Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

ON ADOLPH HITLER, IN THE CONTEXT OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

Unfortunately, as a german, and man of his era, Hitler lacked the concepts and the language to state that in the spectrum from communism, to authoritarian socialism, to democratic socialism, to classical liberalism, to classical monarchism, to anarchy, that his proposition was to forcibly direct the use of proceeds from taxation to production of classical monarchic ACCUMULATIVE commons, because the left had been so successful at advocating the forcible direction of proceeds from taxation to DEPRECIATIVE consumption and hedonism, that a democratic polity could not be entrusted with discretion.

In any normative, legal, economic and political system, we have the choice of (a) how do we organize production: in the middle eastern and asian river-valley model (Authoritarian/Corporate). Or in the european forest model (Family Farms). A difference caused mainly by the methods of irrigation – by rainfall in europe, or its seasonality or scarcity in those other climates. (b) how do we distribute proceeds between the private, the common, and leadership, and (c) what is the means we use to decide how to distribute them between the private and the common and leadership.

The concentration of wealth made possible by the authoritarian river valley model (china/mesopotamia/egypt) allowed for the funding of armies, and large territorires. The privatization of wealth made necessary and possible in europe because of the impossibility of holding distributed territories compared to concentrated river valley territories.

The fact that he was acting as a classical monarchist in the interests of his people is somewhat obvious, since the classical monarchies competed for status, talent and wealth in the production of commons. Without the church to rally the people. And without the aristocracy to rally the people. He used an aesthetic idea – and a very beautiful, and successful one – to rally the people. And to restore their germanic civilization to its prior trajectory in producing the next enlightenment – an enlightenment necessary to counter the jewish counter-enlightenment produced by the french via Rousseau, then the Jews, in Boaz(vs Darwin), Marx(vs Spencer), Freud(vs Nietzsche), and the Frankfurt School in particular. The only Jewish member of their counter-enlightenment to equal the europeans was Einstein(vs Maxwell).

Unfortunately, he did not have a means of countering the Jewish counter-enlightement (pseudoscientific deceptions) with the force of law using methods of testimonial science and its demand for truthful, reciprocal, fully accounted speech, that we have today. So he had to physically remove the antagonists and their followers rather than simply silence them and prohibit them from property, public speech, and participation in goverment and industry.

Had he not engaged in warfare at the same time, and made it impossible to fund the resettlement camps he might have succeeded as the British had. He was too impatient. (I don’t pretend to understand his mind, I just assess this from my vantage point in history.). Had he eliminated the jews from Germany and relocated them as many other nations had done before, he might have helped the jews come to the realization that they must, if they desire sovereignty, obtain and hold a territory, not rest parasitically on the laboring classes of others’. And he might have saved western civilization as he intended.

But his rather dramatic failure has forced us, a century later, to achieve by TRUTH, LAW, and externality, what Hitler could not achieve by aesthetics, propaganda, physical removal, and war.

And yes. In the fight for the survival of your people and your civilization, many deaths are of no consequence. We die faster or slower. The question is not what happens to us. But the theft we make from the investments of those ancestors that came before us, and the theft we make from all those generations yet to be, if we do not kill tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, even billions in their interests.

And I am quite certain that this is a moral statement. It is moral because the only test of morality is reciprocity. And only other sovereign peoples are capable of reciprocity with sovereign people. So they can ether advance to the fully sovereign and therefore fully moral, or they can be held at bay as insufficiently moral, and if a hazard, exterminated for their immorality.

And frankly. Very few homo sapiens have been successfully domesticated sufficiently enough to think, act, exist, and evolve morally.

Ergo, there are many people in this world, but very few humans. Because to exist as a human being requires perfect reciprocity, and perfect reciprocity is only possible with truthful speech, and personal sovereignty.

Curt Doolittle

The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.