World War I to Iraq

Part II

A Theory on the Evolution of Today’s Liberal Politics

By Richard E. Noble

Next, if we accept the premise that World War I was primarily begun to promote industrialist and arms merchant’s gains and to undermine the socialist labor movements, other events being only supportive, secondary and manipulated, then we must ask; Was it successful?
As for advancing the industrialists and war industries, it was very successful, but there were a few minor glitches. The chief problem was that some of the industrialists of the losing countries lost money. This was not considered as fair play.
In May of 1930 a new international bank was set up. It was called the BIS, or Bank of International Settlements.(1) This was a part of the Young Plan. Young was a J. P. Morgan banker and political advisor. This bank would be immune from the perils of seizure, confiscation and the general monetary risks of war. It was founded on the principle that money is thicker than Nationalism. Why should an industrialist or banker lose his money simply because he is on the losing side of a particular war? It was originally set up to collect German reparation payments. It turned out to be a financial tool or money laundering apparatus for supporters of German Nazism. On its board of directors it had such notables as Walter Funk, eventually convicted as a war criminal; Emil Puhl, also convicted of war crimes; Kurt von Schroder, officer and financier of the Gestapo and head of J. H. Stein Bank of Cologne; Herman Schmitz, head of I .G. Farben; Hjalmar Horace Greeley Scacht, Hitler’s banking and financial wizard who was tried at Nuremberg, but released.
The BIS was associated with the First National Bank of New York, a J. P. Morgan organization with directors Harold S. Vanderbilt and Wendell Willkie. During the War the BIS president was a Harvard graduate by the name of Thomas McKittrick. He was a personal friend of Emil Puhl and ... “despite the fact that the evidence of the Puhl-McKittrick conspiracy was overwhelming, McKittrick was given an important post by the Rockefellers and Winthrop Aldrich; vice president of the Chase National Bank.”(2)
So, it seems, that the pro-war advocates and profiteers had a successful World War I in terms of profits and new ideas for profiting on future wars. But what of their goal to stamp out labor and socialistic labor ideas?
The war on this front went very poorly. Russia had been taken over by a pro-labor extreme radical government. There was a battle going on for China, and it looked like the anti-rich crowd was going to win there also. In Germany a Socialist post-war government had taken over temporarily. Socialist parties had been successfully established in England, France, Italy and all over Europe. As Karl Marx had predicted the Socialist revolution was on the march.
In the U.S., though, the extreme left wing had been trampled. The I.W.W, International Workers of the World, had been, not only put out of business, but their leadership imprisoned. Their major crimes had been, speaking out against the war and encouraging their members not to join the military and avoid the draft. Anarchists had been imprisoned or deported.(3) But less radical unions like the ClO and the AFL survived and continued to be a thorn in the side of business. American labor still seemed to have a “bad” attitude. They wanted a bigger share in the profits. Industrial war profits were extremely high but wages were nevertheless kept in check. They wanted safe work conditions. They wanted women and child workers protected. They wanted health insurance, disability and accident protection, retirement programs, shorter hours and the like.
The Unions were attempting to provide their workers with these benefits via union dues and company contracts. Employers didn’t like either of these options. If Unions were allowed to provide benefits to their workers via dues, the unions could become too powerful. The workers would become dependent on the Unions and not the employers. “More important than any of these factors in the decline of unionism after 1924 was the adoption by large portions of industry of “welfare capitalism”. Company unions were established that incorporated traditional union benefit offerings to re-establish Boss control and dominance over labor.(4)
The Bosses fought the Unions in every way they knew how, legal and otherwise. For the most part they had the government on their side. The best methods the Bosses had for combating Unions and worker’s rights advocates were company unions, immigration, unemployment, violence, sabotage of their own factories, lockouts starvation of workers, and anti-labor propaganda.(5)
The Bosses had been bringing in starving workers from all over the world, via false advertising and deceptive propaganda, since the 1840’s to keep wages at a starvation level. This tactic had been successful but it was backfiring. The immigrants were rapidly becoming their biggest opponents. The Bosses had lockouts and shut downs, Pinkertons, strike breakers, biased government legislation and contrived recessions and depressions. But the biggest blow of all was on the way ... the depression of 1929.
There are a lot of different theories about what caused this depression. I have my own.
John Maynard Keynes and others, talk about “disappearing money”. (6) It is claimed that “average people” put their money into savings accounts and somehow it just dried up and disappeared. I think somebody is trying to kid us here. Mister Keynes, I think knew the truth, but didn’t want to join the communists and attack his own kind and class - as was the case with Winston Churchill. So he made up this story of “disappearing” savings. He knew where the money had gone and he knew why. His suggestions regarding monetary policy helped the poor and assuaged the effects of the depression, but nevertheless succeeded in labeling himself along side Roosevelt as “enemies” of their class. The monied classes still hate and despise Keynes and Roosevelt to this day.
Money just doesn’t “dry up”, nor does it “disappear”. Whether money is spent or saved, it keeps going around. Beside this, at the time of the Depression over ninety percent of all the wealth of the world was controlled by less than 10% of the population. J. P. Morgan and a few of his associates are said to have had a net worth equal to two thirds of the entire U.S. Gross National Product of the day. (7) Even if all the 90% of the “average” world put all of their money into a sock or under the bed, it still couldn’t have caused a depression. So there was a good deal of money that went someplace. It was the money of the rich and the super wealthy that went someplace.
The stock market crash of 1929 and the Depression were precipitated by the very wealthy - maybe as a part of a conspiracy but most likely as the obvious course followed by like-minded people. Just as today free trade and the Global economy are being pursued without regard for individual national interests - so too the wealthy of the Depression era pursued their personal gains.
In his book the Great Crash 1929, John Kenneth Galbraith denies this “conspiracy notion”. I consider him extremely honest in his opinions. Yet many of the facts listed in his book 1929, could very well be considered supportive of my accusations nevertheless.
The Crash and following Depression solved two problems for the wealthy. One it provided the smart money with instant profits and removed all the amateurs from the “game”. And secondly, it provided all the bosses with a legitimate reason for putting all their bitchy workers into the streets and consequently into a better frame of mind. Now with unemployment booming, the workers and Unions could “rethink” their positions. Maybe after a little unemployment and starvation they would develop a better attitude and abandon their Socialistic agenda.
The poor and ignorant only understand harsh treatment. They should be kept poor, barefoot, pregnant - and in long lines begging for work. Bosses didn’t like being strong-armed into sharing their profits. Who were these “scum” demanding a “partnership” in their businesses? These peasants had to be shown their proper place.
As the Reverend Beecher (father of defiant Harriet) proclaimed from his pulpit after the Civil War in similar but not exact phrasing . . . Any upright man should be able to sustain himself and his family of five on one dollar a day wages. If he doesn’t drink, smoke or gamble it away, it should supply a good three meals of bread and water for all . . . (8) What more than bread and water does any good working man and his family need? The good Reverend Beecher also wondered why an employer should be forced to pay a worker a wage capable of supporting the worker’s wife and family also. The worker’s wife and family were being given their bread and water for free, in effect, while the burden of the worker’s sexual misadventures were being transferred to their poor employer.
The Reverend Beecher makes the good Reverend Malthus, of an earlier generation, seem kind and generous of spirit with his claims that it was the poor and their indiscriminate reproductive tendencies that were the true cause of world poverty and not the over indulgences, greed, selfishness, and exploitation by the wealthy that were the cause.
In any case, there is always another nation, with a more appreciative working class, waiting for the money of the rich to build it and bring it “prosperity”.
The wealthy and super wealthy began seeking countries that were more “inclined” towards the Capitalist, monopolistic ideology. Mussolini and Hitler and other dictators and imperialist were speaking their language. Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” reads like a campaign advertisement directed towards the rich and powerful. “Support me,” says Adolf, “and I will build a world where the rich will always be rich. I will kill all the Communists, discontents, and useless non producers”. These dictator types also believed in war and a strong military.
Hoover’s tax cuts and subsidies to large business were leaving the U.S. on ships for Europe in gold bars to the tune of 2 billion dollars a week. And in 1925 vast amounts went from the Federal Reserve under Benjamin Strong to the Reich Bank and the Bank of England under Hjalmar Schacht and Montagu Normand – both supporters and financiers to Adolf Hitler.(9) So much for the “trickle down” theory. And, as has already been established, war makes money - for some. Wars makes millions - for some. War makes billions. And it encourages business investment with no bottom line and apparently no top line. It produces industries that are self perpetuating. They manufacture products that are exploded and destroyed. This, of course, creates an immediate demand. As long as there is war there is always a need for these industries to supply their products. These industries always need workers. The war machine industry is self-perpetuating and never ending. There is only one problem. They must be careful not to blow up everybody all at once. This would be bad for business.
So the smart money was transferred into these new areas of investment, while the “fat and sassy” workers of the world were left to stew in their own communist and socialist ideologies.
Adolf Hitler was an exceptionally good investment because not only did he advocate war but he hated communism and labor unions and considered it the destiny of his people to resettle Russia and all territories to the east of Germany. This was perfect. Adolf Hitler became the poster boy for the Aristocratic set all over the world. He would destroy this Bolshevism. He would conquer Russia. And, if that wasn’t enough for your money, he would get rid of the International Jew.
The “International Jew” was a book written, published and financed by none other than Henry Ford.(10) The historian William Manchester says that Hitler kept a supply of this book to hand out to his wealthy friends. And Adolf had many? Anybody who was anybody seemed to have investments of one nature or another in Germany. The list of Adolf’s and Nazism backers and supporters actually staggers one’s wildest imaginings. Let me mention a few:
Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Charles Lindbergh; all three of these men were known anti-Semites.(11) Edison, Ford’s former employer, is said to have been Henry’s mentor and inspiration in this area as well as others. Lindbergh helped to train Goring’s air force. He and Henry Ford both received the German Cross for their efforts in support of the Nazi cause. Both refused to return their medals after war with Germany was declared. F.D.R. refused to reinstate Lindbergh in the U.S. military and is quoted to have said something to the effect that ... if Lindbergh isn’t a Nazi, nobody is. Adolf Hitler is quoted to have said . . . We look to Heinrick Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement in America.
Other supporters of Adolf s Nazism include(12): Chase National Banking, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Sterling Products, General Aniline and Film - these are all Rockefeller companies; ITT owner, Sosthenes Behn; R.C.A. corporation, headed by Colonel David Sarnoff James D. Mooney, president of Chevrolet Motor Company; Edsel Ford: Montagu Normand, governor of the bank of England, [Before the German armies had arrived in Czechoslovakia, the Czech government had shipped all of its gold to the Bank of England for safe keeping. Mister Montagu Normand returned the gold via the BIS to Adolf Hitler and the Germans.], Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England, was a major shareholder in Imperial Chemical Industries, a partner of I. G. Farben. The BIS, as mentioned, a Nazi money laundering machine is also the supposed forerunner of the World Bank; Allen and brother John Foster Dulles, head of the C.I.A. and Secretary of State respectively, both worked for Sullivan and Cromwell. This was a law firm that handled the American interests of I. G. Farben and several other German companies; Nancy Aster and the “Cliveden Set”... the Cliveden Set was a super wealthy, international group of Nazi supporters; Lord Beaverbrook, owner of the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, and the Evening Standard and Lord Rothermere were wealthy newspaper magnates who favored Nazism; King Edward the VIII and his American, divorcee bride were both suspected as spies for Hitler. The Kings abdication was not due to love alone, supposedly he was asked to step down by members of the English parliament; the DuPont family of Delaware, owners of the controlling interests of General Motors, were Hitler supporters and though Jewish themselves, anti-Semites. They were also involved with I. G. Farben, founded The Liberty League, and Clark’s Crusaders, both of which were radical Fascists organizations. The DuPonts and General Motors, along with J. P. Morgan Banking actually planned a violent overthrow of the Roosevelt Government.
Roosevelt had his hands full in trying to win World War II for the allies. He was truly a traitor to his class - the only problem was that his class, the American super-wealthy, upper class, were strongly fascist and traitors to what many working Americans had always thought to be the principles of American democracy.
Roosevelt was one of the super wealthy. But, his feelings were in sympathy with the working class. He was considered a Socialist by many. He stabbed the Bosses in the back by taking their tax money and giving it to the poor. He put the poor back to work using the money of the people who were trying to keep the poor unemployed. The wealthy considered Roosevelt a traitor. But, though they didn’t get rid of Socialism they did get a War. They wanted Hitler to fight the war with Russia for them, but when that failed, they would have to make the best of it.
World War II kept the workers and the radicals busy and kept the profits high for the warrior class and their pro-war cohorts. Roosevelt had two wars to contend with. He had the war overseas, and the one here at home with the right wing, anti-Socialists, pro-Nazis.
F.D.R. had the common people, the workers and the soldiers on his side, but many of the “monied” people of America were another story. Some of them were German or Nazi supporters. Some of them were anti-Semites. And others were simply greedy, enterprising capitalists. That a very small minority were religious, conscientious objectors and pacifists would be my guess.
Henry Morganthau, Secretary of the Treasury and the next door neighbor of F.D.R., was keeping records of American businesses that may have or were known to have been trading with Nazi Germany during the war. After the war there was going to be a serious investigation of U.S. war profiteering just as there was after World War I. One of his assistants in tabulating this information was Alger Hiss.
Alger Hiss had been on the Nye committee investigating war profiteering. It was to cover up these war profiteers, anti-Semites, Nazi sympathizers, and business criminal traitors in general that brought Senator McCarthy to the foreground. McCarthy kept the heat on Communism and thus kept the heat off our own, home grown Nazis and true traitors.
I have recently read that J. Edgar Hoover has had FBI agents go to the Morganthau files in the F.D.R. museum and distort and damage these files, by literally snipping out sections that were incriminating to his right wing supporters. (13)

1 “Hitler’s Secret Bankers”, Adam Lebor, Carol Publishing Group.
2 "Trading With the Enemy”, by Charles Higham, Barnes & Noble.
3 “Fighting Faiths”, the Supreme Court and Free Speech, Richard Polenberg.
4 “A History of American Labor”, by Joseph G. Rayback, The Free Press, New York.
5 "Problems in American History", Carroll Daugherty, pages 635-680.
6 “The Worldly Philosophers” by Robert L. Heilbroner, Simon & Schuster, pp. 254-259.
7 “History of Great American Fortunes” by Gustavus Myers, The Modern Library, New York.
8 “The Rise of Industrial America” Volume Six, by Page Smith, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
9 “Money”, Whence it came, Where it went, pp 214-215, by John Kenneth Galbraith.
10 “The International Jew” Abridged from the original as published by Henry Ford, Sr., Copy prepared for printer by Gerald L. K. Smith, National Director, Christian Nationalist Crusade.
11 “Who Financed Hitler” The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power 1919-1933, James Pool, Pocket Books, a division of Simon & Schuster.
12 “Hitler and His Secret Partners” by James Pool, Pocket Books, Simon & Schuster.
13 “J. Edgar Hoover”, The Man and His Secrets, by Curt Gentry, W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 389-390.

[This has been Part II of a three Part series. Part III will be appearing shortly.]

World War I to Iraq
Part I

A Theory on the Evolution of Today’s Liberal Politics

By Richard E. Noble

The causes of World War I can be difficult to decipher. Are we talking financially, psychologically, sociologically, historically, politically or otherwise? But certainly, as Winston Churchill points out in his “The Crisis”, the arms race between Germany and England was a major factor. So let us begin with it.
Before World War I, the British were the “superpower” of the era. It was claimed that, “The sun never set on the British empire”. It was the British who started the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution is a major factor. It transformed the economies of the world and the social structure.
Germany decided to challenge the British position and began a massive naval build up. Why would the Germans need a navy if they weren’t intending to invade England or challenge its colonial possessions or its status as master of the seas, thought the British strategists. The British Government decided that for every ship that Germany built, they would build two. The arms race was off and running.
The arms traders and manufactures, later known as “Merchants of Death” by critics, were by this time in heavy competition. All over Western Europe arms manufactures were flourishing. They promoted arms “shows” to display their wares. They petitioned the heads of governments. They solicited the good will of generals and hired retired generals to pedal and promote their products. They advertised, gave out free samples and had head to head competitions, challenging one another and each other’s products.
As the competition became more intense, corruption set in. Bribes and kickbacks to politicians and military leaders were an important part of the tools of the trade. But bribes, kickbacks and “incentives” of that nature were destructive to profits and tended to raise prices. They also tended to produce international scandals. The Merchants of Death then proceeded to develop better methods of sales enhancement. They bought up newspapers and magazines. They hired authors and writers and bought or started their own publishing companies. They used all of these tools to enhance the image of war and to promote the glory of war. They also used these tools to instigate and incite conflict and antagonisms around the world. In one such incident an arms merchant hired mercenaries to mine the harbors of a neighboring country in order to precipitate a conflict. It worked.
These Merchants of Death worked their advertising campaign to incite and stimulate suspicions and mistrust between neighboring countries and aggravate old rivalries and hatreds. A common practice was to inform a country that its neighbor had just purchased a number of cannons or machine guns, or rifles. Then suggest to the potential new “customer” that this neighbor had intentions of conquest or invasion. All of these tactics were successful and the Merchants of Death were able to initiate minor skirmishes and mini wars all over the world. Even if they were unable to get countries to fight one another, they were able to convince them to stockpile weapons. All of the countries of Europe were armed to the teeth. The market for weapons all over the world was flourishing. Business was good. Salesmen like Sir Basil Zarharoff became super wealthy. Arms inventors and manufactures like R. L. Thomson, Hirum Maxim, Alfred Krupp, M. Eugene Schneider and many, many more, became multimillionaires.
The industrial revolution made industrialists super wealthy but it made conditions for millions and millions of other humans desperate, diseased and poverty stricken. These conditions among the poor and working population precipitated a reform movement. This reform movement took on many different causes and was championed by a variety of people from every social class. Most notable and outstanding among this group were a class of people almost unheard from throughout the previous history of mankind. This group of radical reformers and social disturbers of the peace were called ... women.
Women became the leaders and instigators of numerous social causes. They championed the rites of children, women workers, the poor, housewives, the uneducated, organizations of workers, the needy, the blacks, the disenfranchised, the old, the sick, the abused, the beaten, the struggling, prison inmates - in general, the powerless. Women like Mother Jones, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Jane Addams, Anna Goldman, the Claflin sisters, Abba Woolson, Victoria Woodhull, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Marie Stevens Howland, Lillian Harman, Angela Tilton Heywood, Alice B. Stockham, Elmina Slenker, Lois Waisbrooker, and the list goes on. These women were an active part of a movement that set out to reform the social and economic structure of the world. This was a utopian revolution. This revolution stretched from minor government reformers and goo-gooes (good government types), to socialist, communists, anarchists and armed revolutionist. These reformers, though massive and worldwide were the minority. The majority and opposition were those who had jobs, were employed within the industrial structures, or in the government, or in the militaries and were contented with their plight and positions. This is the group from which the industrialists and the governments drew their popular support.
But from the 1840’s and up until the outbreak of the first World War, the positions of all governments throughout the entire industrialized world was in a precarious state. This was a time of serious upheaval. All governments of industrial nations were under attack. In the United States, labor strikes and armed conflicts were constantly erupting. There were revolutions in Germany and France. Conditions in England and Russia had been disruptive for decades. If one is a believer in the notion or political theory that wars are precipitated by unstable governments in an attempt to solidify dissension and pacify political unrest at home, World War I could certainly be a case study.
Another popular theory often referred to when discussing World War I is the entangled web of treaties among the nations of Europe. The notion being that once the first shot was fired in whatever direction, every European nation was tied to one of the disputants. This, in fact, seems to have been the case. But how this tangle of treaties came about, or if the Merchants of Death had an influence in the weaving or manipulating and constructing of this web, I have yet to discover.
In any case, the Arch Duke Ferdinand is then assassinated and the web begins to unravel. Due to the hype and conditioning from the past decades everyone in Europe is eager and excited to beat up on somebody. Most historians seem to agree that the governments and the peoples of Europe were all itching for a fight. Adolf Hitler talks of his joy and the general excitement all over Europe in his “Mein Kampf’. The war “hawks”, unfortunately, got more than they bargained for.
There were only two groups, as far as I can see, who emerged from the war profitably. The first and most obvious was the United States.
The United States did not enter the war until it was almost over. If the idea behind World War I was to put down social unrest at home, it was somewhat successful in the United States but certainly not on the battlefields of Europe nor in the warring nations of Europe themselves.
In March of 1917 the Russian Czar Nicholas II was force to abdicate the throne. In April of 1918 Woodrow Wilson went to congress for a declaration of war on Germany.
For some strange reason, these two dates or incidents are never linked in history books - at least not in U.S. history books. We read about the sinking of U.S. merchant ships by German submarines and the infamous Zimmerman note which suggested conspiracy among the Germans, the Mexicans and the Japanese against the U. S. It is never even suggested that the socialist labor revolution in Russia had any influence on Wilson’s decision to suddenly enter World War I. But socialism and revolution were very big in the times of Woodrow Wilson.
It could very well be that the Russian Revolution was the number one reason for Wilson’s deciding to enter the war in Europe. Not only did entering World War I enhance the position of the allies against the Central powers and secure U.S. loans, it gave Wilson the opportunity to put down the socialist revolution here at home.
Numerous groups were organizing massive numbers of radicals, discontents and immigrants all over the U.S. From the mine fields of Colorado to the Textile mills of New England; from railroad workers to lumber jacks, the U.S. was under siege. A new revolutionary upheaval was in the making.
Declaring war put President Wilson in charge here at home. And in charge he was. The days were now numbered for the radicals and discontents. Wilson sent the military to Europe, and the police and the militia to the various troublesome states of the union. He put a crackdown on organized labor which imprisoned thousands and that would be emulated in Germany, decades later by the infamous and pro-Capitalist, Adolf Hitler. The start of the Russian labor and peasant revolt and revolution of 1917 was the beginning of modern world and U.S. History.
The notion that the “workers of the world” could and were about to topple the Russian government and that these workers had led the entire Russian military to walk off the battlefield, set the established Western governments of the world into a state of panic and paranoia. The industrial manufactures, the arms merchants, the governments that they supported, and all those who were currently receiving benefit and security from their reign were horrified. Wilson attacked on the behalf of this group here at home and in Europe.
The second group to benefit from World War I was the Arms Merchants in particular.
After World War I there were investigations into the armament industry. Many companies around the world were accused of profiteering. It was determined that German bodies had been strung along miles of barbed wire sold to the French by German manufactures just weeks before the war. Frenchmen had been slaughtered by bombs and bullets manufactured by French industrialists and sold during the war to their enemies at high profits. British arms merchants had been selling to all combatants under the banner of the “free market” while their patriotic sons were being slaughtered by the millions.
The U.S. had been dealing with arms profiteers all the way back to the American Revolution. The Deanne affair exposed by Tom Paine is infamous. Carnegie, J. P. Morgan, DuPont and others had been accused and investigated at one point or another. The bottom line is that whether legitimate or illegitimate, the arms manufactures, clearly, win with war.
After World War I the armament industry grew and prospered all over the world. Peace advocates had a revival between the wars but not only did they lose the propaganda war, they have since been blamed as a major cause of World War II. It was - claim the war advocates - these “peaceniks” who left the U.S. unprepared and Europe in a state of appeasement.
It was not the peaceniks and the appeasers who via their inaction and cautious, accommodating, peace-loving behavior brought foreword the carnage of World War II, but the exact same group of pro-war advocates who benefit from war, who had brought us World War I. Even Winston Churchill in his “The Gathering Storm” suggests an historical accountable suspicion with regards to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Britain’s upper classes in their avoidance of action in standing up to Hitler’s pre-Poland advances in pre-war Europe.
The Bolsheviks labeled this group as “Capitalists”. The Capitalists in the Bolshevik’s eyes seem to have been all of those who benefited from the First World War, or the industrial revolution. This included almost everyone in the West. The wage earners, common workers, soldiers and the like were not active participants in the war mongering business. They were simply the dupes of the “Capitalist” propaganda, said the Bolsheviks. This theory turned the for-profit Capitalist machine and all of its Capitalist generals dead square against Russia. Russia became public enemy number one.
From 1917 onward Soviet Russia was under the gun. Most wars since that time have been, in reality, against Soviet Russia or anybody under the influence of their ideas and anti-Capitalist propaganda. This includes World War II, the Cold War, The Korean War and the Vietnam War and a multitude of actions in-between.
World War II was not precipitated by appeasers and peaceniks; nor was it brought about by Adolf Hitler. It began in 1917. It was financed and actively pursued by those who feared the spread of the working-man, Bolshevik (man with family) mentality. Bolshevism, as Winston Churchill stated, would destroy his kind - the wealthy, the super wealthy, and the privileged.
Karl Marx’s cry to the working man to unite and lose his chains was not heeded by the working class, but it did unite its enemies. The Capitalists, the bankers, the wealthy and the super wealthy not only put their heads together, but they put their money where their mouths were.
The Russian Revolution seemed to be a disaster for everyone, including the Russians. Their basic premise was that the “rich” were the cause of all of the world’s problems and that they should be destroyed, imprisoned, exiled, enslaved or “re-educated”. It followed from this premise that the rich should lose any property they possessed, and all of their money and valuables should be confiscated. The Bolsheviks were the most radical of all the Russian discontents. Any other group would have probably proved a better choice. Russia certainly needed reform but this Bolshevik reform almost destroyed all hope of success. But succeed it did!
To the Russian Bolshevik and peasant, anyone who possessed more than what he possessed, he considered “rich”. Consequently in dethroning the “rich” they alienated everybody who knew how to do anything or had any money. Secretaries, clerks at the corner bank, store managers etc., had to be led at gun point back to their positions.
The Germans had a good idea. They would pay the Russian, exiled intellectual and dissident, Lenin to return to the Russian capital. He would support the revolution but not the war with Germany. Lenin was successful on both counts. He pretty much scrapped the Bolshevik revolutionary, democratic principles and set up a dictatorship. First he would establish law and order and then he would deal with the will of the people and democratic principles.
The French revolution had gone pretty much the same way. The lowest most unqualified level of the society had succeeded in gaining power only to be usurped by a dictator, Napoleon.
The American Revolution was the only revolution of the three not to follow this course. We can thank George Washington for that twist of revolutionary fate.
The Russian Revolution went on until 1921. All of the nations of the free world tried to influence its outcome with money, men and arms. At one point the U.S. even had troops on Russian soil - “5000 American soldiers who had been unwisely diverted to Archangel”. Khrushchev mentioned this fact when he came to visit America during the Eisenhower administration.
The American troops for the most part refused to fight their Russian allies. Many American soldiers had fought on picket lines and supported socialist and radical causes themselves at home in the U.S. In any case, the American soldiers wanted to come home. They were not interested in pursuing another war or in interfering in Russian politics. The Wilson administration and its wealthy backers could not convince the American soldiers to get involved directly in this Russian political dilemma. The Germans had capitulated and now the American soldiers wanted to go home. They would settle for nothing less. They were sick of war.
In World War I the Allies had 42 million soldiers. Half of them ended up dead, wounded or missing. The Central Powers had 65 million soldiers. Approximately half of them ended up dead, wounded or missing. The Americans had four million soldiers involved and only 500,000 ended up dead, wounded or missing. The war’s direct costs were estimated at approximately 208 billion, indirect cost at 151 billion. And these estimates did not include interest payments, veteran’s care and pensions and similar type expenses.
After the war a number of strange things started taking place. The U.S. was now the wealthiest nation in the world. It possessed nearly all of the gold in the world. All the allies were in our debt and the U.S. demanded payment. The Germans had reparations to pay and the allies had debts to pay. Everybody was paying the U.S. Europe, for the most part, was in a shambles. While England and our other allies were trying to pay off their debts, for some reason the U.S. was loaning large sums of money to Germany. Winston Churchill makes the comment in “The Gathering Storm”, that he could never understand why Hitler complained so about the Treaty of Versailles. The American government was loaning Germany more than enough money to not only make their reparations payments but also to rebuild their country, in his opinion. Winston also pointed out that America now had all the money on its side of the board. If it didn’t somehow redistribute this money the international “Monopoly” money game would be over because no one else was left with enough money to play. Eventually most of the European war debts were canceled. But one must ask oneself why the U.S was loaning so much money to Germany - its World War I enemy? One might also asks how war debts of such monumental proportions could simply be canceled without any consequences.
1“Merchants of Death”, H. C. Engelbrecht and F. C. Hanighen. Dodd, Mead & Company 1934.
2 “Merchants of Death, H.C. Engelbrecht and F.C. Hanighen.
3 “Rise of Industrial America”, A People’s History of the Post-Reconstruction Era, by Page Smith, Volume Six, Chapter 15.
4“Roughneck”, The Life and Times of Big Bill Haywood, by Peter Carlson.
5“The Gathering Storm”, Winston Churchill, Houghton Muffin Company Boston, pp. 346.
6 “Red Victory” A History of the Russian Civil War, by W. Bruce Lincoln, Simon & Schuster.
7“The Arms of Krupp”, William Manchester, page 299.
8 “Merchants of Death”, same as above.

[THIS WILL BE A THREE PART SERIES]

My Wife Quits Me

Humor

By Richard E. Noble

This is a very, very sad story, I must admit. Yes it is very sad - sad but true.
My wife and I had been married for quit some time before we decided to go into our own business together. Opening a business was a life long dream for each of us. But as you will find out, owning one’s own business means different things to different people.
The first few years were a struggle - just as we had expected. Well, to be honest they were even worse than we had expected - but we made it. The next few years were still a struggle and after that the struggle continued.
We had been in business nearly ten years when my wife had finally had enough. Strangely she had had enough just when I was thinking that things were improving. It was frustrating to learn how two people could look at the same situation, the same facts, and come to completely opposite conclusions.
My wife had come to the conclusion that our business adventure was a total failure. I felt that not only had we reached a point of reasonable success but we were on the brink of an even better future.
My wife was of the opinion that since we could not afford to buy or do any of the things that we had never been able to do before we embarked on our business venture; this meant that our business was a failure and we should close the doors and go find a real job. “People who own their own business should be better off than people who just “work” for someone else,” she explained to me.
I thought that was a very good theory. I felt that she could possibly run for political office and make that a part of her platform - along with no more wars, free education, and the eradication of poverty throughout the world. But honestly, I felt that as long as we were living as good as we had ever lived and we were our own bosses that this was being a success. We had no more money, but we had no less. We still couldn’t buy the things that we couldn’t buy before we went into business, but what the heck?
She said that we should close down and I said over my dead body. She then turned in her notice. She would be quitting me and she would go and find another job - a job that paid her “real” money and was not a matter of rationalization and the power of positive thinking.
I told her that would be fine and I would hire someone else when we opened again for the season.
She immediately began studying the want ads. She was absolutely right; there were a lot of good jobs in the newspaper. The only thing wrong with those “good jobs” was that she was not qualified. She was not an environmental engineer; she was not skilled in Library Science; she did not have a teaching certificate; she couldn’t type 400 words a minute; she wasn’t ambitious and self-starting. Truthfully, she wanted an easier job than the one she was leaving, with more pay, fewer hours and no responsibilities.
I didn’t say a word as she read the want ads in front of me at breakfast each morning. She would often leave the newspaper open to the want ad page and have a number of possibilities circled.
In the mean time I had been thinking of how I was going to replace my wife down at the shop. It was obvious to me that no new employee was going to cover all that my wife had been doing. I would have to hire two new people and pick up the rest myself. This would make things more difficult for me but once my wife had her new job and was paying her fair share of the household expenses, my overhead would be lowered and we would once again be on an even keel. We would have no more than we ever had but maybe she would be happy.
Finally my wife informed me that she would possibly be starting her new job soon. It wasn’t a great job and it might only be part-time at first but it would be a start. I asked her what her starting pay would be. She said that she would be starting at minimum wage. I told her that if she would come back to working for me I would pay her two dollars above the minimum wage and that I could guarantee her forty hours or more for the entire season.
Her eyes lit up. She looked at me curiously. “You would be willing to pay me two dollars above the minimum wage and I would only have to work forty hours?” I figured that if my wife came back I would only have to hire one part-time employee and pick up a little slack myself and I would be as good as ever. Actually, I would be saving money.
She said that she would come back and work for me so long as I treated her at least as well as I treated the other hired people; she didn’t want to be called on her days off and she wanted to get a check every week - just like everybody else.
I agreed but with the condition that she acted like an employee and not an owner-partner and that she did what I told her to do and when I told her to do it. I didn’t want to hear any griping. She agreed.
This was the only time in our marriage that I was ever the real boss - and it only cost me two dollars above the minimum wage. That was one of my better management decisions.

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson (president from 1800-1808)

By Richard E. Noble

It took thirty-six ballots in the House of Representatives to get Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr in their tie vote for the presidency. Actually Burr wasn’t even running for the presidency. He was a candidate for the vice presidency at the time. Thomas Jefferson was a Republican.
George Washington and John Adams were both Federalist. The Federalists were the conservatives of their day and the Republicans were the liberals.
Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe in having a standing army; he felt that the Navy should be nothing more than a coast guard, and that the American people should protect their freedom and independence by way of a voluntary militia. A large standing military only led a nation to foreign wars, he thought. But no sooner did he get into office than he sent the Army and Navy to Tripoli to fight the Barbary Pirates.
The Barbary Pirates were the terrorists or gangsters of their day. They were getting protection money from governments all over the world. Pay the premium and your ships would not be harassed. It took until 1805 for Jefferson to subdue the Barbary Pirates. This was all done without authorization from congress.
His famous Louisiana Purchase was not entirely without controversy either. He had only been authorized two million dollars to buy the port of New Orleans, and secure shipping rights along the Mississippi. But when he found out that Napoleon was willing to sell, in addition to New Orleans, half the western continent for just sixteen million he immediately agreed to the sale without even consulting congress. He put it through Congress not as a request but as a done deal.
He repealed the Federalist’s Alien and Sedition acts, and pardoned all those under conviction due to their enactment. To Jefferson’s thinking the Federalists were despots and dictators who did not have faith in a democratic society. The Federalist, especially archrival Alexander Hamilton, called Jefferson everything under the sun. Jefferson was called, in the conservative press of the day; a drunkard, the father of numerous mulattos because he was having a well publicized affair with one of his slaves, and an atheist.
Jefferson’s election will undoubtedly bring about a Civil War and initiate a reign in which murder, adultery, robbery, rape and incest will be openly taught and practiced, so it was said. Alexander Hamilton, who seemed to be hell on roller skates in those days, was finally shot in a duel with Aaron Burr who was no mild mannered, compassionate figure himself. Burr actually tried to get a country of his own going. He was eventually captured and tried for treason. But the politics of the day being pretty much like the politics of today, Burr was freed by Federalist, and Jefferson adversary, Judge John Marshall.
Jefferson was also responsible for the Lewis and Clark expedition and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. In the original he tried to get slavery abolished, and blamed it all on the British. He established an embargo on trade trying to avoid a war with England and France that nearly bankrupted everybody.
Jefferson was another one of our reluctant leaders. He fought for the job, but was more than happy to see his term finally come to an end.

Abram

“The First Jew”

By Richard E. Noble

Well, in my search for the first Jew ever, I think that I have finally come to my man. The first Jew ever was Abram, who is more commonly known as Abraham. He lived around two thousand years before Christ. He was obviously some sort of scholar. He knew astronomy and is said by Josephus to have introduced mathematics to the Egyptians. Josephus is not to be confused with Bo-sephus. Josephus is a Jew, historian and Bo-sephus is a redneck, country music singer.
Abraham is credited as being the first man to proclaim publicly that there was only one God and that God’s name was YVHV (Yahweh). But this does not seem to be the case. What he said seems to be that there is one God who is more powerful than all of the other Gods and this God’s name is Yahweh. Yahweh was the most powerful of all the Gods because he controlled the universe. The universe was greater than rain, wind, fire, ocean etc., since all of these things were merely a part of it. Therefore, whoever was in charge of the universe had to be in charge of all the other Gods who controlled all of its various parts.
This was considered deep thinking to Abraham and family but not so deep to the Chaldeans who looked upon Abraham as a cult whack-o. Especially when he ran around telling everybody that his god was bigger than their god and that he talked with Yahweh on a regular basis. I would suppose that the last straw for the Chaldeans came when Abraham told them that Yahweh and he had made a covenant. And this covenant proclaimed that he, Abraham, would be the leader of the greatest nation to ever exist and that his sons would also lead great nations - just so long as they “sexually mutilated” themselves and all of their male children.
Rumors spread about that the followers of Abraham not only sexually mutilated their male sons but that, on occasion they killed a few, ate them and drank their blood. To make a long story short, the Chaldeans ran Abraham off and he ended up in the land of Canaan, later known as Judea. And I would guess that followers of Abraham who came from Judea were then known as Jews. So there you go.
I don’t know where the notion of killing and eating the babies came from but the drinking blood notion probably came from the method of cauterizing the wound of circumcision by having the priest or circumciser orally suck the blood away from the wounded area. It was thought that there were healing elements contained in the mouth and its saliva and such. Well?? Folks were still drilling holes in peoples’ heads a few centuries later to let out evil demons, you know.
When Abraham was about a hundred years old he knocked up his wife Sarah’s handmaid Hagar and she gave birth to a boy she named Ishmael. Shortly thereafter, Sarah, who was nearly one hundred years old herself, became pregnant. (We’ll presume Abraham the responsible male sperm donor here, though I don’t know why.) Sara gave birth to a son she named Laughter (Isaac). No doubt she thought this whole thing to be a bad joke. She then gave Hagar a bottle of water and a loaf of bread, and told her to take Ishmael and hit the road. Hagar and Ishmael both nearly die in the desert, but unfortunately they don’t. And eventually a descendent of Ishmael gives birth to, of all people, Mohammed. Can you believe it? So if you have been wondering why the damn Arabs hate the damn Jews, meditate on Abraham’s little fling with Hagar and their illegitimate son Ishmael for a century or two.

Mohammed (570-632 A.D.)

By Richard E. Noble

(Pssssttt ... if there is a dark complicated, rather swarthy, looking guy, possibly wearing a turban and carrying a sword, sitting next to you, hide this document immediately. I don’t want no trouble. These type people take this stuff serious!!)
Mohammed was an illiterate, orphan, who lived some place in Arabia. He became a businessman, first working for a semi-prosperous uncle. The uncle felt that this kid was good, and sent him to see a widower aunt who had a bigger and better business than he. Mohammed and his rich auntie became very close. They married. Mohammed was not a disappointment to his new bride, and the business prospered.
Then one day, Mohammed, off on a hill somewhere or in a cave someplace, had a vision. Some critics say it wasn’t so much of a vision as an epileptic fit ... BUT I AIN’T SAYING THAT. NO SIR-EE!! I say that the guy had a vision, most definitely a vision - and a darn good one too. And I’m also sure that he wasn’t smoking any wacky weed or anything like that either.
In this vision and in subsequent visions God, via the Archangel Michael, dictated to this illiterate, the Koran. And you gotta remember this, Mohammed was not only illiterate, he didn’t know how to write either. So that just goes to prove, how could he have possibly written the Koran, if it didn’t come directly from God.
I have absolutely no problem with this, and if that guy with the turban and the sword sitting next to you is still looking, you better not either.
MOHAMMED WAS NOT GOD!!
All right! And he is the one who said it, not me. Mohammed said Ia ilaha illa-l-lah, and a heck of a lot more than that too.
Mohammed was doing fairly well with this new religion, preaching love, kindness and charity to the poor, but conversions were a little slow. So Mohammed tried a new technique. Well, it really wasn’t all that new. At first Mohammed said believe in the one true God or donate your head to a bucket.
This did well for awhile, but then Mohammed adopted a more liberal attitude. He said that you didn’t have to believe in Islam or the one and only, positively true, MY one and only God if you choose not too. But, if you were so inclined you had to cough up some bucks, otherwise lose your head.
This was very liberal, at least a lot of Jews who had been getting their heads lopped off by Christians for a few hundred years thought so.
There are those that criticizes Mohammed for this and say that he was not really a devoted prophet but a money making businessman, capitalist type of a guy who was more devoted to getting rich and powerful than spreading any inspired message from God - somewhat like a few of our Evangelist of today. Some even go so far as to say that the whole thing was a scam to get the poor onto his side in order to have enough power to intimidate the rich into giving alms. That’s what some people say, but I AM NOT ONE OF THEM. I ain’t saying anything like that at all. In fact, if I have anything to say, it is this ... La ilaha illa Allah, Mohammed rasul Allah. And if I were to add anything to that it would be a simple Amen, or Hallelujah, and that is it.

Tomorrow’s History

Humor

By Richard E. Noble

There I was, sitting in my usual position, pen and pad in hand, tape recorder rolling, doing my job of documenting tomorrow’s history - an awesome assignment indeed, when a loud mournful wail shattered the perpetual predictability and wafted down upon us from the back of the auditorium.
Now this was only small town history as opposed to big city history but history nonetheless. It may have been Mr. Putnal, local oysterman/fisherman representative expounding on his inability to find a parking spot at last week’s mullet toss or bar-b-que rib cook off or Commissioner Sanders commenting on her recent bream fishing trip out to the ditches with her retired husband, or someone at the podium requesting more lighting at the little league baseball field, or the perennial Mrs. Swanson complaining about the disturbing, constant unapproved activities coming at ungodly hours from her sister-in-law’s house across the road. I don’t remember exactly now what was going on at the time of the scream, but everybody stopped and looked to the back of the room.
We all saw a rather large man, now standing with his arms and hands flailing about above his head slapping at the air. The man’s wail was obviously one of frustration and not pain. And I suppose that it could have been caused by any number of circumstances totally unrelated to the events taking place. But for some reason my first thought was that this was a man not accustomed to attending County Commission meetings.
Most people have no idea what goes on at a County Commission meeting or the amount of minutia that is often debated for what might seem to the casual observer as “forever”. But as a semi-paid scribe assigned to document tomorrow’s small town history I have come to realize the importance of every bird dropping complaint, or flooded driveway or dusty dirt road annoyance. I realize that no one but no one comes to a County Commission meeting to relax and be entertained. This is serious business and the kinds of people who show up at these meetings are serious type people. They have something to say and they expect to be heard - eventually.
I watched this man leave the courtroom and struggle through the lobby pulling at his hair in what seemed to be an attempt to remove it from his scalp. I felt so sorry for the fellow.
Finally he exited the lobby and stepped out onto the sidewalk. Jerry, the on-duty everyday police officer, followed the man out the door. He was obviously trying to console the gentleman, but the poor man was still in a rather hectic rage. I couldn’t hear what he was saying but his mouth was opening wide and often, and his hands and arms were fluttering like the wings of a butterfly. Unfortunately the man was considerably over weight and his face was getting redder by the minute.
Jerry was obviously trying to be friendly and compassionate but yet keeping a safe step or two away from the poor fellow with his hand on his revolver just in case the dude really flipped out.
As I sat in my pew, I thought to myself “I remember when I used to be like that. But now look at me! I’m as calm as a potato. And I come here every damn week.” I felt like Ernest Borgnine or Lee Marvin, the hardened war torn front-line sailor or marine. I mean I do this every darn week - week after week after week ... after week ... after week. I get no medals or awards ... nothing. In fact almost never does anybody even say “good job” or well done. In fact most times when I bump into an old acquaintance his first question is “Hey, what are you doing nowadays?”
But I say to myself did anybody ever thank Flavius Josephus or Tacitus, or the Venerable Bede or Thucydides, or Herodotus or Plutarch or Gibbon? I doubt it. What about all them monks who hand-copied all them Bibles, with a feather pen and an inkwell before Guttenberg came along? And those cavemen who scratched things on cave walls - with no electric lights? What about all those forgotten souls who stacked all those huge stones on those pyramids? What about all them guys that you read about in those history books who dug their own miserable graves before somebody finally put them out of their hopeless misery and shot them in the head?
I’ll tell you folks, I feel that I am in a class with the greatest sufferers who have ever lived. I have been there without fail for three or four years now, and listen to this ... I am going to be there at the next County Commission meeting also - and the one after that too! My god, I think that I am actually turning into an American hero. Somebody ought to be taking my picture tramp tramp tramping hopelessly to a fate worse than death as I and an army of other plug ugly, unsung recorders of tomorrow’s history all over America and the world for that matter fade into anonymity and oblivion in numerous unpopulated and underattended County Commission rooms from Hell. What stamina, what courage, what endurance, what perspicacity! Time magazine ought to be taking my picture for their next cover. Somebody should be writing something heroic about me!

Mein Kampf - Chapter 8 Part II

Hitler’s Religion

[In rereading this piece I must say that it somewhat shocks me when I consider that this entire series on Adolf and Mein Kampf was written during the 1990’s. The conclusion seems rather prescient.]

By Richard E. Noble

“… freedom of the press (as one calls this nuisance of unpunishable lying to, and poisoning of, the people) . .
The press has always been a problem. And its suppression goes back as far as its initiation. No power enjoys criticism. But the press is subject to all of the human trappings of power and wealth. After World War I, it was exposed that many of the world’s most established newspapers were owned by arms merchants who manipulated the events of the day in an effort to sell their products. Thus enhancing and prolonging war for monetary benefit. I doubt that the truth of this can be rewritten today. And I would go so far as to state that if today our current news media and press is not owned and somewhat manipulated by arms merchants, it is for the most part owned and operated by the international business community. There may still be a number of Mom and Pop type newspapers around the country, but if they say anything very important or begin to gain a radical readership they will be crushed by the big boys very quickly.
Do we have a ‘free’ press, today?
We have a different type of suppression. Instead of denying anyone their right to publish, the established press and media simply dilute any unapproved assertions with a plethora of conflicting stories and information designed to make any accusation so confusing as to make an informed decision on the part of the general population impossible. Even if one newspaper or media source states the absolute truth on a controversial matter, a thousand other sources will flood the market with obfuscating material, and even misinformation and lies until even the truth becomes unrecognizable, or too confusing to be brought to an intelligent conclusion. And I really don’t think that I have stated anything here that most of America doesn’t already know. But maybe this is exactly what a ‘free’ press is supposed to be, and we can only hope that after all is said and done the majority of the people will be discerning enough to sort the fact from the fiction. I personally feel that though most of us do not know the entire truth on any given subject matter, when we hear it the majority of us will recognize it. But, on the negative side, this does return everything to the category of opinion, and personal interpretation. So then how does one establish truth?
We try to convince ourselves that Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin killed forty or twenty millions of their own people but our common sense tells us that is impossible. It is possible that neither Adolf nor Uncle Joe ever killed anybody. The true fact is that the German and Russian people slaughtered one another, and this cannot be denied. And it is quite evident that human beings have been slaughtering one another since the beginning of the species. We can go all the way back to the biblical legacy of the story of Cain and Able if we like, and I am sure that all cultures have their own parable to confirm the slaughtering inclination.
The immediate cause always seems to be politics, the underlining cause economics, but does the ‘real’ cause go deeper than this? Is destructiveness a very part of the very nature of man?
I know of no one who leads a totally positive life - always directing themselves to creative and positive ends. Most of us are a balance of positive and negative inclinations. What is the source of our discontents and hatreds? Why is mankind continually involved it its own slaughter? Because we are beast of prey who survive on blood? Does our fear of death and the unknown cause us to race towards it? Does our frustration with our own unexplained and undetermined existence fill us with hate and discontent for ‘existence’ itself? Is the killing of others actually an act of cowardice in the face of our own suicide, or our inability to face up to our own mortality and finiteness? Do we all secretly harbor a wish to die and face up to the unknown? What is the inner psychological dilemma that burns inside even those born to the best of circumstances? Or is it all simply part and parcel of the competitive ‘instinct’ with no more thought behind it than the push to win?
In your personal life how much or how many of your hobbies and life activities are directed towards positive life-sustaining and life fulfilling ends, and how much or how many of your hours are spent in destroying what you think or are pretending to build?
Dominance … is this not the key to the nature of our species suggests Adolf. No matter how humble our individual attributes do we all not consider ourselves the equal of all others? And when we are not shown this respect do we not fight? Why is it easier to arouse human anger than to arouse human compassion? Why do so many of us recognize compassion and understanding as weakness and violence and brutality as strength? Are we a psychologically sick species? Isn’t the human ego a species problem?
The Biblical sin was to eat the apple, but the apple was from the tree of knowledge and with this knowledge Adam and Eve would become the equal of God. And what is God? God is the controlling dominating force of the Universe.
Man (Adam/Eve) wishes to be God. This being impossible he (Mankind) opts in his Faiths to be or become an eternal never ending part of the God Immortal. Is not the man-beast species an egomaniac? Knowing this tendency on the part of the basic beast, is it not easiest to appeal to this dominant, egomaniacal bent of the species?
We always say that man is frightened of the unknown? But isn’t it fear that leads the courageous to challenge? Aren’t we all a combination of fear and courage? At moments of courage we challenge our fears. We face death and wish to spit in His (the Creator of the evil circumstance) eye. And isn’t God also the power behind Death? Do we all not wish to secretly challenge God, to become God, to at least be a soldier in his army/gang - the army that will one day rule the world?
Adolf is doing exactly what he said must be done. He is creating a Faith. A Faith based on the ego, dominance and conceit of man. A Faith founded on the ‘true’ principles of existence ... life … death and man’s ability to create and control both. Its founding principle is the inevitability of the cruelty and destruction of ‘Nature’. But Nature, as with God, works in mysterious ways. He kills the apparently innocent; he purifies the species with floods, famine, disease, and wars. To act in accord with Nature is to follow the ‘Word’ of God. God (Nature) kills and destroys the unnecessary and inadequate. Man in his innocence and stupidity tries to preserve the inadequate and unnecessary. The survival instinct is a part of the nature of even the ‘inadequate’ and the ‘unnecessary’.
It is the mission of the followers of the Nazi believers to carry out the true ‘will’ of The One True God; the God that we see all about us in our daily lives; the God that kills our mothers and fathers; the God that destroys our weak babies; the God that plagues us with famines, floods, and strife that leads to war. War is one of the tools of God to be used by man to express His Will.
Adolf is a preacher. He has a philosophy and a religion. It is based on what he sees as the reality of the human experience and as with all religions it seeks to justify the evil in and about us and bring the end to perfection.
In Adolf s perfect world/heaven, we will have the evolution of the perfect human species. In Adolf’s religion he also seeks to justify his own evil. He not only justifies the evil that he sees about him in the world, but he incorporates into this scheme his own personal malignancies - his desire for revenge, killing, and cruelty.
In Adolf’s religion all of these things are a part of the obvious truth of ‘Nature’ or the Divine. We should not discourage these tendencies within ourselves. Cruelty is not cruelty. It is Divine benevolence. Killing is not killing. It is assisting the Divine in His goal of creating the evolution of the perfect human species. We are assisting Nature, not going against it. And we should not feel guilty about any of this, because it is without question, simply an extension of the Divine Will. We mustn’t fear death; it is inevitable. We mustn’t feel guilty about killing. It is the tool of God as exhibited through Nature. I personally should feel no guilt about the killing that I participated in during World War I. It was an honor to be a part of God’s plan and participate in the purification of the species. The only thing wrong with the war was that too many of God’s chosen people were destroyed, primarily due to the temporary rise of cowardly, treasonous thinking on the part of the inferior that dwell amongst us. This will all be accounted for in the next encounter.
Adolf obviously has a problem coming to grips with ‘guilt’. Don’t we all? Is guilt a natural phenomena or a man made creation? Are we born with feelings of guilt in our basic nature, and like sex, they emerge as we mature? If Guilt is learned, and we learn it from our parents; where did they learn it? As with our basic inclination towards our personal destruction due to the frustration of our ‘existence’ situation, and as a residue or scapegoat our desire to destroy others, and our inclination towards egomania, do we not also have an inclination towards guilt? If there were no such inclination, where would it evolve from? And do we also not have an inclination towards some sort of fair play and justice?
All of the religions and the history of mankind are a testimony to our concern with these subjects. Adolf pacified his personal Guilt by seeking to justify his past killings with the inevitableness of death and the indiscriminant, seemingly immoral behavior of God acting through his earthly educator ... Mother Nature.
Mother Nature kills. She kills cruelly, and without apparent justification. But Her goal is to work as a silent (invisible) hand slashing with her sword the weeds of her creation. Adolf sought to replace the philosophy of ‘love’, not with the philosophy of ‘Hate’, but with the philosophy of ‘Justifiable Cruelty’.
“... For an institution which is no longer determined to defend itself with all weapons practically gives itself up ...”
I see no indication in the philosophy or religion of Adolf of the concept of other-worldly justification. Nor do I see any individual salvation or personal ‘soul’. So for what reason should a soldier in the religion of Adolf sacrifice his existence? And if he does, what will be his reward for doing so?
The goal of the soldier in the Army of the Faithful to Adolf is the creation of the perfect race - a perfect race that will dominate the perfect nation; the perfect nation that will eventually populate the perfect world.
But what happens to me, the sacrifice-ee in this process of national and racial perfection? I’ve yet to hear of any type of Nazi Heaven. Nor do we hear mention of any Nazi rebirth, or reincarnation, nor eternal life. So I should kill and be willing to die basically for the eventual propagation of my race, and the eventual rule of my children and their children’s children rule and dominance of the planet. Is this not the covenant of Abraham, minus the circumcision?
In the United States soldiers have died and continue to die for their right to be ‘free’, and an institution that will attempt to preserve that right into perpetuity. We also have no mention of an eternal reward for doing so. Obviously this idea of a reward, a final or eternal reward is not necessary to convince the species to die or give up their lives. Again does it not appear that there is some sort of natural inclination to die and/or to kill?
To challenge the demon ‘Death’ who is always lurking just one small step ahead of us. Is pride in Nation or preservation of one’s ‘kind’ a stronger motivation than even the lure of heaven and eternal salvation?
Adolf promises no afterlife reward, no eternity in paradise. He promises recognition now and only for so long as you have the power to hold it. What emotion is he tapping into?
Does the term ‘American’ hold the same lure to Americans; or Russian to the Russian, etc. etc.? Or is the spirit and emotion called into play here that of the nature of power and dominance? If you are one with me, you will have authority over others. You will be able to kill those whom you wish to kill; enslave those whom you wish to enslave; rape those you wish to rape; torture those you wish to torture; revenge your status, or position in life; take the possessions and wealth of those you deem unfit and so forth.
Napoleon offered the citizens and army of France a similar proposition, and they clamored to join. Is this or has this not been the appeal of military minded throughout history?
If we cannot gain what we want by playing according to the current rules of the game, or if we consider those rules or opportunities to be stacked in the favor of the ‘others’, then lets take what we want by force; let’s cast off all the rules of the past and make our own game; and to the victor belongs the spoils; and the authority to kill and plunder.
Did the Communist revolution not offer a similar opportunity to plunder the wealth and possessions of others - to change your class? Is it the basic competitive hatred that we hold towards one another that is the driving force in this movement?
And is this social competitive force, stronger than religion; stronger than the productive and creative urges? Is the desire on the part of the human species to hate, kill, and destroy even stronger than its desire to build, create and reproduce the species?
“… The Jew will certainly raise an enormous clamor in his newspapers, once the hand is put on his favorite nest and an end is made to the misuse of the press, and once also this instrument of education is put into the service of the state and is no longer left in the hand of strangers and enemies of the people. But I also believe that this will annoy us younger ones less than it did our fathers. A 30cm shell has always hissed more than a thousand Jewish newspaper vipers; therefore let them hiss …”
Knowing ‘The Final Solution’ one can only consider this a threat. But this book was written in 1923, but even so, the message seems clear ... a bullet will quiet the Jew opposition one day in the future.
There still remains the question; where does this hate for the Jew come from? How powerful were the Jews at this time in Germany? Did they own all of the newspapers, or number enough to overpower the ‘truth’? Was this a rich/poor thing? Did the Jews control the majority of the wealth of the nation? Were the Jews better off than the majority of the population? Did they flaunt their superiority, thus raising the ire of the ‘common’ man?
Adolf again is living up to his intellectual commitment of presenting to the ‘simple-minded common man’, one enemy. The Jew is a composite of all of the evil of the German society and the world. Destroy the Jew and you will rid the world of all its evil.
Tom Paine said abolish the notion of Kings and their inherited right to rule and the world will find peace and prosperity.
Karl Marx said remove the upper classes and the proletariat and the ‘congenial workers of the world’ will live in peace and happiness.
But the ‘Upper Class’ continues to be born anew and finds its premise of superiority born again in the simplest of peasant hearts. As George Orwell points out in his creation “Animal Farm” the pigs replace the tyrannical farmer and become themselves the tyrants of the barnyard.
So is it the Kings? Is it the wealthy industrialists? Is it the upper crust? Is it the mean nasty old Farmer ruling unjustly over all us little innocent pigs? Or is it a characteristic of the human species that must be recognized, brought forward, faced up to, dealt with, and recognized not only in our enemies but within our own ranks, and our personal souls or psyches?
Religions create ‘The Devil’; a method of externalization. Psychologically it is difficult to hate ourselves, to recognize an evil within us, and maybe it is even harmful to do so. So externalize the evil. Call it the devil, and make it not a part of our own creation, not a part of ourselves. But we can’t physically beat up the devil. We can’t grab him by the ears and shake the Hell out of him. We need a real outlet for our frustrations. Let’s find someone real whom we can beat and punish, and make ourselves feel better. Let’s re-name the devil and give him a corporal existence. Let’s call him a Jew, or a Red, or a chink, or a nigger, or a Noble, or a Liberal, or a Capitalist ... an enemy. Let’s convince ourselves and others that he is not one of us, and incorporate into him all the hateful attributes of evil.
Isn’t this exactly what Adolf has been telling us all along that he intended to do? Is this not the method, the program, the plan? And when Adolf and his philosophy eventually exterminated the Jews, and the Gypsies, and the Slavs, and the Poles and the Russians, and the French, and the Arabs and the Oriental and the indigenous native and Indian populations of his conquered world, and there were only the poor white of his Aryan to overpopulate the world, would he then, or the followers of his teaching, not be forced to prey upon, his own kind? And is this all not self destructive and ... suicidal? Is to kill others, man’s secrete wish to destroy himself; to end the paradox of his confusing existence; to face the final unknown?
We could only wish that those who are overpowered by this inclination would take the plunge themselves, and leave the rest of us ‘cowards’ behind to wallow in our fear and trepidation. But to say this is to say that Adolf had no real cause, and that he was not a martyr for some principle.
We could say the same of Jesus Christ or any other who has lost his existence in the name of ‘his people’, or ‘his country’, or ‘his cause’. What was Adolf’s cause?
Revenge … retribution … justification of the lost lives of his comrades in World War I? Escape from the humiliation of defeat? Is the Spirit of Adolf the spirit of the species?
Winston Churchill said something to the effect that every defeated nation should have an Adolf Hitler. The Catholic Pope praised Adolf’s courageous leadership as late as the year 1938. Adolf was a patriot who told his people that they were not defeated; that they could be reborn to greatness; that they were the greatest people on the planet; that they were, in fact, a superior race. Let’s try this out on ourselves.
In America we have the greatest Democracy in the History of mankind. We have a blend of all of the greatest cultures of the world forming our nation into a chain stronger than any that has ever been constructed. We are a weld even stronger than the original link. WE are THE super power. We are technologically and scientifically more advanced than any culture that is today or has ever been in the past. We have the knowledge, the power, the potential greatness to establish peace in the world. We have risen to this position as a matter of our personal destiny. We were the first to hold the power of the atomic bomb and only through our wisdom and generosity has it not been used more often. We believe in peace, justice and the rights of all men to live free lives according to our principles. If there were to be only one country to hold for ever more all of the power in this chaotic world, it should be the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. For alone in this one nation is contained the wisdom of all nations. The United States of America should, shall and will one day determine the fate of all of the peoples of the world. To deny this is to deny truth, and Providence, and accept cowardly inaction in place of our Manifest Destiny. We, the people of America, ARE the people of the world. Through our example and our principles, and our government we have a responsibility to lead the way and to take our place as one of the greatest nations of people to ever populate this planet. Do not step aside and allow lesser nations, those bent on dominance, inequality and prejudice to prevail. We must, one and all, stand up and be counted, we should have no fear but fear of greatness itself to conquer. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for us.
Sound good? How would it sound if you were a citizen of Slumbovia or Russia or China or anywhere but here? The appeal of power and greatness; even to be one in the army of the ‘great’ sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? And what have you got anyway, piece of crap that you are? Do you have a job? Can you support your family? Do you have money for tonight’s supper? Come with me and you will never want for a supper again. People will stand to attention when you walk by. You will wear the uniform of the elite. Your very presence as a member of my group will demand respect. You will be a proud member of the S.S., (or the U.S.S.)
Is pride a disease? Is love of one’s country an irrational sickness? Is the lure of the Military different in any nation? Are the principles that this nation teaches its soldiers different from those taught by other nations? Are they different from what is being taught to soldiers in Communist nations? Is it a problem to have Nations? Is the answer World Government? A World Army to keep the peace? A world market place? A world currency?
This is the direction of the world today. The money flow and creation is leading the way. Many people are still debating the trend, but the reality of today’s world makes them sound like people who are still advocating the horse and cart over the automobile, or the pen or pencil over the computer. Science, technology and economics drag us into the future and we struggle at the reins like the driver on a run away surrey. We can only hope somehow to regain control.

The Glory and the Dream

The Glory and the Dream

By William Manchester

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

The Glory and the Dream is a two volume set of over 1600 pages. Mr. Manchester calls it a narrative history of America. It covers the years from 1932 to 1972. And I mean “covers”. There are 37 chapters, almost one for each year - not just lumped together in decades.
These two volumes, as with all history books, contain a wealth of information, but Mr. Manchester’s books seem to contain more information, if that is possible, than other history books. He is overwhelming. All the books I read, other than novels and fiction, I read with a highlighter in hand. In fact if I don’t have a highlighter I don’t read nonfiction. But in William Manchester’s historical accounts it seems that you could highlight every line - if you were so inclined - which would of course defeat the purpose of reading with a highlighter.
My purpose in highlighting is so that I can re-read any book at a later date without being forced to re-read every line and paragraph. I highlight to synopsize and turn a wordy tome into my personal notebook. Sometimes I do well and sometimes I don’t. I don’t do all that well with William Manchester because he is just too much.
Every time I pick up one of his books I end up re-reading the whole thing. And for some reason the man’s style is always able to keep my interest. I got a little bored with his Kennedy stuff and his book on Rockefeller was rather boring. But Churchill, Mac Arthur, Krupp and others were outstanding. And I enjoyed reading them not because I considered the author totally objective or entirely, accurate or all encompassing. I guess what I liked was the man’s style and passion. His feelings and intensity come through and not necessarily with his prejudices attached. He is just a good writer, plain and simple.
This set begins in the year 1932 with the Bonus Army marching on Washington D.C. When I picked up this set of books many years ago, I had never heard of the Bonus Army. It is a fascinating and tragic tale.
The year 1932 was “rock bottom” for America and the Great Depression. And that is how William begins - at the bottom. He even entitles his prologue “Rock Bottom”.
When I picked up this first volume I thought it was the most radical thing that I had ever read. I thought that the book contained every corruptible thing about America that had ever been written. But now I realize it is, more or less, plain old American History. Since that time I have read more and more corruptible things.
I think reading William Manchester’s account of things is what set me off on reading history. Many of the things that he said in his books I just couldn’t believe. So that sent me off hunting for the “truth”. On some things, like all historians, I didn’t think that William had the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But upon verification I always found that if he didn’t have the whole truth, he had a good portion of it and was heading in the right direction.
William was a marine and served in the Pacific in WWII. He refused to become an officer - which has to say something for his character.
Clearly WWII affected William because after he got home and into college on the GI Bill he began studying all about why he had been where he was. He wrote about Rockefeller, Churchill, MacArthur and Krupp Industries. I was always waiting for a volume on Stalin but I guess he got sidetracked when his good friend John F. Kennedy got his political career going. The last book by Manchester that I read was about the Renaissance of all things and I found it to be fascinating - certainly one of his best.
These two American History volumes certainly are not all flag-waving and “Remember the Alamo”. They are loaded with stuff that really happened, that filled the newspapers of the day and made us all shake our heads sadly. On the lighter side we get to remember hula-hoops and John Wayne movies. Mr. Manchester calls these volumes “a Narrative History”. I interpret that to mean like a story-telling as opposed to a list of facts. It is certainly not preaching. It is obvious that this man is on a path to personal knowledge.
I have read both volumes and now reviewed them briefly but I still can’t tell you what the “story” is. It is an interesting story and a lot of fun to read but if it has a moral or a theme, I don’t know what it is. It is a funny story and it is a sad story. I guess the unhappy fact is that it is just a true story - with an opinion here and sarcasm there and maybe even a misinterpretation or two. It was truly an awesome endeavor.
From my point of view you have really got to admire these aspiring or established historians. The amount of research and work they do in order to accumulate all this information is just unbelievable! I’m impressed.

Free Will

Philosophy/Theology

By Richard E. Noble

The notion of punishment, whether civil or divine, is intrinsic to the notion of Free Will. Without the notion of Free Will there would be no justification for retribution either by Man or by God. Man could still separate his ‘criminals’ as a matter of practicality but he could not in all fairness hate them, or justifiably kill them or brutalize them, for they would all have simply done what they were programmed to do. The same would be true for God, using justice as our guide. God would be no more justified in punishing a predetermined or preprogrammed creation than would the State. Clarence Darrow was an advocate of this point of view.
Theologically the problem becomes even more complex, especially in Judaic-Christian thinking, whereby a ‘One’ God is assigned infinite attributes; All Knowing, All Loving, All Powerful, All Good etc. Let’s take the case with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The prosecution says that Adam and Eve made an exercise of their Free Will, chose Evil over Good, and therefore deserve whatever punishment God deems fit. The Defense says, even disregarding the notion that the punishment should suit the crime, and the obvious injustice of children being punished for the sins of the Father (and Mother), we have a clear case of entrapment here. God, who is the Creator of all things, not only created Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden, not only their imperfect natures and their base inclination to choose Evil over Good, but He also created the circumstances of their crime, and planted the Evil (evidence) in the Garden. Also, in order for a choice to be Free it must not be influenced by any form of coercion. Did God explain to Adam and Eve the consequence of their making the wrong choice after being placed into the Garden of Good and Evil? Did He inform them of the infinite nature of eternal damnation in Hell? And prior to being placed, with no exercise of their Free Will, into the Garden of Good and Evil, were they ever given a choice in ‘Existence’ or Being at all?
In effect, we have a God who arbitrarily Created Adam and Eve without any exercise of Free Will or choice, placed them into the Garden of Good and Evil without choice, subjected them to an Evil of His Own creation, gave them no fair warning of the consequences of their actions, provided them with insufficient reason and inclination to make the proper judgment, and punished them while all the while knowing fully what choice they would make. If any crime has been committed here it has been perpetrated by God not by Man and Woman.
The prosecution, in the form of men like Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin and others counter; God, among His other infinite attributes, is All-powerful and therefore He can do as He darn well pleases. He can and may send all of mankind to an Eternity of Hell and torture if He so pleases. His power trumps all else. And where do you get the right to challenge His Authority?! You are not God.
The Defense; We are not challenging God’s authority nor are we trying to be God, we are simply trying to use the reason and common sense that He gave to us to gain a proper understanding of His attributes. It may be that God can act in this All Powerful manner that you describe, but if this is so, obviously He cannot be advertised as All Just, All Loving, and All Good. And if what you say is true then you open up the speculation that God can also be All-Evil, which we do not believe.
Prosecution: For God there is no Evil, whatever He chooses, is Good.
Defense: In which case there is no Evil or Good.

The Kidd Case, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, 1898

"Striking America"

Labor Movement

By Richard E. Noble

Thomas I. Kidd was the general secretary for the Amalgamated Woodworkers’ International Union. Michael Troiber and George Zentner were employees of an Oshkosh lumber company owned by the Paine brothers. There was a strike in the sash, door and blind industry. The strike lasted fourteen weeks. Troiber and Zentner acted as picket captains and Kidd was a labor agitator or organizer sent to the area by the union. After the strike had ended the Paine brothers had the district attorney file a complaint against the three men. The charge was that these three men had organized a criminal conspiracy.
The conspiracy doctrine, or the law of combinations, traces its history back to England and the time of the “Black Death”. There was a Statutes of Laborers passed by the English Parliament in 1350. The Black Death had caused a severe shortage of laborers and consequently wages and labor cost were on the rise. These first statutes were passed in order to control the costs of employers. It was forbidden to the laborers to petition their employers for any wage higher than what was considered a “just price”. This attitude continued and culminated in 1800 in the infamous Anti-Combination Act. This Act declared it a criminal offense for laborers to combine for the purpose of raising their wages or improving their working conditions.
This criminal conspiracy was further defined in the U.S. in 1842 by Chief Justice Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. A conspiracy, Justice Shaw explained, was a combination of two or more persons who had joined together for a criminal purpose or who had joined together to attain a legal objective but by way of criminal activity.*
During the fourteen week strike in Oshkosh, Wisconsin there had been several incidents of violence, one young boy, a laborer at the mill had been killed. Recognizing that illegal activities had erupted as a result of the strike, could it not then be concluded that the organizers and the leaders of the strike were guilty of a crime as defined under the Conspiracy statutes?
The Woodworkers union hired the famous son of a woodworker to defend the accused. His name was Clarence Darrow. Clarence had defended Eugene V. Debs in the Pullman Strike back in 1894. Debs was charged on two counts, obstructing justice by defying a court order, and conspiracy. The conspiracy charge was eventually dropped but Debs was convicted of the obstruction charge. Darrow considered the Kidd case as an extension of the Deb’s case.
Clarence explained this Conspiracy theory to the jury in more detail. Clarence explained that it is a conspiracy when two or more individuals combine to commit a crime or to engage in an illegal activity. If one man involved in this conspiracy then goes out and commits a crime, then it would follow that all the men involved in the conspiracy are guilty of that same crime. This is the law. But, on the other hand, if two or more men combine for a perfectly legal purpose, building a hospital, for example, and one of the individuals involved in the group goes out and commits a crime, certainly all the members of the group are not guilty of that crime. If they were, then we would be stepping back to the time when it was illegal for men to combine or even assemble for any purpose. In the second example only the man involved in committing the crime is guilty of the crime. This seems simple enough, but this would be a point of contention between labor and management for decades to come.
Clarence repeated over and over that this was not a criminal case. The defendants had combined legally for legal purposes. If there was a conspiracy, Clarence contended it was on the part of the owners who had been combining for years in manager’s organizations for the purpose of starving human beings, enslaving men and killing their wives and children. Clarence pulled no punches. He told the jury that this was a monumental and historical legal decision that they would be making. It was the culmination of centuries of abuse and domination and it would mark a precedent for the future of all mankind. If the jury decided against the workers in this case and for the reason stated in the indictment, conspiracy, then no organization of workers could ever take hold. No men would ever again have the right to assemble peacefully for any purpose. This was not a criminal case. This was a simple manipulation of the law by the powerful to punish freemen in their ancient battle to gain respect and recognition, and more important, to establish their God given right to life. If a man can be denied his right to make a living, how can he maintain his right to life?
The right to assemble peaceably for the purpose of petitioning the government was established in the first amendment to the constitution. The right for workers to assemble peacefully to petition their bosses for better wages or improved working conditions had been granted legally but not in reality. The Paine brothers said that the workers had no right to combine and ask for improvements as a group. Any man could come to them as an individual and be recognized. But for a union of men to come to them with demands, this would not be tolerated by their company. This was intimidation, not petition. Of course if the Paine brothers would not recognize the union’s right to petition, then it certainly would not recognize its right to strike and picket. The Paine brothers considered the Union illegal, the strike illegal and the picket illegal. The union had, in their opinion, conspired for illegal purposes. These men were therefore guilty under the charges of a conspiracy.
But, the right to assemble peacefully was legal. The right to form a union was legal. The right to petition one’s boss as a group was legal. The right to walk off the job was legal. The right to persuade others to walk off their jobs or not to take employment at a particular plant or factory was legal. If these three men were guilty of conspiracy then what about the other sixteen hundred who had participated in exactly the same manner? To convict these men of conspiracy it would be necessary to prove or bring evidence that they had gotten together and planned activities of an illegal nature. They had done no such thing.
Was it illegal to disrupt a man’s business? Not so long as no monopolistic organization was employed. Workers had the right to vie and compete as free men just as bosses had the right to hire men as commodities in the free market labor pool. The workers had the right to dissuade and convince other workers not to work at the Paine plant. They could not employ illegal means to attain this goal. The Paine brothers would not only have to prove that illegal activities transpired but that these illegal activities had been a part of the overall plan of the union.
The Kidd trial lasted three weeks and Clarence Darrow’s summation before the jury lasted two days. Clarence discussed slavery and the evolution of the rights of man. He quoted poetry, scripture, Jesus Christ, the Sermon on the Mount and Tom Paine. His defense was not only a lesson in History but a discussion of philosophy and moral principle. He ridiculed the defense and the Paine brothers. He actually suggested to the jury that if the Paine brothers and their prosecuting team had been around at the time of Jesus Christ, they would, more than likely, have participated in the execution.
The jury took fifty minutes and two ballots to decide. The vote was not guilty. Darrow was paid $250 for his part in the defense of Thomas Kidd and his associates.**

* “Labor Problems in American Industry” by Carroll R. Dougherty.
* “Attorneyfor the Damned” Clarence Darrow in the Courtroom, edited by Arthur Weinberg.
* Books used in this essay include: The Constitution of the United States; Attorney for the Damned, edited by Arthur Weinberg; Labor Problems in American History, by Carroll R. Daugherty.