XPost: alt.philosophy.objectivism, tor.general, alt.atheism   
   XPost: us.sc.columbia.politics   
   From: hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com   
      
   On 01/14/2014 05:15 PM, Topaz wrote:   
   >   
   > Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,   
   > on December 10, 1940:   
   >   
   > "In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy,   
   > which means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people   
   > must possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or   
   > their wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the   
   > people themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their   
   > convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The   
   > decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them?   
   > In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is,   
   > nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold   
   > wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their   
   > national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here   
   > we have liberty.' By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled   
   > economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to   
   > acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means   
   > freedom from national control or control by the people both in the   
   > acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what   
   > they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their   
   > own press and then speak of the 'freedom of the press.'   
   >   
   > In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every   
   > case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the   
   > editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the   
   > editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted   
   > the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and   
   > characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public   
   > opinion thus mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into   
   > political parties. The difference between these parties is as small   
   > as it formerly was in Germany. You know them, of course - the old   
   > parties. They were always one and the same. In Britain matters are   
   > usually so arranged that families are divided up, one member being a   
   > conservative, another a liberal, and a third belonging to the labor   
   > party. Actually, all three sit together as members of the family,   
   > decide upon their common attitude and determine it. A further point   
   > is that the 'elected people' actually form a community which operates   
   > and controls all these organizations. For this reason, the opposition   
   > in England is really always the same, for on all essential matters in   
   > which the opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always   
   > in agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the   
   > medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines.   
   > One might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches,   
   > the people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On   
   > the contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of   
   > the masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich   
   > Britain.'   
   >   
   > She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a   
   > hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living   
   > must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in   
   > England itself every person must have his share of these riches. By   
   > no means! In that country class distinction is the crassest   
   > imaginable. There is poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side,   
   > and equally incredible wealth on the other. They have not solved a   
   > single problem. The workmen of that country which possesses more than   
   > one-sixth of the globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in   
   > misery, and the masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country   
   > which ought to have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit,   
   > we find millions of the lower classes who have not even enough to   
   > fill their stomachs, and go about hungry. A nation which could   
   > provide work for the whole world must acknowledge the fact that it   
   > cannot even abolish unemployment at home. For decades this rich   
   > Britain has had two and a half million unemployed; rich America, ten   
   > to thirteen millions, year after year; France, six, seven, and eight   
   > hundred thousand. Well, my fellow-countrymen - what then are we to   
   > say about ourselves? It is self-evident that where this democracy   
   > rules, the people as such are not taken into consideration at all.   
   > The only thing that matters is the existence of a few hundred   
   > gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock and,   
   > through them, control the people. The masses of the people do not   
   > interest them in the least. They are interested in them just as were   
   > our bourgeois parties in former times - only when elections are being   
   > held, when they need votes. Otherwise, the life of the masses is a   
   > matter of complete indifference to them.   
   >   
   > To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not   
   > ludicrous to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of   
   > course, as a member of the Opposition is officially paid by the   
   > government - say: 'When the war is over, we will do something in   
   > social respects'? It is the members of Parliament who are the   
   > directors of the business concerns - just as used to be the case with   
   > us. But we have abolished all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot   
   > belong to a Board of Directors, except as a purely honorary member.   
   > He is prohibited from accepting any emolument, financial or   
   > otherwise. This is not the case in other countries.   
   >   
   > They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I   
   > can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very   
   > well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is   
   > another matter.   
   >   
   > The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it   
   > possible in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole   
   > year in return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an   
   > express train once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions   
   > are a disgrace. On the other hand, we National Socialists equally   
   > oppose the theory that all men are equals. Today, when a man of   
   > genius makes some astounding invention and enormously benefits his   
   > country by his brains, we pay him his due, for he has really   
   > accomplished something and been of use to his country. However, we   
   > hope to make it impossible for idle drones to inhabit this country.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)