For all good readers who were kind enough to write me and ask what happened to my recent articles here -- I was posting one a day, beginning less than a week ago -- they were without warning or notification deleted, and not by me.
Thank you all very much for reading. My website is still up and running:
UPDATE: A few people have wondered why the editors deleted all my articles except the two you see below. Answer: I don't know. I do know that they also deleted comments under one of the articles they let stand -- "Socialism, Nazism, Environmentalism" -- but exactly why they deleted those comments (and not the article), I know not either.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party was founded in 1919 and abolished in 1945. It came into full power under Adolph Hitler in 1933, and proceeded at that time to slaughter a spectacular number of people in a relatively short span of years.
Socialists today are of course universally agreed that Nazism was many things, but socialistic was not one of them.
Indeed, socialists are most emphatic that you understand this point — and for a very good reason: Nazism exposes socialism for what it actually is: a horrific philosophy in which humans are slaves to a ruling elite.
In fact Nazism was pure socialism.
As we've pointed out many times before — and can never point out enough — socialism is fundamentally defined by the abolition of private property.
Private property, or private ownership, is, in the language of the law, Not only money and other tangible things of value, but also includes any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth. The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law. [Property] is a claim by a person or persons to exclusive utilization, consumption, or transfer of some category of goods. The right of property is the right to use and discard (Electric Law Library).
It was by means of the Food Estate guild, the Estate of Trade and Industry guild, and the Labor Front guild that the Nazis were able to take control of every group of producer and consumer in Germany.
German socialism, so-called, assumed complete control of the means of production, while maintaining the facade of a market economy. The crucial point here, however, which one must never overlook, is the fact that prices and wages were all 'fixed by the central authority.' Thus, they were only ostensibly prices and wages -- meaning: in actual fact, prices and wages were determined by order of the socialist German government, not the free-market. In this way, Nazism masqueraded as a system of free-enterprise, but in reality it was socialist up to its gills.
The difference between National Socialism (Nazism) and communistic socialism is purely a question of form: the Nazis, unlike the Marxists, did not advocate public or governmental ownership of the means of production. Nazism, rather, openly demanded that government oversee and regulate the nation’s economy. The issue of 'legal' ownership, explained Adolph Hitler, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control.
"Under Nazism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under Marxist socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it — at least until the next purge" (George Reisman, Capitalism).
Both are variations on the same theme, and that theme is collectivism.
Collectivism is the political theory which believes that "the collective" has primacy over the individual.
“The collective” refers to “the society” “the group” “the gang” “the tribe” “the proletariat” “the superior race” “the environment” “the common good” “labor” and many other things as well. The specifics do not matter because the principles are the same.
What really matters is that the individual is subordinate to the named collective.
This system of de facto socialism, carried out under the outward guise and appearance of capitalism, in which the legal forms of private ownership are maintained, has been aptly characterized by Ludwig von Mises as socialism on the German pattern. The Germans under Ludendorf and Hindenburg in World War I, and later under Hitler, were the foremost practitioners of this type of socialism. (The more familiar variant of socialism, in which government openly nationalizes the means of production and establishes socialism de jure as well as de facto, von Mises calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.)
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that Nazi Germany was a socialist country and that the Nazis were right to call themselves National Socialists. This is something everyone should know; yet it appears to have been overlooked or ignored by practically all writers but von Mises and Hayek.
In Nazi Germany, the government controlled all prices and wages and determined what each firm was to produce, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to turn over its products. There was no fundamental difference between the Nazis and other socialists (ibid).
“Basically, National Socialism and Marxism are the same,” said Adolph Hitler.
“Profit is the source of all evils,” said Goebbles, whose hatred of capitalism was stupendous.
“We believe that the scourge of pollution, depletion of resources and degradation of our natural environment is primarily the result of the reckless policies of profit-driven capitalism,” says a present-day environmental group called Socialist Action, who also add:
“We believe that under socialism – through a rational, democratically controlled planned economy – we will be able to make decisions that can stop and reverse the destruction of the environment.”
The following is from a present-day environmentalist named Roger Field:
“In fact, there are a number of environmentalisms in this country: wilderness preservation, animal rights and the like. But it is in the rich, class-based struggle to control the excesses of unrestrained industrialism where environmentalism and socialism can most easily be seen to meet.”
From Canada dot com:
“Saving the planet, like fighting wealth and privilege, is a moral proposition. It supersedes factual argument…. Environmentalism is neither religion nor science. It is a political mission, every bit as unquestioning as socialism in its heyday, and offering the same giddy promise to followers: The delicious prospect of being in the right, and better still, running things.”
“Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is socialism — not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our socialism goes far deeper,” said Adolph Hitler.
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective,” says Harvey Ruvin, of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, in Dade County Florida.
From a book by the Sierra Club, entitled Call to Action, Handbook for Ecology, Peace and Justice: “The political and economic system that destroys the Earth is the same system that exploits workers” – i.e. capitalism.
The head of the 1992 Earth Summit asks in all seriousness: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
“The state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture. This basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call — to distinguish it from egoism and selflessness — idealism. By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.”
Said Adolph Hitler.
Read more at www.rayharvey.org
Sierra Club is the oldest environmental group in the nation. It was founded in 1892 by a Scottish immigrant named John Muir, whose stated goal was "to make the mountains glad." In many ways, that puerile policy compendiates perfectly the essence of Sierra Club.
Among other things, John Muir was an unapologetic racist, writing in 1894 that the Indians of Yosemite Valley were "mostly ugly, and some of them altogether hideous. [They] seemed to have no right place in the landscape," and they disturbed his "solemn calm."
Sierra Club has never successfully shed its elitist roots -- not, let it be noted, that it really cares to.
Accordingly, their website has this resolution:
"State and federal laws should be changed to encourage small families and discourage large families."
Government bureaucrats, in other words, should tell us how many children we are allowed to have -- as they do in Communist China, for instance.
Sierra Club also calls for "a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and the release of all genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) into the environment, including those now approved."
"All technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent," says former Sierra Club executive director David Brower.
This is also known as the the precautionary principle.
In addition to many other things, the precautionary principle assumes that an elite group of centralized planners are qualified to determine for the rest of us whether something is technologically guilty or innocent. As you would perhaps guess, Sierra is only too happy to assume that elitist role:
"We call for acting in accordance with the precautionary principle … we call for a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops," reads Sierra's official policy on agricultural biotechnology.
Dr. Robert Paarlberg, however, notes that Sierra Club and other environmental groups "argue that powerful new technologies should be kept under wraps until tested for unexpected or unknown risks as well. Never mind that testing for something unknown is logically impossible (the only way to avoid a completely unknown risk is never to do anything for the first time)."
Technophobe and Sierra sympathizer Martin Teitel, former head of Responsible Genetics, puts it this way:
"Politically, it's difficult for me to go around saying that I want to shut this science down, so it's safer for me to say something like, 'It needs to be done safely before releasing it.'" He adds, correctly: ["The precautionary principle] means they don't get to do it. Period."
The precautionary principle was summed up nicely by Dr. Henry Miller, formerly of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA): "For fear that something harmful may possibly arise, do nothing."
Technophobia, however, is not Sierra's only motivation:
In 2002, the Broward Sierra Newsletter spoke of "a vegetarian lifestyle as the way to counter the abuse animals endure to feed a hungry and growing global population." The newsletter plugged PETA and their message that meat-eating in general, and livestock operations in particular, are a cause of world hunger and animal abuse. Sierra Club chapters in New York and Michigan promote the "Vegetarian Starter Kit" distributed by the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (a PETA front group), as a way to fight "corporate greed."
And quoting Sierra Club's board-of-director executive Lisa Renstrom:
"The Club could begin to include animal rights positions in decades to come as members and the American public acknowledge the impact of our high animal protein diet on sustainability. [Sierra Club's] sustainable consumption committee [issued a report in 2000 that listed] eating less meat as a Priority Action for American Consumers."
Sierra's ultimate goal here?
"Stronger ties with vegetarian organizations," says Sierra Club committee leader Joan Zacharias.
Jornalist Robert W. Tracinski had Sierra partly in mind when he wrote the following:
Past regulations have been imposed in the same manner that the new, less-restrictive process is being adopted: by executive-branch decree. The result of those decrees over the past three decades has been a vast environmentalist land grab, with millions of acres of land sealed off from logging, mining, grazing and even recreation.
This is a basic technique used by the Left to achieve through the regulatory agencies what they could not achieve in an open vote. The technique is to introduce legislation to achieve some vague, positive-sounding generality, such as "worker safety" or "environmental protection" -- things no politician will want to go on record voting against. When the legislation is passed and a new regulatory agency is created to enforce it, that's when the actual decisions are made about what specific restrictions will be imposed and which lands will be removed from human use. Governmental power is passed down to an army of minor bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people and only vaguely accountable to Congress and the president.
Consider that federal regulatory agencies make thousands of rulings each year, adding about 80,000 pages annually to the Federal Register. Do you think Congress can exercise "oversight" by debating all 80,000 pages of these regulations? Do you think the president, his advisors and his cabinet officers can consider and personally approve all of these decrees? Of course not. By its nature, the federal decree-issuing apparatus cannot be controlled, and it has only one tendency: to impose more regulations and, by filling the federal register with such restrictions, to make private activities like logging grind to a halt.
These campaigns are proof of the greens' real motives. They want to stop development and keep the Third World in a state of poverty -- while they work to bring the same ideal of poverty to industrialized nations. Most environmentalists embrace this goal, but few dare to admit it openly -- so they peddle a variety of ruses to hide their meaning, ranging from "sustainable development" to "shrinkth," a term suggested by the editor of Earth Island Journal as a less negative-sounding "antonym for growth."
Of course, no discussion of Sierra Club would be complete without at least a cursory mention of the spotted owl.
Author Bonner Cohen, in The Green Wave, says this: "[The spotted owl campaign] was brilliantly orchestrated and thoroughly dishonest." He goes on to cite the now-infamous words of an attorney with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund named Andy Stahl:
"The spotted owl is the species of choice to act as a surrogate for old growth protection. And I've often thought that thank goodness the spotted owl evolved in the Northwest, for if it hadn't, we'd have to genetically engineer it."
The results of this campaign: from 1988 to 1993 timber harvest in the Northwest fell by 80 percent. The Mexican spotted owl in New Mexico and Colorado came next, and President Bill Clinton quickly deemed 4.6 million acres of forest "critical habitat." Thus, over "three thousand timber-related jobs were lost" (Wall Street Journal, October 2005). In addition to that, the fauna and flora of these wilderness areas were devastated by forest fires that raged because of the lack of logging. There was also, of course, the millions and millions of dollars in human property loss because of these forest fires, but that's quibbling.
Finally, the leftwing lovefest with Castro's communist Cuba has for decades continued more or less unabated among elitist in this country, and socialist Sierra Club does nothing to break with this venerable tradition. Says Club president Jennifer Ferenstein:
Faced with challenges, Cubans have proven to be survivors. With a meat shortage in the city, they've turned to raising guinea pigs in cramped urban backyards. When rural farms couldn't provide enough food to Havana due to the lack of refrigerated transport as much as production problems, the government encouraged the cultivation of fruit and vegetable gardens in Havana's abandoned lots. When pesticides became unavailable following the collapse of the USSR, worm bins and organic gardening were celebrated. I will never forget my trip to Cuba, the beauty of the landscape, the passion of the people for baseball, and above all, the fragility of an island country struggling to improve its quality of life in a sustainable manner.
As if these poor people have any choice concerning which autocratic dictator they live under.
As if there have not been untold thousands who have died on innertubes trying make it ninety miles across shark-infested oceans just to get out of that country she finds so romantic, and into the brutal U.S. of A, where she herself lives in complete comfort.
As if the millions of innocents murdered and imprisoned under Castro's bloody hand are no real big deal.
We are not surprised, therefore, to hear this same ignorant Sierra Club woman telling, in 2003, Range magazine:
"I'm a big proponent of bio-regionalism. The closer you can live off the land and the products you can use, the better off we all are … Fact is, I think people in Montana can get along without strawberries in December."
But what of those people who want to actually <em>grow</em> strawberries in December and then sell them to people in Montana?
According to this woman, they should not be allowed.
That is just a glimpse of the socialist agenda of Sierra Club.
There's also, of course, the billions of dollars that Sierra Club has raked in with its bandwagon babble, a partial listing of which runs thus:
"In 2002, the Sierra Club reported $23,619,830 in revenues, and disclosed $107,733,974 worth of assets to the IRS. Among its financial supporters are the Bauman Family Foundation; the Beldon Fund; the Compton Foundation; the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation; the Ford Foundation; the Scherman Foundation; the Bullitt Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund; the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation; the J.M. Kaplan Fund, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Turner Foundation, and many more" (source: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6930).
The Sierra Club, ladies and gentleman, friends of the earth.
But with friends like that, we must obviously ask ourselves: who needs friends?