Nazi Platform

A reflection on the Nazi Platform and its possible basis of comparison to modern American politics.

The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time.
The leadership rejects the establishment of new aims after those set out in the Program have been achieved, for the sole purpose of making it possible for the Party to continue to exist as the result of the artificially stimulated dissatisfaction of the masses.

National Socialist German Workers Party Platform	American Equivalent	Basis
1. We demand the uniting of all Germans within one Greater Germany, on the basis of the right to self-determination of nations.	Right	Nationalism
2. We demand equal rights for the German people (Volk) with respect to other nations, and the annulment of the peace treaty of Versailles and St. Germain.	Libertarian	Isolationism
3. We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.	Right	Nationalism
4. Only Nationals (Volksgenossen) can be Citizens of the State.	Right	Citizenship
Only persons of German blood can be Nationals, regardless of religious affiliation.	Right	Nationalism and Religious Freedom
No Jew can therefore be a German National.	Far Left / Far Right	Antisemitism
5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens.	Right	Immigration
6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State.	Right	Voter ID
We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office.	Right	Nationalism
We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.	Left	Democracy over Republicanism
7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens.	Left	Government Job Creation
If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.	Right	Immigration
8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.	Right	Immigration
9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.	Left	Equal Rights
10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work.	Right	Duty to Work
Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good. We therefore demand:	Left	Limitation on Freedom of Expression
11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.	Left	Unearned Income
Breaking the Servitude of Interest.	Left	Anti-Bank
12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.	Left	War Profiteering
13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).	Left	Government Ownership of Production
14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.	Left	Profit-sharing
15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.	Left	Social Security
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class;	Left	"Maintenance" of Middle Class
the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen.	Left	Communism and Trade Unions
We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.	Left	Small Business over Low Prices
17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes.	Left	Eminent Domain for Public Use
Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.	Left	Anti-Speculation
18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.	Left	Anti-Bank
19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.	Left	Anti-Capitalism
20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system.	Left	Free Education
The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life.	Left	Government Mandated Curriculum
Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped.	Right	Civics
We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.	Left	Free Education
21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.	Left	Compulsory Education
22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.	Right	National Military
23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand:	Right	Anti-Press
a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;	Right	National Language
b) non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;	Right	Non-Citizen Laws
c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.	Right	Immigration
Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned.	Left	Government Controlled Media
We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.	Right	"Right and Wrong" in Art
24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.	Right	Freedom of Religion
The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination.	Right	Pro-Christianity
It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of: Public Interest before Private Interest.	Far Left / Far Right	Antisemitism
25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich.	Left	Authoritarian Government
Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general.	Left	Anti-Federalism
The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.	Left	Trade Unions

The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points.
Munich, Germany
February 24, 1920.

---

source:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/platform-of-the-national-socialist-german-workers-rsquo-party

The Socialist's Dilemma

while i'm not going to go into what a "Prisoner's Dilemma" or the "Tragedy of the Commons" is exactly, i will say that these absolutely show why Communism, and to a great degree Socialism, cannot work... and any refutation of this relies on a utopian society where all people are good, altruistic, and moral but also where there are no selfish or immoral people.

first, let's establish that there are, in fact, selfish people and immoral people... often, they are the same people... an immoral person may be immoral out of selfish reasons... a sociopath may be immoral without being selfish, but that would be the exception which proves the rule... a selfish person may indeed not be immoral, for what is immoral about self-preservation?... a decision which is good for the community as a whole, and therefore deemed moral by a Communist or Socialist society, may not be good for the individual... in fact, it may be directly detrimental to an individual... therefore, we cannot conclude that a selfish person is actually immoral, unless you define morality by self-sacrifice for the greater good, which Socialism often puts forward.

the healthcare debate in America is a prime example of selfish and immoral people in action... is it selfish to desire to keep one's own earned income?... to Socialists, yes... by keeping your own income is to deny needed resources to those who cannot earn their own; e.g. the disabled, the elderly, the young... an orphan may become a ward of the state, and how does the state pay for this orphan but through laying of taxes on those who might otherwise not provide for that orphan... the Libertarians might say it is for private charity to support the orphans, so those who are inclined to may give freely of their own resources... but history shows how poorly that goes for the orphans... during meager times, the larger donors may not have the resources to share, and those who did not give during times of plenty are sure to not give during times of scarcity... many might even assume that the needs are met by some unknown persons, and therefore their generosity is not necessary... you can see this in action at your local Humane Society or pet shelter... furthermore, when private charity is given, often the gifts are contingent on the charity behaving in certain ways... if an orphanage were to solicit charity, yet they squander those meager resources on opulence for the care-givers, donations would surely stop coming... but what happens to the orphans when it does?

likewise, with healthcare, we are often told that there are two choices... one, each person is responsible for their own fortunes... two, everyone must be responsible for the well-being of everyone else... but there are really more choices than this.

like in the Prisoner's Dilemma, each person can act selflessly or selfishly... if they act selflessly, they understand that other people are free to act selfishly... in economic terms, if everyone acts selflessly, the rate of return is equitable with the amount given... but if even one person acts selfishly, the rate of return on any charitable giving will be reduced... the more selfish actors, the lower the return... unless, of course, you yourself also act selfishly... then the rate of return is greater than what is given... but if everyone acts selfishly, the rate of return dwindles down to zero.

---

source:

The Economist explains economics: What is the Nash equilibrium and why does it matter? | The Economist

Prisoner's Dilemma

Tragedy of the Commons

The Myth of the Noble Savage - excerpt

In order for there to be free will in the Garden of Eden, there has to be something that Adam and Eve can choose that's not God. What if every choice Adam and Eve make in the garden gets them back to God; the decision to love each other gets them God, the decision to kill each other gets them God? If that happens, there's no genuine free will.

So it's like it's like saying you have a maze with only one path. It's not a maze, just a corridor.

And so you have one thing that God does. He puts the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden. And Adam and Eve are told, “That way lies death.”

People will come back and argue, “How can you condemn Adam and Eve when they don't know what death is?” I would argue, and I think this is the brilliance of that story; it is so we know that it’s adamant that God walks with Adam and Eve.

We know that God made Adam and Eve in His image. He walks the garden with them. They can converse with God directly. They have absolute knowledge of the good. The only thing they do not know is evil. So when the tree of knowledge of good and evil is put in the garden, the only thing Adam and Eve can gain from it is the knowledge of evil, because they already know the good.

That's brilliant because God has not stacked the deck against them. They know the face of God. They know their Creator. They know his goodness. They just don't know evil, which God characterizes it as death.

So they know that by choosing that tree they will get something that's not God. And so the parameters of freewill are upheld. And God is absolved of being a tyrant because they know him.

What does it say about the god of the ancient Israelites, the god that has carried us through in Western culture for 2,000 years, what does it say about him that he loved his creation so much that their freedom meant more to him than their obedience?

It's one of the things that sets Western culture so far ahead of other cultures is that we choose freedom not obedience; the free market system. The Socialists, the Marxists, the progressives; they want to go back to a world where all human beings deserve the Garden of Eden like Adam and Eve, but they owe God no obedience for it.

The threat of the Old Testament, the First Commandment, is that you'll become God. “If you don't recognize that I am the Lord your God then you will become gods of yourself.”

Not only from the Enlightenment do you get the fallacy of romanticism - the natural goodness of man, and the fallacy of naturalism - morality is irrelevant because we're all animals. You also get Nietzsche. And Nietzsche said at the end of the 19th century, “God is dead. We philosophers have killed him with our knives. But,” he said, “Men must become like God then to be worthy of it.”

The only way modernism exists, the only way all these modern socialist-Marxist-fascist, whatever you want to call it, utopian dreams and schemes exist is if man assumes he's a God, not an animal.

And there's your corruption. There's commandment number one down the drain.

- Dr Duke Pesta

Taken from the YouTube transcript. Edited for readability, not content.

The Myth of the Noble Savage - YouTube - Dr. Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux

Fire in a theater

liberals / progressives have been protesting the free speech rights of conservatives... some might think that those who claims to be "liberal" would be for free speech... they would be wrong... but it's not because liberals are anti-free speech... it's because those who are anti-free speech are not really liberals; they're socialists; they're communists; they're authoritarians of various stripes and creeds.

for instance, a group known amongst themselves as "Antifa", which is short for "Anti-Fascists", recently caused a violent protest at a rally for "Free Speech" in Berkeley, CA... Berkeley is well known for it's historic connection with free speech and rallies upholding a tradition of free speech... the aptly named "Free Speech Movement" (FSM) was a student movement in 1964-1965 on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley... many demonstrations, rallies, and marches took place on and around the Berkeley campus during the FSM.

much of the FSM was counter-culture (i.e. counter conservative), so perhaps that explains the backlash of the Berkeley area when conservatives chose this location to usurp the idea of FSM and to apply it to conservative ideals... being counter to the accepted counter-culture of Berkeley, should we refer to this as counter-counter-culture?

however, the Antifa protesters have a rationale for their suppression of free speech... they say that there are limitations on free speech, and you can't "shout fire in a theater"... but who, in their minds, are shouting "fire"?... well, they say that the free speech rally conservatives are saying things which are tantamount to inciting violence.

i give kudos to the Antifa for connecting "Fire in a theater" with "Incitement to violence"... however, they seem to have missed a couple of things... one, there are legal tests which determine whether free speech can be suppressed... and two, they are literally inciting violence against the free speech rally, so isn't that hypocritical?... Antifa says, no, they are justified in inciting actual violence to shut down those who may use free speech to say things Antifa finds hateful.

some history:

• in Schenck v. United States (1919), Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Supreme Court justice, laid out the "fire in a theater" test, where free speech must be curtailed when there is a "create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils" of harm to others... this Supreme Court doctrine said that "expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished."
• from Schenck followed Dennis v. United States (1951)... "The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government."... essentially, Dennis applied the "Clear and Present Danger" doctrine.
• however, in Yates v. United States (1957), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech... "[The] First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a 'clear and present danger.'"... and, in this case, Yates determined that "failing to distinguish between advocacy of forcible overthrow as an abstract doctrine and advocacy of action to that end, the District Court appears to have been led astray by the holding in Dennis that advocacy of violent action to be taken at some future time was enough."... essentially, Yates did not meet the requirements of a "present" danger, and advocacy of violent action without a present call to actual action does not meet the requirements.
• and then Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) threw the baby out with the bathwater... "[Government] cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action'."... in short, unless someone specifically calls for specific action by specific people, they are able to say whatever they please... had the Brandenburg test been applied to Schenck, Dennis, or Yates, the outcome may have been different in each case.

conclusion:

in short, Antifa want to impose Schenck on conservatives and to ignore Brandenburg... meanwhile they hide behind Brandenburg to justify their actual violence against conservatives.

---

source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/brandenburg-test/

Re-Blog - Who Is “Fascist”?

The abuse and proper use of a political label.

Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Liberal Fascism. As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss — and a major loss.

Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.

This is the sort of book that challenges the fundamental assumptions of its time — and which, for that reason, is likely to be shunned rather than criticized.