Welcome back.
This is the last entry (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V) wherein I break
apart and “update” the original 25-point plan put forth by the National
Socialist German Workers Party. Following this will be a conclusion, where we
try to figure out what, if anything, we’ve learned. This is the final part of
this series, and not the recommended place to start reading. Once again, I do
not endorse any of these platforms.
Trigger warnings: Politics, History.
(Note: All of the text used is from the
translation on Wikipedia)
22.
We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
Another consequence of the Treaty of
Versailles. Can easily be dropped due to lack of relevance, but the
reformulation is simple enough (with some of the implicit assumptions spelled
out for clarity):
22a.
We recognize the right of the United States to establish a military capable of
defending the rights, interests, and safety of the American People.
23.
We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the
press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that:
a. All writers and employees of the
newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race;
b. Non-German newspapers be required to
have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be
printed in the German language;
c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any
financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as
punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the
immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications
which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal
prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence
on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made
demands.
And here we go. The reason I started writing
this series, and the real-world impetus to get it out online as soon as
possible. It’s taken a little longer than I’d hoped, but 25 points is a lot to
cover. However, I suspect that this will still be all too relevant in the years
to come.
But as much as I’d like to, this is not
going to be a passionate philosophical defense of objective truth or the epistemological
process. America today lives, as much as possible, in separate media bubbles.
Telling either side that they have a poor grasp on truth, and that the other
side is right goes over about as well as you’d think. There’s no one unbiased left
to persuade, and this is not a new phenomenon. Consider this quote from a 2004
article,
later attributed to Karl Rove:
“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in
what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who
"believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible
reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works
anymore," he continued. ‘We're an empire now, and when we act, we create
our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you
will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too,
and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of
you, will be left to just study what we do.’”
If there’s one clever argument to
convert a thinker like that to the enlightenment’s values of truth and science,
I don’t know it, and I sincerely doubt that it exists. And it’s not as if
reality intrinsically has some magic property, that allows it to sneak past
misinformation. Governments around the world have proven very capable of
suppressing unwanted facts,
with many alternate histories readily available.
Hell, in 2015, a full half of Republicans believed we had found WMDs in Iraq.
As someone who believes deeply in
objective, verifiable truth, this is very frustrating, and extremely worrying.
People are simply not very rational, and many studies have shown that
presenting people with evidence that disagrees with their beliefs, just makes
them believe it more.
Changing your mind,
or anyone else’s,
is really hard. And the rational arguments I am so fond of seem to do more harm
than good.
So, in conclusion, it’s extremely
depressing, and puts a real damper on this project. Certainly, it makes it
difficult for me to want to go into the history and rationale behind the exact
arguments used. But, on the plus side, it does make it all too easy to
reformulate for modern times:
23a.
We demand legal opposition to known lies and their propagation by the press. In
order to combat this, we demand, that:
a. All writers and employees of American
media be American citizens;
b. Non-American newspapers must obtain
government permission to be published;
c. Non-Americans are forbidden by law to
have any financial interest in American publications, or any influence on them,
with violations punishable by the closing of the publication as well as their immediate
deportation. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms,
forbidding all publications which exert a destructive influence on the general
good and the American way of life, as well as the closure of all organizations
opposing the above demands.
24.
We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state
so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the
Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive
Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It
combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced
that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the
framework: The common good before the individual good. (Gemeinnutz geht vor
Eigennutz).
This one is... another tough one for
me. Jewish Atheists tend to come up high on a lot of people’s “most disliked”
list, and I have done little to personally combat this. The only major change needed
is a removal of the overt reference to Judaism (this is mirrored in my previous
edits as well). I am also adding a clear reference to Islam, judging by the
degree
of anti-Islamic vitriol present in political discussions today.
24a.
We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations, so long as they
do not threaten the United States, or oppose the moral senses of the American
people. As such, we advocate for a recognition of positive Christianity,
without limit to any one denomination, to defend America against the corrupting spread of Sharia Law.
25.
For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central
power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the
whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession
chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various
states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by
sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set
forth above without consideration.
Last one. Obviously, there is a lot in
here about the inefficiencies of parliamentary system, but discontent over
government and a desire for a strong centralized power are easy enough to
rephrase:
25a.
To ensure the implementation of these demands, we demand a strong central
government, staffed by loyal patriots, that obeys the will of the American
people.
Conclusion to follow.
It's an interesting experiment you did here, and I wish I could say that I was more surprised at the results. As you say in the conclusion, a lot of the ideas of fascism are widely popular, even if their sum is universally loathed.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think you were letting your biases(mostly the "Nazis weren't really socialists" thing) show with a few of them. Most were fairly plain readings of the text, suitably translated, but a few jumped out.
For example, #13-14, "13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). 14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.". You translated it as "We demand American jobs. For the good of the middle class, and the American people, American companies should be in America, ensuring profits and jobs go to American citizens.", but IMO that completely misses the (extremely socialist) bent of the original. A more accurate rendition might be something like "We demand that the American people share in the profits of all American firms, and that any firm which tries to evade this responsibility to the American people be subjected to large penalties"(since nationalization is something of a dead idea today). You can play with it a bit, but the core of the idea is quite literally government control of the means of production and/or the profits thereof(depending which point a given firm falls under).
Likewise, #20 was about free public education as well as being about what the content taught in the education system is, and you excluded that. I'd say that tacking on "We demand that all gifted students be able to attend college without concern for ability to pay tuition or student loans" would be substantially closer to the original.
I had written a much more comprehensive response that disappeared when my browser crashed.
DeleteAt any rate, it was intended to be less about bias and more about squaring the circle with regards to the NDSAP's actions while in office. Socialist policies were universally popular, these days they're the sole province of the left. I was trying for ideological consistency, though I may have gone too far on that one.
20, I will certainly grant you that.
"Nazis weren't socialists" isn't bias, it's history.
ReplyDelete