"Society's needs come before the individual's needs."
by:
Adolf Hitler
(1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator
Source:
Attributed by A. E. Samaan in 'From a Race of Masters to a Master Race'
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Aahhh yes, welcome to Amerika, the new Democratic Socialist Union (the DSU). Welcome to eminent domain run a muck where the mere mention of freedom, liberty, or representative republic are heresies against our sovereign union lord.
 -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 3
    		•  
    Well that stands to reason, coming from a "National Socialist Dictator". The fact is, when individuals are able to meet their own needs, they are of the greatest benefit first to themselves and then society in general. We aren't "ants" after all....
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 1
    		•  
    Yes Mike, heresies. And just wait til the inquisition really gets going!
     -- Dan     
  • 1
    		•  
    Apparently he never flew on a commercial airline where they always tell you to connect your air mask first. If we are not a demorcacy what is the point of this and all of the other blogs and talk shows. If we cannot change things at all we are insane to participate in this exercise. If you don't believe we are a democracy in the western tradition of free speech and public opinion polls what is the point of you trying to influence other people.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  • 1 1
    		•  
    This sounds an awful lot like Hillary"It Takes a Village" Clinton , and Barack "Can't say his middle name" Obama.
     -- jim k, austin     
  • 2 1
    		•  
    Isn't it funny how the dictator always knows what society needs too? As always, when a socialist official takes away your choice "for the good of society" it always seems to work out better for him than society. Individuals make up society. Without the individual, what is the point of society?
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
  • 2
    		•  
    DEMOCRACY: My college history book "A History of Civilization" by Brinton, Christopher, and Wolff, Prentice Hall has the following chapters XXI "The Western Democracies in the 19th Century" XXVIII "The Democracies, 1919-1939." The former chapter starts with these words, "We shall now trace the background history of the major self-governing western states: Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States. These are now all democracies; and though they have all had their moments-sometimes years-of lapsing from democratic standards, they are all, as the twentieth-century world goes, "old democracies." Now this book was copywrited in 1955 way before the current political correctness foisted on us by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and aided and abetted by the non-thinking Logans (aka Mr. Academia), Archers (Mr. Fed Reserve), and Mikes (Mr.Victimless Crime) of the world. These dictators of language. Archer says he will take over the world by redefining language. Not unlike Hitler who wanted to burn all of the books and kill all the smart guys. Well I am holding on to my history book and it will always be a defense against your lying ways and political correctness. We are again lapsing it appears with guys like the above mentioned being so gullible. But I like Lincoln have faith that we shall have a new birth of freedom and "government of, by, and for the people" shall not perish, at least not at their hands.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  • 3
    		•  
    What a mockery on freedom! Society is made up of individuals. If an individuals' need are met, then the societies' need are met. It is utterly disgusting to read these words that come out of the worst human being that ever lived on this planet. Extreme right or extreme left, they both very well know that if an individual is powerful, then the society is powerful, powerful enough to perhaps challenge their authority. Hence, these ubiquitous and mercy ideology of "society" comes in their heinous plans of so called "mass development". Ultimately, these political extremes underling doctrine is divide and rule. If there ever is a true democracy, it would stem out of individual liberty.
     -- RKA, Wasilla     
  • 2 2
    		•  
    Waffler, please stay on topic. Put your debate about democracy under a quote that is about that, please.
     -- Editor, Liberty Quotes     
  • 1
    		•  
    I wonder how many people would give this a thumbs up if they didn't know it was a quote of Hitler's? Great comments! Man, Waffler, give it up already. All you are proving is that our educational institutions have been hijacked by the Left -- old news. By 1955, Wilson had already taken us to war in 1917 to "make the world safe for democracy," Hitler had risen to power via 'democracy,' the US was already bankrupted to the Fed, FDR authorized the theft of the entire money supply -- i.e. the New World Order organized by the central banking emperors had a strong hold on the US, rewriting history to suit. I am not debating democracy again here. Move on like the Editor asks.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    Perfect example of the socialist mindset. Great instructive quote.
     -- warren, olathe     
    		•  
    Waffler, once in a while you almost sound cogent , and then you come up with gibberish like the nonsense above.
     -- Jim k, austin     
    		•  
    Editor, if you will allow me to respond to Waffler's comment, although it is a bit off thread -- you may delete this post if you wish (..smiles.. I won't yell censorship). Waffler, you're an ignorant fool. Your quote proves nothing more than what anyone here has ever said about the evolution of theory, thought, definition, language, ideas (philosophy) and application (laws). I'm surprised you haven't brought up Alexis de Tocqueville's work "Democracy in America" to backup your claims (which would be ignorant, but typical). Early American interpretation of history, philosophy, and reason varied differently than even Europe's (which is where de Tocqueville was born and educated: France). You constantly ignore EVERYTHING the founders have said concerning democracy and republics, restating your own meandering ignorance without anything to show for it but a few current sources. Not surprising that everyone here that purports an American Republic has consistently stated that current definitions of Republics and Democracies are nearly synonymous (unlike when they were originally discussed by the likes of Machiavelli) -- but you keep rehashing the same stupid, irrational, and inane gibberish to try and prove your convoluted shit-theories. As per the quote, it is an amazing glimpse into the mind of a mad-genius.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  • 1
    		•  
     -- RobertSRQ      
    I have accomplished a helluva a lot Logan. The stupidity that "the United States is a republic not a democracy" is repeated throughout this society. I encounter it every day. I will keep asking people to be a little deeper and circumspect about and avoid their BS theories. I am so glad that you are on board. A great improvement in your knowledge and thinking.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  • 1
    		•  
    Logan's comments are hardly 'on board' with Waffler's. Does Waffler really believe his own BS? Here's a quote I received today: "[W]e are confirmed in the opinion, that the present age would be deficient in their duty to God, their posterity and themselves, if they do not establish an American republic. This is the only form of government we wish to see established; for we can never be willingly subject to any other King than He who, being possessed of infinite wisdom, goodness and rectitude, is alone fit to possess unlimited power." -- Instructions of Malden, Massachusetts for a Declaration of Independence, 27 May 1776
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    		•  
    Waffler. Can you explain to me why we pledge allegiance to a republic then and not a democracy? If the word means nothing why is it there? I am sure you will be deep and circumspect and avoid BS theories when you answer the questions. Have a nice day.
     -- Dan     
  • 1
    		•  
    I suppose I should not be surprised that so many respondents feel they are more important than the society as a whole. Fortunately, there are some who would give up their very lives for the sake of others. They are called heroes. A good soldier would willingly, if not gladly, sacrifice his own life to save his unit or his buddies. Where would be today today if our founders had not been willing to jeopardizes their own lives and fortunes for the good of the nation they they were trying to create? It's too bad today everyone feels more important than society at large. Hitler had it right, like him or not.
     -- Jack, Green, OH     
    		•  
    I find it interesting at all the thumbs down on a good quote. Is it because Obama talks the same way??? Does it hit too close to home???
     -- PizzaGod, Republic of Texas     
  • 1
    		•  
    Depends on the needs.
     -- Anonymous     
    		•  
    "Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many"~Captain Kirk
     -- Margaret, Texas     
    		•  
    Good to see Liberal Fascism is alive and well in the Fuhrer BHO!
     -- Thomas, Sacramento     
    		•  
    I believe that this guy knows what he is talking about. I think that we should all support him in completing his goals.
     -- Aldolf Hitler, small town in austria     
  • 1
    		•  
    I can't find any original source for this quote. It doesn't sound like the kind of thing Hitler would say, because the German word for society (Gesselschaft) is not a word they used much in this sense. The Nazis preferred the word Volksgemeinschaft, meaning racial community, and they were fond of slogans like "Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles!"

    However, these are racial terms. "Volk" refers to a racial group, not society in general. The Nazis recognized no social responsibility, other than to members of the "Aryan" race. In contrast, Americans are used to referring to themselves as a "people," from the Latin word "populis," a racially neutral term.
     -- Forrest, Eugene     
  • 1
    		•  
    A reading of our founding documents would reveal that God grants liberty, rights and freedom to mankind that is to say the individual, it is man who creates government and gives it the duty to safeguard those rights to stop evildoers and to provide justice (according to natural law) our founders understood the fallen nature of man and the absolute dangers of a pure democracy and instituted safeguards in our Constitution to separate the powers and provide a Republican form of government as it states in the Constitution.
    What separates the difference in outcomes between the American Revolution and the failed French Revolution? Democracy was what the French adopted and what our founding fathers warned us against that's why they gave us a Constitutional Republic, you can trot out all the 20th century revisionist textbooks you want but that will never change what the founding fathers understood at that time and said so! They had just bought a revolution to free himself from the tyranny of a king, and knowing the fallen nature of man why would they allow a tyranny of a majority in a democracy which is basically mob rule. Those Americans today having the eyes to see can look around and recognize why our founding fathers warned us against democracies!
    Natural law is like gravity, you can rail against it deny it's very existence and that it directly affects your life but you cannot defy it without real destructive consequences to the individual and to society as foisting the lie that the United States was founded as a democracy has shown us today in the destruction and trampling of our rights and liberty. If you are one of the few here who favor socialism then go to one of the socialist countries and live, go to where you can practice what you preach.

     -- Mike, Pleasant Hill     
  • 1
    		•  
    Heil Obama.

    It's his quote and his philosophy.
     -- bruski, naples FL     
    		•  
    Jack, I hope you are still around to respond - you have always supported Hitler, Mao, Lenin style tactics and philosophies. Here you give some examples honoring noble individualism - one individual sacrificing self for a friend (individuals or multiple of individuals) and others, each offering their personal all (life, liberty and property) to secure liberty for each single sovereign - inclusive of inalienable rights at law - and then grossly misrepresent the intent and action as a support for society or nation. You truly follow after the admonitions of Lenin ('A lie told often enough becomes the truth") and Hitler ("If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."). As Mike from Pleasant Hill above expressed so well, the de jure representative republic was based on an observance of natural law (as gravity, physics, etc. involves each material being and action individually) which addresses the single person (acting individually, whether that be by self or with multiple individuals). Can anyone reading this tell me what a societal need is? In your definition, refrain from using individual needs or philosophical definitions such as; 'a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose' - for such is antithetical to the meaning, intent and substance of the quote. The quote makes reference to an entity - 'society' - that is in toto different, alien and superior to individuals, inalienable rights and justice.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    Hitler, here being an exemplar of the fascist end of the socialist stick confuses society and government. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose (Bouviers Law Dictionary) Society is then based on individuals with a mutual consent, acting jointly for some common purpose, there is no third party status given to the perception of the whole. Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. (Frederick Bastiat, The Law) Hitler is here in fact stating that socialist government is more important than any single person, individual inalienable rights, natural law (including fiscal law) and justice.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one. Spock.
     -- bradley, ypsilanti     
    		•  
    This is not a factual quote. If he ever said this, there is no proof of it.
     -- joko, IA     
  • 1
    		•  
    "Society's needs come before the individual's needs."
    From which speech or writing did this quote come? Please verify your attribution. If a speech, which one? If from a book, please list the chapter.
     -- Stevie, Anytown, USA     
  • 2
    		•  
    Thank you, Steve. The quote is popularly attributed to Hitler, but most likely a paraphrase. Since Hitler spoke German, searching for the source of this quote would require the actual German. The quote is found in A. E. Samaan's 'From a Race of Masters to a Master Race.' We have put that quote here and tagged the source of this quote accordingly. Thanks again!
     -- Editor, Liberty Quotes     
  • 1
    		•  
    Hitler never said this. Even though Hitler led a political party known as the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not a class.
     -- Buttercup712, nyc     
  • 2
    		•  
    HRC NEVER said this & BTW neither did Hitler. Even though Hitler led a political party known as the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not a class.https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/inhumane-society/?fbclid=IwAR3jgUQHM4uP5_XsmbLPkHGFpZ-vjdVjgcaDDqS-MxPFWkeZgpfdHP5C8LM
     -- Buttercup712, nyc     
  • 2
    		•  
    Hitler NEVER said this! Even though Hitler led a political party known as the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” he was no socialist. In fact, he despised socialism and communism and worked to eradicate both those ideologies; the Nazism he espoused was a political ideology based on race, not a class.
     -- Buttercup712, nyc     
    		•  
    Buttercup712, you should probably check contemporary legal dictionaries of the day and not rely on socialist's continuing to redefine words to explain an immediate need. Socialism is simply, any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of property, religion - the means of production and distribution of goods. As coined by Mussolini, fascism administers socialism through corporations and other third party entities as well as in its/their own name (like communism). By way of legal positivism's reality, corporations are extensions of the State as legal persons. One reason Hitler hated communism was its inefficiencies.

     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 4
    		•  
    Buttercup712, you should probably check contemporary legal dictionaries of the day and not rely on socialist's continuing to redefine words to explain an immediate need. Socialism is simply, any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of property, religion - the means of production and distribution of goods. As coined by Mussolini, fascism administers socialism through corporations and other third party entities as well as in its/their own name (like communism). By way of legal positivism's reality, corporations are extensions of the State as legal persons. One reason Hitler hated communism was its inefficiencies.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
    		•  
    Buttercup712, you should probably check contemporary legal dictionaries of the day and not rely on socialist's continuing to redefine words to explain an immediate need (such as "snopes" or other socialistic propaganda outlets like fact-check). Socialism is simply, any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of property, religion - the means of production and distribution of goods. As coined by Mussolini, fascism administers socialism through corporations and other third party entities as well as in its/their own name (like communism). By way of legal positivism's reality, corporations are extensions of the State as legal persons. One reason Hitler hated communism was its inefficiencies.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 3
    		•  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    		 Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    Today's Quotes
    More Quotations
    Most Popular
    Recent Comments
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2024 Liberty-Tree.ca