Re: Re: Socialism and Capitalism

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:42:34 GMT, Alex Russell
<alexander.russell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:


>
>Hi Topaz,
>
>you seem to be bent on out doing MP in the 'piece of crap' department. 
>This is counter productive as it give people reading this thread the 
>impression that you are avoiding MP's questions and can rally no reply 
>better than a personal attack.

 I can't very well answer his questions if I don't read them. Here are
my policies.

1. I do not read rude posts.

2. I snip rude posts completely in my reply.

3. I don't give any personal reply to rude posts but only a cut and
paste. 

4. I don't let rude posts get the last word.


>
>I would would much rather read your reasoned answers to MP's questions 
>as I am actually interested in learning other's point of view and not 
>just enjoying some right wing echo chamber.

 Not possible. It violates rule #1 above.

But here is a cut and paste of a past arguement when he was more
civilized for a while:


>> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
>> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
>
>What does that mean exactly?

  Capitalism is supply and demand. It's against having any laws or
programs that might favor people over material.

>  Capitalism doesn't put a value on
>anything, people do.  Capitalism is only a method to transmit
>information on what people value.  It has no values of it's own,

  Exactly, it has no values.

>and that's good.  If "the system" has values seperate from the values
>of the people in it then the their values are inherently degraded
>and diminished.  That is truely not putting value (special or
>otherwise) on people.
>
>> Capitalism is
>> based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
>> chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
>> and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
>> value than the potatoes or the salt.
>
>  They have no more value for the company.  They have value for and
>to each other and their loved ones.  I don't know about you but I
>don't  feel that Smith's Crisps not loving me is all that terrible.

Douglas Reed wrote:

    "Germans in their country are not less well cared for than the
English in theirs, but better. You are faced with a country immensely
strong in arms and immensely strong in real wealth - not in gold bars
in a vault of the national bank, but industry, agriculture, the thrift
and energy of the work people, the conditions of life they enjoy.
   Their engineers and social workers and artists go into the
factories and see what needs to be done. They say that a shower room,
recreation room, a restaurant, a medical clinic, a dental clinic is
needed and these are provided. They have a civic sense, a social
conscience, a feeling of the community of German mankind which you
lack."

About Douglas Reed:
"I have dealt with the once world famous foreign correspondent and
author, Douglas Reed, who went from being widely known and respected
before, during and after the II.nd World War to becoming an expelled
and completely forgotten person.  
Why was he "forgotten"?  
It was simply because he wrote about "The Jewish Question!"   
International Jewry responded to his frank description of the problem
with total censor****p, so that his new books could no longer be
printed and the old ones would disappear gradually from the bookstores
and even from the library shelves.   
After a short period of slandering he was no longer mentioned at all
in the world's media.  
As the author Ivor Benson (who has himself written a book on this
subject: The Zionist Factor) says in the foreword to Douglas Reeds
masterpiece The Controversy of Zion, which had to wait 22 years before
it could be published, "the adversity, which Reed encountered, would
have made a lesser personality give up. But not he"."
K**** Eriksen


>
>> And they consider it good to pay
>> they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
>
>  And I consider it good to pay the company as little as possible for
>it's chips.  If they don't like it they can sell their chips or their
>labour to someone else.  That is because they and I have values and
>are free to pursue them.

  It's true that Capitalism is "fair". Consider the guy who invented
the car and all the millions of people who benefit from that who don't
know the first thing mechanics. In America something like 2% of the
people have 95% of the wealth or whatever. I forget the actual
figures. Some of this was dishonest, but much of it was from producing
things, like microsoft software.

   People who start businesses and create things are in fact superior
In all fairness there should be the few very rich and the many very
poor and that is what capitalism produces. But here is the point -
what good does it do them to have billions of dollars? What more can
they own or do, than if they merely had millions of dollars?  Compare
that to the difference between having enough to afford shelter and
being out in the street. The guy who invented the car did a lot to
make things better for people. Replacing capitalism would also make
things better for people.

  Capitalists don't agree that they are greedy. They say a person can
take their job for $5 an hour or they will find someone else to take
the job. It doesn't matter if they are making billions of dollars.
It's all perfectly fair in their minds. And they are totally against
"big government" doing anything to stop them. We can put an end to
their pathetic ideas without having any nonsense ideas like Communism.
Obviously we should have private property. And viewing business
leaders as enemies is also ridiculous. But capitalism is a horrible
idea and should go as extinct as the dinosaurs. In the future we have
should advanced economics designed to make things good for people. 

>
>>      According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
>> will work for the least pennies per hour.
>
>  No they can compete on that basis but most people compete to be
>more valuable to their employer.
>
>> They say everyone must
>> compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
>> the fewest pennies.
>
>  And what is the alternative?  That the people in Mexico and China
>not be allowed to compete with us?  What do they eat while they are
>forbidden this right?

   We should not go down to their level. Every nation should do the
best it can for it's people and not have capitalism.

>
>> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
>> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
>
>  Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
>system.

  At one time it may have allowed most people to survive. But with the
machines we have today that is no longer the case.

>
>> At least the
>> sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
>> of starvation that is fine too.
>
>And when did that happen in a capitalistic society?

 Having a minimum wage for one thing is not having capitalism. Not
that a minimum wage is exactly my plan but the point is that the USA
and countries like that are certainly not capitalist, and people do
starve and die in real capitalism.

>
>> You can always get more people. If
>> there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
>> need to die off.
>
> Which never happens.  There is always more to do in a capitalist
>society because there is always new things to invest in.

(an interview with William L. Pierce)

WLP: The economy will become worse in that the average White family
will work longer and harder for a smaller reward, for fewer of the
necessities of life, for less security, for a meaner life style than
before. The average standard of living, in other words, will continue
to decline, just as it has in during the past few years. And this is
something which absolutely did not depend on the outcome of the recent
election. Both Clinton and Bush have been sup****ters of globalizing
the US economy. They both have been boosters of the New World Order,
in other words. They both sup****t the removal of trade barriers with
Mexico, for example, which will accelerate the ex****t of American
industry and American jobs to Mexico, simply because wages are much
lower there. The effect of this, of course, will be gradually to raise
wages in Mexico, while they are pulled down in the United States. But,
then, that's the whole rationale behind the push for globalization,
the push for the New World Order, isn't it? Equalize living standards
around the world. Lift up the poor non-Whites in the Third World and
drag down the rich Whites. Give everyone a fair share of industry and
the wealth which goes with it. Break down national and racial
barriers. Homogenize the world, economically, racially, culturally.
That's the idea which has been pushed inexorably and unceasingly by
the controlled media ever since the Second World War. The controlled
media have made this idea of globalization fa****onable; they've made
it a Politically Correct idea, and therefore no one in the controlled
political establishment in this country, whether Democrat or
Republican, dares oppose it. 
KAS: So it's this bipartisan push for a global economy which leads you
to predict that the US economy will continue to decline, no matter
which party is in the White House? 
WLP: That's one of the reasons, and it's an im****tant reason, but
there are also others. There is the continuing, unchecked flood of
non-White immigration into America, for example. There's the continued
policy of favoritism shown to non-Whites in university admissions, in
the awarding of scholar****ps, in hiring, and in promotions. And
there's the growing burden of sup****ting an unproductive and largely
non-White welfare class. All of these reasons for future economic
decline are thoroughly entrenched, they're long-term, and they're
bipartisan reasons. Which is to say that they're Politically Correct,
and so neither the Democrats nor the Republicans dare do anything
about them. Can you imagine either a Democrat or a Republican
proposing that we cut off all non-White immigration into the United
States and try to restore America as a White country? ... There's no
more chance of that than there is of either a Democrat or a Republican
President announcing that the New World Order is a scheme intended to
reduce the White American worker to the same level as the Mexican peon
and the Chinese coolie and that we'll have no part of it. And because
there's simply no chance that the controlled political establishment
in this country, Democrat or Republican, will address or even admit
the existence of the fundamental reasons for the declining living
standard of Americans, I can predict with complete confidence that the
economy will continue to decline, over the long run. There are various
paper-shuffling tricks, of course--fiddling with interest rates,
changing the tax structure, rearranging the Federal budget--which can
make tem****ary changes in the economy, apparent changes, but they
can't cure this contry's real economic problems. 
KAS: That's interesting. But you know, the so-called economic
"experts" that we hear on the controlled media disagree with you
completely. They tell us that this recession is just a little anomaly,
a little readjustment, and that over the long run everything is rosy.
They say that the globalization of our economy is helping America by
allowing us to ex****t more of our products. They say that non-White
immigration is boosting our economy by providing us with needed skills
and eager workers. Here's a recent issue of Business Week; the
headline on the cover says, "The immigrants: how they're helping the
U.S. economy." Are the media experts wrong? 
WLP: Yes, they're wrong, and what's worse they know they're wrong.
They're deliberately lying to us, deliberately misleading us, just as
much as the politicians are. It doesn't take a genius to see what's
happened to the economy of this country since the Second World War.
The experts rave about the benefits the new World Order is bringing to
us by allowing us to increase our ex****ts. But the cold, hard reality
is that globalization has brought us an enormous trade deficit. The
fact is that it has wiped out whole industries in this country and
ex****ted them overseas: the consumer electronics industry, for
example, or the machine tool industry. The fact, not the theory, is
that millions of Americans are being forced to switch from high-paying
jobs in manufacturing and basic industry to low-paying service jobs.
The fact is that before the Second World War most American families
needed only one wage earner to keep them comfortable and secure; wives
and mothers could stay at home and take care of their families. Today,
of course, most mothers have to work outside the home. The fact is
that our economy isn't getting better and better; it's actually
getting sicker and sicker. 
KAS: You keep referring to the changes which have taken place in the
economy since the Second World War. Why is that? What does the war
have to do with it? 
WLP: The Second World War really has everything to do with it. It was,
after all, an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a
war between two fundamentally different world views. On one side were
the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers
that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to
maintain and advance civilization, and should hold onto their position
of world mastery. On the other side were the believers in quantity
over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in racial and cultural
equality, the people who thought it was wicked for the United States
to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain to have a world
empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to smash communism,
wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over internationalism. And the
fact is that the egalitarians won the war. After the Second World War
White Americans could no more justify keeping hordes of hungry,
non-White immigrants out of their country than Englishmen could
justify hanging onto the British Empire. They had cut the moral ground
right out from under themselves. 
KAS: Of course, that's not the way it was presented to Americans back
in the 1940s. We were all taught that we went to war to keep America
free, that we were fighting against tyranny, that we were fighting on
the side of decency and justice. 
WLP: Nonsense. We were fighting on the side of the folks who marched
the entire leader****p stratum of the Polish nation into the woods and
murdered them. And the people who control our news and entertainment
media knew that too. When the German Army discovered those huge pits
full of murdered Polish officers and intellectuals, they called in the
world press to look at the evidence. But the controlled media kept it
quiet, so that we would keep fighting on the side of the murderers.
After the war they blamed it on the Germans. And there was nary a
squawk from the controlled media when we turned the surviving Poles,
and the Hungarians, and the Balts, and all the rest of the Eastern
Europeans over to the same gang of cutthroats who had butchered
Poland's leaders in 1940. Of course, it made sense in a sick sort of
way. After all, murdering a nation's elite is an egalitarian act.
After you kill off the most intelligent, the most able members of a
nation the ones who're left will be more nearly equal. 
KAS: And easier to control. 
WLP: Yes. But the point is that, the reasons given to the American
people for getting into the war against Germany were all spurious. It
was not a war to keep America free. Americans weren't in the slightest
danger of losing their freedom to the Germans. It was, as I said, an
ideological war. It was a war about what kind of ideas would govern
the world. It was a war about whether we would be proud and White and
strong, or whether we would feel guilty about the fact that Mexican
peons aren't as well off as we are. And we lost the war. That was a
real turning point in the fortunes of our race and our nation. The
loss of the Second World War is the real reason for the decline of the
U.S. economy--and of our social life, our cultural life, and our
spiritual life. Before the war we had a White country, a country
determined to stay White. After the war we no longer had that
determination. Instead we had the vague feeling that it aws wrong of
us to want to stay White. After the war when the controlled media
began pu****ng for so-called "civil rights" laws and for opening our
borders to the Third World, it was just a continuation of their push
to get us into the war on the side of the people who had made Poalnd a
more "equal" country by slaughtering her leaders at the killing pits
in the Katyn woods. We don't really have time today to trace the whole
process of the breakdown of America after the war, but we can look at
a few examples which more or less tell the story. We've been talking
about the economy, but it's really our whole society which has been
corrupted by the war, by the ideology for which the war was fought.
Think, for example, about what life is becoming for the millions of
White Americans who still live in our cities, especially those cities
with a large minority contingent. We are no longer the masters in our
own land, and we are paying the price for that decline in status.
Crime has soared enormously in our cities and made life a daily
nightmare for millions who cannot move away. Even for those who live
in the suburbs and only must work in the cities during the day, crime
has become an ever-present constraint, a burden, a limit to their
lives. City streets which once were safe for White women and men, by
night as well as by day, are now like minefields where we must proceed
with caution and be always on guard. We know who makes our streets
unsafe. We know against whom we are obliged to bar our windows. We
know whom we must fear if our cars run out of gas or break down at
night. And these are the same people whose welfare sup****t imposes
such an intolerable burden on our strained economy. And it is
interesting that the government cannot solve our crime problem for
exactly the same reason that it cannot solve our economic problem: it
cannot address the causes; it cannot even admit the existence of the
causes, because those causes are Politically Incorrect. Just as the
government economists talk about interest rates and budget adjustments
but dare not speak of the effects of globalism on our economy, the
sociologists talk about "poverty" as the cause of urban crime, but
dare not mention that crime in America today is above all else a
racial problem. Or look at what our schools have become, or look at
popular entertainment. You know what the purpose of a school should
be? It should be not just to pound facts into the heads of children so
they can earn a living; it should be to mold them into good citizens.
It should be to teach them about their roots, about their ancestors,
about their race. It should be to give them a sense of identity, a
feeling of solidarity with their people, a feeling of appreciation for
the civilization which their people created. It should be to teach
them the values and customs which are peculiar to their people. But
most of the schools in America's cities cannot do these things. They
are not even permitted to try to do these things, because these things
are all profoundly racist, the controlled media tell us. The only kind
of school which can teach meaningfully about roots and identity is a
school which is racially homogeneous, but such schools were outlawed
by our government after the Second World War, because they are
contrary to the principles for which that war was fought. When our
kids turn to drugs today, when they learn anti-White rap lyrics from
the television, when they think Magic Johnson is a hero and say upon
meeting a friend, "hey, man, gimme five," we're paying the price of
the war. I said a few minutes ago that the worst aspect of the
breakdown of America was not what's happened to our economy, but
what's happened to our spiritual life, to our morale, to our idealism,
to our character. White Americans haven't become more stupid in the
last 50 years. Most of the people listening to this program understand
exactly what I'm saying. They didn't really need me to point it out to
them. They can see it for themselves. It doesn't take a genius to
understand why our schools aren't working or why the New World Order
will hurt Americans as the price of making Mexicans and Chinese more
prosperous. But it does take just a tiny bit of courage to stand up
and say these things when we've had it drummed into our heads that we
always must be Politically Correct. The people listening to this
program have for years been watching America being torn down. They
have seen the effects of egalitarianism, of liberalism on our society.
They have seen one liberal program after another make things worse and
worse, and they have listened to the controlled media and the
controlled politicians tell them that what's needed to fix things is
more of the same. And they've thought to themselves, this is crazy.
But they've been afraid to say that out loud. They've been afraid to
say, "Hey, look, Joe, the emperor doesn't have any clothes on." And
it's my considered opinion that this timidity, this willingness to go
along with every new insanity imposed on us by the media and the
politicians, even when we know it's unnatural and immoral and
destructive of everything worthwhile--this is a spiritual failure.
This spiritual failure, this willingness to tolerate evil, is a more
serious matter, in my eyes, than our economic decline. When we are
able to heal ourselves spiritually, we'll be able to heal ourselves
economically and socially, but not before. 
KAS: Is this spiritual failure entirely the fault of the American
people? You've repeatedly referred to the controlled media as the
principal promoters of the ideology which is at the root of our
problems. Aren't they to blame? Aren't the people who control the
media responsible for what's happening to America? And, by the way,
who are these media controllers? 
WLP: Well, I think we all know who wields more control over the news
and entertainment media than any other group. It's the Jews. And, yes,
they deserve a great deal of blame. But not all the blame. Perhaps not
even most of it. After all, they're only acting in accord with their
nature. They're doing what they always do when they come into a
country. We shouldn't have let them do it. We should have stopped them
when they were taking over Hollywood 75 years ago. We should have
stopped them when they began buying up newspapers back before the
Second World War. After the war we shouldn't have let them get
anywhere near a television studio. But we didn't stop them, and the
blame for that really lies with those who have set themselves up as
our political leaders. They sold us out. They sold out America. They
sold out their race. When our kids are exposed to the godawful,
anti-White rap musicals from MTV, should we blame the Jewish owner of
MTV, Mr Redstone, or should we blame the politicians in Wa****ngton who
let him get away with it? Personally, I'd go after the politicians
first. 
KAS: I see your point. Tell us, Dr Pierce, do you think there's any
hope that White Americans ever will go after the politicians who are
betraying them? Do you think they ever will regain enough spiritual
strength to stand up and say, "Hey, the emperor is ****d"? 
WLP: I do. I believe that one day they'll be shouting it from the
housetops. More people are angry today about what their government is
doing to America than at any time since the Second World War. As time
p***** their numbers and their anger will grow. That is inevitable,
because the policies of the controlled media and the government are
making America an unlivable place. The condition of the economy helps
too. I would really be worried if I thought that the politicians could
patch up the economy enough to lull people back to sleep. But I know
that they can't. I know that conditions can only become worse and
worse under the policies which come from Wa****ngton, regardless of
who's in the White House. And this is what gives me hope for the
future. When the pain becomes great enough, anger and frustration will
overcome the fear of being Politically Incorrect, even for the most
timid White American. 

>
>> Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
>> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
>
>  Well let's see, he traded corn at the lowest price that anyone
>could find, helping the poor.  He reinvested his money in the
>business continually, raising productivity and thus demand for
>labour, helping the poor.  He gave a job to one who couldn't
>get one elsewhere, helping, who was it again?  oh yes, the
>poor.  He didn't waste his money on frivolous expensive things,
>which would have diverted capital and labour from producing
>things neccesary and cheap.  This makes things neccesary
>and cheap even cheaper.  Who buys those things?  Mostly the poor.

  Spin, see the movie.

>
>>        The apologists for  the Scrooges correctly point out that
>> people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
>> Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
>> start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
>
>  Well would you invest ten billion dollars, which no certainty of
>it's return for a profit of a 999 million ten years down the line?
>That's a return of 0.9567404% annualised.

  For one thing investing should be abolished. Business loans should
be from the government and at zero interest. Banks are parasites:



          The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is corrupt and needs to be replaced. The only way money
comes into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.

     The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.

       In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.

       The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it  this way:

        "If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."

      The book  The Struggle for World Power put it this way:

      "The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
cir***stances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
      
>
>> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a
>reasonable
>> share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
>
>  Yes.  Because the people holding the power to define "reasonable"
>who have control effectively over all industrial capacity.

  Someone must be reasonable and it is certainly not the capitalists.

>
>>   In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far
>> that all the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering
>> food and all automated. You would think everything would be
>> great, but under capitalism the people would starve because
>> there wouldn't be enough jobs.
>
>>       Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
>> people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
>> when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue?
>
>  Enough.  Throughout history people have used their wealth to pay
>for charity, both to boost their ego and because they dislike
>people being poor.  When the government takes over poverty this
>declines rapidly.

 We should pay our fair share.

>
>> If there was no welfare then the charitable people would
>> have to pay for everything while most people would not pay
>> one thin dime.
>
>  Where's you evidence for this?  Most people are charitable.

  Would you want to pay more than your fair share or less?

>
>> We have welfare so people all pay their fair share.
>
>  No we have welfare so that people all pay a share they do not
>see as fair.  If they saw it as fair they'd pay it anyway.
>
>> It is part of having civilization.
>
>  Defined as killing people with darker skin and flatter noses
>than you.

The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie.


By Shaun Walker.

The point is that all we actually seek is White
self-determination in our own territory, like every other race.
How much more reasonable can that be?
No one questions the self-determination Indians have on their
reservations.
No one questions the right to self-determination for the Eskimos
(Inuit) in the far North of Canada. Hell no. The Canadian
government has even passed laws to grant the Eskimos control over
a vast expanse of territory which the non-Whites claimed.
This model exists throughout the world: everywhere you go, you
will find assorted non-White races and groups all successfully
claiming their right to self determination, all with the sup****t
of the liberals and even other non-Whites.
The Palestinians are a case in point. Most politically-prominent
Negroes in America sup****t the Palestinians having a separate
state, and object to the Palestinians being ruled by the Zionist
Jewish state. And rightly so. In this demand, they are joined by
the White extreme left-wing of the political spectrum.
Yet, you will not find one of these White extremist left-wingers
sup****ting the concept of a territory for White people in which
they can have self-determination. Liberal hypocrisy is as
boundless as time.
If we, or anyone else who sup****ts White self-determination,
raises the issue of White separatism with any of these non-White
groups, or the left-wingers of any race, we are dismissed as
"White supremacists" or "haters" or what-ever word they like to
use at that moment in time.
But honestly, we don't care much about what they call us. We know
what we need, and we work day and night to achieve it. Why should
we be ashamed of being White? On the contrary, we are proud of
our race, the race that has produced every single great
scientific innovation on the planet. Our race has produced all
the greatest works of art, and it is our aesthetic norms that
dominate the entire world…


White nationalists who look at this
fact closely, can quickly become discouraged and come to the
conclusion that White separatist activity is pointless. But they
are forgetting an im****tant message given to us by our founder,
Dr. William Pierce.
He told us, in no uncertain terms, that when we work for our new
society, we should not be discouraged by what we see around us.
We work, Dr. Pierce said, not for what it is now - otherwise we
would be conservatives - but rather we work for what can be.
Dr. Pierce used the analogy of a garden, overrun with weeds. A
gardener, who sees only weeds, might give up without even trying.
A visionary, who sees the blades of grass and roses lying half
submerged in the weeds, and who conceptualizes a grand garden,
free of weeds and sprouting new life, the re-growth of Nature's
glory, is the true carrier of our racial renewal and the rebirth
of our Aryan Folk.
No, we are not conservatives who seek to preserve the existing
order. To hell with the existing order - it is corrupt, decadent,
and must fall. We don't want to preserve the obviously failed,
existing social construct; we wish to see a new society, in which
merit and merit alone determines political leader****p, not with
how the current establishment promotes the best liars to the top.
We do not seek to maintain the existing raceless order, or to go
back to the days of segregation. We know and understand fully
that segregation, as well-intentioned as it might have been, was
a recipe for disaster.
We don't seek to rule over anybody but ourselves, and we need
racial separation in our own areas, and not segregation within a
joint area. That is the only solution.
No sir, conservatives we are not. We are revolutionaries in the
true sense of the word: we seek to remodel the world in a new
image, to cast down the lies and racial treason of the old order,
and to return to the eternal laws of race as our guiding light.
Only with the full understanding of race, acceptance of racial
differences and geographic separation, can we avoid racial
conflict.
Yes, you heard me correctly: we seek a world without racial
conflict, where each race is free to achieve whatever it may,
within its own space, without interference from outside.
This goal is really this ironic, to the extreme that the solution
to the racial problem which we seek, is in fact the only manner
in which the racial harmony which the liberals so desperately
desire, can be achieved.
We know and understand this eternal truth. Birds of a feather
flock together, as should you and I.
We have our goal clearly laid out in front of us. We are resolute
in our intention to see the flowering garden of our glorious race
instead of the Jew-ridden, race-mixed weed patch, and we work
unceasingly for our goal.
Why don't you join with us today? Join the National Alliance and
become a part of our racial rebirth.


>
>>   We have many laws that  make things better for people.
>> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
>> hours.
>
>  And how does that make it better for me?  Suppose I want to
>work over 40 hours a week and my employer doesn't think it's
>worth the higher rate?  How is forbidding me to make a trade
>a benefit?

 People are exploited in capitalism.

>
>> There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
>
>  No there aren't.
>
>> Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
>> to be as  greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
>> getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
>
>  Actually prohibition of fraud is one of the central neccesities for
>capitalism.
>
>> Capitalism is bad for people.
>
>  And Nazism is good?

Leon Degrelle
"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.
Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.
It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew -- as
almost all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a cru****ng,
an almost desperate responsibility.
Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.
During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.
By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.
Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.
Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.
During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.
"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."
But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.
Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.
Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms -- with
a combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this
way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left…
One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.
In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932…
Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew -- politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now
legally and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly
convert that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What sup****t did he have?
For one thing, he could count on the absolute sup****t of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides -- those for and those against Hitler -- were very
nearly equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided
among themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one
thing above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable
advantage: in their convictions and in their total faith in a leader.
Their highly organized and well-disciplined party had contented with
the worst kind of obstacles, and had overcome them…
In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flouri****ng of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production…
For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; …
The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."
It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable…
Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The im****tant thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.
That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular sup****t measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:
For Hitler was never interested in establi****ng a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy -- He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the m***** as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career…
When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government…
After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."…
"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our ****rts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"…
Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone…
Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class…
Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
m*****. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.
Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose…
In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts -- and,
often enough, full pockets?
Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.
In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.
Meanwhile, member****p in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)
Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an op****tunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday…
I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio…
In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.
Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.
Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vani****ngly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.
Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.
A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establi****ng, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.
This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the m*****. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
trans****ted and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.
By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, André François-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. François-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade à Berlin, p. 128.)
Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?
No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.
The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," re****ted on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds
-- a million -- of those attending were workers. "This May First was
victory day," the paper summed up.
With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.
Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard -- or their guns. Restoring the nation would
take more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements.
Only then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May
First mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?
What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?
How could men's lives be improved -- materially, morally, and, one
might even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new
society fit for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and
prejudices of the past?
"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."
The instruments of real power now in his hands -- an authoritarian
state, its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole -- Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of
the last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.
Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.
He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.
His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:
Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation -- The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.
And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)
"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."
Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.
So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?…
Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.
The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products…
Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.
Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.
From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most im****tant industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.
Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)
"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."
Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.
Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler -- like nearly all
of his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."
"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.
"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astoni****ng simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?
Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.
Hitler believed in the im****tance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.
He also recognized the im****tance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
op****tunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.
State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.
For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.
Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.
Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."
Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
im****tant for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.
The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also sup****ted the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."
Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent -- were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable…
"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"
Wi****ng to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
in***bent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.
"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."
"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."

What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall -- this company would eventually
promote many billions of marks worth of investment.
Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent -- a quite acceptable figure in those days -- whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!
These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the tem****izing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.

Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.
As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.
Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.
Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:
I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!
Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle cl***** of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the m***** anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.
VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarr***** those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century…
Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establi****ng an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.
It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly me****ng together…
Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn…
Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.
The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.
Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.
The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.
Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.
Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in pro****tion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.
To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting -- in accordance with "sound" financial principles
-- for the economy to revive by itself.
Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have suc***bed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around…
Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.
Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses… 
Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms -- like Krupp,
IG Farben and the large automobile manufacturers -- taking on new
workers on a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous,
car sales increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone.
Employment in the auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for
full production, with private industry leading the way.
The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.
This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.
Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.
Economic recovery, as im****tant as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.
Hitler would impose on everyone -- powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike -- his own concept of the organic social community. Only the
loyal collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all
cl***** and social groups.
Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.
By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.
Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.
A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.
The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.
One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations -- and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.
Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.
Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater op****tunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.
Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).
This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."
The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establi****ng and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(Führer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."
No longer would either be exploited by the other -- neither the worker
by arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the
blackmail of strikes for political ends.
Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community -- no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional,
arbitrary power.
"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it…
In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution…
Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional s****ts
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!
In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.
To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ****ps were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the cir***ference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant…
Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leader****p.
In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:
When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job s****ting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incor****ated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.
Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.
After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vani****ng, and a socially united people
was being born.
Hitler could go into factories -- something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past -- and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."
During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.
But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era -- five
times in five years.
For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.
To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
im****tant events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.
Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.
The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:
1.	The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it
approves of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may
also apply to a law. 
2.	A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as
established when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will
apply as well to a law modifying the Constitution. 
3.	If the people approves the measure in question, it will be
applied in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the
Distress of the People and the Reich. 
The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick…
From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?…
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:
The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone op****tunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality -- These measures did indeed break
through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved
the material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 434-435.)
Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.

>
>  Note that you posted this all before as "Polaris" and "Neptune3"
>and I refuted it before.  Yet you still post it, verbatim.  Why?

  The "refute" part is only in your mind.

>I've clearly shown why it's rubbish so why keep posting it?
>Note: everything I wrote after "capitalism and communism are both
>bad" is a cut and paste of arguments that you didn't refute last time.

  I'm saving this for pastes too.



http://www.ihr.org/
     http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org
    http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html