the Nation State.

I found Hitler's chapter on the nation state to be quite interesting and disturbing. He points out that the finch does not mate with a stork and sees that as a peice of evidence in nature for why the race should be kept pure. by his definition Race and species are the same thing. He beleives that mixing of races or ethnicities causes a medium between the two parents where the offspring will on the scale be higher than the lesser parent and lower than the more advanced parent. I find this to be absolutly ridiculous becuase there are numerous examples of cultures crossing and it beeing a good thing. I do not equate races with species and therefore i do not beleive that there should be such thing as a pure race. Additionaly, I do not agree with his assertment that htere is a superior race and that to maintain a functioning culture one must preserve the race that started it. He also mentiond that it is the duty of the superior or Aryan class to control and keep down other inferior classes. This idea of a superior needing to control in some way another group brought to mind Rudyard Kiplings article "the White Mans Burden" where Kipling beleives that it is the duty of the white man to assist lower classes while simutaneously creating situations that benefit him as well. This concep of a superior class and the need for them to reamin pure is not s good wone and ultimately can lead to more problems within that race. I feel like I have heard of certain religious groups that do not allow mixed marriages and as a result have had many people who are too closely related marriing and procreating creating more biological problems in there offspring than seen in cultures that allow mixed marriage. So overall I feel that Hitlers ideas of equating race with species are misguided at best and would lead a race to greater devastation than prosperity.

anarchism

For the most part I found this article to be intersting because it contradicted my previous deas of what anarchism was. I thought that it was a sort of chaos in the absence of government. I have come to learn that although anarchists do not beleive in government it is not for the purpose of chaos but for the social harmony of the community and also for a community that lives without force and violence. In theory I think that it is a good goal however I am unsure as to how fesible it would be for there to be a world where everyone could coexist harmoniously while still living on their own individual terms. Anarchism it seems like liberalialism values the freedoms of the individual. However it seems to value the individual before the community and hold the beleif that with satisfied individuals who are not forced by any means to do anything will cause individuals to live as a harmonious community. I am just unsure as to how possible it would be for individuals and a community to always be fully satisfied without some force because of the nature of communities some form of comprimise is necessarry and as a result there are going to be people who want what they want and will do anything at the cost of others to get it which is a force that I feel anarchists are not fans of so for these reasons I don;t think that an anarchist society could every exist just because of the nature of the ideology itself.