You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Pissed-off Cat attacks and terrorizes Pacifist Rottweiler. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

PFFFT whatever old lady! The illegal gay immigrant progressive pacifists want to steal your prescription drugs and give your social security money to Marxist atheist terrorists! Act now before it's too late!

>> ^Enzoblue:

Seems funny to me that no one mentions Everquest any more. Now it's like WoW is the only mmo that ever was. Everquest was the first online game to have an economy larger than some 3rd world nations. I played it for 3 yrs or so and I still miss it sometimes.


I'm right with you there! The economy was much more player driven in EQ, without limits/restrictions put in place such as Bind on Equip/Soulbound armor (the most epic of the epic stuff was indeed non-tradable). Once you were done with a piece of armor you could easily resell it to another player. It was really fun to haggle with people/search for deals and just upright barter.

The whole game in general was just more player driven, and less rigorously structured around soloing: especially the PvP servers, with the pro-PK vs the pacifistic non-PK guilds, waging war and providing either their protection to newbs from highway thieves or pillaging certain zones of all players and looting the spoils. Not to mention all the social intrigue of player alliances, betrayals, guild spies and secret plots to overthrow/assassinate and usurp leaders, bounty hunters, and tests of loyalty to your compatriots. Such a dynamic has never existed in any other MMO, to my knowledge. It was a hard, unforgiving place where loyalty was worth more than any piece of gear.

If you're interested in revisiting Classic EQ PVE progression for FREE (Kunark is being beta'd atm and then Velious) I'd check out Project 1999, the finest private server available for purely Classic EQ, no custom modifications just the real deal. I have a level 37 Darkelf necro and have been playing fairly regularly, the server population is pretty good and everyone is friendly, helpful towards newbs as well. You wouldn't believe how happy I was when I discovered P99 and ended up seeing a few people I remember from my dear old Quellious server. It really is everything one could ask for considering Live EQ1, at this state, is an abomination. Well, there it is. Try it out, I'll help you get started right! PM me if you decide to come back to Norrath, this also goes for anyone else on the Sift who would try it/return. It really surprised me how harsh they start you out in that game after years of WoW, one needs all the help they can get.

Great WoW trailer as well, and I love Blizzard, but I just can't get back into the game despite my attempts to literally will myself into playing. I really feel as if I'm just being touted around, top-down style, by Blizzard to do this dungeon or that. My choices feel like they have no real impact on the game world, my actions rarely end up having actual consequences, besides maybe a momentary invconvenience. It's just too damned safe to be exciting! Raids are easy mode, though from all the impressions of Cataclysm is seems like they're trying to return to form of having the content be much more stimulating, brain intensive. If raiding becomes more like pre-BC/BC then I will return. I will most definitely at the very least try Cataclysm and see what happens.

^Certain professions attract certain individual types... If you are a pacifist you don't become a soldier, if you suffer from hemophobia you don't become a surgeon... If you are a white knight you tend to go into law enforcement/healthcare/security professions, i.e. where you can do "Good"(tm).

This starts off interesting and then goes nowhere.

I think many systems are unnecessarily complex: government, legal, even videosift's queue; and I think a lot of good could be done by simplifying the tax structure, reducing the number of laws, and otherwise reducing complexity of systems so they are more efficient.

Certainly we could benefit from a more pacifist society but remember, Woodstock only lasted for 3 days. Eventually we need to provide food, services, protection, etc and a field full of muddy hippies won't provide any of that.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Totally agree that "preemptive self-defense" is some hardcore Orwellian bullshit. Amazing how much of the religious Right get behind the idea. Jesus said turn the other cheek, not "stab that guy in the belly because he looks like he might hurt me".
>> ^SDGundamX:

Well, I thought he was suggesting in the video that initiating violence is wrong but defending yourself is okay. Very few pacifists are absolute pacifists in that they believe no violence should ever be done--not even in self-defense.
The response that most people have to the idea of pacifism (as seen in the posts for this vid) is that sometimes violence is justified. Maybe sometimes, like in immediate self-defense, it is. The problem I have with that standpoint though is that in practice often people are far to quick to resort to violence and to use extremely flaky logic to justify their actions. Take the invasion of Iraq: that was couched as a defensive action. In order to protect the U.S. from a terrorist attack, the U.S. would make a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
I suppose that personally I feel that violence is only justified in extreme cases. And, when violence is justified, it should never be glorified because invariably, resorting to violence is going to sow the seeds of future violence. World War II is generally seen as a "justified war" from the viewpoint of Americans, for instance, but that war inadvertently planted the seeds of the Cold War, the Middle East conflict, and Vietnam conflict even as it was stamping out the flames of Fascism in Europe.
What is really important is stopping that cycle of violence--eradicating the roots of violence so that people don't ever feel the need to use violence to get what they want. To that end, I can get behind the idea expressed in the beginning of this vid that we should strive to create a world in which we don't initiate violence but still be free to defend ourselves if attacked. That's a start at the very least.
>> ^dannym3141:
You're right. My pacifist sister talks about great tragedies performed by people and said "they should have stopped him before all the killing and war began!" - but if you ask her how to stop a person who doesn't want to listen to kind words, she has no answer. A fully pacifist world might be ok, but if one single person decided not to be, you're boned.

Well, I thought he was suggesting in the video that initiating violence is wrong but defending yourself is okay. Very few pacifists are absolute pacifists in that they believe no violence should ever be done--not even in self-defense.

The response that most people have to the idea of pacifism (as seen in the posts for this vid) is that sometimes violence is justified. Maybe sometimes, like in immediate self-defense, it is. The problem I have with that standpoint though is that in practice often people are far to quick to resort to violence and to use extremely flaky logic to justify their actions. Take the invasion of Iraq: that was couched as a defensive action. In order to protect the U.S. from a terrorist attack, the U.S. would make a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.

I suppose that personally I feel that violence is only justified in extreme cases. And, when violence is justified, it should never be glorified because invariably, resorting to violence is going to sow the seeds of future violence. World War II is generally seen as a "justified war" from the viewpoint of Americans, for instance, but that war inadvertently planted the seeds of the Cold War, the Middle East conflict, and Vietnam conflict even as it was stamping out the flames of Fascism in Europe.

What is really important is stopping that cycle of violence--eradicating the roots of violence so that people don't ever feel the need to use violence to get what they want. To that end, I can get behind the idea expressed in the beginning of this vid that we should strive to create a world in which we don't initiate violence but still be free to defend ourselves if attacked. That's a start at the very least.

>> ^dannym3141:

You're right. My pacifist sister talks about great tragedies performed by people and said "they should have stopped him before all the killing and war began!" - but if you ask her how to stop a person who doesn't want to listen to kind words, she has no answer. A fully pacifist world might be ok, but if one single person decided not to be, you're boned.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

It sounds easy enough in principal, but you can't just wish things like theft away. Like it, or want to believe it, or not, there are other people who will occasionally want to do you harm.
Faced with that realization, I wonder how the author of this video would respond. Someone comes in and holds his family hostage. He has an opportunity to stop it but must use violence as a means of self defense. Or perhaps there is no violence that would be required on his part. Perhaps he could end the situation with a call to the police but he won't because "Then the police would kidnap the criminal."
^Sounds like a lot of idealistic crap to me.
Assuming he's right about the situation, he still has offered no alternatives or answers as to how to run his newfound society. All we have to do is "Always do no harm to others," and voila' everything is perfect. Except, that would require that everyone adopt the same principal rather quickly to work.
And even if that idea was implanted in people's minds, if you put people in a situation where "it's him or me," survival instincts will trump morality more often than not.


You're right. My pacifist sister talks about great tragedies performed by people and said "they should have stopped him before all the killing and war began!" - but if you ask her how to stop a person who doesn't want to listen to kind words, she has no answer. A fully pacifist world might be ok, but if one single person decided not to be, you're boned.

When I posted the video, above, originally it had less to do with politics and had more to do with views of the US from strange people. Views hardly worth their weight in bird-shit.

I put this Russian guy on par with Goering. Believing doomsayers is not something I'd wager the lot of sifters do on a regular basis; nor do I.

Odd now that I read the quote below, and think of the lead up to the Iraq war. Nice to see right took a page from a Nazi.

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

you left out the pacifist, feminist, social anarchist variety.
therefore, i find this poll sexist, classist and thereby oppressive.

the entanglement of lanuage used to describe political leanings is too much. to the point of near meaninglessness.
it's like musical genres, with all the subgenres and subgenres of those subgenres and then when genres mix. it's too much language. language is a useful tool but in the case of modern political discussion, i find it serves as a divisive force.

like just reading the words on the poll alone, i already wanna fight with that voluntarist guy and the national corportatist guy. why? because of the language used to describe his world view.

Or you can take the one thing out of that equation that causes pain and suffering more than any idea in the history of man: Money.


That's nonsense. Money is a commonly accepted medium of exchange to defeat the inefficiency of barter. It is, in essence, a product that is a placeholder for other products. That was truer when we were on gold than now, but still... Are you saying you don't want people to make stuff and trade with each other? Stop watching TV and read "Economics in One Lesson." It's only $10 on amazon.


Yes i do mean we could all live with out money. Lets value the true worth of ones work to community.. Do you really think that money is the ultimate asnwer? It is someting we humans thought of to make things a little simpler as bartering had it's disadvantages. And by bartering one can't collect such a huge amounts of wealth in one lifetime, all that lead us to the point where a small percentage of people in the world own most of the wealth. Is that right? Some poor schmuck in Thailand is working his ass of to produce for us the cheap tuna that we eat. A good socialist would think that it is just plain wrong. I don't mean that hard work and commitment shouldn't be appreciated, yes of course, that is EXACTLY what i mean. Why should a construction worker make more money in Switzerland than in India? Just let all people have what they deserve, not what we in the western society think they deserve.

And that private schooling? Yes, i bet that the overall quality would raise but what about those who then simply can't afford to pay for it? Will you let them stay in the low income slums and make products for us. Class strugles should be a thing in the past by now, we are smarter than that. Hell, let's put the low class monkeys to prison so we won't have to pay them anything. We can keep them there for years for stealing a cigarrette or smoking a joint. Really?

US of A, i despise you more and more every day and i use to look at you in awe and wonder. The land of the free.. Right.. Just look at the health reform... Let the poor get sick and die, let's just hope that they manage to multiply before the massgrave so we can have more SLAVES!

And the next comment after this probably says i'm a terrorist.. Far from it, pacifist whose grand dad went to jail for not picking up a gun, as did my dad. We should all be free of organized religion, free of the monetary powers, free to be humans. No we are alla just slaves.

Sorry about the rant again but this thing just ticks me off. And i'm afraid that something so bad will happen if these things are allowed to continue. And by the way, i don't even own a TV...

^ Nah cant be, Rosenfeldt is a committed pacifist remember

@blankfist, I notice you're using the singular form of war. I also see you're using the word "extending"...are you saying that Bush put together firm plans to withdraw from all wars, and Obama moved back the date?

Troops are coming out of Iraq, and have been for a while. Why is Obama still "all talk" to you?

You seem like a person who's too smart to have such a black and white outlook on things.

Is Obama a total pacifist? Not remotely. Is Obama trying to rally support for a more active role for the American military worldwide? Not remotely. Is he taking steps to try to extricate us from our overseas combat deployments without jeopardizing the relative stability that currently exists in both countries? I think so.

If we pull out of Afghanistan now, immediately, aren't we still responsible for whatever happens in the aftermath of our withdrawal? Moore seems to recognize that an apology really won't cut it, but if the Taliban regain power, are we really going to pay them reparations?

Obviously if the current parliamentary government stays relatively intact, we'd help them rebuild, but are they really likely to stay intact if we leave before they can raise and train their own army to keep the Taliban at bay?

The real nasty question is what if it looks like it'd take 10 more years to get them there? I hope Obama has the strength to say "then we pull out, and apologize", because then that will really be the only right choice, but I don't think we're at that point yet.

In any case, I get the sense that Obama's asking the right questions, and generally making choices based on the idea of finding the path out of the conflict that will result in the least bloodshed and suffering.

I'm open to any evidence you have to contravene anything I just said, but base distrust of Obama or government in general just isn't good enough for me.

Again, I have not defended the black dude.

The bearded klansman is such The Pacifist, yelling threats while 'walking away'.

Yes, racial violence is bad. As for 'passive aggressive belittling', you yourself said that 'words are just words'. Looks like you are the one who needs to think through his self-contradicting viewpoints.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^longde:
It sure makes my day to log into the sift and see folks celebrating racial violence and hatred and rooting on a deranged foul mouthed racist.
Looks like everyone's bearded hero aroused the blood lust of many on the sift. Looks like some of you wanted to see more blood.

It looks like I'm gonna have to call the waaaaambalamps.
So now that punk kid doesn't have to take responsibility for his actions? You start a fight and get your ass-kicked it's your own fault. Words are just words, and as ignorant as they may be, you have to take responsibility for how you deal with them. I'm rooting for the old man because he walked away...not wanting to get into a physical confrontation when things could have escalated to that point.
Furthermore, drop the self-righteous saint act. It's real easy to cast judgement instead entering a discussion with an thought-out viewpoint, whether you're agreeing with or dissenting against the ideas of the majority. Pretty much you're saying racial violence is bad but passive aggressive belittling of those that don't agree with you is ok.

Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Summary

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.



Argument

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it." (2)

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take a closer look:

The politics of Nazism

The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:

* Individualism over collectivism.
* Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
* Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
* Merit over equality.
* Competition over cooperation.
* Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
* One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
* Capitalism over Marxism.
* Realism over idealism.
* Nationalism over internationalism.
* Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
* Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
* Gun ownership over gun control
* Common sense over theory or science.
* Pragmatism over principle.
* Religion over secularism.

Let's review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in his own words. Ultimately, Hitler's views are not monolithically conservative -- on a few issues, his views are complex and difficult to label. But as you will see, the vast majority of them belong on the far right:

Individualism over collectivism.

Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated the individual to the state. However, this characterization is wrong, for several reasons.

The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait. Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group.

The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If you freely belong and contribute to any group -- say, an employing business, church, club, family, nation, or cause -- then you are a collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently "liberal" or "conservative," and to claim that you are an "evil socialist" because you champion a particular group is not a serious argument.

Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or "conservative" on the basis of their individualism or collectivism. Much more important is how they approach their individualism and collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule. Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.

And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook, too, because they claim to prefer self-rule to one-person rule. But their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions that conservatives favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the patriarchal family, the business firm.

Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he raised to supreme significance in his writings. However, he did not identify the state as most people do, as a random collection of people in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German state as its racially pure stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms "Aryan race," "German culture" and "folkish state." To him they were synonyms, as the quotes below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were not part of Hitler's state, while there were Germans outside Germany (for example, in Austria) who were. But the main point is that Hitler's political philosophy was not really based on "statism" as we know it today. It was actually based on racism -- again, a subject that hits uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives, not liberals.

As Hitler himself wrote:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4)

"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which… assures the preservation of this nationality…" (5)

"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position." (6)

And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage individuals to sacrifice themselves:

"In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." (7)

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture." (8)

Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.

"All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan." (9)

"Aryan races -- often absurdly small numerically -- subject foreign peoples, and then… develop the intellectual and organizational capacities dormant within them." (10)

"If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should stop… Japan's present rise in science and technology might continue for a short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up… the present culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture." (11)

"Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline of the hybrid product…" (12)

"It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further bastardization." (13)

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood…" (14)

Eugenics over freedom of reproduction

"The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself…" (15)

"The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible: to withhold healthy children from the nation. Here the state… must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and therefore pass it on…" (16)

Merit over equality.

"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence. But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves…" (17)

"It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor." (p. 512.)

Competition over cooperation.

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." (18)

"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions." (19)

"The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself in the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle… If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won." (20)

Power politics and militarism over pacifism.

Allan Bullock, probably the world's greatest Hitler historian, sums up Hitler's political method in one sentence:

"Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of force." (21)

The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for pacifism:

"If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity [defined here by Hitler as racial solidarity] which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture." (22)

"We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." (23)

"In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism." (24)

One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.

"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." (25)

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" (26)

"By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature…" (27)

"For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards." (28)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man." (29)

"When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped from my eyes." (30)

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…" (31)

"Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy." (32)

Capitalism over Marxism.

Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism:

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." (33)

As Hitler himself would write:

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (35)

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (36)

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." (37)

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." (38)

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)

Realism over idealism.

Hitler was hardly an "idealist" in the sense that political scientists use the term. The standard definition of an idealist is someone who believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence can occur among peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world as an unstable and dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter it, then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of the greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless, Hitler had his own twisted utopia, which he described:

"We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes creep into it…" (40)

"The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades of a pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give up his life for the ideal of his nationality." (41)

Nationalism over internationalism.

"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their international poisoners are exterminated." (42)

"The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the people and the fatherland." (43)

"Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must gather its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its work will be to tear these away from the international delusion… and lead them to the national community…" (44)

Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.

"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on earth." (45)

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others." (46)

Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler's politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives on the Internet frequently equate Hitler's vegetarianism with the vegetarianism practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical treatment of animals.

Hitler's vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He became a vegetarian shortly after the death of his girlfriend and half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a stormy one, and it ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had arranged her murder, but Hitler would remain deeply distraught over her loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:

"Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to eat meat." (47)

Hitler's vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an association with his niece's death.

Gun ownership over gun control

Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if German citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-gun advocates often quote the following:

"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler

However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason for him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the ways they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of local authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who did possess weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen in this light, the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.

The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:

"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence."

On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law substantially tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 -- five years after Hitler came to power -- that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.

Common sense over theory or science.

Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:

"The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a definite field." (48)

"Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man, but it remains dead, and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The result is a man who may be a living dictionary but nevertheless falls down miserably in all special situations and decisive moments in life." (49)

"The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination, combined with the training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place comes scientific schooling." (50)

"A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed and cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to safeguard their existence on this earth." (51)

Pragmatism over principle.

"The question of the movement's inner organization is one of expediency and not of principle." (52)

Religion over secularism.

Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist, he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God, the Creator and Providence in his writings. Throughout his life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian Church and its power over the masses. Here is but one example:

"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever." (53)

Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals." (54)

Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would later press churches into the service of Nazism, often at the point of a gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state religion or mandate the basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as they did not interfere with his program, he allowed them to continue fuctioning. And this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:

"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics…" (55)

"Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties." (56)

"Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political ends." (57)

"Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other." (58)

Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still called himself a Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an atheist. It is highly doubtful that this was an intellectual decision, as a reading of his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The decision was most likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal ambition. Bullock reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these considerations worked on the young Hitler. After five years of eking out a miserable existence in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler walked into his first German Worker's Party meeting:

"'Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four people sitting around a table…' As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this very obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a party which, like himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of playing a leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established parties there was no room for him, he would be a nobody." (59)

Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like himself would have no chance of achieving power in the world-wide, 2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely for this reason that he rejected Christianity and pursued a political life instead. Yet, curiously enough, he never renounced his membership in the Catholic Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did the Church place his Mein Kampf on the Index of Prohibited Books, in spite of its knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come under intense criticism for its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A brief review of this history is instructive.

In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in favor of Hitler's Enabling Bill. This bill essentially gave Chancellor Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was seeking. Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:

"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him." (60)

As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism therefore found a receptive audience among Catholic authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler's attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: "It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler's armoured divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius himself would say after Germany conquered Poland: "Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism" -- Russia. (62)

Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the Catholic Church. Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was the Vatican diplomat who drew up the Concordat, and he considered it a triumph. In return for promises which Hitler increasingly broke, the Church dissolved all Catholic organizations in Germany, including the Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of loyalty to the Nazi regime. Clergy were to see to the pastoral care of Germany's armed forces (regardless of what those armed forces did). (63)

The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this, the German bishops gave Hitler their full and unqualified support. A bishops' conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in agreement with Hitler's case for extending Lebensraum, or German territory. (64) Bishop Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at Trier: "With our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are ready to serve it body and soul." (65) Vicar-General Steinman greeted each Berlin mass with the shout, "Heil Hitler!" (66)

Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands stormed into the few remaining Catholic institutions, beat up Catholic youths and arrested Catholic officials. The Vatican was dismayed, but it did not protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard to tell if the Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the independent Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and subordinated it to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Yet soon the Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis required of it -- for example, coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for the 1940 offensive against the West. (68) Throughout the war, the Catholic press would remain one of the Third Reich's best disseminators of propaganda.

Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally signing a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler's birthday by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to celebrate and affirm the bishops' allegiance to the Reich would become quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France, the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the churches for ten days.

But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, "Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?" (70) As perhaps the world's greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that responsibility.

The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on mutual distrust and philosophical rejection, but also shared goals, benefits, admiration, envy, friendliness, and ultimate alliance.