« | Home | Categories | »

The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law’

Posted on October 14th, 2017 at 16:15 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote:]

Bill Moyers: You begin the book with a meeting of Nazi Germany’s leading lawyers on June 5, 1934, which happens, coincidentally, to be the day I was born.

James Whitman: Oh boy, you were born under a dark star.

Moyers: To be sure. Adolf Hitler had been chancellor of the Reich for a year and a half. Nazis were rapidly consolidating their hold over Germany. And this was no gathering of everyday, garden-variety lawyers..

Whitman: No, it wasn’t. It was chaired by Hitler’s minister of justice and attended by the leading figures among Nazi lawyers.

Moyers: Why had they gathered? What was their mission?

Whitman: They were there to begin crafting what would eventually become the notorious Nuremberg Laws, which were promulgated a little bit more than a year later, in September of 1935. Those laws would be the culmination of the first phase of the Nazi program of persecution directed against German Jewry. And they were there to respond to the demands of radical Nazis for the creation of a new kind of race state in Germany.

Moyers: And the Nuremberg Laws would embody the full-scale creation of a racist state.

Whitman: You bet. They did. And that’s how we remember them today.

Moyers: A stenographer was present to record a verbatim transcript of that meeting. Reading that transcript you discovered a startling fact.

Whitman: Yes — the fact is that they began by discussing American law. The minister of justice presented a memorandum on American race law that included a great deal of detailed discussion of the laws of American states. American law continued to be a principle topic throughout that meeting and beyond. It’s also a startling fact that the most radical lawyers in that meeting — the most vicious among the lawyers present — were the most enthusiastic for the American example.


Write a comment

You’re wrong about Second Amendment rights

Posted on October 14th, 2017 at 16:11 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote:]

Imagine if the First Amendment read something like, “Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and operate a printing press.” The sentiment would be clear: a free press is vital to a properly functioning democracy, the spread of information and debate is a bulwark against government tyranny. And of course, a printing press is necessary to print newspapers, so it would make sense to protect this physical object, as one of the most important instruments of our freedoms. This version of the First Amendment would have worked just fine for the first two hundred years of the nation.

And then it would become ridiculously outdated with the rise of digital information and the dominance of the Internet as the means through which speech is disseminated among the masses. Perhaps there would be a strong subculture of holdouts who would insist on the totemic power of the physical printing press, absolutely convinced that this thing was the idea of the First Amendment itself. They would fight furiously for the right to own and collect their printing presses, and the National Printing Press Association would fight every minor infringement, insisting that it was perfectly normal and supremely American for a person to own dozens upon dozens of presses, each with gigantic capacity, capable of printing millions of newspapers per day, in a world where no one reads newspapers anymore.

But those holdouts could not be considered seriously engaged in the project of upholding the freedoms established in the Bill of Rights. It would be obvious that those people had lost all sight of the purpose of protecting the citizenry from the tyranny of the government.

[..]

The Second Amendment protects the idea of armed rebellion as a limitation on governmental power. Even though guns are obsolete for the protection of this idea, no serious discussion of the Second Amendment can propose their elimination without also proposing the armaments that should replace them.

It should be obvious by now that the weapons that matter are no longer ballistic, they are digital. The revolution may not be televised, but it will be online. The government does not fear guns. The government fears anonymity, connection and encryption (ordered this way not for importance, but just for the ACE acronym):

  • Anonymity — the right to interact with government without revealing your identity
  • Connection — the right to digital access to governmental resources
  • Encryption — the right to unbreakable encoding of messages

These are the armaments that matter in terms of a little rebellion now and then — their power far exceeds the combined firepower of private gun ownership.


Write a comment

Satanist Wins Case Saying Abortion Law Violates Her Religious Beliefs

Posted on October 14th, 2017 at 13:42 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote:]

Doe, an adherent of The Satanic Temple, argued her religion does not harbor the belief that conception is the beginning of life. The prerequisites, due to this belief, for an abortion procedure in Missouri are directly violating her religious freedom. The latter is protected by First Amendment. Her suit names Josh Hawley, the Missouri Attorney General, and Governor Eric Greitens. Incidentally, Doe’s claims were at first thrown out by Cole County Circuit Court. She then appealed the decision. The Satanic organization regards Satan as a personal autonomy symbol. It promotes ‘rational inquiry’ and compassion. The Satanists argue that the abortion restrictions imposed by Missouri, including the state’s informed consent law along with the compulsory waiting period of 72 hours violate religious belief of one of the organization’s members.


Write a comment