Nazi laws morph into NuLab laws

“The further back you look, the further forward
you can see.” (Winston Churchill)


In July 1933, Germany under the National Socialists was
embarking on a journey consolidating its power in a country that was virtually
bankrupt.

A review
at the time by William Conrad Kessler, on
July 15, 1933, and published in The American Economic
Review show how Adolf Hitler intended to move forward and finance his new
policies. 

He wrote: These
laws are expressions of the policy of the new national socialistic government
in
Germany, of the fascistic attempt to combine the benefits of
private initiative under liberalism with the protection of the common welfare
by the state through socialism and economic planning. But at the same time it
should be emphasized that the products of the legislation of previous German
governments have not been cast aside with one blow.

Although written
in 1933, the same could have been written about the
UK in 2007.

As Hitler knew then, and Gordon Brown will have to impose here soon, is that to remain in control you cannot leave the economy to the market, and new Cartel Laws will have to be passed here. They are already being discussed in Europe.

 

The
Reichstag Fire Decree of
February 28 1933.

One of the most repressive
acts of the new Nazi government, this one allowed for the suspension of civil
liberties in the wake of the false crisis created by the Nazis as a result of
the fire that gutted the Reichstag (parliament) building on the previous day.
Without firm evidence, it was put about that it had been set by the Communists
as the opening act in the attempt to overthrow the state. The president was
persuaded that the state was in danger and, hence, that the emergency measures
embodied in the decree were necessary. Even though under Art. 48 of the
constitution, the decree would have been withdrawn once the so-called emergency
had passed, any hope of this happening was prevented by the establishment of
Hitler's dictatorship following the Enabling Act (see below). It was in fact
never withdrawn and remained until the end as an instrument of Nazi terror
against ordinary citizens who ran foul of the regime.

 

The UK equivalent of the Feb 28
Decree passed by this government is the
Civil
Contingencies Act 2004
.

The
last known meeting of the Civil Contingency committee was last week during the
Letter Bomb campaign, although main stream media (
MSM) reported it as a COBRA
meeting, but David Milliband let slip during a
BBC interview.

 

The
Enabling Act

Although Hitler won the
office of German chancellor in legal fashion (the Nazis, after all, were the
largest group in the Reichstag or lower house of parliament), he was, of
course, determined to rule
Germany without the restraint of a
democratically elected parliament. For this to happen he had to set aside the
guarantees of civil rights and democratic procedures established by the Weimar
Constitution, a tactic that required the approval of two-thirds of sitting
representatives. This was achieved by calling a new election (which increased
the Nazi vote) and using force and intimidation against the existing parties,
especially those of the Socialists and Communists, many of whose elected
representatives were jailed as political enemies or forced to flee the country.
Once assured of the votes of the
Catholic Center party, the two-thirds
majority was assured. Thus, over the unavailing opposition of Socialist
deputies, the March 24 session gave Hitler approval of legislation enabling him
to exercise dictatorial rule for four years, leaving the Nazis free to suborn
Germany's hitherto free institutions
and subordinate both state and people to the ideological demands of the new
regime. Of course the compliant Reichsrat (upper house) followed suit.
Inevitably, the Act was renewed in 1937 and persisted until the collapse of
Germany in 1945.

The official name of the
Enabling legislation was “Law for the Removal of the Distress of People
and Reich.”

The Reichstag [the lower
house of parliament] has passed the following law, which is, with the approval
of the Reichsrat [the upper house], herewith promulgated, after it has been
established that it satisfies the requirements for legislation altering the
Constitution.

ARTICLE 1. In addition to the
procedure for the passage of legislation outlined in the Constitution, the
Reich Cabinet is also authorized to enact Laws. . . .

ARTICLE 2. The national laws
enacted by the Reich Cabinet may deviate from the Constitution provided they do
not affect the position of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The powers of the
President remain unaffected.

ARTICLE 3. The national laws
enacted by the Reich Cabinet shall be prepared by the Chancellor and published
in the official gazette. They come into effect, unless otherwise specified,
upon the day following their publication . . .

ARTICLE 4. Treaties of the
Reich with foreign states which concern matters of domestic legislation do not
require the consent of the bodies participating in legislation. The Reich
Cabinet is empowered to issue the necessary provisions for the implementing of
these treaties.

ARTICLE 5. This law comes
into effect on the day of its publication. It ceases to be valid on
1 April 1937:

 

The UK equivalent of the Enabling
Act passed by this government is the
Legislative
and Regulatory Reform Act 2006

Read carefully
the articles of the Enabling Act and compare them with the LRR Act.

 

In the first two years of his chancellorship, Hitler
followed a concerted policy of “coordination” (Gleichschaltung), by
which political parties, state governments, and cultural and professional
organizations were brought in line with Nazi goals. Culture, the economy,
education, and law all came under Nazi control.

NuLab influence
and control in all these areas are remarkably similar, except Blair and Brown
call them ‘reforms’, and include the policy of data sharing. 

Gleichschaltung  (trans: “forcible-coordination”
or synchronization)

 

One goal of Hitler’s
policy was to eliminate individualism by forcing everybody to adhere to a
specific doctrine, social order and way of thinking and to control as many
aspects of life as possible using an invasive police force.

Now think about NuLab’s
pre-emptive policing laws, such as ASBO’s, Voo’s, Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
, Police
and Justice Act 2006
, Prevention
of Terrorism Act 2005
, Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
, The
Crime Prevention (Designated Areas) Order 2006
, Identity
Cards Act 2006
to name but a few, the results of which we have already seen
being
used
, firstly in a socially acceptable way, but then what. Will NuLab do
away with these laws once the petty criminals have all been cleaned up, or
expand its use of them.

Tony McNulty,
Home Office Minister, in a Commons debate
last Wednesday said: “changes in the law on the right to silence, have made it
easier to convict the guilty”

Amazing, but this
is not the only change in laws that moves the governments emphasis away from
the view that people aren’t
guilty unless they are
convicted. Guilt is now assumed, until you can prove otherwise.

 

The Nazi party's
desire for total control required the elimination of all other forms of
influence. The period from 1933 to around 1937 was characterized by the
systematic elimination of non-Nazi organizations that could potentially
influence people, such as trade unions and political parties.

Those critical of
Hitler's agenda, especially his close ties with industry were suppressed or
intimidated.

Gordon Brown has
the same problem with his association with the Smith Institute and the IT
Industry association Intellect. See here.

 

Totalitarian
regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of secret
police
, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass
media
, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use
of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.

The above is now
enabled by
UK legislation and commented here

The original
meaning of the word (
Totalitarian) as described by Mussolini and Gentile, was a society in
which the main ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of
its citizens.

According to
them, thanks to modern technologies like radio and the printing press, which
the state could, and probably would, use to spread its ideology.

Critics of the
concept say that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments
which may be classified as totalitarian often lack characteristics said to be
associated with the term.  

They may not be
as monolithic as they appear from the outside, if they incorporate several
groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for
power and influence. In this sense, these regimes may exhibit pluralism through
the involvement of several groups in the political process.

One law that
NuLab have not yet plagiarised from the Nazi’s, but it is expected one day.
 

Law
Against the Establishment of Parties
, July 14, 1933

The German Cabinet has
resolved the following law, which is herewith promulgated:

ARTICLE 1. The National
Socialist German Workers Party constitutes the only political party in
Germany.

ARTICLE 2. Whoever undertakes
to maintain the organizational structure of another political party or to form
a new political party will be punished with penal servitude up to three years
or with imprisonment or with imprisonment of from six months to three years, if
the deed is not subject to a greater penalty according to other regulations.

 

“The further back you look, the further forward
you can see.” (Winston Churchill)

 

 

Advertisements

About IanPJ

Ian Parker-Joseph, former Leader of the Libertarian Party UK, who currently heads PDPS Internet Hosting and the Personal Deed Poll Services company, has been an IT industry professional for over 20 years, providing Business Consulting, Programme and Project Management, specialising in the recovery of Projects that have failed in a process driven world. Ian’s experience is not limited to the UK, and he has successfully delivered projects in the Middle East, Africa, US, Russia, Poland, France and Germany. Working within different cultures, Ian has occupied high profile roles within multi-nationals such as Nortel and Cable & Wireless. These experiences have given Ian an excellent insight into world events, and the way that they can shape our own national future. His extensive overseas experiences have made him all too aware of how the UK interacts with its near neighbours, its place in the Commonwealth, and how our nation fits into the wider world. He is determined to rebuild many of the friendships and commercial relationships with other nations that have been sadly neglected over the years, and would like to see greater energy and food security in these countries, for the benefit of all. Ian is a vocal advocate of small government, individual freedom, low taxation and a minimum of regulation. Ian believes deeply and passionately in freedom and independence in all areas of life, and is now bringing his professional experiences to bear in the world of politics.
This entry was posted in Main Page. Bookmark the permalink.