KEMATIAN : MITOS DAN FAKTA TENTANG MATI SURI (NDE/OBE)

0

SCIENCE ON DEATH :
=============

KEMATIAN DAN PENYEBAB KEMATIAN
Penyebab kematian sih banyak, organ tubuh bisa malfungsi karena hal-hal tertentu. contohnya tenggelam, gantung diri, ditembak pas di kepala, dll, kalo kematian yang natural karena telomer udah habis, sel gak bisa regenerasi lagi. Manusia bisa mati karena organ-organ vitalnya berhenti bekerja, terutama paru-paru, jantung, dan otak. Paru-paru fungsinya menukar karbon dioksida dengan oksigen. Jantung fungsinya memompa darah, darah membawa oksigen ke seluruh tubuh dan karbon dioksida dari seluruh tubuh dibawa ke paru-paru. Otak fungsinya mengontrol organ-organ vital dan bagian tubuh kita lainnya.

Ada beberapa jenis kematian, diantaranya :

Mati biologis adalah kondisi di mana sel-sel tubuh mengalami kerusakan yang ireversibel. Dalam kondisi seperti ini seseorang tidak mungkin dapat hidup kembali. Ini dapat dilihat dari timbulnya lebam mayat sebagai tanda PASTI suatu kematian…

Mati jantung adalah kondisi di mana jantung seseorang tidak berdetak meskipun sudah dilakukan resusitasi jantung paru, yang ditandai dengan tidak adanya kompleks QRS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QRS_complex) pada EKG (https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektrokardiogram), resusitasi masih terus bisa dilanjutkan sampai terjadi mati biologis, atau sampai penolong kelelahan…

Mati sosial adalah kondisi di mana fungsi otak seseorang mengalami kerusakan cukup berat yang menyebabkannya tidak mungkin berinteraksi dengan lingkungan sekitarnya.

Mati otak adalah kondisi kerusakan sebagian atau seluruh otak yang menyebabkan gangguan fungsional. Definisi ini agak tercampur dengan mati sosial. Mati otak sendiri dapat dibagi atas tiga macam; yaitu mati serebral atau mati kortikal, mati batang otak, atau mati seluruh otak (brain death)

Mati serebral atau mati kortikal adalah kondisi kerusakan berat pada serebrum (otak besar), namun batang otak tidak mengalami gangguan. Pasien masih dapat bernapas dengan spontan, dan fungsi-fungsi lainnya masih baik, karena itu mati serebral ini menyebabkan seseorang berada dalam vegetative state. Fungsi biologisnya sebagai manusia masih baik, namun otaknya secara umum tidak berfungsi lagi.

Vegetative state yang berlangsung selama 3 bulan atau lebih dianggap persisten (persistent vegetative state). Seseorang dengan persistent vegetative state sangat mungkin untuk sadar apabila sebelumnya ia mengalami koma, namun peluang pemulihan fungsi otaknya seperti sediakala sangat kecil.

Brain death (menurut American Academy of Neurology) adalah hilangnya seluruh fungsi otak dan batang otak secara ireversibel, tanpa diikuti dengan hilangnya fungsi sirkulasi jantung. Dengan kata lain fungsi jantungnya masih baik-baik saja. Kondisi ini sama dengan mati batang otak; di mana masalah utamanya adalah pusat pernapasan di batang otak ikut mengalami kerusakan. Orang seperti ini dapat terus hidup dengan mesin ventilator, untuk menggantikan fungsi pernapasannya. Jika mesin ventilator dicabut, otomatis paru gagal bernapas dan jantung perlahan-lahan akan gagal berfungsi, sehingga orang itu akan meninggal. Di Indonesia, mati batang otak sudah cukup membuat seseorang dapat dikatakan meninggal.

Seperti apa yang saya bilang sebelumnya, jadi mati menurut standar kedokteran adalah mati batang otak. Batang otak adalah pusat pernapasan, jadi kalau batang otaknya rusak maka orang tersebut ga bisa bernapas lagi jadinya mati. Kerusakan batang otak bisa disebabkan beberapa hal, misalnya akibat rudapaksa atau penyakit, seperti stroke atau kanker. Lebih detilnya lagi, tubuh kita terdiri atas banyak sel. Manusia adalah kumpulan dari banyak sel, di mana tiap sel punya siklus hidup sendiri. Manusia sebagai organisme dikatakan hidup bila semua organ vitalnya (terutama otak) masih bisa berfungsi sebagaimana mestinya, meski pun sel2 dari organ2 tersebut ada yang mati dan digantikan oleh sel baru. Sel-sel ini berreplikasi, yang baru menggantikan yang lama. Tapi ada batasnya, dan kalau batasnya habis maka sel tidak berreplikasi lagi alias sel itu mati. Sel-sel kita pun tiap hari ada yang mati dan digantikan oleh sel-sel baru. Kalau sel-sel tubuh kita sudah tidak mampu memproduksi sel-sel baru maka kita pun akan mati (Semakin banyak sel yang mati maka tubuh tidak mampu berfungsi normal, akhirnya mati)

KEMATIAN PADA UMUMNYA/NORMALNYA (PENUAAN)
Ngomongin mati, kematian alami akibat penuaan disebabkan oleh kerusakan yang terjadi pada tingkat sel. Makin banyak sel yang rusak maka makin dekat seseorang tersebut dengan kematiannya. Jadi, tiap sel punya kromosom, dan kromosom ini ada penutup/pelindungnya di tiap ujungnya, namanya telomer. Setiap sel tersebut mengalami replikasi, telomernya akan memendek. Bila telomernya habis Kalau habis, sel tidak mampu lagi membelah diri, kalau pun masih nekat maka selnya rusak, atau jika telomer memendek/habis maka replikasi sel tersebut tidak sempurna, makin lama jadi makin rusak. Tanpa pembelahan, berarti tidak ada pembaruan sel, yang artinya kerusakan sel & kematian. Sel rusak tidak bisa berfungsi dengan baik. Semakin banyak sel yang tidak berfungsi dengan baik, maka kumpulan sel-sel tersebut (dalam hal ini manusia) akan mati. Mencegah kematian masih dimungkinkan dalam tahapan tertentu, misalnya mengurangi laju pemendekan telomer, misalnya dengan cara menghindari stres, mengurangi pajanan terhadap polusi, asupan nutrisi yang baik, dll. Yang jelas sampai saat ini belum ada cara untuk menambal telomer yang sudah memendek.

Panjang telomer ini beda-beda, kecepatan pemendekannya juga beda. Jadi belum tentu yang panjang pasti lebih panjang umur dibanding yang pendek. Pada prinsipnya kita bisa memperkirakan berapa umur seseorang dari panjang dan kecepatan pemendekan telomernya, tapi terlalu banyak faktor yang berpengaruh seperti asupan nutrisi, kebiasaan olah raga, merokok, minum alkohol, stres, dll. Belum lagi tiap orang ga punya kebiasaan yang konstan sepanjang hidupnya, jadi ngitungnya sangat ribet. Paling ga untuk saat ini masih belum bisa diperkirakan secara akurat.

Mati suri setau saya itu Nggak mati sepenuh nya , walaupun organ-organ tubuh sudah Deactive tapi otak masih aktif , Gelombang otak pada orang yg sekarat itu tinggi . jadi menurut saya pengalaman melihat surga , neraka atau alam baka itu sebenarnya permainan gelombang otak yg menstimulasi beberapa neurotransmitter dalam otak, kelistrikan di otak sudah dinyatakan berhenti atau tidaknya dengan EEG ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography ). EEG bisa jadi bukti , mungkin EEG jarang dilakukan buat pasien yang sekarat maka nya banyak orang yg awam percaya dengan peristiwa mati suri . Kalau NDE, itu halusinasi yang terjadi karena Otak kekurangan Oksigen. Dalam keadaan tidak sadar ini, Otak masih menerima input tapi tidak bisa memprosesnya. Setelah “Sadar” biasanya otak akan membuat Ingatan palsu untuk menjelaskan input tadi. Ingatan palsu ini biasanya berhubungan dengan kepercayaan orang tersebut.

Lalu penjelasan lebih rincinya kenapa itu bisa terjadi? Karena mati sendiri itu dibagi 3 :
UU no 36 tahun 2009 tentang Kesehatan pasal 117:
“Seseorang dinyatakan mati apabila fungsi sistem jantung-sirkulasi dan sistem pernapasan terbukti telah berhenti secara permanen, atau apabila kematian batang otak telah dibuktikan.”
Kata kuncinya adalah “secara permanen.”
Secara medis, mati suri itu apa yang kita bilang sebagai koma. Istilah gampangnya adalah keadaan nyaris mati.

Mati secara kedokteran dibagi 3:
1. Mati klinis: jantung dan sistem pernapasan (paru-paru) tidak berfungsi lagi
2. Mati seluler: karena mati klinis, maka sel-sel tidak mendapatkan oksigen dan nutrisi, sehingga mati.
3. Mati batang otak: sel-sel yang paling mudah mati itu otak, termasuk batang otak , sehingga batang otak tidak bisa berfungsi lagi, Kalau sel-sel batang otak banyak yang mati maka orang itu dikatakan mati definitif, karena batang otak adalah pusat pernapasan, kalau mati ya dia ga bisa napas spontan lagi. dan karena batang otak adalah pusat pernapasan maka MBO adalah patokan mati definitif menurut kedokteran.

No 1 dan 2 masih bisa dihidupkan lagi, sedangkan yang no 3 ga atau lebih detailnya pada keadaan mati suri, orang itu belum sampai mati batang otak, makanya dia bisa hidup lagi. Proses “hidup” laginya itu sendiri tergantung keadaan. Orang yang mati klinis atau seluler bisa hidup lagi bila diresusitasi.

Pada saat mati klinis, suplai darah ke otak memang berhenti, (NDE, itu halusinasi yang terjadi karena Otak kekurangan Oksigen. Dalam keadaan tidak sadar ini, Otak masih menerima input tapi tidak bisa memprosesnya. Setelah “Sadar” biasanya otak akan membuat Ingatan palsu untuk menjelaskan input tadi. Ingatan palsu ini biasanya berhubungan dengan kepercayaan orang tersebut) dan dalam waktu ga lama sel-sel otak akan mati. Pada kasus kekurangan oksigen (misalnya tenggelam, gantung diri, atau pembekapan), paru2 tidak bisa menyuplai oksigen ke jantung. Akibatnya adalah otot jantung tidak bisa bekerja normal (karena kekurangan oksigen) sehingga suplai oksigen ke otot-otot pernapasan juga berkurang, sehingga akhirnya sistem napas dan sistem jantung berhenti bekerja. Pada kasus gangguan sistem peredaran darah (misalnya kehilangan banyak darah atau gagal jantung), oksigen yang disuplai oleh paru tidak bisa sampai ke organ sasaran, efeknya pada akhirnya akan sampai ke otak, dan kalau sel-sel otak banyak yang mati akhirnya jadi mati otak dan selanjutnya mati batang otak. Kadang-kadang masalah bermula di sistem saraf yang mengatur kedua sistem tersebut, sehingga kerja sistem napas dan sistem jantung ga bener, akibat yang ditimbulkan ya sama aja.

Singkat kata pada manusia, mati klinis itu hanya jantung dan nafasnya berhenti. Tapi belum tentu otaknya sudah mati. Nah untuk ini biasa masih bisa dilakukan resusitasi jantung paru-paru. Biasanya dilakukan pada korban-korban tenggelam seperti yang kita lihat di film-film itu loh. Kalau jantung & paru-paru berhenti otomatis otak ga dapat suplai darah. Dalam beberapa menit otak akan mati juga.

Serta pada mati klinis memang suplai darah ke otak itu terhambat, tapi jangan lupa bahwa sel-sel otak juga masih punya cadangan energi dan juga darah yang ada di pembuluh darah di otak masih bisa dipakai. Dan juga meski pun ada beberapa sel yang mulai mati, sel yang masih hidup masih banyak. Maka, bukan hal yang aneh kalau ada orang yang dinyatakan mati klinis selama beberapa menit masih bisa hidup normal setelah diresusitasi, karena jumlah sel-sel otak yang mati tidak signifikan. Prosedur RS juga menyatakan bahwa resusitasi baru boleh dihentikan setelah 30 menit (bisa juga lebih lama, tergantung RS) diresusitasi tapi jantungnya tetap tidak berdenyut. 30 menit dipilih karena setelah waktu ini kerusakan otaknya cukup banyak sehingga kemungkinan pasien kembali hidup sudah kecil.
Pada kasus mati klinis juga bisa dilakukan resusitasi sehingga sistem jantung dan pernapasannya kembali berfungsi, bila setelah dilakukan resusitasi dalam jangka waktu tertentu tetap tidak bisa berfungsi lagi baru kita bisa bilang dia sudah mati. Dalam skala tertentu kematian seluler masih bisa diresusitasi, biasanya tidak lama setelah mati klinis. Sel-sel yang paling cepat mati adalah sel otak, sekitar 10 menit sudah ada yang mati, makin lama makin banyak. Contoh lain mati seluler tanpa melibatkan mati klinis adalah gangren, penanganannya adalah amputasi. MBO dikatakan sebagai mati definitif, dengan kata lain tidak bisa diresusitasi, karena batang otak adalah pusat pernapasan, jadi kalau batang otak mati ya orang tersebut bisa napas sama sekali.

Untuk tau seseorang mati atau tidak kita periksa denyut nadi lehernya (lebih besar dan lebih dekat jantung dibanding nadi pergelangan tangan, jadi lebih akurat) dan pernapasannya (ada hembusan napas/ga, dada dan perut naik-turun/ga). Kalau cuma mati klinis atau mati seluler masih bisa diselamatkan dengan cara resusitasi jantung paru (RJP, bahasa inggrisnya CPR). Tapi di kalangan pelaku pertolongan pertama (di luar RS) ada konsensus korban henti napas dan jantung akan di-RJP selama belum ada tanda-tanda kematian pasti (lebam mayat, kaku mayat, pembusukan) atau cederanya terlalu berat, seperti kehilangan banyak darah sampai jadi pucat.

Kalau sudah mati batang otak (MBO) sudah tidak bisa diselamatkan, karena batang otak adalah pusat pernapasan, jadi kalau orang tersebut sudah MBO ya dia ga bisa napas spontan lagi. Cara periksanya yang paling gampang kita sinari pupilnya pakai senter, kalau sudah tidak ada refleks pupil (pupil mengecil sesaat karena kena sinar) kita bisa bilang dia MBO. Bisa juga korneanya kita gores pakai kapas/tisyu, kalau ga ada refleks mengedip orang tersebut juga bisa kita sebut MBO. kalau sudah didiagnosa MBO maka orang tersebut menurut medis sudah mati.
Adapun refleks batang otak ada tujuh macam. Jika ketujuh-tujuhnya tidak ada, berarti seseorang telah mengalami mati batang otak. Pemeriksaan refleks ini menilai berbagai hal, mulai dari fungsi saraf yang berpusat di batang otak, refleks pernapasan spontan, sampai refleks terhadap rangsang nyeri.

-Refleks cahaya, pupil tidak mengecil dengan penyinaran (midriasis dan menetap)
-Refleks nyeri pada kornea, tidak ada kedipan
-Refleks okulosefalik tidak ada, dengan gerakan kepala, bola mata bergerak ke arah yang sama dengan arah gerakan
-Refleks kalorik tidak ada, aliran air dingin ke dalam telinga tidak diikuti deviasi atau pergeseran bola mata
-Refleks mandibula tidak ada, penekanan kuat pada sudut rahang mulut tidak diikuti respons nyeri
-Refleks muntah dari sentuhan pada faring tidak ada
-Refleks batuk pada perangsangan bronkus tidak ada

Disini juga diperlu dibedakan kematian yang definitive dengan kondisi koma, koma yaitu kondisi penurunan kesadaran yang paling dalam. Pasien koma tidak mengalami gangguan pernapasan spontan, fungsi jantung, maupun fungsi paru; sehingga ia terlihat seperti tidur; namun tidak dapat dibangunkan dengan rangsangan apapun. Diagnosis brain death memang memasukkan koma dalam salah satu syaratnya, namun ada tambahan hilangnya refleks batang otak dan tes apnea positif. Jadi dimana seseorang dibilang koma (BELUM SEPENUHNYA MATI), bisa saja dia sedang mengalami NDE, atau out of body.

Koma ini erat dengan istilah mati suri (apparent death). Ini merupakan kondisi unik di mana ketiga sistem tadi mengalami penurunan fungsi sampai minimal, namun dengan rangsangan tertentu (misalnya resusitasi), fungsi tadi -baik satu maupun ketiganya- berpeluang kembali ke keadaan normal. Lalu bagaimana membedakannya dengan kematian sungguhan?

Selain dengan pemeriksaan EKG (http://id.wikihow.com/Membaca-EKG), biasanya para dokter menunggu beberapa lama untuk memastikan si pasien telah meninggal. Di Indonesia standar waktunya 2 jam. Namun di Amerika Serikat 6 jam, dan harus dipastikan oleh 2 orang dokter. Sedangkan di negara tertentu bisa sampai menunggu 24 jam, misalnya di Israel.

Singkat kata pada saat mati suri, otak masih berfungsi baik, makanya orang-orang yang mati suri bisa “melihat” Tuhan dan akhirat. Yang mereka “lihat” juga sesuai dengan apa yang mereka yakini, makanya orang Kristen akan “melihat” Yesus, orang Islam “melihat” Muhammad, orang Yunani kuno “melihat” Hades, dll. Bukan hal yang aneh pula untuk orang Kristen “melihat” Muhammad atau pun ateis “melihat” Yesus karena jaman sekarang kebanyakan orang tau bermacam Tuhan dan nabi di luar kepercayaan mereka.
Intinya apa yang dilihat atau dialami saat mati suri itu ya sama kayak mimpi aja.

Ada juga orang mati suri yang sebenarnya jantungnya masih memompa darah dan sistem pernapasannya masih bekerja tapi frekuensinya sangat rendah sehingga tidak terdeteksi pada pemeriksaan biasa. Bila keadaannya sudah memungkinkan maka jantung dan sistem pernapasan akan berfungsi seperti biasa dan orang yang mati suri akan “hidup” lagi alias ga jadi mati.

Iklan

Lebensraum

0

Lebensraum is the land or territory that a country’s leaders believe it requires in order to grow and flourish. The word lebensraum has almost always been used to talk about Germany’s strategy in World War II.

Lebensraum was used early in the twentieth century by Germans explaining a plan to colonize other countries, but the word is most strongly associated with Nazi Germany. The Nazis used the idea of Lebensraum, literally “living space” in German, as the basis of their policy for the Germany’s expansion. Lebensraum was the excuse for the invasion of Poland and the desire to occupy Russia, the the goal of using resources from those countries to benefit Germans and Germany.


Lebensraum


 

Origins

The idea of a Germanic people without sufficient space dates back to long before Adolf Hitler brought it to prominence. The term Lebensraum, in this sense, was coined by Friedrich Ratzel in 1897, and was used as a slogan in Germany referring to the unification of the country and the acquisition of colonies, based on the English and French models. Ratzel believed that the development of a people was primarily influenced by their geographical situation and that a people that successfully adapted to one location would proceed naturally to another. This expansion to fill available space, he claimed, was a natural and “necessary” feature of any healthy species.[1]

Did you know?
 
“Lebensraum” (German for “living space”) was a major motivation for Nazi Germany‘s territorial aggression.
 

These beliefs were furthered by scholars of the day, including Karl Haushofer and Friedrich von Bernhardi. In von Bernhardi’s 1912 book, Germany and the Next War, he expanded upon Ratzel’s hypotheses and, for the first time, explicitly identified Eastern Europe as a source of new space. According to him, war, with the express purpose of achieving Lebensraum, was a distinct “biological necessity.” As he explained with regard to the Latin and Slavic races, “Without war, inferior or decaying races would easily choke the growth of healthy budding elements.” The quest for Lebensraum was more than just an attempt to resolve potential demographic problems: It was a “necessary means of defending the German race against stagnation and degeneration.”[2]

Lebensraum almost became a reality in 1918, during World War I. The new communist regime of the Soviet Union concluded the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, ending Russian participation in the war in exchange for the surrender of huge swathes of land, including the Baltic territories, Belarus, Ukraine, and the Caucasus.[3] Only unrest at home and defeat on the Western Front forced Germany to abandon these favorable terms in favor of the Treaty of Versailles, by which the newly acquired eastern territories were sacrificed to new nations such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and a series of short-lived independent states in Ukraine. The desire for revenge over the loss of territory in the Treaty of Versailles was a key tenet of several nationalist and extremist groups in post-World War I Germany, notably the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler. There are, however, many historians who dismiss this “intentionalist” approach, and argue that the concept was actually an “ideological metaphor” in the early days of Nazism.[4]

Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence.[5]

Implementation

The Lebensraum ideology was a major factor in Hitler’s launching of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. The Nazis hoped to turn large areas of Soviet territory into German settlement areas as part of Generalplan Ost.[6] Developing these ideas, Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg proposed that the Nazi administrative organization in lands to be conquered from the Soviets be based upon the following Reichskommissariats:

  • Ostland (Baltic States, Belarus and eastern Poland),
  • Ukraine (Ukraine and adjacent territories),
  • Kaukasus (Caucasus area),
  • Moskau (the Moscow metropolitan area and adjacent European Russia)

The Reichskommissariat territories would extend up to the European frontier at the Urals. They were to have been early stages in the displacement and dispossession of Russian and other Slav people and their replacement with German settlers, following the Nazi Lebensraum im Osten plans. When German forces entered Soviet territory, they promptly organized occupation regimes in the first two territories—the Reichskomissariats of Ostland and Ukraine. The defeat of the Sixth Army at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, followed by defeat in the Battle of Kursk in July 1943, and the Allied landings in Sicily put an end to the plans’ implementation.

Historical perspective

Historians debate whether Hitler’s position on Lebensraum was part of a larger program of world domination (the so-called “globalist” position) or a more modest “continentalist” approach, by which Hitler would have been satisfied with the conquest of Eastern Europe. Nor are the two positions necessarily contradictory, given the idea of a broader Stufenplan, or “plan in stages,” which many such as Klaus Hildebrand and the late Andreas Hillgruber argue lay behind the regime’s actions.[7] Historian Ian Kershaw suggests just such a compromise, claiming that while the concept was originally abstract and undeveloped, it took on new meaning with the invasion of the Soviet Union.[8] He goes on to note that even within the Nazi regime, there were differences of opinion about the meaning of Lebensraum, citing Rainer Zitelmann, who distinguishes between the near-mystical fascination with a return to an idyllic agrarian society (for which land was a necessity) as advocated by Darré and Himmler, and an industrial state, envisioned by Hitler, which would be reliant on raw materials and forced labor.[9]

What seems certain is that echoes of lost territorial opportunities in Europe, such as the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, played an important role in the Hitlerian vision for the distant future:

The acquisition of new soil for the settlement of the excess population possesses an infinite number of advantages, particularly if we turn from the present to the future … It must be said that such a territorial policy cannot be fulfilled in the Cameroons, but today almost exclusively in Europe.[10]

In his memoir, Mein Kampf, Hitler expressed his view that history was an open-ended struggle to the death between races. His plan to conquer Lebensraum is closely connected with his racism and social Darwinism. Racism is not a necessary aspect of expansionist politics in general, nor was the original use of the term Lebensraum. However, under Hitler, the term came to signify a specific, racist kind of expansionism.

In an era when the earth is gradually being divided up among states, some of which embrace almost entire continents, we cannot speak of a world power in connection with a formation whose political mother country is limited to the absurd area of five hundred thousand square kilometers (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf).

Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation (Hitler, Mein Kampf).

For it is not in colonial acquisitions that we must see the solution of this problem, but exclusively in the acquisition of a territory for settlement, which will enhance the area of the mother country, and hence not only keep the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of their origin, but secure for the entire area those advantages which lie in its unified magnitude (Hitler, Mein Kampf).

Notes

  1. Harriet Wanklyn, Friedrich Ratzel: A Biographical Memoir and Bibliography (Cambridge University Press: 1961).
  2. Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich (Penguin Press, 2004, ISBN 1594200041), 35.
  3. Treaties of Brest Litovsk History.com. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
  4. Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems & Perspectives of Interpretation, (Oxford University Press, 2000, ISBN 0340760281).
  5. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Houghton Mifflin, 1971, ISBN 0385078016).
  6. Czeslaw Madajczyk, “Die Besatzungssysteme der Achsenmächte. Versuch einer komparatistischen Analyse,” Studia Historiae Oeconomicae vol. 14, in Gerd R. Uerbesch and Rolf-Dieter Müller, Hitler’s War in the East, 1941-1945: A Critical Assessment (Berghahn Books, 2008, ISBN 1845455010).
  7. Kershaw, 134–137.
  8. Kershaw, 154–155.
  9. Kershaw, 244–245.
  10. Hitler, 138.

References

  • Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Press, 2004. ISBN 1594200041.
  • Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971. ISBN 0385078016.
  • Kershaw, Ian. The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems & Perspectives of Interpretation, 4th edition. Oxford University Press, 2000. ISBN 0340760281.
  • Smith, Woodruff, D. The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism. Oxford University Press, 1986. ISBN 0195047419.
  • Uerbesch, Gerd R., and Rolf-Dieter Müller. Hitler’s War in the East 1941-1945: A Critical Assessment. Berghahn Books, 2008. ISBN 1845455010.
  • Wanklyn, Harriet. Friedrich Ratzel: A Biographical Memoir and Bibliography. Cambridge University Press, 1961. ASIN B0000CL4G8

External links

All links retrieved September 21, 2016.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lebensraum


Kata lebensraum (ruang hidup) pertama kali diungkapkan oleh seorang geograf Jerman bernama Friedrich Ratzel. Selama dua dekade Ratzel mengembangkan teori dimana semua perkembangan spesies (manusia, hewan dan lain-lain) ditentukan oleh adaptasi terhadap keadaan geografis. Ratzel sendiri percaya bahwa migrasi spesies merupakan faktor terpenting bagi adaptasi dan perubahan kebudayaan. Manusia yang telah menduduki suatu wilayah perlu untuk mengokupasi wilayah lain untuk mendapatkan wilayah yang lebih luas lagi. Inilah yang menjadi prinsip utama dalam lebensraum menurut Ratzel.
 
Inspirasi utama dari lebensraum sebenarnya berawal dari pernyataan Darwin tentang ‘survival for the fittest’ dimana yang organisme yang terkuatlah yang akan bertahan. Implementasi dari teori tersebut adalah seputar bagaimana manusia bisa beradaptasi dengan lingkungannya dan bagaimana alam menyeleksi manusia melalui peperangan. Siapa yang memiliki kekuatan militer yang baik maka dia yang memenangkan seleksi peperangan tersebut. Pada akhirnya manusia berlomba-lomba agar dapat mencapai kapasitas terbaiknya. Setelah itu dengan sendirinya manusia akan berevolusi sesuai dengan perkembangan zaman.
Darwin sebenarnya hanya bermaksud untuk mengkonsepsikan teorinya pada spesies tertentu dan bukan kepada kehidupan sosial manusia. Namun pada saat terbitnya buku hasil pemikirannya yang berjudul On The Origin of Species, para pemimpin dan pemikir di Eropa sangat termotivasi untuk menerapkan hasil pemikiran tersebut terhadap kebijakan negara mereka. Sehingga kejadian tersebut sangat berdampak pada kehidupan sosial manusia yang kemudian dikonsepsikan sebagai Social Darwinism. Sehingga disini kita dapat melihat bahwa ternyata teori-teori Darwin yang diperuntukkan bagi yang bukan manusia ternyata dipraktekan dalam kehidupan sosial manusia.
Ide-ide inilah kemudian yang diangkat oleh Hitler dengan partai Nazi-nya. Ketika Hitler berkuasa, dia memiliki beberapa pemikiran yang rasial, salah satunya adalah bagaimana caranya agar bangsa Jerman bisa berjaya di kancah dunia. Belum lagi dia memiliki kebencian terhadap Yahudi yang selama ini selalu mendominasi dalam seluruh bidang di Jerman sehingga rakyat Jerman sendiri tertindas dan kalah oleh persaingan tersebut. Tentu saja hal ini sangat dipengaruhi oleh latar belakang Hitler sendiri, walaupun pada akhirnya Hitler banyak dipengaruhi oleh teori-teori Darwin tersebut. Hitler berusaha menggunakan konsep Darwin demi kepentingan atau ambisi pribadinya untuk menumpas Yahudi dan menjadikan bangsa Jerman berjaya.
Keadaan ini cocok sekali ketika seorang akademisi yang bernama Karl Haushofer memperkenalkan apa yang dinamakan dengan geopolitik. Geopolitik merupakan sebuah doktrin mengenai sebuah kebijakan yang dikaitkan dengan wilayah geografis. Haushofer memandang bahwa geopolitik terdiri dari dua kekuatan utama, yaitu kekuatan laut dan daratan.[1]
Kekuatan laut digambarkan sebagai Inggris yang sedang mengalami kemunduran, hingga kemudian sudah saatnya untuk kekuatan daratan (Jerman) yang menunjukkan eksistensinya. Pada saat itu pula kemudian Haushofer yang setuju dengan lebensraum ikut mempengaruhi Hitler menjalankan kebijakan luar negerinya. Idenya adalah bahwa orang-orang Jerman tidak memiliki ruang geografis yang cukup dan bahwa Jerman harus memperoleh tanah kolonial untuk diekspoitasi. [2]
Hitler pun setuju dengan konsepsi-konsepsi tersebut. Dia berasumsi bahwa sebagai bangsa Aria, mereka mempertimbangkan sebuah negara sebagai organisme dari orang-orang, organisme yang kemudian tidak hanya melindungi orang-orang, tetapi memiliki fungsi sedemikian rupa untuk memimpin orang-orang pada posisi kebebasan tertinggi dengan cara pembangunan progresif di bidang intelektual dan budaya. [3]
Dalam pada itu, Hitler ingin menjadikan Jerman sebagai negara yang dapat memimpin orang-orang lain. Dia juga beranggapan bahwa negeri Jerman perlu menemukan keberanian agar bisa mencari tanah dan dataran baru sehingga mereka tidak dibatasi ruang hidupnya dan kemudian tidak menjadi bangsa yang tertindas oleh perbudakan oleh bangsa lain.
Gambar implementasi geopolitik lebensraum Jerman pada Perang Dunia Kedua

 

Kemudian jika melihat arah kebijakan mengenai lebensraum yang diimplementasikan Hitler dan Nazi Jerman, maka kita akan menemukan bahwa kebijakan tersebut lebih condong terhadap kebijakan-kebijakan yang bersifat rasial. Bagaimana kemudian Hitler menyebut ras lain sebagai ras yang lebih rendah, sehingga pada akhirnya ras yang lebih rendah tersebut harus dimusnahkan demi eksistensi ras yang superior atau paling mulia, yaitu ras bangsa Jerman sendiri. Maka cara-cara peranglah yang akhirnya dibenarkan untuk melakukan kebijakan tersebut.
Hitler yang memiliki semangat menggebu untuk menjadikan Jerman bangsa yang digjaya kemudian menjadikan lebensraum sebagai geopolitik negara Jerman. Pertamanya konsep lebensraum hanya sebatas memperbanyak koloni seperti penjajahan yang dilakukan Inggris dan Perancis. Inggris dan Perancis dianggap memiliki kekuatan karena mereka memiliki banyak koloni.
Hitler menganggap bahwa Jerman perlu kekuatan yang ketika dunia terkotak-kotak sebagai negara-negara, Jerman tidak hanya berdiri sebagai Jerman yang hanya 5000 kilometer persegi. Melainkan harus lebih besar daripada itu. Ditambah lagi pada 1926 setelah muncul buku dari Hans Grimm “A People Without Space”, Hitler merubah konsep lebensraum menjadi lebih luas bahwa wilayah Jerman harus meliputi seluruh Eropa. Sehingga wilayah Eropa kemudian menjadi tanah orang-orang Jerman.
Konsep lebensraum atau ruang hidup adalah salah satu justifikasi mengapa Jerman pada kedua perang dunia ingin mengambil wilayah negara lain. Walaupun disatu sisi Jerman merasa bahwa mereka tidak memiliki ruang lagi untuk penduduknya di negaranya, tapi sebenarnya keadaan di Jerman sendiri tidak demikian. Hanya saja ketika mereka melihat negara lain selalu berkembang maju maka ada pernyataan,”tanpa perang, inferior atau ras yang rendahan akan dengan mudah mendesak elemen sehat yang baru berkembang (Jerman) dan kemunduran universal akan berlanjut.” [4]
Cukup menarik jika berbicara mengenai pendapat tentang perang bagi ras bangsa Jerman. Ada yang mengatakan bahwa perang adalah baik karena perang adalah satu-satunya cara bagi suatu bangsa untuk menunjukkan bahwa mereka lebih kuat daripada yang lain. Di lain pihak juga terdapat oposan bahwa ternyata perang itu buruk bagi ras karena korban perang dari ras superior akan menjadi kerugian karena kehilangan sebagian anggota ras terbaik. Terdapat pandangan menarik juga ketika ternyata perang merupakan takdir dari ras superior tersebut sehingga memang perang tak dapat dihindari oleh mereka.
Karena dalam pandangan ini perang sebagai instrumen evolusi, para pemimpin Jerman menganggap perang sebagai pilihan yang diinginkan, meskipun mereka tidak bisa memastikan kemenangan.[5]
Tentunya hal ini adalah tindakan yang beresiko mengingat Jerman hanya mengandalkan teori yang sebenarnya bukan diperuntukkan untuk kehidupan sosial manusia. Sehingga sebenarnya Jerman hanya melakukan tindakan yang sia-sia dengan bertaruh bahwa geopolitik tersebut akan berhasil. Hasilnya, Jerman kalah dalam perang dua kali dan diakibatkan oleh konsep lebensraum yang sebenarnya hanya proyek rasial Hitler karena kebenciannya terhadap bangsa atau orang Yahudi.
Selain itu lebensraum tidak lain hanyalah gambaran kecil dari hukum rimba dimana peperangan dihalalkan karena alasan kepentingan manusia yang berbeda-beda. Sehingga untuk memenuhi kepentingannya, manusia tersebut bisa saja menyerang manusia lain agar dia tetap bisa mempertahankan eksistensi hidupnya. Secara tidak langsung ketika kita melakukan hal tersebut, kita sedang berperilaku seperti spesies yang disebutkan Darwin, rata-rata mengenai binatang.
REFERENCES
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf.

[3] Mein Kampf hal 307
[4] Evans, R., The Coming of the Third Reich, p. 35, Penguin, 2005.
[5] Herwig, H., “Germany” in: The Origins of World War One, Ref. 7; p. 186
 

NAP – NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

0

You’ve heard libertarians talking about it. You’ve seen the dank memes. But what exactly is the non-aggression principle? What does it do? And why does it get talked about so much?

In this post, I’ll try to explain.

There are many historical antecedents to the NAP, but libertarians usually trace its current formulation to Murray Rothbard, who put it as follows:

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another.

In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.

The nonaggression principle is sometimes (and confusingly) called an axiom, a practice which Rothbard also began. If we use the standard meaning of the word “axiom,” the NAP is no such thing: an axiom is a statement that is self-evidently true or that cannot reasonably be denied. An example of a philosophical axiom might be something like “I am aware of phenomena” or “modus ponens is a valid form of reasoning.”

The NAP requires more argument than these. Although it may be foundational to libertarian theory – and thus axiomatic in a weaker sense of the term — the NAP clearly does not prove itself; just as clearly, reasonable people can and do deny it. Crucially, the NAP depends on the existence of a definition of aggression; if this definition of aggression is to encompass assaults not committed directly on the body, then the NAP also depends on a valid theory of property ownership. Neither of these is self-evident. Both are contentious topics in political theory about which libertarians offer a specific set of answers, but not everyone will agree with us.

Note that we can’t use the NAP to establish that property may be justly held. Nor can we use it to establish the validity of a particular pattern of property ownership among many — that would be circular: ownership rights cannot acquire the condition of justice simply by asserting that their violation would be unjust.

And yet property claims must derive from something; they seem all but inescapable. Claims about property are found even among animals. The earliest known forms of writing are tallies that were apparently used to keep track of possessions. Contrary to what some on the left may say, no human society appears ever to have been entirely without property.

Indeed, even a wholly communist society would run on the assertion that the whole of the people is the collective owner of all property. By no means does communism lack property claims: on the contrary, its claims in this area are almost impossibly rigid and ubiquitous. How well such a society could instantiate these claims (and what results may come of trying) are different questions entirely. What matters is that even communist societies make claims about property constantly.

If property claims are an inevitable feature of human society, as seems likely, then we cannot escape the question of what status these claims will have, whether collectively or in particular. We must ask not so much whether property is justified, but rather what its extent should be, which objects should be subject to property claims, and which entities within society should be the rightful possessors of what goods, and for what reasons.

John Locke’s theory of property, which has frequently been invoked by classical liberals, holds that property began as a grant of the entire world, from God, to all of humanity in common. Property became private, Locke held, because property existed from the beginning to satisfy human needs, and because private property was apt to satisfy those needs more effectively. Individuals improve private property, a step which they tend not to take with a commons, and thus private property is more apt to the purpose for which property exists in any form.

For those not satisfied by the Lockean account — myself included — David Hume offered a justification for private property that rests on its effects upon human beings:

Who sees not, for instance, that whatever is produced or improved by a man’s art or industry ought, for ever, to be secured to him, in order to give encouragement to such useful habits and accomplishments? That the property ought also to descend to children and relations, for the same useful purpose? That it may be alienated by consent, in order to beget that commerce and intercourse, which is so beneficial to human society? And that all contracts and promises ought carefully to be fulfilled, in order to secure mutual trust and confidence, by which the general interest of mankind is so much promoted?

Examine the writers on the laws of nature; and you will always find, that, whatever principles they set out with, they are sure to terminate here at last, and to assign, as the ultimate reason for every rule which they establish, the convenience and necessities of mankind.

Emphasis added. Societies in which property is privately held will cultivate useful habits and accomplishments in their members: property conduces to virtue. (Hume’s argument here is sometimes taken for a rejection of natural law altogether, but I do not agree. Although it relies on no supernatural justifications, observations about the nature of mankind may indeed form the basis for a type of natural law theory.)

We might add to Hume the further observation that where property is held in common, individuals will often endeavor to live by the labor of others, using the common property as a means to their own ends. The efforts expended in pursuing this strategy, however, are not productive; they do not add to the stock of goods that humanity has at its disposal. In this sense, they represent wasted effort, and the waste is encouraged by the system of common property itself. Similarly, when property is not held in common, but when its tenure is doubtful or insecure, individuals will not exercise the industry needed to improve it for the long term, and this too impoverishes humanity in general.

None of these considerations are likely to be terribly problematic to someone who has grown up in a society where private property predominates. We are used to the usefulness of property.

But there is something about the NAP that is nonetheless politically important, because it serves as an indictment of much government action that is otherwise held to be morally acceptable. The NAP reminds us that theories of property in many of their most common and seemingly inoffensive formulations stand deeply at odds with the justifications for government action that are held by (perhaps) the vast majority of citizens in the modern world. That this vast majority simultaneously holds to something like a Lockean or a Humean conception of private property ought to trouble them enormously: such a conception may call into question the propriety of the state itself.

As Rothbard put it, “The problem is not so much in arriving at [the NAP] as in fearlessly and consistently pursuing its numerous and often astounding implications.” This task has always been the work of the libertarian movement, and it has indeed brought us to some astounding implications, including the idea that taxation is tantamount to theft.

Almost everyone has some theory of property, even if it’s a badly considered one. And almost everyone has a theory of what government ought to do. Pointing out that these theories are usually in conflict with one another is an important move, above all when government is apt to justify itself by arguing that it preserves property rights. Thus, the NAP’s importance is not that it founds a theory of property, but rather that it points out a conflict: considered as classes, theories of property and theories of government usually don’t get along too well. Actions that deprive individuals of property without their consent stand as exceptions to the rule of private property, a rule which most of us generally endorse. And yet “actions that deprive individuals of private property without their consent” are precisely what make governments function.

Forcing people to confront this conflict in their intuitions isn’t trivial work by any means. Resolutions to the conflict may vary, but libertarians can almost be defined as those who refuse to grant special exemptions to the government when private property is at stake. It may be that particular government actions can be justified, but doing so will require a careful revision of our deeper ideas about private property. This sort of revision is almost never actually undertaken by the proponents of state action, and when it is undertaken, it is seldom to the satisfaction of libertarians. Even without fully adopting the libertarian program, others may do well to consider more carefully these conflicting intuitions.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AN D

0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&app=desktop

Ancap. I do not believe in IP. Idea’s overlap, and new ideas are just remixes of old ideas. There’s no such thing as an “Original Idea”

be fair, I can understand the logic behind Intellectual property. I think that laws protecting IP’s served their purpose for a long time too. It incentivized creation for a long time, but now it does the opposite. Once you realize that ideas are made entirely from pre-existing ideas, it’s hard to get behind the idea of intellectual property.

The way I see it, if you sell something then it is no longer yours and cannot have any claim to it.. If you share something and have a written agreement to not share with others then that is a contract, but sharing without an agreement, then it is open to be shared with anyone and everyone and you should have no say in it.

IP is not tangible, if someone takes your idea you still have access to your idea, if someone takes your property you no longer have access to it!

Competition drives innovation! Imagine where movies are super encrypted to try and prevent your scenario even then it’s going drive the market to create something to decrypt it…IP hinders progress!

If I download a movie according to IP I am not allowed to arrange the ones and zeros in my hard drive in a particular fashion . An entity that I did not contract with is claiming ownership of my computer. i.e. Telling me how I can and can’t arrange the ones and zeros in my hard drive. Ip is a direct violation of property rights, not a protection of them

Also. Iron Maiden figured out where the most “illegal” downloads were coming from and arranged their tour accordingly and raked millions.

I used to subscribe completely to the theory that IP was flawed. Now, I’m not 100% sure.
In my opinion, we need no IP laws, but otherwise applicable NAP solves the rest. Example:
If I want you to pay me $3 before gaining access to my software, if you somehow circumvent the payment system and get it without paying, you’ve just committed fraud.
If you redistribute that stolen software, obviously none of your clients can be held responsible since they committed no breach of NAP. If, however, they knew about t he immoral means you went through to get the software in the first place, they are accomplices in breaking the NAP and thus can be held accountable.
If I upload it for free online and ask for donations, you downloading and redistributing my software is perfectly fine, though. I made it freely available to the public in the first place. You making it also freely available is doe not involve fraud unless you try to copy my website and make people think you’re me, and they start sending YOU donations instead of me. Then that’s also fraud.

IP, patents, and copyright, leads to monopolies dumbass. Of course we are against them. Why would we want to stifle innovation?

it’s Eddison syndrome. Capitalists tend not to invent anything so IP seldom works to their advantage. If a poor person invents something and holds IP, then there’s a danger they can get funding to take it to market and out compete established business. That’s literally stealing food from the mouths of capitalists. But a capitalist doesn’t invent a new drug. Scientists do. Surely IP would be more likely to incentivise those scientists to do that?

It also disincentivises solving problems. Like cancer.

I’m a cluster headache sufferer. A terrible incurable condition that is in reality curable… except it’s way more profitable to treat than cure. Every sufferer is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of their lifetime… provided they remain symptomatic.

Even better, the pain is so debilitating that people will accept short term relief at the expense of a long term worsening of the condition into one that requires more treatment. It’s a real cash cow.

I stumbled on the cure back in ’93, and the pharmaceutical industry was very interested. So much so that they lobbied to have a loophole shut to make the cure illegal. Now we are in the bizarre situation where thousands of people round the world are presently breaking the law in order to lead normal healthy lives.


I might be one of the rare people that understood his question. Let’s get down to business.

1) According to the “an”cap religion people are the property of themselves (just try wrapping your head around that utter nonsense) and therefore own the product of the their labour. Why should that be different for non-physical products?

1) I love how you want to debate and yet you keep insulting people. It’s quite an amusing strategy, and looking at the comments it works. This one is quite simple tho: as ancap, there’s no way to force people not to copy your idea. You can encrypt it, that’s all. We’re for encryption if that matters. Nobody cares.

2) Without IPR how would intellectual property be created? What is the incentive for people to work on non-profitable labour when they have bills to pay?

2) People might (will) protect their idea better, not tell everyone everything they do on facebook. Encrypt files, mails. Intellectual property isn’t created. That’s the point. Nobody can prove “I’ve got this idea first!” But you can prove that you made this type of car first.

3) We’ve reached the stage where a single movie can make $1bn profit, without going into all the other massively profitable forms of IP. Are we really supposed to believe that with such vast amounts of money involved the businesses in industries that rely on IPR are not going to use whatever means are at their disposal to enforce it?

3) Whatever means are at their disposal: a government. To be fair, it’s a good question wether or not we would have such an industry (movies & musics) without government-backed IPR. I think it would be less centered on pure entertainment, but that’s only my opinion.

Ancaps are against IPR because it requires enforcement. It requires a government. That’s as simple as that.


“so you lost your idea?”

Again, you’re trying to apply rules that apply to the physical world to non-physical things.

“I didnt take nything from you.”

Yes, you did. You stole my idea. Again, you’re saying that since the physical item wasn’t stolen, therefore, the intellectual property wasn’t stolen.

And you’re cherry picking the definition of theft. Theft, even of physical things, involves a lot more than the owner losing his property. It also involves someone else benefitting from it against the owner’s will, which occurs when intellectual property is stolen.

If you spent years training to be a singer and you finally got good enough to make records and then, when you made records, you didn’t sell any because everyone downloaded them for free, would you feel that that was unfair?

Coca-cola is relying on IP. Since they regard their formula as their property, they’re doing the same thing that people who lock the doors to their houses do.

But that doors to houses aren’t invincible and burglars break in, that doesn’t mean that it’s not theft.


IP is not an incentive to create!

Aside from the obvious problems of enforcement.

Look at any named brand pharmaceutical without a IP licence. Let’s take Nurophen.

Any one can make a cheap generic Ibuprofen tablet yet the brand survives. Indeed it is one of the biggest brands in the industry. How is this possible?

The answer is goodwill.

Another way to phrase this. Given the choice, would you rather see a Metallica concert, or a Metallica cover band concert. IP is not an incentive to create!

Aside from the obvious problems of enforcement.

Look at any named brand pharmaceutical without a IP licence. Let’s take Nurophen.

Any one can make a cheap generic Ibuprofen tablet yet the brand survives. Indeed it is one of the biggest brands in the industry. How is this possible?

The answer is goodwill.

Another way to phrase this. Given the choice, would you rather see a Metallica concert, or a Metallica cover band concert.


The question is, does original idea for IP actually exist? but sometimes it is kinda an overlap idea, from pre-existing. That is why there is a term ‘original copy’. And also debatable when you share something without agreement to others not to copy and it means open shared to be copied. It wast stolen cause you still have an access to it. Fine as long as it still becoming a personal property rights. I dunno e.g 101 in your computer, at least im sure for one thing IP concept is flawed.

But it seems to make a copyright/IPR merely is long extention from capitalist’s hands, for extracting other profits and leads to monopolies, two sided sword as Eddison’s syndrome (disincentivises).


The state uses this farce known as, “intellectual property,” to create a barrier for competition. Barriers to competition are antithetical to free market trade, which Capitalism depends on, and which cannot exist in Anarchy, since there is no state to regulate the market.


You’re just lazy and want to piggyback off of other peoples ideas. You want to borrow them and make money. Because you’re either not smart enough or not creative enough to come up with your own intellectual property so therefore intellectual property should be communal.


Intellectual property is largely ignored by most people, but hotly debated amongst libertarians. Some defend it while others reject it. This article attempts to show why intellectual property is something that libertarians should oppose.

The basic problem with the idea of intellectual property is that it essentially says that you can own an idea and control what other people do with it. For one thing, the only way to “own” an idea is to keep it to yourself; once you tell someone else about it, they can then do as they like with it. Some would consider that theft, especially if there is a violation of a copyright or patent involved, but there is a crucial component to theft that is missing in this case: the loss of physical property.

Suppose you walk into a store, grab a CD, and walk out without paying for it. You’ve deprived the store owner of physical property without justly compensating them for the loss, which means you’ve stolen from them. Now suppose you’re listening to several songs online (the same number of songs on a standard CD) and you download them without paying for them (called pirating, but not the fun kind that involves Jack Sparrow). You haven’t deprived the website owner of anything, because those songs are still on that website, and most people who pirate media would have gone without the media if they couldn’t get it without paying for it, so you’re not even depriving the website of any revenue. Because of this, piracy, along with other violations of intellectual property laws, is not theft.

From here, we can move on to examine two big problems with intellectual property laws. The next few paragraphs will talk about how they violate property rights, and the ones after that will show their negative economic effects. Property rights are based on homesteading, which is simply mixing your labor with unowned resources. Trading with the legitimate owner of a piece of property and collecting abandoned property are additional ways you can legitimately acquire property. These are often called the economic means. Intellectual property laws invoke the political means, which is an unjust way to acquire property. Taxation and eminent domain are examples of the political means. All manifestations of the political means are based on theft, and intellectual property laws are no exception.

If Person A and Person B both create, completely independently from one another, a new type of machine and both machines perform the same function and operate in the same fashion, then they are each the owners of their respective machines. Should their machines bring some value for business, such as the production of goods, then they can compete to see whose machine is better or who can use it in a way that better satisfies customers. In this way, they’re respecting each other’s rights to use their machines. But under the current laws, Person A could take out a patent on the design for his machine, which would give him some amount of control over Person B’s machine.

Since Person A did not homestead Person B’s machine, Person B has not abandoned his machine, and Person A did not acquire Person B’s machine through trade, that means that Person A has effectively stolen Person B’s machine. Even if the patent merely prevents Person B from selling his machine or using it to compete against Person A, it is still preventing Person B from exercising his full rights over his machine. Being able to do as you like with your property, as long as you don’t violate anyone else’s rights, is an essential component of property rights. Therefore, being denied full access to your property is a violation of your rights, and since intellectual property laws violate your rights by denying you full access to your property, they are illegitimate.

Some people may not be satisfied with those arguments. They might disagree with the stated justification for property rights, or say that intellectual property laws are essential for the smooth functioning of society. This paragraph will show how they can be used to bring about the antithesis. The previous paragraph briefly discussed competition. In the free market, there are multiple providers for every good and service (except for services which the government has monopolized, but that’s a subject for another article). This means that each provider has to offer quality stuff at reasonable prices in order to keep their customers and stay in business. If their quality is far lower than that of a competitor, or their prices far higher, then they will lose customers to that competitor; this will happen even faster if both their quality and prices are worse than those of their competitor.

Historically, this resulted in prices decreasing over time. The more efficiently a firm can produce, the lower its costs of production will be, which can then be passed forward to its customers in the form of lower prices. To keep their customers, other firms will strive to increase their efficiency so that they too can offer quality goods at low prices. This is how the free market benefits both producers and consumers.

But intellectual property laws throw a wrench in this beautiful system. Person A, with his patent on the design for his machine, can prevent Person B from using his similar machine to compete with Person A. So Person A can reap the benefits of more efficient production while using the strong arm of the state to prevent Person B from doing the same, meaning he has an unfair advantage. Because this restricts competition, customers don’t get to enjoy the benefits they would with more competition.

Over time, perhaps Person C will develop a new machine that is even more efficient than the one Person A patented, or the patent could expire. Either of those scenarios would bring about the benefits of competition, but at a much later date than if intellectual property laws did not exist. Because of this, intellectual property laws are basically a shield which inefficient or uncreative producers can use to protect themselves from competition, which results in greater inefficiency and stagnation by preventing others from improving on their stuff. The free market, on the other hand, rewards efficiency and creativity while punishing inefficiency, leading to a more dynamic society.

What would a society without intellectual property laws be like? It would be more respectful of property rights. It would be more efficient and careful with resources. The market would more accurately reflect the dollar votes of the customers. Budding entrepreneurs would be able to get into the market more easily. Corruption and lack of creativity would decrease as honesty and originality increased. The government would be severely crippled in its ability to pick the winners and losers, which also means that lobbying for special favors would be far less effective. Freedom would increase for everyone across the board. These are some positive changes that would take effect after the abolition of intellectual property laws. There are likely many more benefits to be gained, so let’s do what we can to make this happen.


 

Is Hitler Left or Right?

0

Is it hitler left or right wing? Or seemingly as a dictatorship of prol rather it just to be dicatorship of the fuhrer?

Cause when NsDAP won over the right-win gov, and already took control over it, it gradually influenced by benito mussolini (facism) to become centralized govt and left leaning authotarian govt become such a possible? or maybe there are also alternative alternative point of view on this one.

And afterall propaganda is still propaganda. Some of the latter openly align themselves with historical Nazism, to the point of waving swastikas, spouting anti-Semitic rhetoric, and imitating the tactics of Adolf Hitler.

As closure i would quote what Hitler said to become lighter in our discussion :

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions” – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224–225. ISBN 0385037244.


The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

The Strasserists are described as anti-capitalist and Gregor Strasser was killed during the Night of the Long Knives along with other victims.

It appears that the NsDAP itself won over a right-wing government and was gradually influenced by Benito Mussolini’s fascismo as in melding business and a centralized government.

The Nazis were crony capitalists. Mussolini himself, for example, considered his ideology to be “a union between corporation and state,” which Hitler generally embraced.

Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism began in Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1939-75), and various other nations, starting generally in the time between the first and second world war. The origin of the term comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from the Latin fasces (a bundle of elm or birch rods containing an ax: once a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Benito Mussolini adopted the symbol as the emblem of the Italian Fascist movement in 1919.

The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes (see petty bourgeois), with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, lumpen proletariat. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of big capital. These capitalists along with the top-tier leaders they create become fascism’s ruling aristocracy.

Fascism has many different forms: the Italian fascism of Mussolini was often against Hitler’s Fascism, calling it “one hundred percent racism: Against everything and everyone: Yesterday against Christian civilization, today against Latin civilization, tomorrow, who knows, against the civilization of the whole world.”

While Mussolini had once been a member of the Socialist party (banished from the party for his rampant support of World War I), Hitler fought leftists from the first. Thus it is not without irony, that in the name for his party Hitler used “socialist,” (Nazi = National Socialist) conceding to the ingrained consciousness the German masses had for leftist ideals. It should be noted that fascism supported the community ideal, but not the grassroots power of direct community democracy as Socialism demands, but the obedience and unity of the community to vanguard of the Nation.

I still think that left-leaning authoritarianism is possible, and exists to some extent (I’m not naming those countries here) because even tribalism or populism can be authoritarian in nature, but it’s rare and less extreme. Note: Hitler was not a populist because he was not about helping people on the bottom since he wanted to exterminate such folks.


Hitler as Conservative Weapon

Twenty-first-century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself.

There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.


Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism

Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p. 173).

Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it.

Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper-class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.


The National Socialist German Worker’s Party

While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.

At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties.

The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length and which, as he took control, ceased to have anything to do with socialism.


‘National Socialism’ and Nazism

Hitler’s National Socialism, and quickly the only National Socialism which mattered, wished to promote those of ‘pure’ German blood, removing citizenship for Jews and aliens, and promoted eugenics, including the execution of the disabled and mentally ill. National Socialism did promote equality among Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divides, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism, and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage. Race was to be the heart of Nazism, as opposed to class focused socialism.​

Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion – and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric.

Third position. National socialism combines the right wing nationalism with the left wing socialism. Originally it was more left wing and anti-capitalist and opposed jews from an economic perspective( they saw jews as the exploiters). After the Night of the Long Knives most of the left wing party members were purged. Some were killed while others joined Strasser. You can say that at that point Hitler was the only one to hold the original anti-capitalist pro-revolution view of the party, even though he was accused by Strasser of betraying the socialist aspect of the party. Strasser even called Hitler’s revolution only a half-revolution. In conclusion it was more right wing towards the end but I think it’s stupid to try to pin it on a one dimensional axis.

Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred – the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.

German historian and National Socialism expert Joachim Fest characterizes this repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of “prestidigitation”:

This ideology took a leftist label chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930 Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy.

Despite continuing certain Weimar-era social welfare programs, the Nazis proceeded to restrict their availability to “racially worthy” (non-Jewish) beneficiaries. In terms of labor, worker strikes were outlawed. Trade unions were replaced by the party-controlled German Labor Front, primarily tasked with increasing productivity, not protecting workers. In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature. As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist ideal “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of “Take everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.”

Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality.

https://www.snopes.com/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

“As with other fascist ideologies and movements, it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)

Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism began in Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1939-75), and various other nations, starting generally in the time between the first and second world war. The origin of the term comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from the Latin fasces (a bundle of elm or birch rods containing an ax: once a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Benito Mussolini adopted the symbol as the emblem of the Italian Fascist movement in 1919.

The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes (see petty bourgeois), with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, lumpen proletariat. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of big capital. These capitalists along with the top-tier leaders they create become fascism’s ruling aristocracy.

Fascism has many different forms: the Italian fascism of Mussolini was often against Hitler’s Fascism, calling it “one hundred percent racism: Against everything and everyone: Yesterday against Christian civilization, today against Latin civilization, tomorrow, who knows, against the civilization of the whole world.” When Hitler began achieving impressive military conquests, which Mussolini had started in Ethiopia in 1935, the two formed an axis of power in June of 1940. The birth of fascism in Germany was aided by Western governments, who for two decades viewed it as the ideology that would successfully crush the Soviet Union. Not until Germany’s tanks were on the borders of England and France did those governments ‘switch’ sides: now it was their imperialist domination being threatened.

While Mussolini had once been a member of the Socialist party (banished from the party for his rampant support of World War I), Hitler fought leftists from the first. Thus it is not without irony, that in the name for his party Hitler used “socialist,” (Nazi = National Socialist) conceding to the ingrained consciousness the German masses had for leftist ideals. It should be noted that fascism supported the community ideal, but not the grassroots power of direct community democracy as Socialism demands, but the obedience and unity of the community to vanguard of the Nation. Further, orthodox fascism constantly parrots the Communist lexicon of working class struggle, etc, for reasons of populism. Neo-fascism, on the other hand, disdains any trace of Socialist/Communist terminology in their labels, and instead appeals to new populist roots: the modern aspirations of many workers to be wealthy, to be stronger than others, etc.

Fascism championed corporate economics, which operated on an anarcho-syndicalist model in reverse: associations of bosses in particular industries determine working conditions, prices, etc. In this form of corporatism, bosses dictate everything from working hours to minimum wages, without government interference. The fascist corporate model differs from the more moderate corporatist model by eradicating all forms of regulatory control that protect workers (so-called “consumers”), the environment, price fixing, insider trading, and destroying all independent workers’ organisations. In fascism, the corporate parliament either replaces the representative bodies of government or reduces them to a sham and the state freely intervenes in the activity of companies, either by bestowing favouritism, or handing them over to the control of rivals.

“to believe, to obey, to combat”

There are several fundamental characteristics of fascism, among them are:

  1. Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate leftists (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.
  2. Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation’s main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicious of foreigners.
  3. Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.
  4. Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.
  5. Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.
  6. Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in capitalist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers’ rights are destroyed.
  7. War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus “liberate” the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.
  8. Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.
  9. Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history

Joseph Goebbels Hitler’s right hand man quoted these left wing quotes;

  • We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism! We are against Marxism, but for true socialism! We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature! We are for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party!
  • The worker in a capitalist state—and that is his deepest misfortune—is no longer a living human being, a creator, a maker. He has become a machine. A number, a cog in the machine without sense or understanding. He is alienated from what he produces.”
  • Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.
  • To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.
  • It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism.

Adolf Hitler himself also was a left wing socialist and not a right wing capitalist in these quotes Hitler quoted;

  • I have learned a great deal from Marxism” … “as I do not hesitate to admit”
  • [My task is to] “convert the German volk (people) to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists”
  • “If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites – and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose.” “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?”
  • We must “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution”.
  • “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
  • “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish we shall be in a position to achieve.”

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions” – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224–225. ISBN 0385037244.

he couldn’t be a socialist. He killed other socialist parties and he hated unions.

He actually killed and stopped other competing socialist parties. The communist parties in Germany were jewish.. do I need to say more?

Hitler wanted to centralize the economy. Having the economy state run. All businesses and industries state run. Determine salaries and prices. Unions would being competing with him. He replaced them with state ran unions once destroying the old ones called German Labour Front.

Hitler outlined his economic plan in the “Twenty-Five Point Programme” let’s take a look at Hitlers programme. Just a couple of the 25 points.

  1. “the nationalization of all businesses “
  2. profit-sharing in large enterprises
  3. development of insurance for old-age
  4. communalization of department stores
  5. end to the dominance of investment capital.

Later this turned into a 36 point programme. This outlines hitler and the Nazi party economic views. That hitler him self wrote. Some more reading on Hitlers economic views can be read here.

War and Economy in the Third Reich, Clarendon Press (Oxford University Press)

That’s look at the way he governed and programs. Let’s look at what hitler and the Nazi party did…

were strong supporters of progressive taxation, taxed people at 80%. Endless government social welfare programs. They favored greater government involvement in—and control of—business and industry, set prices and salaries. anti-religious.


HITLER KILLED COMMUNIST

https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007754

WW2 CAMP INMATE MARKINGS.jpg