Mein Kampf

Chapter 11 Part 2

By Richard E. Noble

Next Adolf gets into Architecture, and its History through public policy and public works.
“… The characteristic of the antique city was not found in the private buildings, but in the monuments of the community which seemed destined not for the moment but for eternity, for they were supposed to reflect not the riches of the individual owner but rather the greatness and the importance of the community...”
I can not verify the truth, historically of this statement, but regardless, we see once again Adolf’s split personality. He is now an advocate of what would have to be considered Socialism, as opposed to Capitalism and individual initiative. We also see his reverence for something above and beyond the individual ... the State.
“… The State; that means, of the entire people.”
It seems more and more that the God that Adolf worships comes in the form of his idealized concept of the State. To me the term State has no such glorified meaning. It is simply a collective term used to describe, basically, the political system of a nation of people, the ruling body, if you will. To say that the term State is representative of the entire will of any people or nation is to make a claim that is beyond any historical State that has ever existed as far as I can determine.
Clearly Adolf was impressed by Architecture. Architecture was the lasting legacy of an empire, not the number of dead bodies it left in its wake.
“… If Berlin were to meet the fate of Rome, then the coming generations could one day admire the department stores of some Jews, and the hotels of some corporations the most imposing works of our time, as the characteristic expression of the culture of our days…”
Well, if we leave out the vindictive towards Jews in this statement, I think this is exactly what we have today in our current Capitalistic society. I don’t know if I would call it good or bad. The sky line of New York, Chicago, San Francisco and hundreds of other places in this country and others about the world serve as monuments to a system. They represent the fulfillment of ideas. Ideas which have lead to the establishment of phenomenal wealth, and from what one would have to conclude historically, prosperity for this nation as a whole, and many others throughout the world.
For many Americans this is a source of great pride. I think most of us here in the United States take pride in exactly what Adolf is here criticizing and consider his notion of a Glorious State Parthenon, or whatever, to be the exact opposite of what we would want our society to aspire to.
To have great architectural structures and State capitals paid for by extracting large sums in the form of taxes from the people, is exactly the opposite of what most Americans deem pride worthy - though it seems to be happening nonetheless. My criticism would be not in the achievements that brought about all of these great structures but with the squalor and poverty in which they seem to be steeped, or mired. My criticism would be with the extravagant wealth existing impervious, and unawares of the poverty, squalor, destitution and heartbreak of so many right next door and at the very feet of its most outstanding temples - existing perhaps, like the temples of old, stained with the blood of human sacrifice, torture, and uninhibited cruelty.
Whatever praise we may have for these temples of old or cathedrals of today they must stand stoically with the stain of human blood and suffering marring their beauty and tarnishing their greatness. But, it must be admitted that the greatest ‘shrines, or temples’ standing as monuments to our culture and present society, are not structures built by ‘the State’, but by individuals. They stand as monuments to individual Capitalistic initiative, and everyone involved in the construction of these monuments received a payment, in terms of wages for their participation. The negotiations were not always congenial, but I would guess that most would consider everything a step up from the days of the pyramids. But, of course, this is just conjecture here. I have no consultations with any of those involved in pyramid construction. And the jury on truth in spending is still out - be it government and socialistic or individual and capitalistic. They can both be a benefit and they can both be a detriment.
“… Thus our cities of the present lack the outstanding symbol of national community…”
It is clear here that we are viewing Adolf’s architectural inclination. The Greek civilization left more than a few majestic ruins. I would think that most would claim their philosophers, their love of the arts in general, their politics, their play writers, their historians, their theoretical and physical scientist, their insights into the world of discovery and ideas, and their concepts of government and democracy.
I know little of the Roman Empire at present, but I am aware of their engineering, their roads, their aqueducts, their legal system, as well as their public baths. When you say Romans to me I don’t picture buildings.
The Egyptians certainly have their pyramids, but the greater wonder seems to be contained in the mystery of their mathematics and engineering. We are still trying to figure out their preservation techniques in the embalming process and the secrets of their medicine.
When I picture great historic societies I do not see ‘buildings’, I see ideas. So we all see the world in a different perspective, and our perspectives are limited by the scope of our interests. You know, I think my Americanism may be showing here. It is hard to be an American and a believer in Adolf’s type of nationalism or racism. Or even have an understanding of it. All of us as far as I know can trace our ancestry back to some foreign land or nation. The whole principle of our society is based on the amalgamation of nations. We have had some trouble when it comes to the total amalgamation of all races, but certainly we have quite a mixture of nations that are now called and think of themselves and are recognized by the rest of the world as Americans.
“… The great masses do not consist of philosophers, and it is just for them that faith is frequently the sole basis of a moral view of life. The various substitutes have not proved so useful in their success that one would be able to see in them a useful exchange for the former religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really meant to seize the great masses, then the absolute authority of the contents of this faith is the basis of all effectiveness…”
It is my conviction that everyone is a philosopher. If you talk with anyone whether they live in a castle or under a bridge, you will find that they have developed a personal philosophy that guides their life. How objective this philosophy may be or how steeped in logic and reasonableness it might be is another question. Right now we are studying the philosophy of Adolf.
All religious leaders have been philosophers of one type or another. Most religious leaders begin their philosophies on the acceptance of a God and from that point they go on to establish a foundation of beliefs based on some principle of logic and reasonable analysis and thinking - even if their reasoning is simply to accept the greater reasoning of those who came before them.
If you analyze the personal beliefs of any individual member of any religious sect, you will probably find that what he believes hardly conforms to the doctrine or dogma of the organization, but he thinks that it does. Most people rarely know the foundation principles of their own religions and very rarely do they adhere to them in any practical sense of the word. I think that this is probably the origin of the word hypocrite, but I would be more kind and simply call it individualism. Most members of religious groups not only have a personal savior, or personal god, but a personal interpretation of the so called dogma of their faith.
I have no idea what Adolf is talking about when he uses the phrase ‘substitutes’ for established religions. I think that all of the religions of our day and Adolf’s time could be considered substitutes for some previous faith or dogma.
Once again we must consider the fact that Adolf was raised a Roman Catholic. I was raised in the same faith, so I am aware of the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is considered by its members to be “the one true church”. All those religions existing prior to the Roman Catholic, are either pagan, or simply wrong or unfounded, and all of those established after the one true Roman Catholic Church, are basically Roman Catholic in origin, founded by disgruntled and confused ex-Roman Catholics. This may explain Adolf’s unproved substitutes. By this logic most of the faithful of the world should be considered Jews - Pagans.
But once again here we see Adolf’s elitism. The ‘humble masses’ are not great thinkers. They need ‘Religious Dogma’ and ‘Absolute Authority’ to tell them right from wrong. Well by now it should be no surprise and we should be expecting this line of thought from Adolf.
Adolf was not your conventional religious fanatic. He has made no claims as to being inspired by God. God as far as we know did not talk directly to Adolf as he has to so many others. So Adolf makes no claims to his absolute authority by way of revelation. He simply says that it is better for us stupid masses to be told what to do and what to think by somebody, than it is for us to all wander about trying to figure it out on our own. This only creates chaos, or hedonism.
This is once again pretty much the basic philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church as I was instructed through it as a child. Although receiving thirteen years of training at the hands of Sisters, Brothers, and Priests, I was never once instructed to read the Bible on my own, or investigate the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
I was instructed that the Bible was too complicated to be interpreted by the layman, and that one should learn about Christianity through the Catechism and the instruction and interpretation of the Church hierarchy, and its theologians.
Adolf, as we have seen in the past likes the idea of the ‘common people’ following the dogma or dictates of the ‘control-ees’, whoever they may be, but in particular himself. Then we have Emanuel Kant and his poor servant Emue or whatever. The simple man needs his Church and his ‘wise leaders’.
“… Laws are for the state, as dogma is for religion ... The attack upon Dogma in itself resembles ... the fight against the general legal fundamentals of the state ... and just as the latter would find its end in a complete anarchy of the state, thus the other in a worthless religious nihilism ... As long as there is no apparent substitute, that which is present can be demolished only by fools or by criminals…”
Well, this doesn’t leave much room for Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, George Washington, Martin Luther, even Jesus Christ for that matter. All these men and many, many others challenged established belief and were considered in their day as potential anarchists to the established ideas. Again we see Adolf primary concern is not with what is ‘true’, but only in what promotes general orderliness. Adolf would clearly be willing to execute one hundred innocent men, in an attempt to punish one guilty man, as opposed to the reverse notion of Victor Hugo, and others.
But, once again it seems, we are back to Karl Marx and the Bolshevists. Karl sounds like another hard headed German. But nevertheless, it seems clear that Adolf is directing his insight into Karl’s notion that Religion is ‘the opiate of the masses’, and the Bolshevik notion of stamping out religion. I will presume that he is not trying to stamp out revolution in government since this book and Adolf are in the midst of creating a revolutionary government themselves and because ‘as long as there is no present substitute that which is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals.’ Trying to stamp out religion on the one hand is trying to stamp out hope. Religion says that there is a happy ending to all of this existence and human beings are for the most part optimistic in this regard. Religion, though, centers on the egocentric. It involves you personally. YOU will survive. YOU will attain the ultimate happiness. YOU will live after death in a personal paradise. This notion of a personal survival, as opposed to the generic survival of the human species, or the general survival of a particular culture, or the reuniting of the personal spirit into the absorption of a universal soul. The personal survival of one’s individual soul, in an understandable eternal living circumstance, is much easier to comprehend. Most individuals choose to cherish something along these lines, rather than some vague non-generic eternity, or some sort of finitude. And in truth, if this was as far as religion extended itself, I really don’t see that it would present any problem. But when religion begins to define how this state of happiness will be achieved. When religion extends into morality, civil law, codes of behavior, the chosen and the unchosen, the ‘personality of God’, His familial relations, and His interest in you personally, the problem between religion and state begin.
Adolf had a simple answer, once again. Religion is fine, so long as it is not in conflict with the principles and goals of the state. When religious ideas conflict with state order, religion must give way, or be stamped out.
Just as Dogma must be accepted unconditionally in order for religion to survive so too, law must not be challenged in order for the State to survive. What Adolf’s Bible or theory is lacking here is a fundamental principle on which the State can claim its infallibility, or the infallibility of its rules and laws. The Roman Catholic Church said that the Pope gained his infallibility because the Pope was in effect a direct descendent of Christ, who was, of course, the son of the Almighty God Himself.
Edmond Burke had a slightly different twist, as I understand his theory in the Rights of kings. I have never read his defense of The Rights of Kings, but as I have come to believe through other reading, he claims that a King’s right to rule extends directly from God. I don’t know where Jesus Christ, or Mohammed, or the Buddha, or any other intermediates may come into this picture. So if we accept that the kings and the popes and whoever else get their right to rule and make laws directly from God, where does Adolf enter this picture?
Tom Paine, a Deist, said that God really took no interest in who ruled over whom, and that the right to rule over people was really a right that was derived from the people themselves. In other words you had the right to rule over people as long as people allowed you to rule, but the ‘people’ always maintained their claim to power by their right to revolution. Paine and other of our Forefathers believed that despite God’s Creation, man was ‘free’. God gave us this life and this world and it was all up to us to make whatever we chose of it. This was a rather down to earth and pragmatic interpretation of the notion of leadership or power of a man over other men or of a state over a populace. But where does Adolf fit into this evolution of the derivation of the right to power? Adolf makes no mention of God nor of the rights of Kings, nor of the people. He says that the right to rule is not granted but taken by the strongest hand. The right to power is established by the natural right to might. The ruler of the people will be the Man who through the strength of his personality is able to dominate those about him and then control, through force of strength if need be, the masses.
Tom Paine said that the masses controlled the leaders, and Adolf Hitler says that the leader will control the masses. I guess we are dealing with a little relativism here. Powerful people lead the masses as long as the masses follow. When powerful people loose the support of the mass of followers they usually end up dead by one means or another. So I guess we can wonder who is leading who.
When Galileo spoke, no one followed. When Einstein spoke, no one followed. When Hitler spoke much of the world followed. Why?
It can only be that much of the world found what they thought to be the truth in what Adolf was saying. Adolf was an elitist, an egoist. It seems that all people, even the most humble amongst us, want to believe that they are better than somebody else. Anyone who preaches that man is not the greatest of animals, or that Man is not the center of the universe, or that man does not ‘yet’ know all, see all, and control all, or will one day live in a paradise sitting at the right hand of God (That Creature who has created all things for the glory and pleasure of Man) seems to have a problem in communicating with Mankind.
Those that preach of Man’s greatness seem to always have the ear of Mankind. No one wants to hear that their existence is incidental, or even worse, accidental. Even if it is the truth, very few want any part of such a notion. Everyone wants to be ‘special’, the chosen people. God watches over them and their roast beef, or their shis-kabob, or their paella, hopefully with more sensitivity than what he offers to the cow, the lamb or the chicken.
Wasn’t Christianity an attempt to replace Judaism? Wasn’t the Muslim creed of Mohammed along with the revolution of Protestantism an attempt to replace Christianity? Isn’t existentialism the attempt to replace all religions and the conventional notions of God? And do not all those who have advocated whatever it is that they have advocated, think that they have a better idea than whatever is existing at the present? The Communists tried to replace religion with loyalty to the Cause. Adolf’s loyalty is to the State - his state.
“But worse than all are the devastations which are brought about by the abuse of religious convictions for political purposes.”
What is an ‘abuse’ of religious conviction?
Is it an abuse to have a religious conviction?
Is it an abuse not to have a religious conviction?
Is it an abuse to proselytize your religious conviction?
If you believe that God is on your side and speaking to you the truth, is it not your obligation to tell others what God has told you?
What is a political purpose, as opposed to a religious conviction?
If a religious conviction tells one how he, and those around him should live their lives. How does this differ from a political conviction?
It seems that Adolf believes that no one but he is in possession of ‘true’ convictions. Everyone else is involved in a conspiracy.
Or is he saying that those seeking political power are manipulating the religious convictions of the masses for their own personal political purposes. And if this be the case do we not have a situation in which we have the pot calling the kettle black. Isn’t this whole book that we are presently analyzing, a manual on how to control and manipulate the masses in order to obtain political superiority?
“... the German among nearly all European nations still tried most of all to preserve the national character of its economy, and that despite many evil premonitions, it was least of all subject to the international finance control. A dangerous advantage, however, which later on became the greatest instigator of the World War...”
So International finance control was the greatest instigator of the World War? I do not have enough information to comment, but this is an area that I should investigate. I have no doubt that Adolf will claim that it is the Jewish international financier, and the Jew controlled stock Market, and the Jewish international Capitalist in general that is to blame, but I would be interested to know what part international money had to play in promoting World War I. I know that the Communist and Socialist movements claimed that it was the nature of the international arms merchants that promoted, prolonged, and exploited for profit the war, even if they did not start it. But then we would have to ask was this an international conspiratorial effort or one of competing nationalistic gain?
“...That at Versailles the wrath of the international exploiters of the nation directed itself primarily against the old German army makes it all the more recognizable as the protection of the freedom of our people against the power of the stock exchange...”
So, the decisions and penalties imposed at Versailles prove that the international business community was involved all along in a conspiracy to bankrupt Germany; and if not to bankrupt Germany possibly to keep Germany from prospering? And couldn’t this be the complaint of every unsuccessful nation in a Capitalistic world? Could this not be the complaint of every struggling entrepreneur in every capitalistic society? Could it be true? And if true, what can be done about it? What could have been done about it then, and what can be done about it today?
“...What the German people owes to the Army may be simply summed up in one single word, namely: everything ... The Army trained for absolute responsibility at a time when this quality had become very rare and the shunning of responsibility had more and more become the order of the day; the Army further taught personal courage in a time when cowardice threatened to become a spreading disease and when the willingness to sacrifice, to stand up for the general welfare, was almost looked upon as stupidity, and when only he seemed to be cleaver who understood best how to spare himself and how to advance his own ego...”
I wonder, is this statement in reference to what was happening before the outbreak of World War I, or after? Certainly what happened after World War I couldn’t have been one of its causes. It doesn’t look like many German people were shunning their responsibility at the outbreak of World War I, nor does it seem that any other European country was lax in their recruitment for bodies for the fields of Flanders or the grave yards of Verdon.
“… The army further taught idealism and devotion to the fatherland and its greatness, while life had otherwise become the sole domain of greed and materialism...”
I don’t know about you, but hearing Adolf make statements like this makes me think that greed and materialism may be steps in the right direction. When we look at Adolf’s loyalty to fatherland and what and where it led, one can’t help but thinking Civil Disobedience to one of a nation’s greatest assets.
Adolf seems to have found salvation on the battlefield. He loved the army, its discipline and order. He loved War, it violence and its courageous brutality. He obviously loved the killing and the courageous self-sacrifice of his comrades, willing to leap head long into the bowels of death and destruction. And it may be that he even loved the thought of his own sacrificial death for the cause of God, Country, and Race. And he would eventually make his country a martyr to all of these values.
“...The deepest and ultimate cause for the ruin of the old Reich was found in the non-recognition of the race problem and its importance for the historical development of the people. For events in the lives of the nations are not expressions of chance, but, by the laws of nature, happenings of the urge of self-preservation and propagation of the species and race, even if the people are not conscious of the inner reasons for their activity...”
Interesting that Adolf would be using the subconscious theories of that ‘Jew’ Psychologist Freud to define the basis of the spirit of his Nazism. Adolf continues to advocate and incorporate into his plan all of his basic criticism of Judaism. Their notion of being the chosen people; the idea that they must be exclusionist in order to protect their kind, or breed, or nation; their loyalty to principle in the face of any odds; their honor in survival and their faith in it as a guiding principle for future generations. Even his notion of conquering and controlling the world, he steals from his interpretation of the Jew’s worldly success. Would it be over-simplifying to say that all of this hatred for the Jews is simply jealousy?
Adolf was possessed with the notion of destroying the Jew. It seems that even winning the war and conquering the world took a second place to the destruction of the Jewish people. Where did he get this notion? Who were his teachers? How prolific was this notion throughout the world at that time? What part did Jew haters in England, France, Italy, and America or the entire world have to play in contributing to this fanaticism?

The Eastpointer

No More TV!

By Richard E. Noble

I’ve seen the 45 vinyl records come and go, and then the LP. After that I watched the cassette tape flutter and die but I never thought that I’d live to see the TV set pass. But the TV is just about dead - at least in my house. That darn thing is shortly going into the junk pile or out the window. I’ve had it.
I remember going up to the new appliance store on a cobble stone street in my old neighborhood and helping my mother pick out our new 12 inch Zenith television. I had my Red Flyer Wagon we carted it home in. It cost 3 or 4 hundred dollars. I don’t know where my mother found the money, but we had to have that TV.
For weeks after I got it home, me and my sister jumped up every morning, ran into the parlor and watched the test pattern. Actually now that I think about it, the test pattern was about as good as many of the shows we have on the tube today.
In recent years they nicknamed it the “boob-tube” and it was certainly appropriate - even though there is no longer a ‘tube’ anywhere in the darn thing.
One of the biggest shows on today’s boob tube is called “Boobs with a View” I think. I can’t stand it! A bunch of women screaming and yelling at one another. But, if you change the channel you get a bunch of dopey men doing the same thing. It is beyond my capacity for tolerance. But that is not why the TV is coming to an end in my household. It is the cost of this foolishness.
I remember when I was a kid sitting up on the street corner, we used to talk about how one day they would trick us somehow into paying for this TV crap. We used to say; What are they going to do, put a coin collector on it like they have on the bus. We all laughed and concluded that it was impossible. BUT THEY HAVE DONE IT!
I can hardly believe it!
I think when it started out in this neighborhood it was about ten or twelve dollars a month for Cable TV. The picture was clearer than the old antennae and they were going to give us a bunch of new stations along with all the old stuff.
But gradually this Cable Company has gone the way of the automobile - if you want any “extras” it costs more. You know … did you want a bumper on that pickup truck? How about headlights?
What? What is this?
So now if I want sports, I pay extra; if I want local news, it’s extra, if I want movies, it’s extra. We don’t even get the Gillette Friday night fights anymore. What happened to boxing?
In any case, when the monthly charge got to 50 bucks, I told my wife, TV is over - find a new hobby. Learn to crotchet or make cute things out of plastic wrappers. I know that some of you people are paying a hundred dollars per month or more for TV. You people should be arrested and isolated somewhere on a farm in North Dakota. But my wife couldn’t do without the Boob Tube View. She begged and argued. We compromised. We canceled all the extras and went back to the basic. The basic was once again twelve dollars a month. Okay so what’s twelve dollars a month? I pay more than that for cat food. But as time slips by the “basic” keeps creeping up. I guess they think that I’m not going to notice - BUT I DO!
Last month I peeked at the bill and the basic was $27.68. This is ridiculous!
Do you know that Diane Sawyer makes something like 13 million dollars a year? Are you kidding me? And Katie what’s-her-name makes more than she does. And Barbara Wawa makes more than all of them in a bunch.
Man, I’ll bet I could get ten blonde Vassar graduates who could juggle in the nude and read the news at the same time for half that much money. And the men are just as bad. Bill O’Reilly makes a triple fortune. And all these Million Dollar Babies complain about the baseball players making too much money!
The weather guys are millionaires!
Do you remember when they first hired that big, chubby, white guy who made jokes and kept seeking out people who were older than dirt? The other network couldn’t be outdone so they hired a big, chubby, bald headed, BLACK guy who also told jokes. These guys are making millions.
I need million dollar entertainment with my weather? I don’t even need a weatherologist or whatever they call one of those guys. A simple “It’s going to rain or it will be warm today” is good enough for me. Find some unemployed teenager who doesn’t lisp and give him 500 bucks a week. He’ll never leave.
So okay you cable Mafiosi, when my bill for “basic” hits 30 bucks the TV is gone! And you TV people can take your new digital high definition and put it wherever you feel is appropriate. You say I will no longer know what is going on in the world today. I got news for you - I don’t know now what is going on in the world today even with all your help!
So Diane, you will have to take a two cent a year cut when I throw out my TV. I’m sorry; get a part time job. I hear Wal Mart is looking for cashiers.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years now. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on Amazon.com and “Hobo-ing America” which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” which will be published soon.

The Eastpointer

Florida Secedes - Again!

By Richard E. Noble

Well, here we are! The most important primary election in my lifetime - maybe in all of American history. There is a WAR to consider and universal health care. Believe it or not Universal Health Care for all American citizens has been a political issue since as far back as the Wilson administration. For the first time in American history we have a possible woman presidential candidate and a possible black presidential candidate. Of course we have all the usual and ordinary types too. We have one movie star, one semi-bald guy who lisps and spits when he speaks, a couple of guys who formally had their picture on a bottle of hair tonic or snake oil, one guy who looks like Gomer Pyle, one guy who looks like he could have been one of the Three Stooges, one guy who has been through the war, the “Mill” and to hell and back and a host of other interesting prospects.
But it seems that Florida has decided to secede from the Union once again. This time not with the rest of the South but with the state of Michigan of all places. Needless to say I’m confused.
It seems that our Florida legislature took a “bipartisan” vote and moved up our primary election date. Consequently Democrats have been thrown out of the National Democratic Party and Florida Republicans are half out - or something like that.
I have tried to read up on this to find out exactly what happened but that is not really what I want to know. What I really want to know is who actually did this to me and how do I get rid of them - forever. Is it the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, Governor Crist or the entire Florida legislature?
What the heck happened here?
Our state politicians voted to move up our primary elections but both of their political parties told them that they couldn’t do it. So naturally they did it anyway. And now all of us who belong to either party are out or semi-out. We have all somehow become independents. We can vote in the national election but we will not get to pick our candidates in any primary. We can go down and pick someone if we want to, but it isn’t going to matter because, as usual, nobody is counting Florida votes – at least not all of them. So what’s new? Nobody is campaigning here in Florida except the guy who spits along with a thirty second TV sound bite here and there by a few other hopeful losers. No one is calling me on the phone or asking my opinion, taking out an ad in our newspapers or spending any big political bucks here in our state. I am a nobody. I don’t count. I’m invisible. I feel like candidates Kucinich and Ron Paul.
My wife says that this must be against the Constitution. I have consulted my copy of the Constitution but I can’t find anything in there about primary elections or political parties. There is some stuff about electing presidents and senators and congressional Representatives but none of it has any relevance to today’s system. In fact, the Constitution seems to be about how they do it in some other country. I’m not going to get into it, but if you don’t believe me get a copy of the Constitution and read it for yourself. Who wrote that thing anyway? It seems like it is about time for the revised edition to come out. Believe it or not it says “revised edition” on the copy I’ve got. When the heck was it revised 1777? I don’t really want them to change anything but how about a couple of footnotes explaining what the heck happened and why what it says ain’t what we got; inquiring minds what to know.
My wife told me that she belongs to a political party. I asked her when she attended the last meeting and how much did it cost her to join. She said that you don’t have to go to meetings to belong to a particular political party and it doesn’t cost anything. She said that you just agree to be a member and you are automatically included in that party. It is kind of like a religion but they don’t have any churches, she said.
So I guess that is how it goes. Like religion if you have any complaints you pray to God and if He see fit, he changes it. Otherwise you end up you know where – and without a paddle.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on Amazon.com and “Hobo-ing America” which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” which will be published soon.

“Don ‘t Work for Stupid People”

Commentary/Humor

By Richard E. Noble

When I was young and starting out on my working career, I was interviewed by many people. And as they evaluated me, I also evaluated them. Right off I knew that I was smarter than most of the people who were interviewing me. I am sure that many of you have found yourselves in a similar position. I always felt my situation was somewhat comparable to women and dating. You girls know what I’m talking about.
There is a tendency when you find yourself in this situation to go to work for the dumb guy and avoid the smart guy. You feel that you are smarter than the dumb guy and therefore you will be able to manipulate him or her and that the smart guy will be able to trick and manipulate you.
This is wrong thinking. Dumb people are trickier than smart people. Smart people have big egos and they always think that because they are smarter than you, they will always come out on top - dumb people know better.
The thing with most dumb people is that although they do not necessarily recognize themselves as dumb, they also recognize a smart person when they meet one.
So, just as you realize that you are smarter than they are, they also know that you are smarter than they are. And that is basically how they became so tricky.
You can imagine being a naturally dominant human creature and finding yourself to be dumber than everybody else. You quickly realize that you must get tricky if you are ever to get your way - and that’s the name of the game, as we all know.
It is very hard for a smart person to figure out what a dumb person is going to do. The reason should be obvious. Smart people are too smart to think dumb. Consequently dumb people are always able to trick smarter people - i.e. ... parenthood. Dumb people are not only able to think dumb but they are more than capable of doing dumb things or choosing stupid alternatives.
This ability on the part of dumb people drives smart people out of their minds. Smart people always think that they have covered all the various alternatives - but invariably they eliminate all the stupid alternatives. They do this because they are smart - and that is there downfall. Stupid people rule - i.e. Government.
Stupid people never rule out doing something dumb. The reason for this should also be obvious. They are dumb and they do not realize that the alternative that they have chosen is stupid.
Smart people always bring stupid people onto their TV shows and say to them; What were you thinking? Or; Is this working for you? Or: Didn’t you realize that you would go to prison if you did that? Or; Don’t you know that sex leads to pregnancy?
Of course they didn’t - that’s why they did it. And they will continue to do it no matter how much you beat them up for it. Why? Because they are not smart; they are stupid. Stupid people do dumb things.
Can stupid people get smarter?
I don’t know, you tell me.
Dumb people don’t get the idea of “thinking” or “working for you”. They say; Did I get a jelly bean when I pressed this button or not. Yes ... do it again; no ... try an alternative. It is called making choices. Both dumb and smart people know how to make choices.
So, my advice to young people just starting out on their working careers is to take the job working for the smarter guy and avoid working for people who are obviously not as bright as you are.
But even this simple advice has its pitfalls. Like what if you find that you are smarter than everybody else - without exception? That is a very difficult problem let me assure you - and I speak with considerable authority on this point.
If you find that there is no one out there who is smarter than you are - life can become very difficult and very tricky. You will learn quickly that everyone is trying to trick you - and they are. People will tell you that you are paranoid - but you will know better because you are really smarter than they are - and you know it even if your psychiatrist doesn’t.
People will all be trying to trick you because they have to. They are not as smart as you are.
One popular way to try and deal with this problem is to try to learn to think stupid. The danger with this strategy is that if you become successful you may forget how to think intelligently and you will find that you have only ticked yourself into becoming stupid.
Of course, if this happens your day to day life will be easier to cope with - but you will then probably start to hear a voice. It will be your inner, brighter, now suppressed ego.
This is not unusual but if you tell anybody about it, your life will never be the same again.
But on a positive note if you are really smarter than everyone else you could end up like Albert Einstein. Of course that will mean never getting into Harvard and living in confinement at Princeton or some lesser institution for the rest of your natural life.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years now. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on Amazon.com and “Hobo-ing America” which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” which will be published soon.

Silk Strike, Paterson New Jersey 1913

Striking America

By Richard E. Noble

It began on February 13 at the Henry Doherty Company in Paterson, New Jersey. The Paterson silk industry was having its problems. New competitors had opened up in the surrounding area. Paterson’s competitors had newer machinery, and a more desperate, immigrant workforce. The women running the competition’s machinery and looms were willing to work more hours, and tend more looms for less money. The Henry Doherty Company and others in Paterson decided that their workers would just have to do more for less also. Their first innovative step was categorized as a “speed up”. Women workers who were attending two looms would now have to attend four looms.
On Jan 27, 1913, eight hundred workers stormed out of the Henry Doherty Company and shortly thereafter 25,000 area mill workers joined them. In February the I.W.W., hot off its victory in Lawrence, Massachusetts, was more than happy to accept the call from the Paterson workers. The union demanded on behalf of the silk workers the resumption of the two loom system, an eight hour day for all workers, time and a half for overtime and a minimum wage of twelve dollars per week. The authorities in Paterson knew about Big Bill Haywood and his crowd of “Wobbly”, anarchist agitators. The police, under Chief John Bimson decided to nip this whole thing in the bud. They banned picketing. They banned outdoor public meetings. They even banned Big Bill Haywood the right to make any speeches in Paterson, New Jersey.
On March 7, 1913, Big Bill Haywood arrived at the Erie Depot. He was immediately arrested. His bail was posted and that night at the various union halls around Paterson, Big Bill told the crowds of his brush with the law. The authorities wondered if he carried a weapon, he told them. Then he reached into his vest pocket and pulled out his only weapon. The police had missed it in their search. It was his I.W.W. union card. The only weapon any worker would ever need.
In the midst of the Paterson uprising, trouble broke out in Akron, Ohio at the rubber plants. When Big Bill got off the train in Akron he was greeted by the mayor, Frank Rockwell, the chief of police, Robert Guillet and two or three hundred vigilantes from the Akron Citizen’s Welfare League. Captain Guillet informed Mister Haywood that he was on touchy ground and that he would be wise not to be making any speeches in Akron. Big Bill asked the sheriff if he had a warrant. When the sheriff replied in the negative, Big Bill told him to get out of his road. As Big Bill marched forward the Citizens Welfare Committee parted like the Red Sea and when Big Bill Haywood emerged from its ranks, he was immediately flanked by a crowd of union well wishers cheering and hooraying with delight. The Akron police and Citizen’s Welfare committee used all their powers and numbers to see that the union rubber workers would make no headway. Their beatings and illegal arrests were successful and the disturbance in Akron was over before it got started. Haywood returned to Paterson.
In Paterson, March 17 was declared American flag day. The I.W.W. were considered to be anarchists, radicals and revolutionaries. Haywood had mentioned that the Industrial Workers of the World marched under the red banner of revolution and reform. The authorities and business leaders thought this to be a good time to play the patriot card. The American flag was everywhere in Paterson. It was not only on the tops of all the public buildings but all the factory tops and businesses. Who but a traitor would not adorn an American flag?
At his next speech at a union rented park in Haledon, Haywood and union supporters marched through the streets under an American flag. Haywood could speak in Haledon. The Mayor of Haledon was sympathetic to workers and their causes. Haywood’s speech turned Paterson’s flag day upside-down. Haywood spoke out against the capitalist and the money-class. These people have no flag, he told his listeners. They have no country. They have no patriotism. They have no God. Their only loyalty is to gold and the almighty dollar. They have no nation. They are international in their outlook. Their only flag is the black flag of piracy, adorned with the skull and cross bones of the little children who they have ground up in their mills and factories.
The union then tried to challenge Paterson’s ban on outdoor meetings. They rented the Lafayette Oval battlefield in Paterson. They would march through the streets of Paterson to the battlefield, 20,000 strong.
The police blocked their arrival at the park. The 20,000 union members, who could have overpowered the small contingent of police, chose not to be violent. They would instead march to Haledon, where free speech and freedom of association were still honored. When they reached the city line, they were greeted by the police once again. The police then proceed in an attempt to agitate the crowd to violence, by arresting Big Bill Haywood and another union leader, Adolph Lessig. The crowd did not respond in the desired manner. Neither of the men arrested had broken any law. Nevertheless, they were convicted of disorderly conduct, sentenced to six months at hard labor, and their bail set at five thousand dollars each.
Haywood and the union took the case to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The court decided that it was not acting illegally to be at the lead of a crowd, nor to have a crowd of people follow behind in a peaceable manner. But they were making a lot of noise, the prosecutors countered. And do you arrest the Salvation Army when they make noise in the streets, or form lines or attract a crowd, the judges asked.
The case was dismissed.
The strike lingered on even though the workers were running out of money and food. The bosses were winning and they had a new advantage. The press which was anti-union simply stopped reporting the events going on in Paterson. When the workers took their children to the train station to be sent out of town so as not to be hurt by the police and vigilantes, the press did not attend the exodus. When the police refused to allow free citizens to meet together peacefully, the press did not show up. When women workers were beaten and clubbed, the press took no photos. When local newspapers who supported the strikers wrote positive articles, their newspapers were ransacked and their owners and editors were arrested and put in jail for disturbing the peace or inciting a riot. One man was even arrested for reading the New Jersey Constitution. Sumner Boyd was arrested for reading a freedom of speech clause in the New Jersey constitution to a crowd. Alexander Scott was arrested and sentenced to a term of one to fifteen years for exciting hostility against the government in his Weekly Issue Newspaper. And when thousands were arrested and held illegally in Paterson jails, for crimes like picketing or assembling, the rest of the America and the world were none the wiser.
Big Bill had been making friends with some of the better off and monied crowd across the Hudson in New York City’s Greenwich Village. People like Sinclair Lewis, Upton Sinclair, Lincoln Steffens, Mable Dodge, Emma Goldman, Margaret Sanger, Henrietta Redman, Max Eastman, and last but not least, the twenty-six year old writer, journalist, and Harvard graduate John Reed.
Big Bill was sick. He had developed ulcers from his worries and tensions. He had lost over one hundred pounds. He was losing strength. He went to his new found friends and commiserated about the big silence on the part of the press. He needed money to keep the strike going. If good people in America only knew what was happening to the poor and hard working in Paterson, New Jersey, they would send money in buckets. It had happened before. It happened in Lawrence, it happened in Colorado, it could happen in Paterson.
John Reed had an idea. The union would sponsor a pageant at Madison Square Garden. The pageant would tell the story of how Modestino Valentino, and innocent bystander was shot and killed by private detectives who were hired by the mill owners. The detectives had simply lost their cool and began shooting at strikers in front of a mill. The bullets went through the crowd and killed poor Modestino Valentino who lived across from the mill and was simply sitting out on his front porch. The union held a funeral for Modestino and thousands of Laborers followed his casket to the grave site. There, each mourner dropped a red rose petal onto the casket until the casket had disappeared beneath a mountain of blood red, rose petals.
The pageant would symbolize the strike and the unnecessary killing and the funeral with the rose petals. The pageant was an artistic success but a financial failure. The bosses had a propaganda scheme of their own. They encouraged their Citizen’s committees to violently suppress the strikers. They accused Big Bill and the other union leaders of greeting rich off the poor workers union dues. They said that Big Bill was a gourmand who ate nothing but the finest foods and drank only imported wine. He was immoral. He was a thief. He was a murderer.
He had been indicted for murder in Colorado. Martial and vigilante law took over in Paterson. Forty-eight hundred strikers were arrested. They were pulled out of peaceful picket lines by police and “citizens” wielding clubs and guns. Thirteen hundred were sentenced to jail terms. Patrick Quinlan, a union leader was arrested, convicted and sentenced to 2-7 years at hard labor. Haywood was charged with inciting assault on the Paterson Police department. They founded the charge on a speech he had made promoting the eventual victory of the union over the authorities in Paterson.
Finally the beatings, the illegal arrests, the lack of press and outside support led the Ribbon Weavers, a specialized craft group, to settle with the bosses on their own. The union was broken. The strike was dissipated. And eventually the charges against Hayward were dismissed as unfounded by the court. But unfounded, illegal, unauthorized, unconstitutional, immoral, dishonest, violent, un-American or whatever, the “good citizens” and the industrialists of Paterson beat the immigrant underdogs, took away their jobs and made the town of Paterson, once again “safe for Democracy

*Books used in this essay include: “Roughneck” The Life and Times of Big Bill Haywood, P. Carlson; “A History of American Labor” J. G. Rayback; “Labor Problems in American Industry”, C. R. Dougherty; “The Rise of Industrial America”, Page Smith.

The Eastpointer

Taking the Bite out of your Dental Bills

By Richard E. Noble

Sometimes we conservatives take our innate propensities a little too far.
I have always considered myself a conservative and as everyone knows, conservatives are extremely protective of their money. My personal fascination with money is truly extreme. In fact, sometimes I value my money more than your life itself.
Yes, I am sorry but it is true. For example, if someone says to me; Give me your money or your next door neighbor’s life - you’re gone my friend.
But that flaw in my character doesn’t bother me all that much; most people, both liberals, and conservatives, seem to have that same flaw. What really bothers me is when my love of money turns around and bites me that I get especially annoyed.
I have a neighbor who also considers himself a conservative and he bit himself pretty badly not too long ago. My neighbor is a Snow Bird. Each year his vehicle would suddenly appear next door and I would go wandering over and visit. We would drink some cheap wine and eat some ham and cheese and talk about how dumb the rest of the world was/is.
Well, this one year I go wandering over and there’s my good buddy sitting there in his bathrobe watching a Do-wop DVD and eating a bag of marshmallows.
“How’s it going?” I say. He gives me a big grin and right off I notice that there is something different about my friend this year.
“What the heck happened to all your teeth?” I shout.
“Oh, it’s a long story.”
“Well, you can tell me about what happened to your teeth or we can discuss world peace.”
“Okay, we might as well stick with reality. I have had this dentist for a number of years now and every year I go for my annual visit. He drills some cavities and fills a few teeth. One day I start thinking and I figure that this guy had filled more of my teeth in the past few years than I have in my head. So I get out all my bills and sure enough this clown has filled like seventy-two of my teeth. I don’t have seventy-two teeth.
“So I call him up on the phone and I say; How the heck can you fill seventy-two of my teeth when I’ve only got thirty-two or thirty-four or something like that?”
“And what did he say?”
“He says bla bla bla, dribble dribble dribble. He gives me this line of trash and I finally hang up on him. So the next day I jump into the van and I head over to this clinic and I have every darn tooth in my head pulled out.”
“I see. You don’t think that you might have been a little premature?”
“What am I going to do let the guy cheat me for the rest of my life?”
“No ... but how about seeing another dentist?”
“Oh yeah, that’s a great idea. You go down to the new guy and first off he’s got to take sonar-grams and x-rays of your whole body. Then he’s going to tell me that the last guy cheated me and did all my dental work wrong. I’m going to need a whole frontal lobotomy and a rectal dichotomy and twenty thousand dollars later he’s refilling all the same teeth that the other clown filled five years ago. You can’t win with them people.”
“So now you have no teeth?’
“I got plenty of teeth.” He reached into his pajama pocket and pulled out a little plastic bag with his new set of uppers and lowers in it.
“Those look real nice,” I said. “And how long do you have to keep them in your pocket?”
“I don’t have to keep them in my pocket. I can put them in my mouth whenever I want to.”
“So?”
“So what?”
“So why have you got them in a plastic bag in your pajama pocket?”
“Well, they hurt like a bugger when I put them in my mouth. It’s unbelievable, it feels like there is another person living in there.”
“Right ... so ah, let’s change the subject. How are the marshmallows?”
“Great, have some? You know I haven’t eaten marshmallows in years. When is the last time you’ve had a marshmallow?”
“Oh, I stopped eating them a while back.”
“Why?”
“They made my teeth hurt.”

Richard E. Noble has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years now. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on Amazon.com and “Hobo-ing America” which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” which will be published soon.

Avicenna (980-1037 A.D.)

Philosopher

By Richard E. Noble

Avicenna (Ibn Sina ... Abu Mi al Husayn ibn Abd-Allah ibn Sina) was born in Bokhara, Persia (Iran) in 980 A.D. He is most famous in the field of medicine. In fact his book, “al-Shifa” (Book of Healing) is the largest encyclopedia of knowledge ever written, and was the main medical source book for over four hundred years.
In physics he is the father of the notion of “momentum”. By age ten he had mastered the religious “sciences” (whatever they are); by sixteen he was a well known physician; and by eighteen had mastered Aristotle, thanks to the commentary of al-Farabi.
Prior to reading al-Farabi, he had read Aristotle’s Metaphysics over forty times and couldn’t understand it. (So, how smart is he? I had to read Aristotle’s metaphysics only once to realize that I couldn’t understand it.)
Avicinna was a Mystic. A Mystic is, in my opinion, a person who begins with the “fact” of God and then tries to prove the universe and all of reality a fiction.
In philosophy Avicinna is most famous for his concern with “quiddity” (essence) and distinguishing between it and existence, and also his arguments distinguishing between necessary and possible beings. An unnecessary existent (us and everything else that is) can exist or not exist, says Avicinna.
Is this true? The fact or truth is, we don’t know. The theist says, in dealing with human existants for example, that when we die our body dies, but our soul (the electricity or force of consciousness and life) goes on.
The atheist says that our bodies are turned to dust, and the force of consciousness of life vanishes. So one denies the immortality of the body and the other denies the immortality of the life force that distinguishes a dead body from a living entity. But the body turns to dust, it doesn’t cease to exist. So then what happens to the soul (the animating life force)?
No one knows. Is there such a thing?
We know there is. It is there when something is alive, and gone when something is dead.
Can anything that is existing at one point ever be non existent? As Einstein once asked, “Did God have a choice in His Own existence?”
We have a theory today that we call the conservation of matter and energy. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. God, according to Avicinna, is the only necessary being. But one of the qualities of the Necessary Being is that it can not not be ... it must exist. But the law of conservation of matter says that this is true of all existing things. So then, do we conclude that God is all that is or exists, and that what is, is and has always been and will forever be?
Avicinna like all mystics and religious, establishes his philosophy on a weak foundation. He establishes as true, an unfounded assumption (God) and then attempts to coordinate reality to it.
Question: if every known and observable thing in the Universe has a cause, why would anyone assume that the source of all, would be un-caused. The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from the fact that every known thing has a cause is that all things yet unknown must have a cause also.
Applying this to a definition of God, we would not conclude that God is uncaused but that He must be an infinity of causes. If all known things are particular and variant, then God could not be One and Whole but multiple and divisible.
Avicinna first believed in God and then the Koran (the revealed word of God). His goal was to establish God as true; revelation, as the Word of God; and all else subject to the knowledge of the two.

Social Security

Commentary

By Richard E. Noble

Social Security is almost in that category with religion and politics - one should avoid talking about it in mixed company. But of course it is a subject not only important to Eastpointers, both young and old, but to everyone.
I am going to try and avoid getting into the standard debate on this subject and try to come at it from a slightly different perspective.
In reading my history books I have formed some unconventional opinions about the system and it origins and initial supporters.
When we listen to the detractors of Social Security today, it would appear that Social Security is/was some sort of a welfare program that was forced upon the better-off by some sort of conspiracy on the part of the poor and struggling.
This is not true.
Initially all programs designed to assist the workingman and non wealthy were dreamt up by fraternal worker organizations and labor activist from the ranks of the American Communist, Socialist, or other labor groups. These type people seriously freighted Republicans especially - the Democrats had their problems with them also. This is true.
In consequence of this fear and intimidation there were many Republicans who were on the Social Security band wagon in the early days. They were called for the most part “progressives”. But there were even some conservative Republicans who were also in favor of Social Security.
In the early 1930’s and those depression years, who do you think was left with the burden of all these homeless, old, unemployed and disabled? Why the rich, the wealthy and the better off.
Just like good old Scrooge in Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” someone was always knocking on their door asking for a handout or wanting support for some charity or pressing their nose up against the window overlooking their table at their favorite restaurant, or picking through their trash, or robbing their homes and businesses.
But the old and sick were a particular problem, more depressing than the lazy, dirty, abusive unemployed and their disgusting, obnoxious children - the old brought up that much hated feeling of guilt and social responsibility and Christian brotherhood. You know - what would Jesus do?
There were some real scary liberals out there too - with considerable political support - like Huey Long who had some real harsh ideas.
The Kingfish’s basic plan was to grab up all the rich people by the heals, turn them upside down and shake the heck out of them until all their money fell out of their pockets and their bank accounts. This was very similar to what the poor (Bolshevik - workingman with family) had already done in Russia.
Less radical liberals just wanted the rich to put up the money for the Social Security unemployment and old and disabled insurance plan. But the conservatives in their compassion - bless their hearts - didn’t want to destroy the spirit, independence and self-respect of the poor. They suggested that the poor be forced to put money into a plan for their own benefit. They would be glad to deduct it for their wages and hold it in a safe place for these unfortunates until they needed it.
Believe it or not the legislators compromised on a plan where both the employer and the worker paid into this social insurance plan. And all, both prosperous and not prosperous, would receive benefits in accordance to the amount they paid into it over the course of their lives.
In that way, one day all the old, poor and sick, would hopefully be off the streets and the rich and wealthy would be able to recoup some of their loss and not get the whole financial burden.
So originally the idea was supported by the better off to force some financial responsibility onto the socially less productive. And the better off wanted the system to be mandatory because if any choice were allowed - the poor and financially irresponsible would be the first to drop out.
If the poor were not forced to pay into this program, they would never volunteer or keep up with their payments. The payments were, of course, small enough that the employers and the better off could easily manage their share. And besides, in the end, everybody would get a piece of the action. The employer would even be able to turn a portion of his cost over to the consumer. So everybody paid and everybody got some benefit.
The bottom line - we had an economically feasible and morally fulfilling program that solved numerous inadequacies, social and systemic problems, operating within a system that was being criticized around the world as being cruel and heartless.
Up until this time the Social Security Program, despite all the moaning and groaning, has been one of the best bureaucratically managed and socially beneficial programs ever in the history of this country.
One last interesting and conservatively depressing comment.
Poor working people, middle class and all those who earn less than $80,000 per year pay their proscribed share of the Social Security tax all their lives. And they pay on every dollar they earn.
Those who earn over $80,000, pay only on the first $80,000 of their income. Even if they earn $200,000 or ten million, they only pay on the first $80,000. Percentage-wise the lesser earners pay a greater percentage of their lifetime earnings and get a substantially smaller share.
Many of the better off are collecting premiums as high as two thousand a month and more. While low wage earner who paid on every penny that they ever earned get as little as three and four hundred per month. The better earners who pay more in actual dollars may deserve their higher incomes but actually the lower earners have paid a higher percentage of their earnings over their lifetime for their much smaller share.
I’ve have read that all of the shortfall in the coming baby boomer crunch could easily be compensated for by simply removing this gratuity or wealth-fare benefit to the better off.
So what’s the problem?

The Eastpointer

Fish Cages Off-shore

By Richard E. Noble

A number of years past we were introduced to aquaculture here in Franklin County. An introductory experiment was conducted here in our sleepy little fishing village and a good deal of controversy resulted.
The experiment was rejected by the County and “leasing” or the privatization of Apalachicola Bay was prohibited by a 3 to 2 vote of the County Commission at that time.
I really don’t know what has happened since that time around the state of Florida but recently it was announced at a County Commission meeting that the State of Florida was about to approve another experiment in aquaculture in the Gulf - off-shore aquaculture fish raising cages.
I was covering the County Commission at the time of this announcement and I expected to hear a large outcry. But instead there was virtual silence on the matter from the entire fishing community - local environmentalist and fishermen alike.
This silence prompted me to do a little research and the following is a brief exposure to some of the present controversial issues involved in this matter.
Aquaculture is growing all over the world. Its advocates are claiming it as one solution in feeding the poor of the planet. At its current rate of growth it has been reported that it will only be a matter of time before more fish and other editable seafood products are farmed than are caught at sea. The prestigious NOAA organization is predicting $5 billion in aquaculture production, 600,000 jobs and $2.5 billion in goods and services by the year 2025.
But all of this good news is not without an adequate supply of bad news.
Although aquaculture is being established rapidly in third world countries and touted as a cure for poverty, in reality it seems to be producing just the opposite.
Struggling poor coastal fishermen are being put out of their traditional work and replaced by armed guards who are hired to protect the shrimp farms at poverty wages. The farm owners are usually from “big business” who are basically exploiting the poor coastal regions with no concern for the natives or their poverty or prosperity.
For the most part shrimp are being grown in these regions for sale to wealthier nations. The native people growing the shrimp can’t afford to buy them and the small fish that they once caught for their home markets and local consumption are being monopolized by the Big Farmer Corporations as shrimp food. So now the poor indigenous people are out of work, both traditional and otherwise, and their food has been confiscated as feed for the farms. Once again it seems the rich get richer while the poor get even poorer.
But for those who are willing to accept poverty as an inevitable consequence of prosperity, wealth and growth, there are other negatives to consider. One big negative is the consequence to the natural environment.
The negative environmental impacts from coastal shrimp farming and off-shore intensive fish farming are causing many consumer and environmental groups to ask their supporters not to buy ANY farm raised fish or shrimp.
One of the big problems with the fish farms and cages is the negative impacts on the wild fish population. You may have read about the Alaskan Salmon problem - farm raised fish escape from their cages and bring new diseases to the wild populations which the wild fish are not able to overcome. This same problem applies to the farm raised shrimp also.
There is also a problem with quick growth chemicals and anti-biotics used in the intensive farming which add to the other perils already facing the human consumers.
Congested fish raised in cages are polluting the ocean bottom. Fish excretion is high in ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. Overfeeding of the congested fish population fouls the water and pollutes the bottom. Huge areas in Europe where these intensive fish cages are used have miles and miles of sea bottom that is completely dead. The farm shrimp may contain dissolved cobalt and lead - “heavy metal bioaccumulation and lead poisoning in humans is not an exaggeration.”
If you start perusing articles on the Internet concerned with the perils of commercialized seafood farming (capitalist privatization of the oceans) you will come upon other familiar terms such as nitrogen enrichment, algal blooms, red tide, genetic pollution of indigenous stocks, decreased oxygen levels, poor water quality, fish diseases, mangrove forest devastation - epizootic ulcerative syndrome and vibriosis with symptoms such as boils, tail rot etc.
If you have any connection with the seafood industry or you are concerned about world hunger and world poverty, the health of the oceans, bays and the food supply in general, you may want to take a look at some of this.
Actually these off-shore fish cages may even be a concern to some of you sport fisherman. I doubt that you will get your prop tied up in one of them but you may find down the road that your Grouper holes are drying up and the few wild fish that you are catching are starting to look and taste rather peculiar.
This is, of course, pure speculation and a little trust and faith in your fellow man and the free market system may take care of everything. I mean, who knows? It is all a matter of perspective - is the ocean half polluted or half healthy?

Richard E. Noble has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years now. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on Amazon.com and “Hobo-ing America” which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” which will be published soon.