674 DOC.
639
OCTOBER
1918
come
to his
preferential rights;
in
the
long
run
it cannot be withheld from
him
without
causing
severe
conflicts. If the
League
of Nations,
now
being planned,[4]
is
to
encompass
all
peoples
or
nations
on
Earth,
in
my
view,
it would be
a
mistake
with
severe
consequences
if all
were
supposed
to be
given
the
same
rights
such
that
none
could rise above
the
general
standard,
win
recognition
of its
superiority,
and
make
gains,
that
is,
draw from
it the material
conditions for its continued
development.
That
would be
a
sin
against
nature and for
that
reason
could not
last.
In
my opinion,
the
League
of Nations should
restrict
itself to
the
protection
of
the
weak
but
should
go
only
so
far
as
to
guarantee
them
an
economic existence.
Would
it
be
right
to grant
Ecuador
or
Siam,
for
instance,
the same-absolute
or
relative-amount
of
raw
materials
necessary
for
industry,
in the
form of colonies
as,
shall
we say,
Germany
or
Belgium?
And
as
infeasible
as
it
is
to establish
equal
rights
for all
among
the nations without
taking
into account
their
biologically
diverse
viability, simply
in
that the natural
preference
for
the
superior
is
reduced
while
the
lesser
rights
of
the
inferior
are
arbitrarily increased, I
can
just
as
little
accept
the
same
social
rights
for all within
a
nation.
The
Social Democrats’
attempts
to
even
out differences
go
against
nature.
Protection
of
the
weak also
at
the
individual level
must be limited
to
guaranteeing
his
physical
subsistence. If
every
citizen
is granted
by
the
state
the
minimum
of life’s necessities,
being food,
housing,
and
clothing, regardless
of
whether
or
not he is
working,
if
educational
opportunities
(schools,
trade
and
art
colleges, etc.) were
made
equally
available
to
all,
the
state will
have
gone
to
the
limit to which it
may
advance in
protecting
its
weaker members
without
hindering
the
strong
ones
from
assuming
the
superior
place
they
deserve. It
is
unnatural
and therefore senseless
to
give
the
same
salary
to
the
minister
as
to
his
porter,
as
the
Bolsheviks
are
doing now.
The
superior
must advance.
Nature
is aristocratic, not
democratic.-
Obviously,
I
consider
our
autocratically
feudal
system,
which has
fortunately
been eliminated
now,
just
as
nonsensical
as
the
equalization sought
by
the
Social
Democrats.
The
nobility’s
tacitly
made
assumption,
“our forefather
was a
valiant
fellow;
valor
is
hereditary,
ergo
I also
am
justified
to
assume a higher
rank
in
the
state
than the
masses,”
is
nonsense,
of
course.
Everyone
must first
personally
provide proof
of his
superiority.
But
those
who furnish
this
proof ought
not to
be
artificially
barred
from social
advancement.-
I believe
that the
world
will
not
progress
in
steady
and
healthy
development
before
the
social
fabric
of
the
states and
the
coexistence of
the nations
are
placed
on
scientifically secure
foundations. Wars
will
not be
preventable sooner
either;
no
international
agreements
and
guarantees,
no
matter how
cleverly
conceived,
will
guard
against
their
return
if
their intention violates
the natural
law of
higher
rights
for
the
more
powerful.-