Mein Kampf

Chapter 10 Part 3

By Richard E. Noble

Adolf seems to have very basic solutions to all the problems of his society. Rid the society of all problematic groups, either by extermination or expulsion. But, of course, once he is ruler of all the world, there would be only one alternative; extermination.
Adolf would kill the Jews, the Gypsies, the Hobos, the Slaves, the Russians, the French, the retarded, the sick, the mentally ill, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Blacks, the Browns, certainly dissidents and other anti-socials, and any religious group who placed God or their beliefs before or above the State, would be treated in a similar manner.
He has no choice, you see, because he has to make room for his ever expanding unified, pure German race. He would solve the problem of unemployment by reinstating the practice of slavery. But one would not breed or care for ones slaves, one would simply use them and work them to death, because the basic goal is to make the planet ever and ever more available to Germans.
He would re-institute slavery more or less as a conservative practice against wastefulness; much like killing a deer just for the rack or horns and not eating the meat. Killing human beings by working them to death is a much more practical way of dealing with the problem.
The Syphilis problem would be handled in much the same way. First all Syphilitics would be isolated and then exterminated. This then would be coupled with education and indoctrination of the general public and the institution of a permanent married state, beginning, I would presume, at puberty. One thing about Adolf, if you are looking for an answer, he will certainly supply one. So far we have seen no problem too complicated to receive a simple answer from Adolf. And I doubt if we are ever going to see in this work a situation or problem the solution which evades Adolf to the point where he sighs deeply, throws his hands up into the air and says, “By golly, this one is just too tough for me. Do any of you folks out there have an idea?”
Next we go to education. This is another area where we must see the contemporary value of analyzing the philosophy of Adolf.
“…What today calls itself a gymnasium is an insult to the Greek example. With our education one has entirely forgotten that in the long run a healthy mind is able to dwell only in a healthy body.”
Well, I would like to contact David Hawking and get a comment from him on this matter. We could also contact Robert Louis Stevenson and Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Emily Dickinson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Alexander Pope, Lou Gehrig, John F. Kennedy, Victor Hugo etc, etc, etc. Obviously a healthy body is a wonderful thing to have, but the notion that it necessitates a healthy mind is questionable at the least, and I would guess almost without creditable backing.
“… It is no accident that the Bolshevistic wave found nowhere a better ground than in those places where a population, degenerated by hunger and constant undernourishment, lives: in Central Germany, Saxony, and the Ruhr district...”
So, the reason that people are led to espouse the notion of communism is; because they are poor, and therefore undernourished, and consequently possessive of unhealthy bodies, and unhealthy bodies are of themselves innately possessive of weak minds.
So then we can conclude that poor people are basically stupid people? I wonder then, if we simply feed all the stupid people in the world would they then become intelligent? Humm? Does Rush Limbaugh need more baloney? If we take French pastry away from the well-off intelligentsia, will they loose their ability to reason? If we make the mentally ‘un-gifted’ exercise more, will this increase their IQ? Is IQ and mental ability simply a matter of diet and exercise? Is the difference between Madame Cure and Gracie Allen one of neighborhood, food, and exercise?
My apologies to Gracie Allen, I more than realize that she was only acting, and was a comedy genius, but the analogy seems appropriate, in a harmless way.
Adolf makes these kinds of comparisons and over simplistic conclusions on almost every other page. Basically if you disagree with Adolf, you are an ignorant ignoramus.
“… the boy who, by sports and gymnastics, is brought to an iron-like inurement succumbs less to the need of sexual gratification than the stay-at-home who is feed exclusively on intellectual food…”
Does this even need comment? Oh well! So the young man who pursues intellectual fulfillment is really a horny, little perverted weakling, and the boy who pursues physical fitness and expends his energy on dumbbells is therefore less possessive of the need for sexual fulfillment. Boy, I feel sorry for Arnold Swartzennegger’s wife, and on the other hand, Mrs. Einstein must have had a hell of a run for her money. I wonder what Sigmond Freud has to say about all of this? Has Masters and Johnson ever done a study on this?
Mothers, what is that computer nurd of yours really doing there up in his room?
“... Further, it must not be forgot that on the part of the healthy young man the expectations of the woman will be different than on the part of a prematurely corrupted weakling…”
Well, I must say, I haven’t the slightest idea what the hell Adolf is talking about. I would imagine that this statement has some contemporary social, or political significance, but I don’t get it.
Is he saying that the sexual demands on a healthy young man by his woman would be less or more? He says ‘different’. Different in what way? Need I mention that the young man who pursues intellectual fulfillment is referred to as a ‘prematurely corrupted weakling’. Does Adolf have a problem here with his personal intellectual achievement? Was Adolf a ‘jock’ in high school and consequently abused by a contingent from the national honor roll society? What is his problem? Is he actually referring to some one individual in particular, or maybe a group of intellectuals who are opposing him? Does he consider the communist movement as brought on by a group of ‘pointy-headed intellectuals’?
“… Thus the entire education has to be directed towards employing the free time of the boy for the useful training of his body. He has no right to loaf about idly in these years, to make streets and movie theaters insecure, but after his daily work he has to steel and harden his young body so that life will not find him too soft some day…”
The perennial problem of idle youth, hanging on street corners, disrupting theaters, vandalism, and hooliganism - and here it is, right here in River City.
As a youth, my friends and I sat out on the street corners, movie theaters, pool halls, city parks and play grounds and we were forever considered a disruption to adult life. My memories of those days and the friends that were made in those places and under those circumstances are the fondest memories of my life to this date. I am still composing short stories and poems about those times, that old neighborhood, the lessons learned, and my friends and their families. I honestly feel that if I didn’t have the street corners, and those friends, I would never have survived the tragic circumstances of my dysfunctional family, and the basic insanity of the adult world.
Sometimes I think that we as adults, through years of conditioning have learned to accept a world of insanity and lunacy as the norm. We then try and force our children to conform to our particular form of basic institutionalized behavior and become very annoyed when our children act exactly as we would have acted when we were their age.
On the other hand, my young friends and I ‘hanging out’ on the street corners often discussed the short comings of our neighborhood, and our society. Without any training in Greek or Roman history we made our own theories about the perfect society and the perfect State. We talked about these things constantly, and were forever amazed at the ignorance of the adult world’s inability to understand the needs of their own children. For the most part we came to the conclusion that our parents were hopelessly ignorant, and Society, in general, just didn’t care.
“… Parallel with the training of the body, the fight against the poisoning of the soul has to set in. Our entire public life today resembles a hot house of sexual conceptions and stimulants. One has only to look at the menus of our movie houses, vaudevilles, and theaters; and one can hardly deny that this is not the right kind of food, above all for youth. In shop windows and on billboards one works with the basest means in order to attract the attention of the masses…”
Well Pavlov, does any of this ring a bell? I don’t know what they had in the movies and on the billboards in Adolf’s days, but I have the feeling that even old Adolf would be shocked at what is there today.
Adolf’s problem was not his inability to recognize what was wrong in many cases, but his solutions. All of his solutions involved coercion. We Americans often respect individual freedom to the point of accepting out right chaos – homelessness and poverty synonymous with freedom. But we have the coercive types also.
It is also interesting to note that as far as the disruption of the streets of Germany were concerned, and the youthful hooliganism about movie theaters, Adolf and his band of disgruntled war veterans whom he organized into Storm Troopers became far and away the most disruptive and lawless instigators.
They created havoc in the streets, they intimidated legitimate businesses, they challenged citizens in local taverns to fist fights, they broke up public meetings; when movies appeared that were to their disliking, such as, “All’s Quiet on the Western Front”; they rolled bottles down the isles and released rats into the theaters. If there were ever a group that had no respect for law and order it was Adolf and his band of bullies. And where were the local police when all of this was going on? Where was the legitimate authority? Where was the government’s army or peacekeepers?
Adolf was without any doubt a man who considered himself above the law. As Socrates before him, he considered himself to have surpassed his fellow man in virtue and had therefore become, in effect, a law unto himself
The lesson here, I think, as a people seeking leadership, we must not only listen to what a man says, but we must watch what he does. If his actions do not support his words, we should be skeptical. Most of us, including myself, fall short in this category. It is often very difficult for me to back up with action, the direction pointed at with my big mouth.
Part of the problem is that even though in some cases I know the way that things ‘should’ be, I am, more than often, willing to conform to what I think the ways of the world about me really are. Do you have that problem too? And ‘the way the world really is’ as determined by the accepted legal, illegal, moral or immoral behavior being practiced about me.
Adolf and his band of bullies were out of control, but they were not prevented from their illegal activities because the people in general supported what they were doing, considering it legitimate protest against an occupation government. And all this was the fault or the error on the part of the victorious allies at the end of World War I.
They rectified their mistake after World War II. The question is; why was the world at large so wimpy, or sympathetic to the Germans at the close of World War I? They were a defeated nation. Why weren’t they treated as such? Why were they allowed, if not encouraged to rebuild and re-arm themselves? As Winston Churchill stated in his ‘the Gathering Storm’... “If ever there was a war that could have been prevented, it was World War II.”
“... The result of this education can be studied in a not very enjoyable way with the youth of today. From the courtroom events sometimes penetrate to the public which permit a horrible insight into the inner life of our fourteen and fifteen year old youths. Who will wonder therefore that even in the circles of this age syphilis begins to seek its victims? And is it not a mystery to see how so many physically weak, and also mentally corrupt, young men receive their initiation into marriage by a whore of the big cities…”
Once again we hear Adolf the preacher; ‘physically weak’ and ‘mentally corrupt’ obviously refer to moral values and have nothing to do with intelligence or physical fitness.
The foot note on this page is interesting. It mentions that the communist’s answer to this problem was to give out free contraceptives, give family aid to unmarried lovers, and ‘week-ends’. I don’t know what ‘week-ends’ refers to, but the editors of this book actually praise Hitler and the Nazis for taking such a ‘moral’ stance against those awful communist free love advocates.
This book was originally published in 1927. So we have an insight into the customs and sexual mores of the time. Once again we see mankind’s problem in adjusting to its own sexual inclinations. Sexual indoctrination or education has been occurring in youth in about the same manner and way as it has since the beginning of recorded history. A disease breaks out periodically spotlighting what the population is doing sexually, and everybody is suddenly shocked.
Aids is the shocking sexual realization of our generation, syphilis of the Hitler generation, and I would imagine that there have been others throughout history. I hate to be so crude but Adolf is beginning to sound like a man who needs a little sexual activity himself. The big question for me here is; why is mankind forever involved in punishing himself for indulgence in pleasure?
The human race has a big problem here. The notion that I get, is that a certain segment of the human race, or possibly the human race in general is convinced that their existence here on this planet is some sort of punishment or retribution. And, of course, the beliefs of most religions would substantiate this notion. And if we define or interpret Religion as a human history opinion poll, this would lead us back to my original premise; that life is basically a negative experience, and no one can figure out why we are being punished. The frustration over this question, leads to hostility, and aggression whether conscious or subconscious, this leads humans to punish themselves, and/or attack others, not to mention, think up stupid rationales in defense of why we are all being punished in the first place.
I am not advocating hedonism, but it certainly does appear that where we are today and have been in the past is a total perversion of the natural inclinations of the species. And I am also not saying that if man were more liberated sexually, this would put and end to war. I am simply pointing out that this is an area lacking in sophistication, and maturity.
If a disease results from human beings having sex with one another, shouldn’t we be involved in the elimination of the disease, and not the elimination of sex? If a disease resulted from the basic inclination of humans to eat food, shouldn’t we find out what is wrong with the food rather than promote a system of voluntary starvation? If we say that decent men should not be placing their reproductive organ in unnatural, and hence disease promoting places shouldn’t we start with the female virgina which is clearly a dangerous, germ infected hazardous area. And by the same token, shouldn’t the male use something other than his own urine soaked disease potent penis for the purpose? Maybe God should be consulted with regards to this obvious incongruity,
Adolf has previously stated that the natural urge to sex and reproduction should not be interrupted by artificial solutions, and that war and disease are ‘Natures’ (God’s) way of purifying the species. So then what is the big problem with syphilis and tuberculosis? If Adolf were trying to be rationally consistent here he would have to be more like our ‘Moral Majority’ of today, who claim that Aids is God’s way of punishing the perverts and degenerates of the world.
By the same thinking why do we not consider tuberculosis, Cancer and other diseases of today to be a sign from God that cigarette smoking and eating processed foods and contaminating the air, and polluting the water are all a part of God’s natural plan to purify the species, or maybe even eliminate the species? Couldn’t allowing Man to discover the atomic bomb and nuclear power be God’s way of leading the human race to its proper place in His ‘Natural Plan’ - that of extinction?
Those that believe that God exist, and has adopted a reasonable and rational plan for the human race and the individuals who comprise it, have a big problem when it comes to logically defending their proposition. Maybe this is why the new religious right uses their own ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ to discredit reason and logic as a credible tool in the human processes of determining spiritual ‘truth’. It seems incredible that this should be the case, but philosophically, it has always been the case offered on the part of the adherents of the concept of God; Where reason ends, faith begins - has forever been the chant of the believers. This unfortunately eliminates the only tool of man for determining and understanding his surroundings and leaves everything and anything as plausible alternatives.
It is also interesting to note that in dealing with our Aids epidemic, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, we have the very same division of ideas today. Those who advocate the free dissemination of condoms and the education of youth with regards to sexual practices, helping single parents, etc, are treated much the same by their opponents as in the days of Adolf.
An intelligent approach to the human addiction to sex has not yet been determined, or discovered, and other than cleanliness, moderation, and respect for one another, I have nothing new to offer on the subject. A monogamous relationship would also seem logical from a social and national health view point.
“… This cleaning up of our culture must extend to nearly all domains. Theater, art, literature, movies, the press, billposters, and window displays must be cleaned of the symptoms of a rotting world and put into the service of a moral idea of state and culture. Public life must be freed from the suffocating purfume of our modern eroticism, exactly as also of all unmanly prudish insincerity. In all these things the goal and the way have to be determined by the care for the preservation of our peoples’ health in body and soul. The right of personal freedom steps back in the face of the duty of the preservation of the race …”
Adolf is continually concerned with the preservation of the race, not the human race, but THE race. ‘A moral idea of state and culture’? And what does Adolf consider moral and cultural? This is the problem, and this is forever the problem, defining terms. A philosopher by the name of Wittgenstein got into this problem of language and defining terms, I’ve yet to read what he had to say, but David Hume dealt with the same problem, as did Jean-Paul Sartre.
I’ve noticed that in my person dealings, I can converse with people with whom I totally disagree and we can have a comfortable discussion as long as we never get to specifics, and deal mostly in defining problems and not solutions.
The word God, itself, has a never ending array of interpretations. Adolf for the most part talks mostly about the general problems, but does not get too specific on the solutions. He says that things must be changed; he says that a strong discipline must be applied, he says that ‘ignorance’ must not be tolerated; he says that his nation must redevelop a strong moral character; he does state specifically that there is a Jewish problem that must be dealt with, but he doesn’t get too specific on the means; Syphilitics must be isolated so as not to contaminate the general public, and since there is no cure, allowed to disappear; prostitution is to be stamped out, but what we do specifically with the prostitute, we don’t know; we must clean up the culture, but how and what we do is not accurately explained as of yet. It seems to be a general characteristic of politicians that they are very good at stating the problems, but coming to specifics on the solutions is another thing entirely.
And as with Adolf it does seem to be with our present political situations. The problems are defined and redefined, but the specifics of the solutions are rarely discussed in any detail. Personal freedom does not seem to be taking a very high position in Adolf’s campaign platform. Personal freedom does not come before the rights of the State, or the preservation of THE race.
Adolf is without any doubt a law and order man, but, of course, it is his law and his order that will prevail. Once again, and I hate to be picking on preachers all the time, but as with most all preaches you have the right to believe differently so long as you don’t mind being wrong, but your right to not believe at all, does not get much ground other than in the provinces of Hell.
“… It is a half measure to allow incurably ill people the permanent possibility of contaminating the other healthy ones. But this corresponds entirely to a humanness which, in order not to hurt one individual, let hundreds of others perish. The demand that for defective people the propagation of an equally defective offspring be made impossible is a demand of clearest reason and in its painful execution it means the most humane act of mankind. It will spare undeserved suffering to millions of unfortunates, but in the future it will lead to an increasing improvement of health on the whole. The determination to proceed in this direction will also put up a damn against the further spreading of venereal diseases. For here, if necessary, one will have to proceed to the pitiless isolation of incurably diseased people; a barbaric measure for one who was unfortunate enough to be stricken with it, but a blessing for the contemporaries and for posterity. The temporary pain of a century may and will redeem millenniums from suffering.
“The fight against Syphilis and its pacemaker, prostitution, is one of the most colossal tasks of mankind, colossal for the reason that it does not involve the solution of a single question in itself, but rather the abolition of quite a series of evils which, as their consecutive symptoms, give the cause for this disease. For the illness of the body is here only the result of an illness of moral, social, and racial instincts.
“If this fight, by reason of inertia, or also cowardice, is not fought out, then one should look upon the nations five hundred years from now. Then one would be able to find only a few images of God, without deliberately insulting the All Highest ...”
Man is created in the image and likeness of God, implies Adolf But for Adolf the ‘image’ of God is obviously a healthy one. And I suppose we can also conclude that God is a blond haired, blue eyed, Adonis. Yes, and once again we are listening to Adolf the preacher, the defender of morality, and the interpreter of God’s real intent.
The sick, diseased, and mentally ill, are clearly not created in the image and likeness of God. So then, since they have obviously been created by Somebody, or Something, by Whom and for what purpose have they been put into existence?
One might also ask why had God created Syphilis. For that matter, why had He created anything harmful or hurtful to his chosen people? Could it be that God has never really chosen any people, and that God is, in fact, a sick deranged creature who is responsible for all of the sickness and derangement in which we live? The ultimate abusive parent?
Adolf, in my opinion, is truly a sick, deranged creature, but he is more consistent, logically, in his form of lunacy than most other religious zealots, and other want-to-believer’s are in their preachings.
Adolf is a preacher who took the God concept to it logical conclusion. Which is, that God, from our observations of life and the principles observed in Nature, must be of a demonic nature Himself. But, one may ask, if God is the embodiment of all evil, from whence is the source of love, kindness, decency, and beauty? If we are then to prove that God is all evil, we must then prove that these ‘good’ things do not exist, but are only figments of our imagination. And now we are returned to the cave of Plato and his shadows on the wall. If Adolf is insane he is no more or less insane than are the preponderance of the Religious thinkers of our day who try to rationalize an all loving God with an evil adversary (a devil), or an ultimate reward (a heaven) for enduring His abusive treatment, in a sick, death-filled, painful, animal eat animal world.
A parent presenting a cookie to a child who he or she has previously abused does not justify that abuse, even in our human courts of law. This brings us to Bertrend Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and other non-believers once again. We either have two Gods, one evil, and one good, which is logically impossible because we then must decide which came first or which created the other, for there clearly could not be two creators of the Universe, or two first causes, or two prime movers, or even multiple Universes. Or, we must conclud that there is no such thing as God, as presently interpreted, or that there are two or more Gods, all with no beginning or end. And now we are back to the Romans and Greeks.
Bertrand Russell stated that since it was impossible for him to believe in a cruel, evil God, he chose to believe in no God. It would probably be more socially acceptable to believe in multiple Gods than to believe in no God, but multiple Gods would only aggravate the logic of it all and present a slew of unanswerable paradoxes to confront.
Prostitution is the pacemaker of syphilis?
Not infidelity, or promiscuity, or youthful investigation or experimentation? Syphilis comes from the hand of God to Adolf’s mouth as a warning to the chosen people to mend their ways or else the human race will be contaminated, and its future generations will no longer resemble the image and likeness of God. Once again like other religious zealots, we must presume that Adolf knows what God looks like. We also must conclude from the bible of Adolf that Blacks, Gypsies, Jews, Slavs, Poles, Russians, etc., were all created by God for the chosen people to use, rule over and destroy if and when they so choose. Much the same logic as in the conventional Bible that places all the other creatures of the earth at Man’s disposal, to be killed, abused, used, or eaten as they wish.
Adolf is truly great at being able to rationalize cruelty, and barbarism. Even the Marquis De Sade must take a second place to Adolf in this capacity. But Adolf is traditional in his adversity to sex. Sex related diseases are interpreted as a message from God. If Syphilis is a warning from God, then what is Cancer? What is MS? What is Alzheimer’s? What is Famine? What is Death? The logic here is pure Voo-doo.