Instead of Fighting, Libertarians and Communists Should Be Working Together

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Misconceptions
     I. Markets and Monopolies

     II. The State and Centralism

     III. Economics

     IV. Politics
     V. Environment and Borders

     VI. Self-Regulation of Firms

3. Conclusion

Content

1. Introduction

     Why are libertarians and communists fighting each other instead of working together?

     Karl Marx said that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all". These are not words which you might expect would come out of the mouth of a communist. The quote seems to imply that the collective has a duty to satisfy the individual's needs, and perhaps even his wants. But Marx did say it (in Chapter 2 of The Communist Manifesto).
     It's easy to imagine why individualist anarchist Max Stirner might have agreed with this sentiment. After all, Stirner said "If it is said socialistically, society gives me what I require - then the egoist says, I take what I require."
     Despite Stirner's association with the mostly left-wing Young Hegelians, he has become somewhat of a hero to anarcho-capitalists (possibly owing somewhat to his financially disastrous ownership of a milk shop).
     Marx's pro-individualist statement, and Stirner's popularity among right-libertarians, should cause us to wonder whether libertarians and communists can get along after all, and whether their relationship can be salvaged, and their differences resolved.
     I believe that they can. But first, students of these schools of thought must continue their education, increase their level of discourse with rival schools, and resolve and clarify long-standing misconceptions about the supposed irreconcilability of libertarian and communist thinking on economic and political matters.

2. Misconceptions

     Among those misconceptions are the following.

I. Markets and Monopolies

     Communists shouldn't worry about truly free markets.

     Free markets don't have to result in super-profits or monopolies. The rewards of competition are only permanent when there is a monopoly on the recognition of legitimate property claims (i.e., a state). When the state registers property claims, it promises the legitimate use of force against people who contest other people's property claims. Otherwise, the rewards for competition are permanent and markets are free, all resources would be capable of being competed for, and contested.

     Unnatural monopolies cannot be sustained without willingness to use violence. Without the use of the state as a violent tool of repression, the private sector would have to protect itself, and work to support itself and maintain its own properties. Instead, the private sector colludes with the state to subtly deprive and impoverish people into being "willing" to perform that labor for reduced wages.

     But this "will" is not truly voluntary; it is acceding and begrudging acceptance, when enthusiastic consent should be the standard. Make no mistake, libertarians: wage-theft and wage-slavery are real, and the augmentation of the economic pressure felt by the poor is undeniably coercive - and therefore in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle - because it is being done with the help of the state.

     But not all private-sector entities reap profits. The non-profit sector, and workers' cooperatives, do not reap profits, are largely outside the realms of both the public state sector and the for-profit private sector. Non-profits and workers' cooperatives are thus "private" in the sense that they are not state actors, but they could also be described as not private, but only to the extent that "private" implies being in business for profit (which it does not necessarily imply).



II. The State and Centralism

     Lenin clarified in The State and Revolution that Engels was more consistent than Marx about wanting community control rather than state control. Marxists do oppose the state, at least as we now know it (i.e., the bourgeois-controlled ultra-nationalist state). The "state" which the Marxists and Leninists support - and want to replace the current state, and then gradually wither away after revolution - is arguably not a state at all, since it would be comprised of the masses of people acting in voluntary cooperation with one another. This "proletarian state" - a state of affairs in which the people have the power and proliferate freely without fear that their children will become slaves - could hardly be described as either a state, or as any sort of monopoly.

     So communists and libertarians both oppose the state, and centralization, and fascism. Moreover, Lenin also let people trade in markets temporarily during economic crises (i.e., Lenin's New Economic Policy of 1922). Libertarians and communists both support decentralization, as well as geographical political autonomy. The voluntary building of intentional communities, and their secession from larger units of government, therefore furthers both libertarian and communist goals.

III. Economics

     Redistribution doesn't have to be done by the state, and it doesn't have to harm workers or the poor. Redistribution can and should be done through the community, whether it expresses itself as a public sector entity or market entity. But only the ill-gotten wealth of government contractors and artificial monopolies - and what has been legally or illegally stolen from the public or the commons - should be redistributed back to the people.

     Both the communist and libertarian schools of thought are equally tolerant of libertarian Marxism, Murray Bookchin's libertarian communalism, Georgism, geo-libertarianism, Mutualism, voluntary syndicalism, physiocracy, left-wing market-anarchism, platformist anarchism, free-market anti-capitalism, and post-scarcity economics. The Alliance of the Libertarian Left, must take shape, but also heed criticism coming from the libertarian right; while the right heeds the criticism of the Left.

IV. Politics

     Austrian economics and Austromarxism should be taught side by side, because total freedom of choice includes political and economic freedom. Also, market-anarchists like Molinari and Marxist Otto Bauer both promoted panarchism, the freedom to choose your political association without changing your location.

     Libertarians and far-leftists should talk about how the Constitution can be amended. If that doesn't happen, then leftists will scream demands to vote away everyone's right to have guns and private health insurance, without caring whether it's even legal to "force the vote" on a given topic in the first place. Until leftists receive constitutional education from the libertarian right, permanent national reform on health, retirement, education, environment, land management, housing, and energy will be all but impossible.

V. Environment and Borders

     Once libertarians and communists educate one another, they should support the abolition of states and the U.S. Senate, and their replacement with bioregionalist states (such as Cascadia). This will reduce competition over water resources and water regulation, and reduce the need for (and expense involved in maintaining) artificial borders.

     This will in turn reduce interruptions in the flow of commerce, making goods less expensive. A Georgist or Mutualist economy will also drastically reduce taxes on income and sales, decreasing prices even further. Automation, overproduction, and cessation of government hoarding of land and resources, will accelerate this process. Carl Menger’s writing on how abundance results in low prices, makes him essential reading for both left-libertarians and students of Austrian economics.

VI. Self-Regulation of Firms

     “Free market” does not have to mean “not regulated at all”. Consumers are not being allowed to do their part to help keep the markets free, because consumers are not fully free to boycott without government permission.
     Markets regulated through consumers' freedom to refuse to buy a product, would regulate monopolies out of existence, especially in the absence of a state. We currently don't have the freedom to refuse to buy some products, though (namely, identification, and everything that the government bails out and subsidizes, like health insurance).
     This means that our right to boycott is being inhibited unfairly, through the threat of violent enforcement of the law (i.e., of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947), and through the process of taxation and subsidization (i.e., extorting working people for money, and handing their income over to companies they might wish to withhold their money from).
     This must end; Taft-Hartley must be repealed, and subsidies to all for-profit agencies (and possibly some non-profit agencies as well) should cease as soon as possible.
     Self-regulation exists as well; for example, in the form of voluntary recalls.

     The libertarians want society and the economy to be self-regulated, and they want firms to be self-regulating too, if possible. Is that so absurd, communists? When you believe workers' cooperatives can manage themselves just the same?

     Socializing workplaces without the help of the state, and organizing large numbers of individuals to unionize together into a union of private contractors - while demanding the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, and insisting on the irrelevance of the National Labor Relations Board in permitting or denying strikes - would drastically increase union participation, and recognize the right to boycott again, but without empowering the state. Additionally, it would achieve mass ownership of the means of production which would be held by collectives and cooperatives, while at the same time, that ownership could also be described as "private" (in the sense that those means would not be state-owned).




3. Conclusion

     Without the state, markets would be free from monopolies, and the commons would not be eroded by the public sector inviting-in statism, monopoly, and hoarding of natural resources by "public" politicians and bureaucrats secretly serving private interests which are a mix of their own and their cronies and beneficiaries. Less state interference in society, the market, and the environment will result in a clearer separation of the public and private sectors, and in the growth of additional sectors of which most people are scarcely aware (i.e., the commons, the club sector, and the voluntary / charity / third sector).

     While the Georgists say "Tax land, not man" and "Tax bads, not goods", Lenin's advice is to regulate goods but not people. Although this may seem like the opposite of Georgism, it at least fulfills the libertarians' desire that society go unregulated by external means. And despite these little differences, at least now, we can all agree that something must be taxed and regulated less, but that the centralized state shouldn't do it. We just can't exactly agree on which things should be taxed and regulated less.

     Once society and economic production become uncontrolled by violent state monopolies, "external political governance" (as Lenin put it) will become unnecessary.

     This "withering away of the state" should be our long-term goal, after an era of political upheaval which can either be described as revolutionary, or at least drastic and radical in its degree of reform. Such reform must wholly abolish the monopolistic, territorial, and violent nature of the governing bodies, however, in order to be said to have truly achieved the abolition of the state (inasmuch as it is a local monopoly on the legitimate use of force).

     Disarming and demilitarizing the police (or at least empowering the people to defend themselves and police their own communities in some manner) - in addition to decentralizing political organization, ending unnatural and artificial borders, and ending or reforming illegitimate state governments - will do wonders to start us on the path of abolishing the most egregious abuses which are characteristic of the modern bourgeois nation-state.

     But all of this is only possible - according to the beliefs of both libertarians and communists - once the people become educated enough to regulate themselves and make wiser decisions. We need political, economic, social, and productive technical education. Free development of the individual and the community - and the free development and exchange of libertarian and communist thought - are impossible without them.

Written on April 27th, 2021

Originally posted to the Facebook group
"Communists vs. Libertarians Debate Group"
on April 27th, 2021

Edited and Expanded on April 28th and 30th, 2021

The Political Spectrum, According to the Average American Voter

     The following image is a representation of how the average American voter must think politics works, if the way Americans vote is any indication of what they believe about politics.

     When a politician is anything but an establishment Democrat, an establishment Republican, or something in between, it seems almost as if that politician will be likely to be described and criticized as members of the far-left (socialists, Russians, etc.), the far-right (fascist, Nazi, etc), anarchists, or even all of the above at the same time.

     Although there are ideologies which could be described as far-left, far-right, and anarchist at the same time (such as Anarcho-NazBol, certain fascistic developments upon Mutualism, and others), these only represent only a very small portion of the political ideologies which exist in addition to partisan democracy and partisan republicanism.

     A person is not necessarily an Anarcho-Commie-Nazi just because they are not a traditional Democrat or a traditional Republican.

     This post was inspired by the criticism which has been leveled at the likes of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders over the past 13 years; with each being described, at various times, as a racist, a communist, and an anarchist. This post is also a commentary on how some people seem to act almost as if voting for third parties and independents were somehow illegal.

Image Created on January 22nd, 2020

Originally Published, and Introduction Written, on May 6th, 2020

Obama vs. Hitler: Compare and Contrast

 

Originally Written in January 2011

Edited on February 14^th and 15^th, 2016

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Executive Power

3. Military

4. Private Military

5. Youth Civil Service Programs

6. Gun Control

7. Monetary Policy

8. Protectionism

9. Crony Capitalism

10. Corporate Welfare

11. Cartels

12. Competition, Social Darwinism, and

Bioethics

13. Health Care

14. Smoking and Drugs

15. Leftism and the Unions

16. Christianity, Islam, and Sexual Ethics

17. Jews and the State of Israel

18. Conclusion

19. Afterword

Content

1. Introduction

            Current U.S. President Barack Obama and World War II era German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, may, in fact, be more similar than some people can imagine.

      First of all, the fact that they are both charismatic figureheads, with a knack for oratory and for delivering speeches that excite and uplift their bases, are indisputable, so I don’t think it’s necessary to go into that. Nor will I go into details about how both leaders campaigned under the banner of change, and were billed and lionized as the potential saviors of their respective countries.

      Critics of Obama – such as the Tea Party protesters, and opponents supporting political “lunatic-fringe” figures as diverse as the likes of Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche – have been among the most active in comparing Obama to Hitler. LaRouche supporters are often seen in public, holding up posters depicting Obama with a toothbrush mustache (yes, that is what it’s called) as well as Hitler’s characteristic floppy-bang emo hairstyle.

      Although it is much more common for Tea Partiers to compare Obama to Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, or to Communists and / or socialists in general, rather than to Hitler, Tea Partiers can occasionally be heard calling him a Nazi.

      Former congressman Ron Paul of Texas often calls Obama’s economic policies “corporatism”, “soft fascism”, and “watered-down economic fascism”. Fascism is the name of the philosophy espoused by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, an ally of Hitler’s. Congressman Paul, in describing Obama’s fascism, often quotes Mussolini’s description of his own philosophy: “Fascism would more appropriately be called ‘corporatism’ because it is the merger of state and corporate power”. I will go deeper into Hitler and Obama’s similarities as per economic and monetary policy later in this essay.

2. Executive Power

      Both Hitler and Obama were democratically elected, and emphasized a strong assertion of executive power. While Hitler overtly and instantaneously suspended his country’s constitution, and outlawed all parties except his own, Obama appears to be suspending the U.S. Constitution slowly and subtly, building on his predecessor George W. Bush’s attempts to gradually wither away at our civil liberties.

      In his first two years as president, Obama appointed some thirty-eight unelected “czars” to the executive branch. Also, both Obama and Hitler ignored the advice of generals; for example, Obama's conflict with General Stanley McChrystal, and Hitler's 1938 dismissal of sixteen senior generals.

3. Military

      Each leader expanded his country’s military. Within three years of assuming power, Hitler sextupled the number of soldiers in the Nazi military. As of 2011, the Obama administration was considering creating a Europe-based force of a thousand Marines to assist Africom. In the first two years of the Obama Administration, it stepped up U.S. military presence in – and spending on – efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Djibouti, and Latin American nations such as Colombia. In 201, the Obama Administration proposed significant increases in funding for arms sales and military training programs.

4. Private Military

            To augment the size of his army, Hitler employed the Sturmabteilung, also known as the Storm Troopers, or brown-shirts. The brown-shirts were paramilitary forces; in other words, mercenaries, or paid soldiers. Hitler cheaply employed three million of these soldiers, in order to cut costs. Much of Hitler’s military technology was produced by Fritz Thyssen’s German Steel Trust. In 1923, Thyssen and American businessman William Averell Harriman set up the Union Banking Company in New York. From 1934 to 1943, Prescott Bush was a director of this company, and in 1942, the U.S. federal government cracked down on the operation after the passage of the Trading with the Enemy Act.

President Obama has expressed disdain for private military industries, vowing to monitor them better and stop no-bid contracts to them, but during his 2008 campaign for president, he stated that he would not rule out use of private military companies. During his presidency, he has hesitated to curb their influence, and replaced volunteer forces in Iraq with 30,000 mercenaries. This is the “military-industrial complex”, described and denounced by President Eisenhower, in action.

5. Youth Civil Service Programs

In 1922, Hitler announced the first Nazi Party youth group. In 1932, there were 100,000 members of the Nazi Youth, and the following year, there were 2.3 million. In 1936, membership for all youths between the ages of 10 and 18 became mandatory. By 1939 – the year in which Poland was invaded – there were 7.3 million members.

      In 2006, Rahm Emanuel – who was then a U.S. Representative from Illinois, later became Obama’s Chief of Staff, and now serves as the Mayor of Chicago – proposed in his book The Plan: Big Ideas for America that the U.S. enlist all Americans between the age of 18 and 25 for three months of basic training, civil defense preparation, and community service. Emanuel said in an interview that, in his plan, citizens would “learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear, or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we’re hit by a natural disaster.”

      Emanuel has repeatedly claimed that this would not constitute a draft in the vein of selective service. Well, it’s certainly not selective service, because everybody would have to do it! Although Emanuel quit his position as Chief of Staff to run for the Chicago mayoral position – and, thus, is no longer part of the federal government – Emanuel would have coupled this plan with Obama’s own plan to require high-school students to perform fifty hours of government approved service.

6. Gun Control

Hitler and Obama are both supporters of gun control. Hitler confiscated German citizens’ guns, in order to prevent an armed insurrection against himself and the Nazis. Hitler also strengthened existing regulations on Jews’ possession of firearms.

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said about people from small towns, “it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them”. Obama has been given an “F” rating by the National Rifle Association for his record on preserving gun rights.

7. Monetary Policy

            The similarities between Obama and Hitler in terms of monetary policy can be summarized in a single word: Keynesianism. Lord John Maynard Keynes was an influential gay British economist during World War II. In fact, some claim that Hitler was the first practicing Keynesian leader.

      A key aspect of Keynesianism is that government takes an interventionist role in the market and in the adjustment of interest and credit. The government controls the issuing of currency according to its observation of the cycles of deflation and inflation, and artificially maintains low interest rates in lending.

Keynesian economies also tend to fund – often through deficit spending – expensive budgets, which include large-scale military projects, corporate protectionism, and social welfare. Keynesian economies also undertake extensive national public works programs, for example, Obama’s “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects, intended to create 2.5 million jobs.

8. Protectionism

      A key form that protectionist policy takes is the tariff, which is a tax on foreign imports. Hitler imposed huge protectionist barriers in order to make Germany self-sufficient, and he used nationalism and racialism to incite people against foreigners, and to support the measures. President Obama and Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro support New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s plan to impose higher tariffs against China.

For as long as I – and I’m sure, many young people – can remember, there has been a bias in favor of American goods, and against foreign-made goods, in American culture. Many people – most notably George W. Bush and Lou Dobbs – argue for a resurgence in American self-sufficiency and competitiveness, and against outsourcing of American jobs to places like India and Mexico. Many are apt to characterize people who hold these views as racist, or as nationalists.

9. Crony Capitalism

            In the summer of 2010, in speaking about the B.P. oil company, Ron Paul said, “What I don’t like is big business and big government being in bed together.” Now, of course, Congressman Paul meant that in a figurative sense, but that turn of phrase can also be shown to be literally true. Towards the end of the Bush administration, M.M.S. (the U.S. Minerals Management Services; the organization whose responsibility it is to monitor and regulate energy companies) was discovered to be having cocaine and marijuana-fueled sex orgies, with energy industry executives, in a Colorado regional office (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

      In an article published in the American Free Press, Ron Paul wrote that “Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are, in fact, controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design policies that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers”.

      In other words, under corporatism (or fascism), representatives of big business, lobby the government, to help protect their industries’ abilities to monopolize – i.e., corner – the market. This is also known as crony capitalism, or protectionism, which is a strain of mercantilism. Mercantilism is a relic of the economic thought of post-Renaissance feudalistic states. In a way, it is a forbearer of capitalism.

      In a representative democracy, protectionism appears as – and is, for all intents and purposes – socialistic. I have described the kinds of liberal democracy which support tariffs, and protecting domestic labor from competition by foreigners, as “labor protectionism”. Anarchist theorist Stefan Molyneux has shown that when lobbyists get their way – making unenforceable, backroom deals – the system is, in effect, anarchistic, or chaotic.

10. Corporate Welfare

      In the several months before Obama took office – with many of the same financial officers he later appointed, already being in power – the U.S. government nationalized banks: Bank of America, Citigroup, and A.I.G. three different times. After Obama took office, A.I.G.’s bailout was restructured again.

Rather than nationalizing Germany’s banks, Hitler employed Nazis in them, and sent S.S. officers around to make sure they were doing as Hitler ordered. Hitler also nationalized bond insurers, as well as airlines. Some American airlines have been nationalized since the Bush administration ended.         

Both Obama and Hitler used government to direct asset management of automobile companies: Obama with General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford, but also to the United Auto Workers’ union; and Hitler with Mercedes, Daimler-Benz, B.M.W., M.A.N., and Auto Union. Additionally, under Hitler, Volkswagen was created as a nationalized enterprise.

What happened with the banking and auto industries fits in with Ron Paul’s description of corporatism, which is that their assets are nominally held in private hands, but directed and insured by the federal government.

11. Cartels

      Both Obama and Hitler fixed wages. Obama supports the minimum wage, and recently supported an increase in the minimum wage for federal government employees to $10.50 per hour. Late in his administration, Hitler sought to freeze and stabilize wages.

      Additionally, both leaders fixed prices. Hitler’s price fixing was widespread, while Obama’s price fixing has, so far, been limited to health insurance premiums (health care is addressed in greater detail later in the essay), and he has expressed a desire to fix energy prices and destroy the fossil fuel industry.

12. Competition, Social Darwinism, and Bioethics

      Hitler’s views on nature were influenced by zoologist Ernst Haeckel, whom – although he viewed human beings as a part of nature, that must live in harmony with it in order to survive – was a proponent of social Darwinism. Hitler extrapolated social Darwinism to his racial theory, wherein Aryans were believed to be inherently superior to all other human races. However, Hitler also adopted social Darwinism as an idea that justified environmentalism, otherwise known as environmental conservationism.

Obama is also an environmental conservationist, promoting green initiatives, such as a renewal of alternative energy sources, including wind and solar energy. Obama has said that he doesn’t fully support the practice of affirmative action, but rather a merit-based atmosphere of competitive labor. Competition in any and all spheres is promoted and justifiable under social Darwinism.

      Hitler and several of his colleagues, such as Joseph Goebbels, have been described as vegetarians, although Hitler’s personal vegetarianism is not exactly correct (he didn’t eat meat only on some days). Hitler believed in animal rights, and banned animal vivisection, although Dr. Mengele was, of course, not beyond practicing vivisection on human beings, in addition to animals.

During his presidential campaign, Obama claimed he was a vegan. However, in 2010, President Obama appointed Kansas University Vice Chancellor Barbara Atkins, who bears ultimate responsibility for the primate vivisection that occurred at the university’s Medical Center, to a federal bioethics panel.

13. Health Care

      German doctor Josef Mengele was known as “Dr. Death” for the hideous racist experiments he conducted during the Nazi regime. Earlier, I mentioned Obama’s appointment of some thirty-eight “czars” to the executive branch. One of these czars is the so-called “Health Czar”, former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekiel, a doctor and medical ethicist. Some have nicknamed Ezekiel Emanuel the “death czar.”

      Emanuel has been instrumental in the promotion of Obamacare, which Republican opponents – such as Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and former Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who has a son with Down’s Syndrome – argue implements a system of rationed health care, and creates what many have called, “death panels”, which are councils that make lists of expensive procedures, which they would encourage doctors to urge elderly patients to voluntarily refuse, leading to their deaths.

      Both Ezekiel Emanuel and Josef Mengele are supporters of euthanasia, or mercy-killing. Although the practice challenges the notion enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath of “first do no harm”, this is not such an objectionable practice (at least, in my opinion), being that proponents such as the other famous “Doctor Death”, Jack Kevorkian, argue, it relieves the suffering of terminally-ill patients.

      However, Hitler and Mengele favored euthanasia for people who were mentally and physically disabled, or as they called it, “hereditarily ill.” Hitler, Mengele, and Joseph Goebbels issued propaganda emphasizing the importance of hard work, and emphasizing that people lacking the ability to do physical labor are a drain on society. In 1939, 100,000 of these “hereditarily ill” people were murdered by Nazi doctors.

14. Smoking and Drugs

      Hitler hated smoking. He viewed it as decadent, and as a menace to public health. In 1940, he ordered tobacco to be rationed among his army in a way that would dissuade soldiers from smoking. President Obama was a life-long cigarette smoker, but has spent the last several years trying to quit. He currently presides over a country, three-fourths of whose states have instituted some level of smoking ban in bars and / or restaurants. The city of Philadelphia, for example, instituted a ban on smoking outdoors, in the early years of the Obama Administration.

            Many in Hitler’s army would drink often, and take methamphetamines, also known as “speed”. Amphetamines gave the Nazi army the energy and attention they needed to march across Europe quickly and effectively. The U.S. military refers to amphetamines as “go pills”, and has been using amphetamines as early as the Vietnam War.

      Today’s military culture in the U.S. is rife with alcohol use, and – although current reports of widespread amphetamine use in the military are not easy to find outside of the U.S. Air Force, American medical culture over-diagnoses attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (A.D.H.D.) in children, and as a result, over 2.5 million American children have been prescribed amphetamine-containing medications for the disorder.

      Another drug worth mentioning is fluoride. Sodium fluoride (NaFl) is a chemical which is a neurotoxin at high enough doses. Hitler fluoridated the water supply in his labor and concentration camps, in order to render his subjects weak, confused, subservient, and sterile. Many local governments across the U.S. fluoridate their drinking water supplies. The government has now admitted that fluoride actually damages people’s teeth more than it contributes to dental hygiene. Fluoride is also an active ingredient in anti-depressants such as Prozac. Depression, like attention deficit disorder (A.D.D.), is an over-diagnosed affliction, but unlike A.D.D. and A.D.H.D., anti-depressant prescriptions in the U.S. number 27 million. Anti-depressant medications are a major factor in fueling the American workaholic and consumerist lifestyle.

15. Leftism and the Unions

      Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Spanish dictator Francisco Franco – as well as President Obama – all courted, and won, the support of the labor and trade unions, but all eventually sold out to big business and industrial interests. In fact, Mussolini stole the thunder and popularity of Italian communist Mario Berlinguer, and later imprisoned him (note: Berlinguer’s second cousin, Francesco Cossiga, later became Italy’s Prime Minister, and, before his death in August 2010, alleged that American and Israeli intelligence agencies were complicit in 9/11).

      In the lead-up to Hitler’s rise to power, he partnered with, and made promises to, German labor unions. However, he ended up banning trade unions, ending collective bargaining, taking away the right to strike, the right to quit, and even the right to earn a greater wage for increased productivity. The Nazis also rounded up, and killed, labor union organizers and leaders.

            Before a 1934 purge, there was a left-wing propaganda arm of the Nazi Party, which was led by Gregor and Otto Strasser. The Strassers made speeches supporting a movement which would most appropriately be called “national syndicalism” or “social nationalism”; i.e., the merger of the nation-state with labor and trade unions. Additionally, of course, Hitler temporarily partnered with Stalin, to help bring about the carving-up of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union, with the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, and the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1941.

      During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama said, “I believe in unions”, and spoke of “giving unions more leverage.” He also supported the deceptively-titled Employee Free Choice Act. On the campaign trail, Obama appeared with Bruce Springsteen, whom, with the E Street Band, had recently recorded an album entitled We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions, which featured a folk-rock rendition of the Negro work song, “Pay Me My Money Down.”

However, the Obama administration’s support of pro-union legislation has largely served to enrich union bureaucracies, and to primarily benefit the leaders of unions, rather than their individual members. Furthermore, the Obama Administration’s concessions to big business and banks, has effectively rendered all pro-union measures pointless in the grand scheme of things.

16. Christianity, Islam, and Sexual Ethics

      Both Obama and Hitler have been critical of Christianity, and tolerant of Islam. Obama has criticized people in small towns clinging to religion, he has publicly mocked biblical laws, and he has reached out to the Islamic world. Hitler outlawed the publication of bibles, embraced paganism, and tolerated Islam. However, the Catholic Church harbored Nazi war criminals, and encouraged Catholics to pray for Hitler and his regime.

      On social issues, President Obama is staunchly pro-choice (even supporting partial-birth abortion), and one of Hitler’s first acts after taking office was to legalize abortion. Their stances on the issue of gay marriage are different. However, President Obama supports legalizing homosexual civil unions, and now gay marriage (although he previously opposed it); Hitler, on the other hand, didn’t support gay anything: marriage, being alive, et cetera.

17. Jews and the State of Israel

            Hitler supported Jewish emigration to Palestine, the current location of the Zionist State of Israel. To state the obvious, Hitler liked the idea of Jews going anywhere, as long as they were leaving Germany. Therefore, he was willing to negotiate with Zionists, because they shared the goal of getting Jews out of Germany.

      In fact, the original so-called “Final Solution” to the Jewish question was not to exterminate the Jews, but to build ostensibly autonomous Jewish communities in the African island nation of Madagascar. According to the Nazis’ plan, those colonies would have been supervised by the S.S. (Storm Troopers) in order to ensure the Jews’ eventual death by disease and famine.

In addition to supporting this intentionally failed Jewish Malagasy state, Hitler supported a Jewish homeland in the land of Palestine, in a Transjordan under British control. It wasn’t until after Hitler’s death that the idea of actually turning Israel into a democratic state, in the modern sense, was floated around as a realistic proposal, so it is unknown whether he would have supported the Jewish state as it is today.

            There is also a theory out there, that Hitler’s father was an illegitimate child of a member of the infamous, Jewish, Rothschild banking family of Europe. The Rothschilds are descended from the Khazarian people of southern Russia, whom were not genetically related to the Judean or Samarian people, but converted to Judaism because it was strategic, in terms of military strategy, economics, and geo-politics.

Some claim that the Khazars are a “thirteenth tribe” of Judaism, which has used the Jewish holy book the Talmud – as well as scriptural interpretation in general – as a means to subvert the oral tradition of Judaism (whose adherents include the ultra-Orthodox fringe group Neturei Karta, whom have been ostracized by even other ultra-Orthodox Jews, for criticizing the religious justification for the existence of the state of Israel). If Hitler was of Rothschild lineage, then that would be a good explanation for why Orthodox rabbis were among those first targeted in anti-Jewish Nazi pogroms.

As many as 150,000 German Jews supported Hitler. The Nazis had the Jewish Ghetto Police, or Jewish Police Service, which were unarmed police officers who patrolled German ghettos. Also, there were prominent Jewish Nazis, including Dietrich Eckhart, Hans Frank, Alfred Rosenberg. Additionally, there was Adolf Eichmann, who was 100% ethnically Jewish, although he did not identify himself as such. Eichmann once said, “Had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist.”

In an odd bit of synchronicity, as recently as 2007, Vice President Joe Biden has said, “If I were a Jew, I’d be a Zionist.” Obama has appointed at least 65 Zionist Jews to posts in his administration, and to federal reserve boards around the country, and there are another 40 or so in Congress. In fact, Obama’s appointment of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court has resulted in the court becoming two-thirds Catholic and one-third Jewish.

As of 2011, Jews were 350% overrepresented in the House, 500% overrepresented in the Senate, and 1400% overrepresented on the Supreme Court. In terms of foreign policy, all current signs point to the Obama Administration caving into Israeli pressure on the U.S. to back off from its push for a freeze on new Israeli settlements in peace negotiations with Palestine. Critics of Israel often compare the Israeli Defense Forces and the Israeli government to the Nazis, for the way they have turned the West Bank into an archipelago of communities separated from one another. The Gaza Strip is often referred to as a “concentration camp”.

18. Conclusion

            Following the massacre in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011, many politicians and pundits said that both sides of the political spectrum should tone down their rhetoric.

A lot of people think it’s inappropriate for people to compare President Obama – or anybody else, for that matter – to socialists, Communists, and to Nazis. However, what I am about to say is something that I believe very strongly; something I think is crucial to maintaining the freedom of speech, and to upholding the First Amendment.

If you take away our right to compare political figures to Hitler, then the next Hitler is going to be able to march right into the White House without anybody being able to say a damn thing about it.

19. Afterword (Written in February 2016)

            See Donald Trump.

For more entries on high-profile corruption and conspiracy theories, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/02/web-of-conspiracy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/11/corruption-of-america.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/bush-family-world-vision-behind-jfk.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-murders.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-emanuel-family.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/list-of-projects-by-cia-and-affiliated.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/national-defense-authorization-act-for.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/muhammad-subuh-sumohadiwidjojo-barack.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/barack-obama-images.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/barack-obama-universal-sycophant.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/notes-on-duplicity-in-us-foreign-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/indefinite-detention-and-2012-ndaa.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/wiretaps-searches-and-patriot-act.html