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?