Showing posts with label Socialist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialist. Show all posts

Monday, February 22, 2021

Solidarity Between Libertarians and Socialists: Achieving Freedom and Equality Through Bottom Unity

     We can distribute resources equitably, without resorting to hierarchy or violence, as long as people know how much they're entitled to, as a share of the Earth's resources.
     Each one of us is entitled to our share of Earth's resources - as a fraction of the human population - as property; plus whatever we can produce, through using and developing that share, plus our use and development of our own talent, skills, and intellects.


     In order to distribute resources equitably, and to understand "whose is what", we need to stop thinking in terms of "private or public" and realize that there are more sectors of the economy, and more types of property ownership, than just these two categories.
     Club goods are being neglected. So is the voluntary third sector, the sector of charity and social purpose enterprises. So is the commons; which comprises nearly the entire category of the factor of production which we call "land" (the others being labor and capital).
     Private-public partnerships exist as well, as do N.G.O.s (non-governmental organizations), and Q.U.A.N.G.O.s (quasi-nongovernmental organizations).
     We must expand our knowledge about rivalry and excludability of resources, economic sectors, types of ownership, and forms of mixed economies and economic systems aside from capitalism and socialism, if we want to achieve anything resembling economic mobility in the future.

     The United Kingdom has depoliticized its environmental affairs through having quasi-non-governmental agencies decide on environmental regulation instead of voting. It has also depoliticized other scientific, financial, and juridical duties.
     As long as depoliticization can be done without succumbing to the evils of privatization, we can have science-based policies that establish health and safety standards which cannot be voted away. These policies should be added to the Constitution via amendments, so that they can be permanent rather than temporary, and cannot be tampered with without the overwhelming agreement of the supermajority.

     I support depoliticization of land and environment and resource related issues - basically having panels of scientists determine scientific and environmental policy through consensus-building - and bioregionalism, as ways to achieve more balanced distribution of natural resources.


     Private property does not exist at the mercy of the community; nor should the community be viewed as merely a private club made up of, and serving only, those who own property. Instead, the community and private owners recognize one another's legitimacy when they come to mutually beneficial agreements about whose is what.
     As such, anything that is unfairly monopolized, or owned and leveraged to the detriment of the community, should be occupied by the people who can rightfully claim that they are harmed by the continued ownership of any firms which may be unfairly exploiting labor, land, and natural resources. This occupation should always be done through the use of non-violent resistance.
     The notion that the Earth is common to all men, and can be shared equitably, can be realized and revived, as long as the spirit of giving and sharing does not die in the hearts of private owners.

     World land area divided by human population comes out to 4.8 acres per person. Which means that a four-person family can own 19.2 acres. But room must be left over for animals and plants, and future human population (which will increase, so the number of acres per person will decrease accordingly).
     This 4.8 acre per person rule tells us that any one person with 20 acres should allow at least three people to live on his property. Until then, he should either have a family, give up some of his land, let people forage and glean on his property, or compensate the community for monopolizing more resources than he needs.


     Libertarianism and socialism - or private property and community, or production and environmentalism - are not antithetical to one another. Furthermore, the mere fact that people associate with one another, does not make them "socialists".
     Libertarian socialists - and non-socialistic libertarians, too - want the same thing. We all want voluntary association and voluntary cooperation. We want cooperation to occur solely on totally voluntary terms. And those terms must be mutually beneficial to all parties involved.
     This is why Mutualist economics will guide libertarians and socialists to the right economic ethics. Mutualist economics do not reject private property, nor do they reject markets. But Mutualists still realize that not all property which exists, and is claimed, was rightfully earned. When a market is rigged, Mutualists will criticize this fact, and note that freedom and fairness of markets (and money) lie in their transparency and accessibility.


     Libertarian free-marketers and libertarian socialists have a reason to work together, because of people like Barry Goldwater and his speechwriter Karl Hess, who agreed that voluntarism is the prerequisite for cooperation. They agreed that no barriers should be raised against the freedom not to associate (libertarianism), and also that no barriers should be raised against the freedom to associate (voluntary cooperation / voluntary "socialism").
     We must oppose redistribution by the state, but that does not mean we must oppose all activity by all cooperatives and communes and collectives. The individual and collective drive for self-improvement results in a distribution, but not a redistribution. The economic system of distributism calls for everyone to be capitalists; this is what libertarians must want, for everyone to share in the American dream of owning property outright, and being wealthy enough to create jobs, if they wish to do so.
     Autonomous communes maximize decentralization, which brings governance closer to the individual. Collective enterprises reduce risk and reinvest profits, thus reducing the need for taxation, making it easier for the collective enterprise to self-govern. There is no reason why collectivists and libertarians should be arguing about the ability of an enterprise to govern itself; some forms of communism are based on the idea that a collective can be partially self-governing (as long as it coordinates with other collectives). If this coordination is done voluntarily, and markets are not prohibited, then markets and communism would exist side by side with little conflict.
     Through decentralizing property, and decentralizing governance, we can maximize productivity, and minimize the punishments and fees and fines which are levied in exchange for the privilege to produce.

     For libertarians to oppose redistribution, means that we oppose the legalized theft from the taxpayers, to give to either the wealthy or the poor. But at the same time, we must consider that much more taxpayer money has been wasted propping-up the military and large corporations, in comparison to how much has been spent on lifting the poor out of poverty.
     That is why the Libertarian Party must agree with Rand Paul that not a dime should be cut from the social safety net until all corporate welfare is eliminated. Or else the party must doom itself to being labeled "to the right of the Republican Party".
     We must not pretend that the poor don't share an inordinate burden of the sales taxes. The poor bear an inordinate burden of taxes overall, due to their sales tax burden.

     Opposing redistribution also means that we cannot allow companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, to keep the wealth they extracted from the pockets of the poor with the state's help.
     These companies are monopolies, they receive taxpayer subsidies and tons of favors, and the fact that they receive taxpayer money is not constitutional. Wealthy companies "redistribute" wealth upwards, away from the poor. But the fact that it is redistribution, should not lead us to believe that this "socialism for the rich" resembles actual socialism in any way. If the state is performing the redistribution, rather than society, then it is statism, not socialism.
     The point being: If not for public charters, these monopolistic companies would not even formally exist, as far as the government (a private corporation, for financial purposes) is concerned. Americans could easily do away with the problem of military-industrial complex monopolies by prohibiting the Department of Defense from making a contract with any military components producing firm which wields more than 5% of the market share. That would not be a limitation on the market, but rather a limitation upon our monopolistic, violent, corrupt government.
     Communities have every right to require companies to perform some stated, transparent social purpose - or else a fee, or allowing the community to hold stock in the company, setting up mutual funds in the company, or something - in exchange for the public assistance and property protection they receive. This is not communism; it is a user fee based system.
     That's why Land Value Taxation, bolstered by user fees and voluntary contributions, are the way to go. No more tinkering around with income, consumption, or sales taxes. Eliminate investment taxes as soon as the stock markets are no longer rigged.


     The conditions necessary for total equality and total liberty are the same. We must either embrace the law and achieve equal protection under the law, or else we must become so totally free that we are equal in that freedom. The equality of opportunity must be so great that we no longer argue over how to distribute resources because each individual person's productive potential would be so great.
     We must put aside our differences, and oppose fascism, centralization, and monopoly. We will not fight each other after they are defeated; but rather we will build our own communities as we please, whether together or separately, but always in peace.


     Bottom Unity now.



Written as two Facebook posts on February 22nd, 2021

Edited and Expanded on February 22nd, 2021

Published on February 22nd, 2021

Thursday, June 25, 2020

How a Green or Socialist Presidential Nominee Could Win the Electoral College

     The map below shows how a Green Party presidential nominee, or the presidential nominee of a socialist party, could win the electoral college.
     In the map below, which was created on http://www.270towin.com/, Republicans are shown in red, Democrats are shown in blue, and Greens (or socialists) are shown in green.

     I believe that this is one of the most likely scenarios allowing a Green nominee to win the presidency. That candidate would have to win a simple majority - not even 50% plus one, that candidate just has to get more votes than any other presidential candidate - in each of the respective states shown in green.

     The reason why I believe that this is one of the most likely scenarios which would allow a Green nominee to win the presidency, is because of the three assumptions I have made in order to create this graph. Those assumptions are:
     1) Donald Trump will be nominated by the Republican Party, and he will win the same states he won in 2016, except for states he would lose to the Democratic and Green candidates as the result of a viable Green candidate entering the race;
     2) Joe Biden will be nominated by the Democratic Party, and he will win all states that Trump and the Green nominee do not win; and
     3) whomever is nominated by the Green Party in early July (most likely Howie Hawkins) will win the set of states whose voters came out the strongest for Jill Stein (the Green Party's 2016 nominee), but only as many of them as would be necessary to add up to 270 or more.
     This may be an unlikely set of assumptions, but that is what it will take to produce a Green Party or socialist victory in the Electoral College. The statistics which I ran, show that Wyoming, Iowa, Ohio, and New Jersey would be the most likely to end up as "swing states", but it's also likely that virtually all of the states shown in gray and blue, could end up being "swing states".
     To put that another way, support for Biden and the Democratic Party would shrink drastically, if the top two contenders for the presidency turned out to be Donald Trump and Howie Hawkins (or Dario Hunter, the second most viable candidate in the Green Party's primaries).
     To take the Electoral College, the Green Party nominee would have to win all of the states shown in green, plus at least one or two of the states shown in gray (or, if not those, then one or two of the states shown in blue).




Image created by Joe Kopsick on June 25th, 2020





     The image below was used to create the set of statistics, regarding support for Jill Stein in each state, which were used to predict the viability of a Green Party candidate in 2020.



Image not created by the author of this blog



     Percentages of support for Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson - but not Jill Stein - can be viewed at the following link:
     Information regarding support for Donald Trump in each state, was taken from the above link, in order to calculate the states most likely to turn out for Trump in the event that the Green Party wins the Electoral College by increasing support in all of the states in which Greens are already supported the most per capita.



     The 2020 Green Party National Convention will be held from July 9th to 12th, in Detroit, Michigan. The nominating convention will begin at noon Eastern Time on Saturday, July 11th, and it will be broadcast live.
     That means we will know that afternoon who the Green Party's 2020 presidential nominee will be, and the stage will be set for the presidential race (the Constitution, Libertarian, and P.S.L. parties having already chosen their candidates; Don Blankenship, Jo Jorgensen, and Gloria LaRiva respectively).








Written and Published on June 25th, 2020

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Obama vs. Hitler: Compare and Contrast



Originally Written in January 2011

Edited on February 14th and 15th, 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:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...