Friday, October 19, 2007

Mein Kampf

Chapter 10 Part 11

By Richard E. Noble

If Adolf had acted alone, and even wrote Mein Kampf as a testament to his belief, History would have classified him as nothing more than an insane fanatic, much like the Marque De Sade. He would probably be studied as we today study the antics of Jack the Ripper, Henry Dormer, or Charles Manson. But Adolf championed a crusade and led a whole nation off into his paranoid world of destruction. He championed Evil in the name of Good. And the residue of Adolf s philosophy speckles the landscape of thought all about us today.
Now let us get into his theory for curing Syphilis and prostitution.
"...The great masses of the people, anyhow, can never see the whole way before them without getting tired and without despairing of the task ... Thus, by employing all propagandistic auxiliary means, one should have made the fight against syphilis appear as THE TASK of the nation, not as ONE TASK among others. For this purpose one should have hammered into the people its evils as the most terrible misfortune in its full extent, and under application of all auxiliary measures, till the whole nation should have come to the conviction that upon the solution of this question really everything depends, future or doom...”
First knowing Little Adolf as we do now, we have to ask ourselves is he actually talking about the disease syphilis, or is he speaking allegorically about the plague of the Jews on his chosen people?
Well as we turn the page we find out that he is actually talking about the disease syphilis. His plan in conquering syphilis first begins with an all out frontal attack. Adolf was not a person to do anything in half measures. It was all or nothing, in everything. He focused himself one hundred percent on whatever goal, and he wanted one hundred percent concentration on the part of his followers, and the benefits of such intensity are clear, or should be to anyone.
"...The first condition for only the moral right to fight against these things is to make early marriage possible for the coming generation...”
I guess the logic here is that if we gave young children at the onset of puberty, the ability to have sex on a regular basis, sanctified by marriage, the plague of socially contagious diseases would be dissolved. I suppose that this could be so, if for one thing marriage was a permanent condition, from which no one wandered.
I think that societies and religions through the ages have done their best to establish this, but unfortunately a cure for human promiscuity must be searched for elsewhere. It is also interesting to note here that I am presently reading the autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi and in the practice of his Janist, or Hindu faith he was in fact forced into a child marriage. He has nothing but bad things to say about the arrangement. He is filled with guilt over his early indulgence in sexual activity, and later in life turned to abstinence as a personal cure for his problem with sex. And sexual abstinence may indeed be the cure for all of man’s problems, social, and personal and philosophical.
“... Prostitution is a disgrace to mankind ... Its limitation is and remains the creation of the possibility of early marriage, according to human nature, above all for the man; because the woman is here only the passive part, anyhow ..."
Whoaaa! Adolf really loaded that one up didn’t he? The first way that we can interpret this is to infer that sex is for the most part a male problem. So if we can basically make some sort of arrangement that would keep the man in a state of sexual satisfaction, then the problem of prostitution along with sexually spread social diseases would be eliminated. The first thing to do is to establish early marriage for all the boys and consequently all the ‘passive’ little girls.
First, I do think that men have a much greater problem in dealing with sex than women, but women’s involvement in this problem I would not consider passive. Women are deeply involved in this problem on a personal basis, but from a different perspective. Women may not be compulsively drawn to repetitive sex as men seem to be, but there can certainly be no question that they are compulsive breeders, and are led to reproduce under even the most stifling of circumstances. The present population of the world can serve as testament to this.
The next question that one might ask is why is sex ‘wrong’? Why has it traditionally been considered ‘evil’? What is the evil in Prostitution? Why does Adolf consider prostitution a disgrace to mankind?
Adolf is once again a traditionalist. He expresses the traditional religious attitude to promiscuous sex.
If there were no socially transferable diseases related to the practice of sex, and there were no social obligations centering on birth, would sex be wrong or evil? Let’s say that sex was not an act of reproduction, but merely a social activity participated in for its shear pleasurable, and soothing aspects. Pregnancy was caused by the female’s exposure to lightning, as believed in some primitive societies. If these were the conditions what would be the evil involved in sex?
Well, we would still have the psychology involved in the intimacy of the human relationship. We would have the perils of association and friendship to deal with. We would have bonding, and dominance, and jealousy, and rivalry and all of the consequences of the human relationship. But would anyone say that because of the perils of friendship, that friendship is evil? There would certainly be problems but no one would say that because of these problems, friendship is a disgrace to human kind.
Prostitution under these conditions would be the marketing of a pleasurable experience, often associated with friendship, for money. I will treat you as a friend for fifteen minutes or an hour or an evening, for $19.95. This, one might not consider nice, but on the other hand what is the practice of psychiatry, or psychoanalysis? Or if we are speaking morally, how moral is it to learn the cures for diseases, and then charge the sick for your services? So then aren’t we reducing the situation to the question of whether or not pleasure is ‘evil’?
Once again we return to the territory of Religion and philosophy. Without personal negative and social consequence, what would be the evil in prostitution?
Obviously Adolf does not see sex as an evil, for he encourages it with the practice of early marriage. Is prostitution caused by the lust for promiscuous sexual activity, or by adverse economic conditions?
Who is the chief moral culprit, the person who seeks to indulge uncontrolled passions, or the individual who tweaks these passions for monetary enhancements? If we relieved disease and pregnancy from the process, would anyone care? Even if we say that pleasure is acceptable with moderation, we then have to deal with a personal definition of ‘moderate’.
Adolf sees prostitution and syphilis as a serious problem facing the structure of his society. As a social reformer he seeks a solution.
"...Marriage also cannot be an end in itself, but has to serve the one greater aim, the propa and preservation of the species and the race. Only this is its meaning and its task ...“
Well, there we have Adolf s Roman Catholic upbringing and religious training once again. Sex has one purpose ... procreation. So then maybe we are dealing here with the traditional religious distaste for pleasure. It seems to me that Adolf could easily be a member of today’s religious Moral Majority.
If sex were only for procreation, then why did God attach pleasure to the act? If procreation is the sole purpose of sex then why did God not make pregnancy mandatory with each sexual episode? If the reproduction of life and the preservation of the species is the sole purpose for mankind, then why did God have to lure the species into the act of sustaining itself by attaching pleasure to the episode? But Adolf did not say that procreation was the sole purpose of the sexual act, he said that procreation was the sole purpose of the social involvement called Marriage. Is there a difference?
Not if he then attaches the elimination of syphilis and prostitution with the concept of early marriage. I hate to say it but this solution for the problems involved in this situation seems not only naive, but down right stupid. What has early marriage got to do with prostitution and sexual promiscuity, and even more what does this conclusion tell us about the thought processes of Adolf, himself? If early marriage were to solve these problems, or one was to think that it would, then one would have to have certain preconceived notions. What would some of these notions be? Well, one would have to believe that syphilis and prostitution are problems of puberty and youth? Wouldn’t one also have to believe in the sanctity of marriage? In other words, once a person marries, he or she is bound to that mate, till death do us part. This would also have to be a person who believes in adherence to rules. Adolf has stated basically that young men need an outlet for their sexual passion, and if society made it possible financially for the boys in particular to marry young, this would eliminate the need for prostitution and consequently eliminate the disease of syphilis.
Adolf seems to be totally unaware of the notion of infidelity in marriage, and attributes all promiscuous sexual activity to youthful sexual experimentation. He certainly is not showing awareness of what we call the homosexual life style. He also seems to be completely unaware of any female sexuality, or the plight of unemployed woman in a devastated economic situation. I imagine he would not have been able to conceive or believe in such a circumstance as precipitated by the Mayflower Madame.
His answers here in this circumstance seem so naive in today’s light as to be ludicrous. I can not even imagine today’s Catholic Pope, or religious leaders like Billy Graham even suggesting such a possible solution to these problems. (Also, the inability to get a divorce except under special circumstances is a tenant of Catholicism, so maybe Adolf considered that once married divorce would then be made illegal by he and his government.
But then we might ask what did he intend to do to those married who strayed from their vows?
Auchwitz, I would presume.
It is difficult for me today to even think in terms of a loyal divorce-less society but I can remember my days as a ardent Catholic when such a thought was accepted without question. Although I have read many present day religious elite suggest that the Aids virus is in fact a message of warning from God to those who do not practice a monogamous relationship.
So, far be it from me to predict what any religious leader might suggest. Could it now not be a warning from God to all practitioners of the horrible self indulgence in the hedonistic practice of sex in general? Could it also not be a message from God that He is in actuality seeking a means for the destruction of mankind? If not, why did He chose to inflict with infective disease His sole method for the reproduction of the human species? We now have new epidemic death inducing diseases that are spread from one person to another by breathing. What conclusions about the intent of God are we to draw from this?
But, as for Adolf, is he a religious conservative here championing the principals of his own faith, or is he acting as a politician re-affirming what are the basic views of his electorate?
On the one hand Adolf does seem to be the unscrupulous politician, but on the other hand his sincerity and commitment to certain goals, whether we agree with these goals or not, does convey a spirit of seriousness and sincerity.
In any case, there you have Adolf s answer to the problems of prostitution and the spread of diseases caused by sexual contact. Today we have the same problems. Our present day answers are:
Prostitution is illegal throughout most of the United States. The police arrest both the prostitutes and their clients. Although a lot of arresting goes on, prostitution seems to be flourishing. So many people participate in this crime that we don’t have the prison space to contain them. So they are arrested, confined temporarily, and released.
The Aids virus is our Syphilitic plague of today. It is a contagion that has spread throughout the world. It is dominant in, I would guess, every country in the world. Our solution is primarily education, and the basic admonition to practice ‘safe-sex’. The ramifications of the disease are explained on TV, on radio, on posters, in schools, at health care facilities, etc.
The sexually active are advised to practice safe sex and the young are admonished and encouraged to refrain from sexual activity altogether. But nothing seems to be slowing down the spread of the disease. Everyone is secretly hoping for a cure or a vaccine from the scientific community that will make the problem go away. Basically we have today no better answers than Adolf.
Ideally, if people were to marry early, as Adolf recommends, or retain their virginity until marriage, and then restrain their sexual activity to their mate, the future of the spread of this particular disease would be curtailed, providing every one could be found a mate.
If men did not seek prostitutes, prostitution would soon become an unprofitable business and disappear. Conversely if women refused to sell themselves in such a manner, and respected the rights of other women in their marriage contracts, and promises, the problem would again disappear.
But we do not live in an ideal world, and without any doubt, although we all laugh and giggle, sex is and forever has been one of the greatest problems facing humankind.
If we were all to accept the notion that sex was only to be participated in for the sake of having a baby, and that one should only have a baby if one is married and seeking the responsibilities of parenthood, our problems with sex would once again disappear. Or would they?
Sex is for the most part a very unsanitary procedure. Parts of the body that expel human waste, toxins, and poisons from the body are in direct contact. Certainly, this fact alone presents a very volatile prospect for the spreading of disease. We as humans should take the whole procedure with much more care and consideration. Sex, to me, is one of the big three considerations of my life. My three areas of primary investigation are and have been; God, war, and sex. Sex has received the least attention in my educational inquiries. I intend to read and study more about the subject, but just as with my other two topics of study I have very little hope of ever riding the race of any of their problems in these areas. But most certainly sex is no giggling matter.