Nazi

National Socialism

Nazism or National Socialism in full was the ideology and practice of the German Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany as a whole. Usually characterised as an offshoot of fascism.

Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and social Darwinism.

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism.

25 Points

The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party

1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

Socialism is about power and the NAZI's were the National Socialists.

• In 1938, the Nazi Party implemented strict gun control enabling them to collect and exterminate millions and million of people including women and children between 1939 and 1945.

• After invading Poland in 1939, the Nazi forces utilized pre-war gun registration lists to both confiscate firearms and arrest their owners. Thereafter they were free to round up the Jews for the Warsaw Ghetto and ship them off to concentration camps.

Statues and History

People want to destroy statues of Americans that fought on the side of the south and think that is making things better. That, of course, is nonsense.

We should not be accepting the propaganda of victors as the true historical account of the events of the War between the States either. We should try to deal in facts and causes and motivations and people as individuals when looking at history because you study history to learn from the mistakes of individuals in it so that you do not repeat those mistakes in your own life.

Real history is the Human experience and that is complicated because humans are complicated. They are seldom just good or bad. When you divide whole groups of people into north and south or Germans and Americans, Jews and Blacks, that is where you start getting into trouble.

There were racists in the south and the north but most of the people fighting in the south against the people who came from the north were clearly fighting for "State's rights". They also fought for the rights of the individual because that was once the foundation of the American way.

Thousands of Germans risked their lives to save Jews. It is always dangerous to start identifying people by groups it is a disaster when you do it by geography, or race, or even religion.

There are more than a dozen streets in Germany named Rommel, at least one army barracks and some statues and busts still on display. Yes, Germany systematically destroyed statues but many of the laws created by Hitler are still in place.

You go to prison if you try to home-school your children just for one. Socialism sees individualism as an enemy of the State. Individuals are created in the family and some of that animus for the individual will seek to undermine the autonomy of the family in every socialist state. FDR was a socialist and between him and LBJ they did more damage to America than Hitler. Their socialist approach to American culture has killed more blacks than the KKK.

One of the best history books I ever read was The United States 1492 to 1892 and it was just stories of people as individuals and their experiences. It was enlightening to know the whole story of individuals who were key players in steering the actions of larger societies. It is often not those who are appointed to power that steer the courses society might take.

It was the prolific Carl Sandburg that first gave me some understanding that the Civil War was not merely a conflict over slavery.

Who financed the first army that marched into the south?

How many federal soldiers were with them and how many died?

The answer is one US soldier was with them and he is the only one who died. They were not there to free the slaves and he was not killed because he was going to free slaves.

To think the war was fought to free slaves may make people feel better about the destruction of the lives of so many people living in the South and the death of 600,000 Americans but it was still a blight on the history of humanity. Most of those who suffered and died never owned slaves or profited from their bondage. In fact slavery as a cheap source of labor impoverished more people than it made rich. Many in the south wanted to see slavery end for a variety of reasons.

Only 4% of Americans even owned slaves. Some of those slave owners were Blacks and Indians. You could have bought all the slaves and set them free for far less than the war cost without all the death and destruction.

Some are still saying "The American Civil War started due to the secession of Southern states who then went on to form a new federal government, the Confederate States of America." There are several reasons why this is a distortion of the history of governments.

The Southern states had the right to secede from the Union. They were simply going back to a Confederation, not a federal government, like the Americans States had before the federal Constitution. After the Revolutionary war each State had its own government. They formed a confederation through the Articles of Confederation. What that means can only be understood by a deeper understanding of the conflict between these to forms of governments and the status of the States and their citizens. Flags and statues or phrases and slogans do not impart that understanding.

A Yankee soldier reportedly asked his Confederate prisoner: 'Why do you fight us so hard, Reb?" the response was simple, "Because you are here, Yank.”

In those days you were a citizen of the State you lived in not citizens of the United States. State citizens were not the "We the People ". They were not even a party to the US Constitution. Numerous cases verify that fact.

States, before and after the federal Constitution was created, were “as foreign to each other as Mexico is to Canada” Clark’s Summary of American Law, Constitutional Law.

---

The men who signed the Constitution of the united States beginning “We the People” had been given no authority to sign anything, much less invent a new government. At the time they scratched their John-Hancocks to that parchment, “We the People” consisted of the names on that document. Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution, aptly asked “Who authorized them to speak the language of ‘We the People’, instead of ‘We the States’?”.Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, “No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it”.

If the individual freeman was not a party to the Constitution, then the constitution was not “a government of the people” or “by the people”, at least as “private persons” but only those people who signed the compact and those state governments in their limited and legal capacity. If the Constitution is a compact or contract then there is no contract or contracting away of rights of the people in general at its signing or ratification. Those who signed did not have the rights of the people in their possession at the time. The States could invest no rights in the Federal government that were not theirs to begin with and if they did so they would have to do it according to the contract that granted their existence. In any case the people were not a party to the Constitution.
“Hence the attempt of the constitution to establish a federal government, without these natural souls, was preposterous, unnatural, and void...”

Today, many consider the constitution as sacred - but not those who had won a great freedom through a century of sacrifice and hardship. They feared and opposed this Constitution of the United States. And that generation who had secured their free dominion against an unwarranted usurpation and tyranny opposed those “great words” and its compact. They did not war against it because it was not a compact with them nor did it have much influence over them or their lives at that time.

• “Just as the revolutionary Adams opposed the Constitution in Massachusetts, so did Patrick Henry in Virginia, and the contest in that most important State of all was prolonged and bitter. He who in Stamp Act days had proclaimed that there should be no Virginians or New Yorkers, but only Americans, now declaimed as violently against the preamble of the Constitution because it began, ‘We the People of the United States’ instead of ‘We, the State’. Like many, he feared a ‘consolidated’ government, and the loss of states rights. Not only Henry but much abler men, such as Mason, Benjamin Harrison, Munroe, R.H. Lee, were also opposed and debated... others in what was the most acute discussion carried on anywhere...”

• “Owing to the way in which the conventions were held, the great opposition manifested everywhere, and the management required to secure the barest majorities for ratification, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the greater part of the people were opposed to the Constitution.”

• “It was not submitted to the people directly, and in those days of generally limited suffrage, even those who vote for delegates to the State conventions were mostly of a propertied class, although the amount of property called for may have been slight.”

In 1787, when the Constitution was ready to be submitted to the Governors of the states for ratification, Patrick Henry lectured against it in the Virginia State House for three weeks, criticizing the Constitution, warning that it had been written “as if good men will take office”! He asked “What will they do when evil men took office?”! “When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion”, he declared, “and they will keep the people in utter ignorance” and “seize the public liberties by ambuscade”. He further warned that the new federal government had too much money and too much power and it would consolidate power unto itself, converting us “into one solid empire”. And the President with the treaty power would “lead in the treason”.

From the book the Contracts, Covenants and Constitutions

---

People do not take the time to really learn history. You do not and have not been taught it in your schools and universities which have become propaganda machines. Smashing statues is a pointless exercise and nothing more than virtue signaling especially if you do not want to find out the deeper causes and motivators of the actions, good and evil, of humanity.

If you want to smash statues of pro slave owners then you need to destroy Grants tomb. Robert E Lee freed the slaves he inherited before the Civil War started. Grant on the other hand did not do that until after the war.

It was the factories and money and navy that one the war for the north. There were courageous men on both sides of the conflict. To say that it was a "war to end slavery" is nonsensical as smashing statues as if you are some kind of advocate of freedom. Before you judge men of history and whole nations you should find out who they were and what they were doing.

Statues and History

People want to destroy statues of Americans that fought on the side of the south during the Civil War and think that is making things better. That, of course, is nonsense. That is also true of those who are destroying statues in Europe of people who lived in the colonial era. The correlate it to the destruction of statues of Hitler or Stalin and Lenin and justify that tearing down of symbols as if they have reached a more woke view of the world.

It is true that we should not be so accepting of the propaganda of victors. But the true historical account of the events of history or the War between the States may be more remote from our or their thinking.

We should always try to deal in facts and the underlying causes and motivations of people as individuals when looking at history. It is the individual who writes history with the sweat and blood of their lives. There is no brush so broad that it can paint a large group or a nation without doing injustice.

You study history to learn from the mistakes of individuals so that you do not repeat those mistakes in your own life.

Real history is the Human experience and that is complicated because humans are complicated. They are seldom just good or bad. When you divide whole groups of people into north and south or Germans and Americans, or Jews and Palestinians or White and Blacks, that is where you start getting into trouble.

There were racists in the south and the north but most of the people fighting in the south against the people who came from the north were clearly fighting for "State's rights". They also fought for the rights of the individual because only the individual is endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That was not only self evident but it was once hailed as the foundation of the American way.

One of the best history books I ever read was The United States 1492 to 1892 and it was just stories of people as individuals and their experiences. It was enlightening to know the whole story of individuals who were key players in steering the actions of larger societies. It is often not those who are appointed to power that steer the courses society might take.

It was the prolific Carl Sandburg that first gave me some understanding that the Civil War was not merely a conflict over slavery.

Some are still saying "The American Civil War started due to the secession of Southern states who then went on to form a new federal government, the Confederate States of America." There are several reasons why this is a distortion of the history of governments.

The Southern states had the right to secede from the Union. They were simply going back to a Confederation, not a federal government, like the Americans States had before the federal Constitution. After the Revolutionary war each State had its own government. They formed a confederation through the Articles of Confederation. What that means can only be understood by a deeper understanding of the conflict between these to forms of governments and the status of the States and their citizens. Flags and statues or phrases and slogans do not impart that understanding.

A Yankee soldier reportedly asked his Confederate prisoner: 'Why do you fight us so hard, Reb?" The response was simple, "Because you are here, Yank.”

It was the factories, money, and navy that won the war for the north. There were courageous men on both sides of the conflict. To say that it was a "war to end slavery" is devoid of understanding as smashing statues as if you are some kind of advocate of freedom by doing so. Before you judge men of history and whole nations you should find out who they were and what they were doing.

In those days people were a citizen of the State they lived in not citizens of the United States. State citizens were not the "We the People ". They were not even a party to the US Constitution. Numerous cases verify that fact.

States, before and after the federal Constitution was created, were “as foreign to each other as Mexico is to Canada” Clark’s Summary of American Law, Constitutional Law.

Even Lincoln knew the south could go, but they could not pick federal apples on their way out. They also had to pay debts to merchants with just weights and measures. These two sentence are at the root of the motivation for many to go to war. And then there is the profit and power wars may bring.

To think the war was fought to free slaves may make people feel better about the destruction of the lives of so many people living in the South and the death of 600,000 Americans but it was still a blight on the history of humanity.

Most of those who suffered and died never owned slaves or profited from their bondage. In fact slavery as a cheap source of labor impoverished more so called white people than it made rich. Many in the south wanted to see slavery end for a variety of reasons.

Only 4% of Americans even owned slaves. Some of those slave owners were Blacks and Indians. You could have bought all the slaves and set them free for far less than the war cost without all the death and destruction.

Who financed the first army that marched into the south?

How many Federal Officrs were with them and how many died?

The answer is one US Officer was with them and he is the only one who died. They were not there to free the slaves and he was not killed because he was going to free slaves. They were there for the money.

The officer who was an observer was killed because he wanted to take down the flag of the confederacy flying on the roof of a hotel. The hotel manager that shot him was immediately killed with a sword of the man next to him.

It might be called idolatry to hold an object dearer than another mans life. Such extreme reverence is certainly misplaced. But there is something almost delatorius, even demonic, to imagine that the destruction of those objects or symbols can be hailed as virtue.

We also revere the constitution that moved American states from a confederation to a Federal form of government. But do we understand what that means and meant to Americans at that time.

---

Confederate vs Federal

The men who signed the Constitution of the united States beginning “We the People” had been given no authority to sign anything, much less invent a new government. At the time they scratched their John-Hancocks to that parchment, “We the People” consisted of the names on that document. Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution, aptly asked “Who authorized them to speak the language of ‘We the People’, instead of ‘We the States’?”.Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, “No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it”.

If the individual freeman was not a party to the Constitution, then the constitution was not “a government of the people” or “by the people”, at least as “private persons” but only those people who signed the compact and those state governments in their limited and legal capacity. If the Constitution is a compact or contract then there is no contract or contracting away of rights of the people in general at its signing or ratification. Those who signed did not have the rights of the people in their possession at the time. The States could invest no rights in the Federal government that were not theirs to begin with and if they did so they would have to do it according to the contract that granted their existence. In any case the people were not a party to the Constitution.
“Hence the attempt of the constitution to establish a federal government, without these natural souls, was preposterous, unnatural, and void...”

Today, many consider the constitution as sacred - but not those who had won a great freedom through a century of sacrifice and hardship. They feared and opposed this Constitution of the United States. And that generation who had secured their free dominion against an unwarranted usurpation and tyranny opposed those “great words” and its compact. They did not war against it because it was not a compact with them nor did it have much influence over them or their lives at that time.

• “Just as the revolutionary Adams opposed the Constitution in Massachusetts, so did Patrick Henry in Virginia, and the contest in that most important State of all was prolonged and bitter. He who in Stamp Act days had proclaimed that there should be no Virginians or New Yorkers, but only Americans, now declaimed as violently against the preamble of the Constitution because it began, ‘We the People of the United States’ instead of ‘We, the State’. Like many, he feared a ‘consolidated’ government, and the loss of states rights. Not only Henry but much abler men, such as Mason, Benjamin Harrison, Munroe, R.H. Lee, were also opposed and debated... others in what was the most acute discussion carried on anywhere...”

• “Owing to the way in which the conventions were held, the great opposition manifested everywhere, and the management required to secure the barest majorities for ratification, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the greater part of the people were opposed to the Constitution.”

• “It was not submitted to the people directly, and in those days of generally limited suffrage, even those who vote for delegates to the State conventions were mostly of a propertied class, although the amount of property called for may have been slight.”

In 1787, when the Constitution was ready to be submitted to the Governors of the states for ratification, Patrick Henry lectured against it in the Virginia State House for three weeks, criticizing the Constitution, warning that it had been written “as if good men will take office”! He asked “What will they do when evil men took office?”! “When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion”, he declared, “and they will keep the people in utter ignorance” and “seize the public liberties by ambuscade”. He further warned that the new federal government had too much money and too much power and it would consolidate power unto itself, converting us “into one solid empire”. And the President with the treaty power would “lead in the treason”.

From the book the Contracts, Covenants and Constitutions

---

People do not take the time to really learn history. You do not and have not been taught it in your schools and universities which have become propaganda machines. Smashing statues is a pointless exercise and nothing more than virtue signaling, especially if you do not want to find out the deeper causes and motivators of the actions of humanity, both good and evil.

You must look deeper into the lives and hearts of your fellow man and care about his pain in a way that might make him and his life better. To do that you may have to look deeper into your own heart and mind.

If you want to smash statues of pro slave owners then you need to destroy Grants Tomb. Robert E Lee freed the slaves he inherited before the Civil War started. Grant on the other hand did not do that with his slave until after the war.

Ever Changing

Thing are changing as they have already changed. History is the story of individual men and their relationship with other men and the elements of the world.

History is complicated because relationships are complicated.

Black people risked their lives to save white people and white people did the same to save black people by the millions. The same is true of native Americans. The same stories are rampant in the colonies and countries throughout history. As soon as you label a group with the actions of an individual you become a racist and bigot. It is always dangerous to start identifying people by groups it is a disaster when you do it by geography, or race, or even religion.

Thousands of Germans risked their lives to save Jews. 10 of thousands lost their lives resisting Hitler and his schemes. Some served his government. In fact, NAZIs were not only in Germany. Certainly socialist were everywhere.

There are more than a dozen streets in Germany named Rommel, at least one or more army barracks and some statues and busts. Germany systematically destroyed statues of Nazis but many of the laws created by Hitler are still in place. You go to prison if you try to home-school your children just for one. Does destroying the statue change the course of human events? Does it repair the human heart to wreak revenge upon an object that never had life in it to begin with?

Socialism sees individualism as an enemy of the State. Individuals are created in the family and some of that animus for the individual will seek to undermine the autonomy of the family in every socialist state. FDR was a socialist and between him and LBJ they did more damage to America than Hitler. Their socialist approach to American politics and culture has killed more Blacks than the KKK.

---

"Doesn’t mean we cant condone nazis." What does that mean? I am not sugar coating history. We should not be accepting the propaganda of victors as history either. We should try to deal in facts and causes and motivations and people as individuals when looking at history because you study history to learn from the mistakes of individuals.

Socialist
Socialism | Communism | Primitive Communism |
Anarcho communism | Communist Altruism | Collectivism |
Communitarian | Community Law | Crowd psychology |
Statues | Heroes | Legal charity | Riots | Welfare |
Welfare types | Public religion | Corban | Why Socialism |
Was Jesus a socialist | Not so Secure Socialism |
covetous practices | Weightier matters | Dialectic |
Bread and circuses | gods | Deist | James Scott |
Liberalism | Classical liberalism | Transcendentalist |
Polybius | Plutarch | Perfect law of liberty | Perfect savages |
Lady Godiva | Nimrod | Cain | Bondage of Egypt |
Corvee | Nicolaitan | Benefactors | Fathers | Social bonds |
Citizen‎ | Social contract | Section 666 | Mark of the Beast |
Christian conflict | Diocletianic Persecution | Mystery Babylon |
Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark | Community |
I paid in | Goats and Sheep | Shepherds | Free Keys |
Roots of the Welfare State | Cloward-Piven Strategy |
Rules For Radicals | Communist Manifesto |
Live as if the state does not exist | Departed |
Nazi | Authority | Guru theories | Larken Rose |
Capitalism | Covet | Dominionism | FEMA | Network

"National Socialism has always affirmed that it is determined to take the Christian Churches under the protection of the State. For their part the churches cannot for a second doubt that they need the protection of the State, and that only through the State can they be enabled to fulfill their religious mission. Indeed, the churches demand this protection from the State. On the other hand, in consideration for this protection, the State must require from the Churches that they in their turn should render to it that support which it needs to secure its permanence. Churches which fail to render to the State any positive support in this sense are for the State just as worthless as is for a Church the State which is incapable of fulfilling its duties to the Church. The decisive factor which can justify the existence alike of Church and State is the maintenance of men's spiritual and bodily health, for if that health were destroyed it would mean the end of the State and also the end of the Church." Radio address 22 July 1933; from Norman H. Baynes, ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. 1. New York: Howard Fertig. p. 375.Hitler's Table Talk (German: Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier) is the title given to a series of World War II monologues delivered by Adolf Hitler, which were transcribed from 1941 to 1944.