Democratic 'Eilbek Comrades' who produced a four-page flyer that at the height of its popularity had a circulation of 5,000. To accomplish a task of this magnitude each week in secret would obviously require extensive underground networks and the participation of many. Thomsett offers an idea of the extent of the opposition organised by the Social Democratic Party through relating the fact that 'by July 1933, German prison camps held 26,789 political prisoners [and] most of those were Social Democrats.' Further, Thomsett maintains that 'in the year 1936, another 11,687 were arrested and charged with working for the Social Democrats.'

Hoffman notes that the relative inactivity of the Social Democrats in opposing the rise of the Nazi Party was equal to that of the German Communist Party, 'but there was nothing new or unusual in their inactivity.' He correctly assesses that since the Social Democratic Party voted in favour of World War I in 1914, the nature of the Party was reformist and not revolutionary, which had a resounding impact on the type of struggle they were able, or willing, to organise. Hoffman points to 'a legalistic attitude of mind [that] was widespread and deep-rooted in the Party.' This is significant as National Socialism came to power in a so-called 'legal' and 'democratic' fashion, and not through a forceful coup d'etat, leaving the Social Democratic Party unable to oppose its legitimacy. Thus the Social Democrats remained passive, despite the urgings of the Reichsbanner (the militant wing of the Social Democrats) and clear signs that sections of the working class were ready and willing to act against National Socialism.

A further reason for the unwillingness of the Social Democratic Party to resist National Socialism in the early months of 1933 was the desire to protect itself. Unsure of the political situation and the support of the working class, and threatened by the prospect of being banned, the Social Democrats concluded that 'inactivity seemed to offer the only chance of survival.' This, in fact, was a response that the Nazi Party depended on. Instead of moving against all its opposition simultaneously, the National Socialist assessed that 'the more [the opposition groups] could be separated from one another, treated in isolation, and if possible, assaulted individually, while leaving the remainder in hope, the more helplessly they would have to surrender themselves to the wielders of power.' It was not until after the Party was banned that the Social Democrats began to organise themselves in opposition, but by this time they had lost a great deal of the confidence of the masses. After the ban, the Social Democratic Party faced severe repression in the same way as did the German Communist Party resulting in similar problems of isolation, the emigration of its leaders, and uncoordinated efforts.

Having witnessed the poor efforts of the Social Democratic Party to oppose National Socialism, many young socialists formed radical new groups and attempted to organise a militant and overt resistance. Rothfels describes one such group, led by a man who used the pen name 'Miles,' which was formed in the autumn of 1933. The group demanded unity among socialists and Communists, and assessed that it was impractical to wait for the fascist regime to collapse on its own. They instead proposed the task of immediately forming 'a secret and firmly cohesive organisation of experienced individuals who would have theoretical and practical schooling and maintain contact with important groups of industrial employees,' in order to overthrow National Socialism as soon as possible.

Resistance to National Socialism from the conservative sections of society was similarly weak, thoroughly individualised, lacked unity, and failed to understand the danger presented by the Nazi Party from the outset, thus waiting too long to organise an opposition. Conservative elements held strong illusions in the parliamentary system, and believed that the government of January 30 1933 could be controlled by the 'checks and balances' of the system. Once it was clear that this was not the case, the Catholic Church, the army, and the civil service did begin to passively or openly resist.

The opposition to Nazism that came from the Catholic Church was entirely passive, but they were, as Hoffman argues, 'the only organizations to produce some form of a popular movement against the Nazi regime.' Fabian von Schlabrendorff testifies to this, recalling that his own reasons for opposing sprung from 'the moral and ethical concepts taught by the Christian faith.' He also assesses that 'opposition to Hitler began, then, not as an organized political movement but as the reactions of individuals with religious and moral convictions.'

The Catholic Church was incited to protest in particular by the first sterilization law that was introduced by the Nazi Party in the summer of 1933. Similar to the Communists and socialists, the Catholic Church's opposition most often took the form of publications. The Catholic Rhatin group was formed in 1933 and produced a newspaper entitled Der Gerade Weg (The Straight Path) which put forward its anti-Nazi perspective and severely criticised the theories of National Socialism. On May 14 1937 the Pope finally spoke out against Nazism, publishing 'Mit brennender Sorge' (With Burning Anxiety). Opposition of the Catholic Church also took on a different dimension, as many of its leaders spoke out publicly against the Nazi regime from their pulpits. The priest Faulhaber was well known for the practice of condemning the Nazis in his sermons, copies of which were distributed in many German Catholic Churches. He also wrote letters to Nazi Party officials in which, among other things, he protested the closure of Catholic schools and the abolition of the Catholic Young Men's and Young Women's Association.

The greatest shortcoming of the Catholic Church was that it did not move past passive resistance, and that it often failed to encourage its followers to resist. Also, while the Catholic Church publicly protested the closure of its schools and organisations, it failed to condemn many other aspects of the Nazi regime. Given its 30 million members in Germany and the fact that even during World War II the Nazi Party still did not feel confident it could 'risk complete destruction of the churches,' it can be assessed that the Catholic Church was surely in a position to be able to resist the Nazi dictatorship to a much greater extent than it did. Clear evidence of this is that in 1936 the Catholic Church successfully used collective action to resist the Nazi decision to replace the crucifix with the swastika in northern Germany. Why was this approach not applied to the implementation of other Nazi policies?

The officers of the German army were overwhelmingly supporters of the Nazi regime until it became known to them that Hitler was planning a war. At this point certain officers, most notably Colonel-General Beck, became opposed to the dictatorship and resolved to overthrow it through a military coup. Rothfels describes the conference that took place on November 5 1937, in which Hitler made it clear he intended 'to settle the question of German 'living-space' by force.' Beck and other officers here raised their objections, and Beck continued to do so after the meeting through several letters to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, von Brauchitsch. Rothfels indicates that Beck's original plan was to organise 'a unanimous refusal by Army leaders to take part in Hitler's war project.' This was the closest the army officers opposed to Hitler's war came to using collective action as a tactic, or even trying to involve more than a handful of people.

Therein lies the fundamental weakness of the army's resistance to Hitler. They determined to form a conspiracy against Hitler involving only a minority of people and to overthrow him by force, then presumably installing a military dictatorship. Also, it was only the prospect of a European war that the army officers were opposed to, not any of the other aspects of Nazism, leaving them unable to form ties with the other forces opposing the regime at that time. It is only the later assassination plot of July 1944 that attributes to the army officers a notable place in history. In the early stages of resistance, they played a very insignificant role.

Rothfels refers to some 'outstanding individuals who started to resist in the initial stage' in the civil service. Thus, as with the opposition to Nazism of the army, that offered by the civil service was limited to only several notable individuals and did not seek to involve masses of people. Carl Friedrich Goerdeler was a central figure among the resistance of the conservatives. He sought to achieve collaboration between those opposed to National Socialism in and outside Germany, as well as to extend the German opposition networks, in particular among those involved in the civil service and business sectors.

In 1938, once Hitler's plans for war became widely known, conservative opposition leaders including Goerdeler established contact with the governments of European powers, principally Great Britain 'specifically to begin negotiating for recognition of a new government to be installed after Hitler's removal.' Stern estimates that these conservatives were in a similar position to the socialists and Communists, as 'they failed to understand... the nature of the hostility the regime had unloosed in the West as well as in Russia.' He believes it was a mistake to believe that separate negotiations with the West would be successful. It is significant that the political thinking of the conservatives headed by Goerdeler was not in complete opposition to that of the Nazi Party. Stern emphases the fact that 'in one important respect at least their war-aims were identical with those of Hitler's regime.' One can hardly wage an insurmountable struggle against a regime with which one has such significant viewpoints in common.

The liberal sections of society offered a resistance to the rise of the Nazi Party that was barely visible. Hoffman speaks of individuals who 'offered resistance simply by refusing to fly the swastika flag on the prescribed days, by suddenly turning into ardent church-goers, or by studiously failing to hear the of the cry 'Heil Hitler.' The only form into which the liberals organised themselves was the German Freedom Party that was founded over the years of 1937-1938. Rothfels notes that 'their first pamphlet stressed 'the dignity human personality' as the rallying point of all opponents of the Nazi regime. Liberalism itself engenders reformism and individualism, and in this way the problems of the liberal resistance have a great deal in common with the weaknesses of the opposition provided by the Social Democratic Party as well as the conservatives.

Only an ongoing movement involving massive numbers of the working class and demanding, without compromise, the complete destruction of National Socialism could have stopped the Nazi Party from coming to power in Germany. Clearly neither the German Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Catholic Church, the army, the conservative opponents in the civil service nor the liberal elements of society were able to organise and maintain such a movement. The failure of these sections of society to successfully oppose Nazism can be attributed to their lack of understanding of the danger that National Socialism posed, their focus on the role of individuals instead of the masses of people, their inability to withstand Nazi repression, and their unwillingness, or inability, to work together.

Dr. Lisa Lines
Director and Head Editor
Elite Editing & Tutoring

Email: info@eliteediting.com.au
Web: http://www.eliteediting.com.au

Our PhD qualified academic editors will professionally edit your essay, assignment, thesis or dissertation. We provide an online service for high school, college, university and postgraduate students worldwide. Our professional editors are waiting to help you improve your grades. Submit your document for editing today.

800 Number Management For Direct Response Marketing (AKA Toll Free Number Management)

800 Number Management has numerous related titles such as TFN Management, Dialed Name Identification Service Management (D.N.I.S.) and even Toll Free Number Management. For the sake of simplicity, and sanity, this article will use the term 800 Number Management, despite the numerous different references to the actual meaning behind the term.

When it comes to 800 Numbers the primary reason for having one is to sell a product or service or to make it convenient for an existing customer to receive service of a product or service. Hopefully, their purchase originated from you and your company. If you provide exceptional service to your existing customers, one method is to use an 800 Number to provide support services, with a bit of luck more additional products and/or services will be purchased.

The bottom line purpose for having 800 Numbers is to sell more products or services and to maximize the marketing results. However there is always an issue with having a bank of 800 Numbers or running multiple call centers and that problem is the management.

A company accumulates 800 Numbers because the C.M.O. wants to link the company's marketing campaigns for every product, for every creative, for every offer, etc., to a unique 800 Number. So every variation requires a different and unique 800 Number. Then the C.M.O. wants to see which combination of product, creative, offer, and campaign is driving the most sales. This is called multi-channel marketing. So tracking marketing results via these linkages from marketing across multiple call centers and 800 Numbers to a sale quickly becomes a mind-numbing challenge.

No matter how you look at the problem, it requires smart executives to think more, spend more time and invest more money to get it right! Not to mention productive collaboration between the C.I.O., C.F.O., and C.M.O. Unfortunately, even the largest multi-national and national direct response companies don't have this process down right.

A few marketing work-flow issues that must first be thought through are:

-- Have standards been established for data collection and is there a mechanism to find, isolate and correct data issues as they arise?

-- Are the people working in marketing, the call centers and the web group in possession of the commensurate technical knowledge? Do they have the insightful diligence to ask for the right information; in the right format; from their vendors?

-- Is there a central repository, unique to marketing, for all historical information and data; from all vendors; across all marketing initiatives?

-- Have we established a reporting infrastructure that can link calls (response), orders (sales) and other outcomes (disposition codes) to the specific marketing campaign that drove them?

I have talked to a lot of companies who use individual vanity 800 Numbers for each of their campaigns. The top two problems every company and ad agency have are:

1) They have a manual process of assigning, segregating and linking their 800 Number to an individual campaigns, offers and creative. Why, you maybe wondering? All but a handful of companies have a manual process for aggregating and linking. These manual processes open the door to huge probabilities for data errors.

2) A C.M.O. is forced or inadvertently funnels all their campaigns to one 800 Number, following a branding strategy, thus making it impossible to identify which campaign, offer or creative is the one real driving force behind the response and the sales revenue generation. This is called campaign overlapping and it is not pretty. One company is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in attribution modeling to statisticians in India, when the problem can easily be solved for as little as $500/month.

Summary of the Solution:

The ultimate goal of an 800 Number Management system is to be able to effectively use the 800 Numbers and their associated Dialed Name Identification Service as a mechanism to quickly, easily and cogently link or tie marketing activity directly to sales. Creating such a relationship is critical to measuring return on marketing investment. Having a direct, systematic, and automated link between everything marketing produces and touches with all response channels, such as: retail outlets, telesales and the web-group eliminates every hard-metric a marketing department has. Having an automated marketing work-flow process in place also provides an opportunity to achieve maximum marketing efficiency! Notice I said "opportunity," the overwhelming majority of companies can't even fantasize about such a system, let alone imagine implementing one.

The first step, and it is a solid one, would be to implement an 800 Number Management system, most companies don't have a mechanism that seamlessly manages 800 Numbers, and associated Dialed Name Identification Service. The system must also be able to communicate and track every change, modification (and who initiated such edits,) and this information must be captured accurately and consistently. It must also be able to prompt action such as disseminating request, allocation and usage information. All of the aforementioned functionality is critically important to the success of any direct response marketing organization.

Additional bolt-on modules or having the flexibility to expand functionality in order to accommodate growth is also critical, such growth oriented functionality would be: forecasting, bucketing tracking tags by product, campaign, marketing group, agency, etc.; assignment of appropriate skill sets to specific call center personnel, and staff level balancing. The more sophisticated organizations will want to measure call center productivity over time periods (e.g. week over week) as well as marketing campaign performance at a granular level.

The Benefits of an 800 Number Management system for Telesales:

1) A centralized location to easily manage and track Dialed Name Identification Service across vendors, programs, skill sets and campaigns.

2) An apples to apples comparison of vendors that field calls for the same 800 Numbers and the associated marketing campaign.

3) Ability to bucket 800 Numbers to be used by the marketing organization to ensure seamless assignment and use of 800 Numbers across campaigns.

4) More accurate and timely forecasts based on marketing activities.

5) The ability to split out call volume by day when an unexpected Dialed Name Identification Service receives calls from multiple campaigns.

6) A simple to use interface that allows modifications to historic data, including splits of existing data across Dialed Name Identification Service, the ability to add new information, and deletion of data that may result from overflow that occurs, for example: when a trunk fails at a call center the overflow calls need to be reallocated to in order to provide accurate reporting.

The Benefits of an 800 Number Management system for Marketers:

1) 800 Number / Dialed Name Identification Service Management is one viable option for addressing direct response marketing professionals needs, however only a hand full of companies understand the real needs of marketing.

2) A centralized location to track and assign 800 Numbers to Dialed Name Identification Servic across programs and campaigns.

3) Elimination of unwanted re-use of 800 Numbers across multiple campaigns simultaneously.

4) Historical tracking of 800 Numbers as well as a mechanism to plan future use and assignment of 800 Numbers.

5) Link Campaign results to the campaigns that drove them (Direct Mail, Direct Response - Promo TV, Radio, Circulars.)

6) Systematically manage the assignment of 800 Numbers to campaigns based on business rules of your choosing.

Glenn Hughes is a sales, marketing and direct response expert for small, mid-sized and large multi-national businesses. He has worked with HP, IBM, Citrix, Nestle and numerous others. If you would like additional information, Glenn has arranged for a free (researchers-version) Trial Evaluation of a 800 number management system similar to that described. [http://www.track800numbers.com]

If you are a member of the press and would like an interesting article on "Multi-Channel Integration" or would like free additional information on the subject matter; you can e-mail Glenn Directly at upperquadrant@gmail.com or call him at 571-262-2589.