Come chat in the Paltalk room The 70-Year Hoax Continues. This room is active mainly when it is evening in the UK and eastern USA.

Also, there is the IRC channel #National-Socialism, which has existed about 12 years now. Click here to join.

20 January 2015

An Argument for Eugenic Sterilization

Below is a chapter from Margaret Sanger's 1922 book The Pivot of Civilization. From a national-socialist perspective it has some shortcomings, including (1) its disregard for race and (2) its complaint against aid to the poor (since widespread poverty is an inevitable effect of capitalism and in many cases not an indicator of hereditary inferiority), and (3) its opposition to encouraging the genetically more desirable elements to have more children. (Sanger, the 6th of 11 children, produced 3 children herself, which is at least greater than the 2.1 needed for replacement.) Nonetheless Sanger here makes a strong argument for sterilization of the feeble-minded.

It is interesting to note the degree to which Margaret Sanger's statements here reflect what seem to be the views of many present-day conservative Republicans. She says that "there is a point ... when charity is converted into injustice to the self-supporting citizen." That was an aspect of the problem that was emphasized in publicity for forced sterilization in Germany, to make the individual German realize that he had a personal stake in supporting sterilization of the feeble-minded and the congenitally ill.

American conservatives today of course do not have the courage to advocate any pro-active solution to the problem; instead they complain about "big government" with the hope that enough agitation of this sort might someday force an end to the support for dysgenic breeding. They fail to recognize that the likelihood that imbecilic single mothers with imbecilic children will be left to starve while the government still has (or can arrange) the ability to save them is about zero. Such a spectacle is simply too unpleasant to be tolerated. This problem of dysgenic breeding is therefore one that will be addressed directly, or ultimately -- if the courage to speak openly about the matter is not mustered -- not at all. 





The Fertility of the Feeble-Minded
by Margaret Sanger


What vesture have you woven for my year? 
O Man and Woman who have fashioned it 
Together, is it fine and clean and strong, 
Made in such reverence of holy joy, 
Of such unsullied substance, that your hearts 
Leap with glad awe to see it clothing me, 
The glory of whose nakedness you know? 
"The Song of the Unborn" by Amelia Josephine Burr

There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble-minded. That is, as the best authorities are agreed, to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants. Feeble-mindedness as investigations and statistics from every country indicate, is invariably associated with an abnormally high rate of fertility. Modern conditions of civilization, as we are continually being reminded, furnish the most favorable breeding-ground for the mental defective, the moron, the imbecile. "We protect the members of a weak strain," says Davenport, "up to the period of reproduction, and then let them free upon the community, and encourage them to leave a large progeny of 'feeble-minded': which in turn, protected from mortality and carefully nurtured up to the reproductive period, are again set free to reproduce, and so the stupid work goes on of preserving and increasing our socially unfit strains."

The philosophy of Birth Control points out that as long as civilized communities encourage unrestrained fecundity in the "normal" members of the population—always of course under the cloak of decency and morality—and penalize every attempt to introduce the principle of discrimination and responsibility in parenthood, they will be faced with the ever-increasing problem of feeble-mindedness, that fertile parent of degeneracy, crime, and pauperism. Small as the percentage of the imbecile and half-witted may seem in comparison with the normal members of the community, it should always be remembered that feeble-mindedness is not an unrelated expression of modern civilization. Its roots strike deep into the social fabric. Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect, are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next. There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations—unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities.

The curious situation has come about that while our statesmen are busy upon their propaganda of "repopulation," and are encouraging the production of large families, they are ignoring the exigent problem of the elimination of the feeble-minded. In this, however, the politicians are at one with the traditions of a civilization which, with its charities and philanthropies, has propped up the defective and degenerate and relieved them of the burdens borne by the healthy sections of the community, thus enabling them more easily and more numerously to propagate their kind. "With the very highest motives," declares Dr. Walter E. Fernald, "modern philanthropic efforts often tend to foster and increase the growth of defect in the community. . . . The only feeble-minded persons who now receive any official consideration are those who have already become dependent or delinquent, many of whom have already become parents. We lock the barn-door after the horse is stolen. We now have state commissions for controlling the gipsy-moth and the boll weevil, the foot-and-mouth disease, and for protecting the shell-fish and wild game, but we have no commission which even attempts to modify or to control the vast moral and economic forces represented by the feeble-minded persons at large in the community."

How the feeble-minded and their always numerous progeny run the gamut of police, alms-houses, courts, penal institutions, "charities and corrections," tramp shelters, lying-in hospitals, and relief afforded by privately endowed religious and social agencies, is shown in any number of reports and studies of family histories. We find cases of feeble-mindedness and mental defect in the reports on infant mortality referred to in a previous chapter, as well as in other reports published by the United States government. 

Here is a typical case showing the astonishing ability to "increase and multiply," organically bound up with delinquency and defect of various types: "The parents of a feeble-minded girl, twenty years of age, who was committed to the Kansas State Industrial Farm on a vagrancy charge, lived in a thickly populated Negro district which was reported by the police to be the headquarters for the criminal element of the surrounding State. . . . The mother married at fourteen, and her first child was born at fifteen. In rapid succession she gave birth to sixteen live-born children and had one miscarriage. The first child, a girl, married but separated from her husband. . . . The fourth, fifth and sixth, all girls, died in infancy or early childhood. The seventh, a girl, remarried after the death of her husband, from whom she had been separated. The eighth, a boy who early in life began to exhibit criminal tendencies, was in prison for highway robbery and burglary. The ninth, a girl, normal mentally, was in quarantine at the Kansas State Industrial Farm at the time this study was made; she had lived with a man as his common-law wife, and had also been arrested several times for soliciting. The tenth, a boy, was involved in several delinquencies when young and was sent to the detention-house but did not remain there long. The eleventh, a boy ... at the age of seventeen was sentenced to the penitentiary for twenty years on a charge of first-degree robbery; after serving a portion of his time, he was paroled, and later was shot and killed in a fight. The twelfth, a boy, was at fifteen years of age implicated in a murder and sent to the industrial school, but escaped from there on a bicycle which he had stolen; at eighteen, he was shot and killed by a woman. The thirteenth child, feeble-minded, is the girl of the study. The fourteenth, a boy was considered by the police to be the best member of the family; his mother reported him to be much slower mentally than his sister just mentioned; he had been arrested several times. Once, he was held in the detention-home and once sent to the State Industrial school; at other times, he was placed on probation. The fifteenth, a girl sixteen years old, has for a long time had a bad reputation. Subsequent to the commitment of her sister to the Kansas State Industrial Farm, she was arrested on a charge of vagrancy, found to be syphilitic, and quarantined in a state other than Kansas. At the time of her arrest, she stated that prostitution was her occupation. The last child was a boy of thirteen years whose history was not secured. . . ."1

The notorious fecundity of feeble-minded women is emphasized in studies and investigations of the problem, coming from all countries "The feeble-minded woman is twice as prolific as the normal one." Sir James Crichton-Browne speaks of the great numbers of feeble-minded girls, wholly unfit to become mothers, who return to the work-house year after year to bear children, "many of whom happily die, but some of whom survive to recruit our idiot establishments and to repeat their mothers' performances." Tredgold points out that the number of children born to the feeble-minded is abnormally high. Feeble-minded women "constitute a permanent menace to the race and one which becomes serious at a time when the decline of the birth-rate is . . . unmistakable." Dr. Tredgold points out that "the average number of children born in a family is four, whereas in these degenerate families, we find an average of 7.3 to each. Out of this total only a little more than one-third—456 out of a total of 1,269 children—can be considered profitable members of the community, and that, be it remembered, at the parents' valuation.

Another significant point is the number of mentally defective children who survive. "Out of the total number of 526 mentally affected persons in the 150 families, there are 245 in the present generation—an unusually large survival." 2

Speaking for Bradford, England, Dr. Helen U. Campbell touches another significant and interesting point usually neglected by the advocates of mothers' pensions, milk-stations, and maternity-education programs. "We are also confronted with the problem of the actually mentally deficient, of the more or less feeble-minded, and the deranged, epileptic ... or otherwise mentally abnormal mother," writes this authority. "The 'bad mothering' of these cases is quite unimprovable at an infant welfare center, and a very definite if not relatively very large percentage of our infants are suffering severely as a result of dependence upon such 'mothering.'" 3

Thus we are brought face to face with another problem of infant mortality. Are we to check the infant mortality rate among the feeble-minded and aid the unfortunate offspring to grow up, a menace to the civilized community even when not actually certifiable as mentally defective or not obviously imbecile?

Other figures and studies indicate the close relationship between feeble-mindedness and the spread of the venereal scourges. We are informed that in Michigan, 75% of the prostitute class is infected with some form of venereal disease, and that 75% of the infected are mentally defective—morons, imbeciles, or "border-line" cases most dangerous to the community at large. At least 25% of the inmates of our prisons, according to Dr. Fernald, are mentally defective and belong either to the feeble-minded or to the defective-delinquent class. Nearly 50% of the girls sent to reformatories are mental defectives. Today, society treats feeble-minded or "defective delinquent" men or women as "criminals," sentences them to prison or reformatory for a "term," and then releases them at the expiration of their sentences. They are usually at liberty just long enough to reproduce their kind, and then they return again and again to prison. The truth of this statement is evident from the extremely large proportion in institutions of neglected and dependent children, who are the feeble-minded offspring of such feeble-minded parents.

Confronted with these shocking truths about the menace of feeble-mindedness to the race, a menace acute because of the unceasing and unrestrained fertility of such defectives, we are apt to become the victims of a "wild panic for instant action." There is no occasion for hysterical, ill-considered action, specialists tell us. They direct our attention to another phase of the problem, that of the so-called "good feeble-minded." We are informed that imbecility, in itself, is not synonymous with badness. If it is fostered in a "suitable environment," it may express itself in terms of good citizenship and useful occupation. It may thus be transmuted into a docile, tractable, and peaceable element of the community. The moron and the feeble-minded, thus protected, so we are assured, may even marry some brighter member of the community, and thus lessen the chances of procreating another generation of imbeciles. We read further that some of our doctors believe that "in our social scale, there is a place for the good feeble-minded."

In such a reckless and thoughtless differentiation between the "bad" and the "good" feeble-minded, we find new evidence of the conventional middle-class bias that also finds expression among some of the eugenists. We do not object to feeble-mindedness simply because it leads to immorality and criminality; nor can we approve of it when it expresses itself in docility, submissiveness and obedience. We object because both are burdens and dangers to the intelligence of the community. As a matter of fact, there is sufficient evidence to lead us to believe that the so-called "borderline cases" are a greater menace than the out-and-out "defective delinquents" who can be supervised, controlled and prevented from procreating their kind. The advent of the Binet-Simon [intelligence test] and similar psychological tests indicates that the mental defective who is glib and plausible, bright looking and attractive, but with a mental vision of seven, eight or nine years, may not merely lower the whole level of intelligence in a school or in a society, but may be encouraged by church and state to increase and multiply until he dominates and gives the prevailing "color"—culturally speaking—to an entire community.

The presence in the public schools of the mentally defective children of men and women who should never have been parents is a problem that is becoming more and more difficult, and is one of the chief reasons for lower educational standards. As one of the greatest living authorities on the subject, Dr. A. Tredgold, has pointed out,4 this has created a destructive conflict of purpose. "In the case of children with a low intellectual capacity, much of the education at present provided is for all practical purposes a complete waste of time, money and patience. . . . On the other hand, for children of high intellectual capacity, our present system does not go far enough. I believe that much innate potentiality remains undeveloped, even amongst the working classes, owing to the absence of opportunity for higher education, to the disadvantage of the nation. In consequence of these fundamental differences, the catchword 'equality of opportunity' is meaningless and mere claptrap in the absence of any equality to respond to such opportunity. What is wanted is not equality of opportunity, but education adapted to individual potentiality; and if the time and money now spent in the fruitless attempt to make silk-purses out of sows' ears, were devoted to the higher education of children of good natural capacity, it would contribute enormously to national efficiency."

In a much more complex manner than has been recognized even by students of this problem, the destiny and the progress of civilization and of human expression has been hindered and held back by this burden of the imbecile and the moron. While we may admire the patience and the deep human sympathy with which the great specialists in feeble-mindedness have expressed the hope of drying up the sources of this evil or of rendering it harmless, we should not permit sympathy or sentimentality to blind us to the fact that health and vitality and human growth likewise need cultivation. "A laisser faire policy," writes one investigator, "simply allows the social sore to spread. And a quasi laisser faire policy wherein we allow the defective to commit crime and then interfere and imprison him, wherein we grant the defective the personal liberty to do as he pleases, until he pleases to descend to a plane of living below the animal level, and try to care for a few of his descendants who are so helpless that they can no longer exercise that personal liberty to do as they please,"—such a policy increases and multiplies the dangers of the over-fertile feeble-minded.5

The Mental Survey of the State of Oregon recently published by the United States Health Service, sets an excellent example and should be followed by every state in the Union and every civilized country as well. It is greatly to the credit of the western state that it is one of the first officially to recognize the primary importance of this problem and to realize that facts, no matter how fatal to self-satisfaction, must be faced. This survey, authorized by the state legislature, and carried out by the University of Oregon, in collaboration with Dr. C. L. Carlisle of the Public Health service, aided by a large number of volunteers, shows that only a small percentage of mental defectives and morons are in the care of institutions. The rest are widely scattered and their condition unknown or neglected. They are docile and submissive. They do not attract attention to themselves as do the criminal delinquents and the insane. Nevertheless, it is estimated that they number no less than 75,000 men, women, and children, out of a total population of 783,000, or about 10%. Oregon, it is thought, is no exception to other states. Yet under our present conditions, these people are actually encouraged to increase and multiply and replenish the earth.

Concerning the importance of the Oregon survey, we may quote Surgeon General H. C. Cumming: "The prevention and correction of mental defectiveness is one of the great public health problems of today. It enters into many phases of our work and its influence continually crops up unexpectedly. For instance, work of the Public Health Service in connection with juvenile courts shows that a marked proportion of juvenile delinquency is traceable to some degree of mental deficiency in the offender. For years Public Health officials have concerned themselves only with the disorders of physical health; but now they are realizing the significance of mental health also. The work in Oregon constitutes the first state-wide survey which even begins to disclose the enormous drain on a state, caused by mental defects. One of the objects of the work was to obtain for the people of Oregon an idea of the problem that confronted them and the heavy annual loss, both economic and industrial, that it entailed. Another was to enable the legislators to devise a program that would stop much of the loss, restore to health and bring to lives of industrial usefulness, many of those now down and out, and above all, to save hundreds of children from growing up to lives of misery."

It will be interesting to see how many of our State Legislatures have the intelligence and the courage to follow in the footsteps of Oregon in this respect. Nothing could more effectually stimulate discussion, and awaken intelligence as to the extravagance and cost to the community of our present codes of traditional morality. But we should make sure in all such surveys, that mental defect is not concealed even in such dignified bodies as state legislatures and among those leaders who are urging men and women to reckless and irresponsible procreation.

I have touched upon these various aspects of the complex problem of the feeble-minded, and the menace of the moron to human society, not merely for the purpose of reiterating that it is one of the greatest and most difficult social problems of modern times, demanding an immediate, stern and definite policy, but because it illustrates the actual harvest of reliance upon traditional morality, upon the biblical injunction to increase and multiply, a policy still taught by politician, priest and militarist. Motherhood has been held universally sacred; yet, as Bouchacourt pointed out, "today, the dregs of the human species, the blind, the deaf-mute, the degenerate, the nervous, the vicious, the idiotic, the imbecile, the cretins and the epileptics—are better protected than pregnant women." The syphilitic, the irresponsible, the feeble-minded are encouraged to breed unhindered, while all the powerful forces of tradition, of custom, or prejudice, have bolstered up the desperate effort to block the inevitable influence of true civilization in spreading the principles of independence, self-reliance, discrimination and foresight upon which the great practice of intelligent parenthood is based.

Today we are confronted by the results of this official policy. There is no escaping it; there is no explaining it away. Surely it is an amazing and discouraging phenomenon that the very governments that have seen fit to interfere in practically every phase of the normal citizen's life, dare not attempt to restrain, either by force or persuasion, the moron and the imbecile from producing his large family of feeble-minded offspring.

In my own experience, I recall vividly the case of a feeble-minded girl who every year, for a long period, received the expert attention of a great specialist in one of the best-known maternity hospitals of New York City. The great obstetrician, for the benefit of interns and medical students, performed each year a Caesarian operation upon this unfortunate creature to bring into the world her defective, and, in one case at least, her syphilitic, infant. "Nelly" was then sent to a special room and placed under the care of a day nurse and a night nurse, with extra and special nourishment provided. Each year she returned to the hospital. Such cases are not exceptions; any experienced doctor or nurse can recount similar stories. 

In the interest of medical science this practice may be justified. I am not criticizing it from that point of view. I realize as well as the most conservative moralist that humanity requires that healthy members of the race should make certain sacrifices to preserve from death those unfortunates who are born with hereditary taints. But there is a point at which philanthropy may become positively dysgenic, when charity is converted into injustice to the self-supporting citizen, into positive injury to the future of the race. Such a point, it seems obvious, is reached when the incurably defective are permitted to procreate and thus increase their numbers. 

The problem of the dependent, delinquent and defective elements in modern society, we must repeat, cannot be minimized because of their alleged small numerical proportion to the rest of the population. The proportion seems small only because we accustom ourselves to the habit of looking upon feeble-mindedness as a separate and distinct calamity to the race, as a chance phenomenon unrelated to the sexual and biological customs not only condoned but even encouraged by our so-called civilization. The actual dangers can only be fully realized when we have acquired definite information concerning the financial and cultural cost of these classes to the community, when we become fully cognizant of the burden of the imbecile upon the whole human race; when we see the funds that should be available for human development, for scientific, artistic and philosophic research, being diverted annually, by hundreds of millions of dollars, to the care and segregation of men, women, and children who never should have been born. 

The advocate of Birth Control realizes as well as all intelligent thinkers the dangers of interfering with personal liberty. Our whole philosophy is, in fact, based upon the fundamental assumption that man is a self-conscious, self-governing creature, that he should not be treated as a domestic animal; that he must be left free, at least within certain wide limits, to follow his own wishes in the matter of mating and in the procreation of children. Nor do we believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.

But modern society, which has respected the personal liberty of the individual only in regard to the unrestricted and irresponsible bringing into the world of filth and poverty an overcrowding procession of infants foredoomed to death or hereditable disease, is now confronted with the problem of protecting itself and its future generations against the inevitable consequences of this long-practiced policy of laisser faire.

The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

This, I say, is an emergency measure. But how are we to prevent the repetition in the future of a new harvest of imbecility, the recurrence of new generations of morons and defectives, as the logical and inevitable consequence of the universal application of the traditional and widely approved command to increase and multiply?

At the present moment, we are offered three distinct and more or less mutually exclusive policies by which civilization may hope to protect itself and the generations of the future from the allied dangers of imbecility, defect and delinquency. No one can understand the necessity for Birth Control education without a complete comprehension of the dangers, the inadequacies, or the limitations of the present attempts at control, or the proposed programs for social reconstruction and racial regeneration. It is, therefore, necessary to interpret and criticize the three programs offered to meet our emergency. These may be briefly summarized as follows:

(1) Philanthropy and Charity: This is the present and traditional method of meeting the problems of human defect and dependence, of poverty and delinquency. It is emotional, altruistic, at best ameliorative, aiming to meet the individual situation as it arises and presents itself. Its effect in practise is seldom, if ever, truly preventive. Concerned with symptoms, with the allaying of acute and catastrophic miseries, it cannot, if it would, strike at the radical causes of social misery. At its worst, it is sentimental and paternalistic.

(2) Marxian Socialism: This may be considered typical of many widely varying schemes of more or less revolutionary social reconstruction, emphasizing the primary importance of environment, education, equal opportunity, and health, in the elimination of the conditions (i. e. capitalistic control of industry) which have resulted in biological chaos and human waste. I shall attempt to show that the Marxian doctrine is both too limited, too superficial and too fragmentary in its basic analysis of human nature and in its program of revolutionary reconstruction.

(3) Eugenics: Eugenics seems to me to be valuable in its critical and diagnostic aspects, in emphasizing the danger of irresponsible and uncontrolled fertility of the "unfit" and the feeble-minded establishing a progressive unbalance in human society and lowering the birth-rate among the "fit." But in its so-called "constructive" aspect, in seeking to reestablish the dominance of healthy strain over the unhealthy, by urging an increased birth-rate among the fit, the Eugenists really offer nothing more farsighted than a "cradle competition" between the fit and the unfit. They suggest in very truth, that all intelligent and respectable parents should take as their example in this grave matter of child-bearing the most irresponsible elements in the community.
_____________________________ 
1. United States Public Health Service: Psychiatric Studies of Delinquents. Reprint No. 598: pp. 64-65. 
2. The Problem of the Feeble-minded: An Abstract of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Cure and Control of the Feeble-Minded, London: P. S. King & Son. 
3. Cf. Feeble-Minded in Ontario: Fourteenth Report for the year ending October 31st, 1919
4. Eugenics Review, Vol. XIII, p. 339 et seq. 
5. Dwellers in the Vale of Siddem: A True Story of the Social Aspect of Feeble-mindedness. By A. C. Rogers and Maud A. Merrill; Boston (1919).

19 January 2015

The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism, by Otto Dietrich -- Part 2

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015

[The Untenability of Individualistic Philosophy]

If philosophy aspires to gather all the contents of the world's happening into a single point that can adequately explain the whole multifariousness of that happening, then the basic duality of spirit and matter -- or whatever else one wishes to call it -- certainly stands as an obstacle. The principal attempts at a solution --  incorporating one of these poles into the other, or rather showing that one is derived from the other, so as to accomplish the oneness of the universe -- dominate the history of philosophy.

Disregarding for now the philosophy of religion and its metaphysical orientation, we can classify the great philosophical systems before Kant formally into these two mental tendencies. Rationalism and sensualism select one of the powers of knowing, ratiocination (Verstand) or perception (Sinnlichkeit), as the means to establish the character of the objective world.

Kant was the first who overcame this contradiction in philosophical thought and tried to resolve it in a higher unity. For him the crucial prerequisite for knowledge of the world is neither syllogistic thought (das logisch-begriffliche Denken) alone, nor sense-perception (Wahrnehmung) alone, but the total power of comprehension (der gesamte Intellekt). The totality of consciousness, as a combination of both, constitutes experience (Erfahrung) -- the unconditional validity of which he indeed presupposes. Since ratiocination is the sum of the pure forms whereby we are able to think at all, it is for him the precondition of what, with the help of sense-perceptions, becomes experience. And since for him things must first be broken, so to speak, through the medium of the soul before becoming knowledge for man, it was possible to say in Kant's sense: "The world is my idea." While Kant arrives by way of epistemology at the insight that only the "unity of consciousness" makes knowledge possible, and that this however limits to ideas (Vorstellungen) and shows that the absolute, the "thing in itself," is incomprehensible to our mind, Goethe for example, from an entirely different, more artistic approach, achieves a similar synthesis. "If you want to find yourself in the infinite, you must differentiate and then combine." He makes the concept of life felt as whole, as totality, into the point of origin for knowledge. With that the course has been set for a philosophy of life, and of course it was on the broader expanses of that territory that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche created their immortal works. Certainly they all unify it, although on a higher level, back into that underlying phenomenon  [i.e. consciousness], from whose inexplicability philosophy began.

From yet another perspective however, it is possible to take a cross-section through philosophical thought. Faced with the manifoldness of phenomena, with the infinity of Being (Sein), the human mind can penetrate only by separating it into form and content. While on the one hand the idea that something persists amid all that changes allows formless substance to grow into the totality of Being, on the other hand the attempt to make contentless form, the very thing that changes in all that persists, into the highest principle of the universe, is also found everywhere in the history of philosophy. The "philosophy of Being" found its most decisive expression in Spinoza's "Substantia sive deus." In Hegel's "self-movement of the idea" the philosophy of Becoming reached its zenith in close association with the idea of evolution.

We see from the history of philosophical thought, from whichever perspective we ourselves always contemplate it,  that the contradictoriness of the world's contents also encompasses all attempts by the philosophical mind to master it. The philosophical striving for the ultimate scientific unity, for conceptual completion of positive knowledge, to a closed mental picture of Being, has remained in the final analysis unsatisfied to this day. Metaphysics, the appeal to the unprovable, has always been its last word. Even the so-called phenomenological philosophy has not so far convinced us to the contrary, since it can show no positive results whatsoever.

Thus the history of philosophy so far seems itself to affirm that the ultimate absolute truth is an ideal toward which cognition strives as a distant enticing light, a direction-sign pointing out of the darkness into the bright light and leading to humanity's relentless scientific progress. We are far from advocating any philosophical pessimism. That is because value and meaning, which these philosophical systems for the development of the human spirit have had, remain unaffected by the temporal limitedness of their cognitions.  Like life itself, scientific knowledge is found in constant flux. And as Fichte's saying, "What kind of philosophy one would choose depends on what kind of human being one is," has meaning even today, so too will the philosophical thought of an epoch always reflect the spirit of that time.

If for that reason we seek the position of the philosophical thought of the present, the task is  facilitated in no small degree by the fact that the philosophers of the world met a few weeks ago at the 8th International Philosophers' Congress in Prague. What became apparent before all the world at this congress, which was attended by more than 600 philosophers from 21 countries, was nothing other than the crisis of philosophy in our age, as of course had quite long ago ceased to be a secret to philosophical contemporaries. It would be of only slight value for the purpose of these explanations to go into the details of the disputes at the Prague congress; we shall in due course have opportunity to touch on some ideas. The net result of this philosophical discussion in any case consists not at all in positive solutions of a particular kind, but on the contrary, precisely in the absence of large and consistent perspectives of any kind. Even shifting the main theme to the field of the modern doctrine of the state by passionately debating the problem, "the crisis of democracy," could not obscure this impression, but only strengthened it further. The outcome finds perhaps its best expression in the lecture that the philosopher Edmund Husserl delivered to the congress, wherein he argued that philosophy today is in danger of dying out. 

Skepticism, horizons of unclarity (Unklarheitshorizonte), and disunity of the philosophical discipline are indications of it, he said. The few still genuine philosophers are united only in their ethos. The question of what actually is (die Frage nach dem Seienden) must be posed radically anew. Only then, Husserl concluded, will philosophy be able to come together again in communal creating.

With that, the international forum of philosophers was told by someone from its own ranks what the philosophical consciousness of our age quite universally is really driving at: the question of what actually is must be posed radically anew in an age wherein the mind presently confronts such a fundamentally new configuration of social life. We live today at the intersection of two epochs, the changing and transition of which were unleashed by the World War and by the socialist and nationalist revolutions in its wake. Is it amazing, or isn't it entirely natural, that this transition, wherein the old collapses and the new is not yet ready, precipitates also an intellectual revaluation, a crisis of the mind and of philosophical thought as we see it today? For us this crisis would only warrant a skepticism if we felt ourselves shackled to the downfall of what was. But the fact that today everywhere in the world the old still struggles with the new does not absolve us, in whom the new has already taken shape, from the necessity of carrying it forward also intellectually, as standard-bearers of a new age.

If the intellectual picture of the world as most philosophers of the past have seen it and investigated it is reduced to a starting-point shared by all, to a common denominator, it has been individualism, to which almost all were subject in their thinking. "Man is the measure of all things." Man as "unity of mind and matter," as "unity of subject and object," as "the beginning and end of all philosophy." The individual was for the philosophy of all ages the point of reference of all knowledge whatsoever. The uniquely indisputable thing, the stationary pole amid the flight of phenomena -- unless an easier way of thinking preferred also to dissolve this awkward-to-bear earthly remnant in the aether of an exclusive principle. Individualism was, to put it in Kant's terminology, the category of philosophical thought in general. What could be more obvious than the fact that the crisis of individualism that we experience today must also be the crisis of individualistic philosophy! And as life itself orients itself anew, forward from the worship of the individual and onward to the community, the same must be expected of intellectual life in general and of philosophy in particular, if it is supposed to acquire new life. That is no cheap assertion, but a reference to the fundamental situation.

Individualistic thought proceeds from individual consciousness as the only given fact, and makes it sovereign over the world. With this sovereignty of the individualistic spirit over the world, philosophy is given a practically boundless arena for metaphysical speculation. To arrive at knowledge of the world through philosophy: an enticing prospect that always has and always will attract the best minds. But all individualistic philosophy ends -- as history shows us -- in unprovables. It cannot grasp what the whole of life precisely is; only where individualism establishes assumptions and boundaries for knowledge does it arrive at practical, positive cognitions. For individualism, the identity of the subject with the object, as in consciousness of oneself, comes to light in the self-knowledge of the individual, the ultimate ... inexplicable thing. This unity of the knower with the known, which can be traced no further, remains for individualism the miracle, the "node of the world" as even a Schopenhauer must confess. And Kant's ingenious individualistic theory of knowledge that limits the world of experiences to ideas, ends in the postulate of practical reason (praktische Vernunft) -- in the moral law of the community. Individualistic philosophy, which was elaborated in order to arrive at ultimate knowledge of the world, thus, at the end of its journey, sees itself faced with the community, and finds its practical cognitions for the first time where universal thought begins. With that we have reached a crucial point in our observations.


Part Three Not Yet Published

06 January 2015

The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism, by Otto Dietrich -- Part 1

Here is the first installment in a serialized translation of Die philosophischen Grundlagen des Nationalsozialismus: ein Ruf zu den Waffen deutschen Geistes by Dr. Otto Dietrich, Reichspressechef of the NSDAP, 1934.

The fact that I have translated  this handy presentation from 1934 should not be construed as an endorsement of any statement made by Dietrich after the war, when he was a prisoner of the victorious powers, circumstances under which a number of men were pressured to make statements confirming the propaganda of the victors. On the contrary, part of the purpose here is to show what Dietrich had to say about National-Socialism was when he was a free man.






The Philosophical Foundations of National-Socialism: 
A Call to Arms of the German Mind
a lecture delivered at the University of Koeln, 16 November 1934 
by 
Dr. Otto Dietrich
 national press-director of the NSDAP

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015


[Preamble]

We in Germany know what National-Socialism is -- because we live it! With justification it has been said that National-Socialism's work is not an abstract ideological construction, but a volume of experience  that has grown out of the solidarity of blood and out of the community of the people, and corresponds to our own innermost essence. We Germans, and above all those who did not themselves come directly from the domain of our National-Socialist thought, comprehend National-Socialism by experiencing it day by day in all its manifestations and effects within the National-Socialist community of the people. And even the Germans beyond our borders can feel National-Socialism due to their inner blood-bond with us. But if we place value on making National-Socialism comprehensible to other nations that live in another world of emotions and ideas, and awakening understanding for it, then we must share our ideas in a form that they understand. We must express National-Socialism's ideas and spiritual laws of life in a language that allows the union of the new with the old, of the inner world with the outer.

This field of scholarly activity is important; it is urgent. That is because the absence of such a clearly thought-out, distinct form, I might say the lack hitherto of such an internationally understandable intellectual language of National-Socialism, not only contains the source of many errors and misunderstandings, but robs us of the possibility to oppose malevolent broadsides and slanders with the weapons of the mind. And that applies not only to the rest of the world, but also to a part of our own intellectual and scholarly world. Indeed, sensing this, Alfred Rosenberg, the party's commissioner, also recently called for a stronger intellectual affirmation of our worldview. "After gaining power" -- as he explained -- "the National-Socialist movement must be more concerned than ever about affirming its worldview, so that the unity of thought and action may be guaranteed not only for today but for all coming generations."

We National-Socialists so far have been too busy domestically to be able to devote ourselves to the scholarly refinement of our worldview. Unlike others, we have proceeded according to the principle of first arranging practical life in accord with our worldview, and then proving its viability, before perfecting its design in the realm of scholarship. But now it is time to reveal the spirit of the new Germany, which has been actualized in the feeling and will of its folk-comrades, also as a confirmed doctrine. And laying a philosophical foundation seems to me one of the most important and indispensable prerequisites for that. And in service to this mission, I want to make a contribution. Not as a philosopher, but as a National-Socialist who is no stranger to the field of philosophy. I might add, by the way, that it is not the point of my explanations to state claims that are supposed to be accepted as true only because they encounter no contradiction. On the contrary, I place special value on keeping myself within the confines of an exclusively scholarly demonstration. And for that I must first back up a bit.

27 November 2014

Rush Limbaugh and the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock

On 26 November 2014, Rush Limbaugh ended his daily three-hour show with a parable about the Pilgrims who legendarily inaugurated the American holiday known as Thanksgiving. He read about it from his book See I Told You So.

What the Pilgrims originally established, says Limbaugh, was a commune, with all property and all production shared equally by all, without regard for whether one individual had been more productive than another. Limbaugh points out that this communism failed, understandably, because there was no individual incentive to work and produce.

As a solution to this problem, Limbaugh tells us, the land that had been held in common was divided into plots, and each family given a plot to till and harvest. This system produced such an overabundance of food that they ended up giving some of it away to the local savages.

Where Limbaugh goes wrong is in calling this latter arrangement capitalism.

Making sure that everybody has property is not capitalism. It conforms to the economic doctrine known as distributism. Distributism is an important ideal in National-Socialism, Fascism, and also Catholic social doctrine. Limbaugh has hammered a square peg into a round hole by calling the Pilgrims' economy "capitalist."

Under capitalism, instead of a plot being assigned to each family, the Pilgrims would have been expected to borrow money to buy land. Due to differences in credit, some would have been able to buy more land than others, and some would have gotten none. The ones who could not get any land would have had to seek employment with the ones who did. Then, of those who had been able to buy land, it is certain that with excessive production of food -- which drives down the price -- some would not bring in enough money to cover the interest on the loans, and they would lose their land, so that they too would then have to seek employment. In the end, under capitalism, unemployment would have forced many of the Pilgrims to find new farmland in less desirable locations outside of the colony, where they could produce for themselves and survive, while within the colony a small minority of capitalist Pilgrims would have owned most of the land, probably forming a trust among themselves to make sure that they would not overproduce food and drive the price too low.


That's a typical representation of how capitalism works out.  It is not at all like having a central authority allocate adequate means of production for each family to be self-sufficient. Capitalism, while preaching self-reliance as a virtue, differs from distributism in that it gives no assurance that the majority will have the means to achieve it. In fact, the inherent tendency of unregulated capitalism is to drive the majority to poverty and dependence.

I wrote to Limbaugh immediately after his show, informing him that the ideal economy that he had described was not capitalism but distributism, and supplying a link to an entry in an online encyclopaedia that explains the doctrine. Will he take note of the correction? Most likely not.

03 November 2014

Jewish Terrorism against Britain during World War II



This report from 1944 is interesting for several reasons: (1) it shows Jews as terrorists, which may be important in case anyone believes that only Muslims can be terrorists; (2) it shows Jews stabbing Britain in the back even while Britain is fighting a self-destructive war for the Jews' benefit; (3) it is one of many illustrations of how well Jews function as criminal conspirators, committing many acts of terrorism simultaneously in what is obviously a large organization (the Stern Gang).

This report of bombings is just a small sample of the terrorism perpetrated by Jews.

Among the terrorists were future politicians of the State of Israel. Future Prime Minister Menachem Begin is shown in the wanted poster below.*



This report from the Jewish Telegraph Agency emphasizes, in the parts not shown below, that some Jewish leaders and organizations condemned the terrorism. That might impress a reader who lacks a broader perspective on the matter, but when those terrorists go on to have successful political careers in the Jewish State, the pretense that they represent only a tiny fringe wears thin.




Palestine Quiet following Blasting of Police Station by Terrorists
By Victor M. Bienstock
[31 March 1944]


Jerusalem (JTA) -- Palestine was quiet this week -- on the eve of March 31, the date when the White Paper ban on immigration goes into effect -- after a week-end marked by explosions in police stations in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jaffa, and gun battles between police and Jewish terrorists.

[...]

The most spectacular of the series of blasts set off by the terrorists occurred in the heart of Jerusalem. The city's shopping district looks like London during the height of the Blitz. Within a radius of 200 yards from the Russian Compound, a section in the center of the city, hardly a plate glass window was left intact. Shop signs had been blasted away, several stores were completely gutted, and the streets were covered with a blanket of shattered glass.

[...]

The raid on the police headquarters in Jerusalem was the most daring operation undertaken by the terrorists, whom the authorities identified as members of the "Stern Gang," which is fighting for the abrogation of the White Paper and for free Jewish immigration to Palestine. The terrorists, wearing police uniforms, gained access to the building through a ladder. They killed a senior police officer who was on duty and who attempted to resist them, and they placed the bombs which subsequently exploded, wrecking the building and rattling the windows in the centre of the city for a mile around.

In Haifa, the bombs exploded in the local police headquarters about the same hour when the explosions took place in Jerusalem. In Jaffa four sacks of gelegnite were found stacked up against the wall of the local police headquarters, which were immediately evacuated. Later, however, a series of explosions wrecked three floors in the southern end of the building. A police patrol challenged three suspects who opened fire, wounding one constable. Two of the suspects are believed to have been wounded.

In Tel Aviv, the bombing of the police station was preceded by a series of attacks against British police officers, which resulted in the fatal shooting of one. Two others were critically wounded. The attacks took place in different sections of Tel Aviv within the same half-hour. [Jewish Telegraph Agency, 31 March 1944
_________________________
* According to Walter Sanning, The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, Menachem Begin was one of many Jews that the Soviet Union had evacuated from eastern Poland ahead of the German advance in 1941. Begin was then trained by the USSR in guerrilla techniques, with the idea that he would go back to Poland to fight the Germans -- but as a Zionist Jew, he had his own agenda: he made his way to Palestine to fight the British instead.

14 October 2014

Matt Koehl, 1935-2014

Matt Koehl
The web-site of Matt Koehl's organization, New Order, reports that he passed away during the night of 9-10 October 2014.

Matthias Koehl, Jr. was born in Milwaukee, the son of ethnic German parents (his father an immigrant from Hungary). Although his family seems to have been devoutly Christian (his mother being a Sunday-school teacher and his siblings both having Biblical names) he stopped attending church at age 16. As a young man he was involved with the National Renaissance Party, then the National States' Rights Party, before joining George Lincoln Rockwell's organization in 1960. He became the leader of the Chicago unit, then was transferred to headquarters in Arlington, where he was Rockwell's research-director. It was Koehl who uncovered the fact that some ostensible images of gassed Jews really showed German victims of Allied bombing, as Rockwell indicated in his interview for Playboy in 1966. Koehl was then appointed Deputy-Commander, and upon Rockwell's death in 1967 Koehl assumed the position of Commander of the National-Socialist White People's Party, but was openly diffident about being able to fill Rockwell's shoes: "I don't know of anyone who can fill his shoes. We cannot talk in terms of a successor to Commander Rockwell. But we'll all do everything we can to carry on." 

Matt Koehl, on the verge of being arrested while giving a speech in Boston, October 1974
 
I became aware of Matt Koehl about 1984 when he appeared on a syndicated interview-show called Face to Face with Martin Caidin. 

At the time, I claimed libertarianism as my ideology, because libertarianism seemed to me at the time the best option for opposing racial problems that had been created by the government. Part of libertarianism, however, is the idea of the free marketplace of ideas. Let all ideas be heard and the good ideas will defeat the bad ones.

I was eager to hear Matt Koehl explain how he could be a "Nazi," which is how Martin Caidin had labeled him. I wanted to know how Koehl came to such a position, which seemed incomprehensible according to everything that I knew at the time.

The problem was, Martin Caidin would not let Matt Koehl speak. The whole show consisted of Caidin berating Koehl. This bothered me so much that I wrote a letter to the production company and complained about it. I said that Caidin had made me feel sorry for the "Nazi."

The show made a permanent impression on me that changed the course of my life. According to libertarian thinking, if an idea like Koehl's has to be suppressed -- if the people can't be allowed to hear it -- then there must be something good about it. And those who are so determined to suppress that idea must have something to hide.

Gradually I noticed that the suppression of Matt Koehl's idea on that show was not unique. I noticed that the available information about national-socialist ideas and history always included hostile moralizing, similar to Martin Caidin's berating of Matt Koehl, with the obvious purpose of making sure that nobody would consider that there might be something good about it. I also noticed that criticism of Jews from whatever source was aggressively suppressed, which made me wonder if Jews really did exercise greater power in the USA than most people were willing to say. I already had an explanation for why they would be unwilling to say it -- because they would get the same kind of nasty treatment as Martin Caidin gave to Matt Koehl, or worse. The treatment of Matt Koehl in that so-called interview made me aware that there must be a whole other side of the story that I wasn't supposed to get.

I understand that there are legitimate criticisms of Koehl as George Lincoln Rockwell's successor. Koehl did not continue to advance the NSWPP on the course that Rockwell had projected. Instead, as Dr. William Pierce complained, the NSWPP under Matt Koehl lapsed back into phase I of Rockwell's four-phase plan, which consisted of uniformed public appearances for the purpose of attracting the attention of mass-media, in keeping with Koehl's martial background as a Marine and trainer of the National Renaissance Party's security force before he met Rockwell. Then in the early 1980s, Koehl changed the name of the National-Socialist White People's Party to the New Order, and changed its orientation to Hitlerism as a religion, reflecting an impulse that Koehl had inherited as the scion of a strongly religious family. It is evident that Koehl did not have the right kind of personality to continue what Rockwell had started, on the course that Rockwell had intended.

Nonetheless, Matt Koehl is a significant figure for me, because of that one TV appearance circa 1984. Matt Koehl's exposure of the fact that national-socialism was the one ideology that was not allowed free expression started me on the course that led to my being a national-socialist today (without the uniformed theatrics).


Hadding Scott

For refutation of some nasty rumors about Koehl, see my article, "Rick Cooper's 'Brief History' and the Defamation of Matt Koehl."