Mein Kampf

Mein Kampf

Chapter 5 Part 3

[This is a part of a continuing series on this blog. Check out Search This Blog at the top of this page for more entries listed under the title Mein Kampf.]

By Richard E. Noble
At this point Adolf goes into a discussion of ‘economics’. The first economic principle of their party is to establish the position of ‘Capital’ in relation the power of the State. His first point is;
“… That capital in every case was only the result of labor. Therefore the State’s task towards capital was comparatively clear: it had only to take care that the latter remained the servant of the State and did not pretend to be the master of the nation...”
It is interesting that the fundamental principle of the new revolutionary party - this new anti-Marxist party - would incorporate as its founding economic principle the basic tenet of Marxism - the labor theory of value.
Adolf is clear here, the State shall reign over ‘business’ and its laborers. Earlier we found that the State shall reign over “religion”. And it should be clear by now that the State shall reign over the rights of the “individual”. It is getting very clear that ‘the State shall Reign’. The question to me here is, how does the State become the State, or where does the State get its presumption of power?
Edmond Burke in his ‘The Rights of Kings’ established that the rights of Kings came from God. The only problem with this theory as far as I can see is that Edmond was not able to produce ‘God’ for the purpose of verifying the collaboration.
In ‘The Rights of Man’ Tom Paine challenges Edmund’s theory, by stating that since God cannot be consulted directly on this matter, one must look for another explanation for the inherited power of the State. Tom says that all of the powers of any State are derived initially from the people being governed. In other words, the only powers the state has are those granted to it by the majority of its adherents. Tom’s ideas at the time were considered very radical and helped precipitate a revolution. This new revolution resulted in the reappearance of a type of government called a Democracy, more specifically a Democratic Republic ... a representative Democracy.
Adolf says that the power of the state is derived from the true historical nature of the human beast, a social Darwinism with the added spice of violence. In other words, the power of the State goes to whoever has the guile, cunning and ‘balls’ to take and hold it - a king of the mountain kind of a thing. The clear difference here between Tom Paine and Adolf Hitler is their degree of respect for ‘the people’. Tom had a reverence for the will of the people. Adolf was an elitist with an ingrained disrespect for the masses. It is only natural that one would be swayed towards the notion of democratic government, and the other towards totalitarianism.
In our own political system today we have politicians who feel that they were elected as representatives to voice the will of the majority of their constituency, and others who feel that they were elected as individuals to express their personal opinions, and when their personal opinions are no longer respected they will be defeated in the election. Adolf says that when he no longer represents the will of his people it is incumbent upon them to kill him.
This debate as to the position of the State, with regards to Religion, Business (Capital investment), and the individual is still going on very hot and heavy today here in the U.S. and all over the world.
“. ..In previous times I was not yet able to recognize the difference between this capital as purely the ultimate result of creative labor as compared with a capital the existence and nature of which rest exclusively on speculation ... In my eyes Feder’s (Gottfried Feder) merit was that he outlined, with ruthless brutality, the character of the stock exchange and loan capital that was harmful to economy, and that he exposed the original and eternal presupposition of interest...”
Whether or not it is moral to charge ‘interest’ on borrowed money has been debated for a long, long time. I don’t have enough information on the subject to get involved. All that I know on the subject basically is that if I did not have the ability to borrow money from people at one time or another in my life, I would not own my own home today, nor would I have been able to operate my own business. But maybe Adolf is talking here about the “debt based” Capitalistic System – I don’t know.
I must admit, I do not understand the nature of money. I can understand gold, silver, and other rare and precious things being used in place of bartering a cow for example, but when we get into paper money being printed by Governments with no real backing other than the faith of the people living within the nation coupled with the faith of other peoples living in foreign countries, I must admit I don’t get it. But when we look at a country that has just been defeated by War, it does seem rather obvious that any money it prints wouldn’t have a lot of ‘faith’ being put in it by anybody.
Again, I realize that I must do personal reading on the subject, and what actually makes the wealth of a nation seems a very good place to start. The economic system as I see it today looks like a house built out of paper. The stock market looks to me to be a place where worthless paper money is being pursued by imitation worthless pieces of paper. I’m sure that my knowledge is lacking on the subject, but I feel that there is something very unstable at the base of this whole system of money that exists today. But, I will find out more. In relation to Adolf, though, it does seem that he and others were also questioning the world economics of the day - especially interest, credit and debt.
But, once again when Adolf brings up ‘interest’, one has to consider it as a reference to Jews, banking, and possibly the banking empire of the Rothschildes. I know that Krupp was also unhappy with borrowing - and particularly from Jews.
Next in this chapter Adolf gets into what he calls the ‘program maker’.
“… he has to care less for the way but more for the goal. Hereby an idea’s correctness in principle is decisive and not the difficulty of its execution ... The program maker’s importance must not be measured by the fulfillment of his aims, but rather by their correctness and the influence which they have taken on in the development of mankind. If it were different, one could not count the founders of religions among the greatest men on this earth, since the fulfillment of their ethical intentions can never be even a nearly complete one. Even the religion of love, in its effects, is only a weak reflection of the volition of its sublime founder; but its importance is to be sought in the orientation which it tried to give to a cultural, ethical, and moral development in general...”
Clearly here we see Adolf espousing the theory that the end justifies the means, but the last part of the statement I find interesting. Adolf recognizes ‘the religion of love’, and its ‘sublime founder’. I wish that we had more explanation here by Adolf But nothing more is said on the subject, and I don’t remember him talking more on this subject as the book advances. But I will be on the look out. Clearly Adolf is showing a degree of respect here for religious leaders in general, and Jesus Christ, I would presume.
He is making the statement that we judge historically by intention and not by achievement because even these recognized great religious leaders did not succeed in establishing their goals. I am sure that there are those who will argue with this statement, but I am not one. My big concern in this instance is Adolf’s obvious ‘respect’ for the religious leaders and the religions of the past. Is his respect here for what they tried to do in establishing the religion of ‘love’?
I would think not. He has made it very clear that he does not believe in such a religion, but yet he has respect for their attempt. This stands out to me because Adolf does not have or show very much respect for anyone or anything that is in conflict with him or his philosophy. So this above statement stands out to me as a curiosity.
“… The execution of such aims as are of value and importance for the distant future brings little reward to him who defends them and finds little understanding with the great masses who, at the first, understands enactments concerning beer and milk better than farseeing plans for the future...’
This is, of course, more ego and elitism. To paraphrase; The poor simple masses never understand the greatness of people like me.
As one of the ‘masses’ I feel that I understand quite a bit about people like Adolf.
The ‘Military’ comes to mind here. I think in the Military, all Militaries, ego and elitism are nurtured, cherished, and promoted under the heading of what is called leadership. There are very few Military minded who can tolerate the notion of democratic cooperation. In our military here in the U.S. it is certainly frowned upon. But, I think, because of the training, background at home and in school, and our overall ethical and moral understanding of democratic principles it is very hard for even our Military indoctrinators to stifle these tendencies. You can take the boy out of the ‘Democracy’ but you can’t take the democracy out of the boy.
I am one who believes in the democratization of the Military. This is anathema to most militarily inclined. I think that the very things that attract the militarily inclined towards the military are what is wrong with the military.
We see more and more, in the news today, how our own military is becoming a bastion for bullies. But what do you expect with the training and education provided by our military institutions. The American people should be ashamed of these institutions. Being a ‘leader’ is not being a ‘bully’. Most of what they hold dear, I regret. Adolf is a perfect example of the militarily inclined. And for those of you who aspire to military principles, Adolf should be a prime example of what you don’t want to become.
Adolf really gets into this ‘program maker’ business. His words sound very idealistic, and if we didn’t already have the future of Adolf at hand, one might even call these words inspiring.
“… The program maker ... therefore his life is torn between love and hate. The protest of the present, which does not understand this man, wrestles with the acknowledgment of posterity for which, after all, he works ... For the greater a man’s works for the future are, the less is the present able to understand them, and the more difficult also is the fight, and the more rare the success...”
Now, I can understand such a statement coming from Galileo, or Copernicus, or Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein, but coming from Adolf this seems pure self-delusion, elitism and ego. I must ask what it was that Adolf knew that was so complicated for the rest of us to understand? Or is it simply that the rest of us didn’t agree with him? In which case he concluded that we couldn’t possibly understand, because if we did we would obviously agree with his complicated insights into the human condition which seem to be: that War is good, killing is fun; certain types of people should be destroyed; Germans are the best toughest and smartest, and all the rest of the world should either bow down and take notice of these facts, kiss reverently Adolf s ass and at the same time kiss your sorry ass goodbye because, of course, you must realize that we are all wasting good German air and taking the space of a potential little super German boy or girl.
This guy is unbelievable, and yet his whole nation lined up behind him. Not to mention many others about the world. I guess the moral of this story is; never underestimate the appeal to ego and elitism. Tell the already great and aspiring to more, that they deserve what they have and should have more, and you will build a financial backing, follow it by telling those that don’t have, that they should have, and will have, if you have your way, because they are certainly smarter and better than the world has seen fit to grant them, and it seems that you will have built an army of everybody.
“... But among them must be counted the great fighters in this world, those who, although not understood by their time, are nevertheless ready to fight the battle for their ideas and ideals. Side by side with Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as a Richard Wagner...”
All of these men were anti-Semites.
“… When listening to Gottfried Feder’s first lecture about the ‘Breaking of the Tyranny of Interest’... Germany’s development already stood before my eyes too clearly for me to know that the hardest battle had to be fought, not against hostile nations, but rather against international capital ... bourgeois politicians; today even they, provided they are not conscious liars, see that the international stock exchange capital was not only the great instigator of war, but that just now, after the fight has been ended, it does not refrain from turning peace into hell ... the fight against international finance and loan capital has become the most important point in the program of the German nation’s fight for its independence and freedom ... The Jew Karl Marx ... only now his ‘Capital’ became really comprehensible to me, as well as Social Democracy’s fight against the national economy, the aim of which is to prepare the ground for its domination of the truly international finance and stock exchange capital...”
Certainly the same claims can be made against ‘international capital’ today and maybe more so. The question is, is it a Jewish conspiracy, a world monopolistic business conspiracy, a stock market investment conspiracy, or the inevitable course of free flowing money in a self-seeking but not to be denied, capitalist world? But is Adolf saying that he agrees with Karl Marx or that Marx is a part of the Capitalistic conspiracy. It sounds like the later.
Of the possible conspiracies mentioned above, the only one that I don’t think is possible or credible is the Jewish conspiracy. But in defense of the other possible conspiracies mentioned above, I would credit them to self-gain promotion and not necessarily to the domination of any race or nation. My tendency is to be nationalistic and protective in order to avoid suffering to my own country and my own people, even to the point of stifling world progress.
It seems that money is like water or electricity and follows the course of least resistance. So the nation must understand this and do its best to get the money to flow in its direction. Other than this I really don’t know what a particular country can do. In the best of all possible worlds everyone would sacrifice for one another, but this is not where we are at. I don’t suggest ever giving up or not advocating this notion as an ideal, though.
Adolf signs off this chapter on a drum beat.
“… I started full of ambition and love. For thus I was at once offered the opportunity to speak before a large audience; and what previously I had presumed, merely out of pure feeling without knowing it, occurred now: I could ‘speak’. I thus led back many hundreds, probably even thousands, in the course of my lectures to their people and fatherland. I ‘nationalized’ the troops, and in this way I was able also to help to strengthen the general discipline National Socialist there is only one doctrine: people and country .What we have to fight for is the security of the existence and the increase of our race and our people, the nourishment of its children and the preservation of the purity of the blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland in order to enable our people to mature for the fulfillment of their mission which the Creator of the universe has allotted also to them...”
Adolf was obviously more influenced by the Jewish thinking than he himself realized. It is clear that he has turned Germany, and the German race into God’s ‘chosen people’. Adolf is a preacher once again, and it is clear that he believes in some sort of inspirational influence from the Divine Creator of the Universe - this again, his counter punch to the ‘Godless’ preaching of the Marxist. It sure does seem that the Marxist would have been a hell of a lot better off if they had simply avoided the concept of God in their preaching. They would have also done well to reconsider the natural instinct to protect ones own ... nationalism. Is this ‘nationalism’ another inevitable, like it or not, that cannot be denied?