Germany Over All in the World
Frederick Nagel
"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt." So begins the German national anthem, which was used by the Nazis as a declaration of world hegemony. No international laws could hold Germany back. No sense of decency or morality would alter its drive for military dominance.
The same ultra nationalist thinking now controls our own White House. We bomb, we starve, we invade any country that gets in our way. We laugh at the rules that have held us back since World War II. Any world leader who resists will be assassinated or captured. With 800 military bases in the rest of the world, we will crush all dissent both home and abroad.
How did Germany think it could control the world? Racism convinced Hitler that Germany would prevail against all other ethnicities. Also, Hitler ruled by hunches and constantly went against his own generals. By the time he invaded Poland, there was nobody in the press, or the courts, or the universities who could stand up against him.
Our own Hitler is busy crushing dissent and destroying our Constitution. His billionaire class has bought up all the media. He controls what is taught in our colleges, and simply ignores the courts when they urge caution. Finally, he is deeply racist and has energized the white Christian nationalists.
He is talking about taking a third term, and has ICE as his private Storm Troopers. Unless we stop Trump now, we will have to fight him in the streets.
Fred Nagel
SF
Fred,
Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet: “This above all: to thine own self be true.” Through Polonius, the message is simple—integrity begins with honesty to oneself. When we stay grounded in truth, we’re less likely to mislead others or ourselves.
That principle matters in political debate. Strong criticism is fair; sweeping historical analogies and absolute claims deserve care. The United States is a noisy, imperfect democracy with real internal conflicts, but it still operates with elections, courts, a free press, and constant public scrutiny. Disagreement and protest are evidence of civic space, not its absence.
The same cannot be said for authoritarian systems like the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation, where power is concentrated and dissent is tightly constrained. In Russia’s case, the Kremlin has sustained a long record of state-directed disinformation and repression while pursuing geopolitical ambitions that primarily benefit ruling elites.
History also deserves precision. The crimes of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler were uniquely catastrophic, and analogies should be used carefully so they illuminate rather than inflame.
We can oppose policies, leaders, and abuses of power without losing proportion or truthfulness. Being “true to ourselves” means defending democratic principles consistently—civil liberties, rule of law, accountable leadership—at home and abroad.
PS Can you forward my message to the rest of your mailing groups?Steven
Frederick Nagel
> On Mar 11, at 7:35 AM Mar 11, <j...@communicating-arts.com> <j...@communicating-arts.com> wrote:
>
> Polonius
Steve,
Polonius is the perfect character for your recent letter to the editor. He is the ultimate propagandist, always extolling human values while doing the bidding of those in charge.
> Being “true to ourselves” means defending democratic principles consistently—civil liberties, rule of law, accountable leadership—at home and abroad.
Fred
SF
A Call for Moral Clarity and Intellectual Honesty
In philosophy, Karl Marx once argued that Hegel’s system had to be “turned on its head.” Ideas, Marx said, should not float above reality — they must be grounded in material facts.
Today, we face a similar challenge in public discourse. Words like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are used constantly, yet often without careful attention to evidence or legal meaning. If we care about truth, human rights, and peace, we must apply standards consistently — not selectively, and not politically.
Let us begin with definitions. Under international law, genocide is not simply a tragic loss of life in war. It requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Intent matters. Language matters. Documented actions matter.
When we look honestly at the record, serious questions arise about the conduct and declared aims of Hamas, Hezbollah, the leadership of Iran, and the regime governing Russia.
Words and Stated Intentions
Leaders and official media tied to these actors have repeatedly used eliminationist language — calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, denying its legitimacy, or framing conflict in absolute, existential terms. In genocide law and history, such rhetoric is not dismissed as symbolic. Statements of intent are taken seriously because they help establish motive and purpose.
When an armed movement openly declares that a state should cease to exist, that its population is illegitimate, and that violence against civilians is justified, the world must pay attention. Incitement is not abstract speech; history shows it can precede atrocity.
Actions Against Civilians
We must also examine conduct.
-
Deliberate attacks on civilians
-
Indiscriminate rocket fire toward population centers
-
Kidnapping and killing noncombatants
-
Targeting communities because of identity
These are not merely battlefield incidents. When civilians are targeted as civilians, patterns of violence raise grave legal and moral concerns.
Recognizing this does not require ignoring the suffering of others. Civilian harm anywhere is tragic and deserves scrutiny. But moral consistency demands that we do not excuse or minimize actions simply because the perpetrators frame themselves as resistance movements or geopolitical rivals of the West.
The Double Standard Problem
Public debate often falls into a false binary: acknowledging crimes by one side is seen as denying suffering on the other. That is a mistake.
International law is not a political weapon to be used selectively. If the term genocide is invoked, it must be anchored in evidence of intent and conduct — not emotion, ideology, or media trends.
If eliminationist ideology, systematic attacks on civilians, and declared goals of destroying a people or state meet the legal threshold, we should say so plainly — regardless of who commits them.
Why This Matters
Language shapes policy. Policy shapes lives.
If the world misidentifies aggressors and victims, peace efforts fail. If violent actors believe their rhetoric and methods will be excused, deterrence collapses. If legal terms are politicized, genuine atrocities elsewhere may be ignored.
Clarity is not extremism. Precision is not partisanship. Holding all actors to the same legal and moral standards is the foundation of credibility.
A Principled Position
This is not a call for hatred.
It is not a call for collective blame.
It is not a denial of anyone’s humanity.
It is a call for intellectual honesty:
-
Judge actions by law
-
Judge intent by evidence
-
Apply standards consistently
-
Defend civilians everywhere
Turning arguments “right side up” means aligning our words with facts, and our moral claims with universal principles.
Only then can justice mean the same thing for everyone.