Monday, March 31, 2008

Robert Owen

Robert Owen 1771-1858


By Richard E. Noble

Adam Smith was a college professor. Thomas Malthus was a preacher. David Ricardo was a Stock Broker. Robert Owen was a self educated, working stiff. The son of an Iron monger and eventual postmaster, Robert turned out to be, THE most creative entrepreneur of his day.
These were the days of the industrial revolution in England. Industry had created a monster. The lives of the working people of this time were horrendous. Children began working in factories at five years of age. They were not only worked, they were beaten, whipped, tortured and even killed. Their mothers and fathers were treated no better. The laws were such that a young boy who stole a shilling from his proprietor could be hung ... and they were. We think of Charles Dickens, today, as being overly dramatic, but his books actually watered down the real life situation. Men and women worked together in the pits of coal mines, half naked, breathing filth and dirt, and even conceiving children in this bottomless, breathless, immoral squalor. Young industrial workers who started in the factories or mines at five years of age were often dead before fourteen or fifteen, and adults by their early twenties.
Robert was a bright boy who loved to read. People took a liking to him and gave him access to their libraries. He got into textile mill work and before long found himself managing the Drinkwater Cotton Mill in Manchester, where he negotiated himself a surprisingly good wage. He was so enterprising, so productive and had such a positive influence on the workers that Mr. Drinkwater offered him a partnership in the business. Robert decided, instead, to go on his own and open his own factory. He found financial backers to supplement his savings and bought his own cotton mills. He named his enterprise in Scotland, New Lanark. His business was a phenomenal success. It became famous world wide. People came from all over the world, Kings and Queens, Nobles and Dictators. No one could believe their eyes. Robert had taken the dregs of society, the homeless, the helpless, the over used and abused, and turned them into an idyllic, model community.
It took drastic innovative ideas to accomplish this, though. No child under ten years old could work at his factories and for no longer than ten hours a day. Bosses were not allowed to whip, beat or torture the employees. Adults could work no longer than fourteen to sixteen hours a day. There was free education, free housing, and free medical care. And when there was no business for the mill the workers still got their pay checks. And everybody made money, the investors, the workers and the owners. He had created a paradise from amidst the squalor, poverty, chaos, and social abuse surrounding him. He was a miracle worker. He had discovered that all people were human beings. Treat them decently and provide an encouraging environment with food, education, shelter and even entertainment and the dregs of the earth would turn into folks just like you and I. He was a social reformer, miracle worker.
His idea had worked so well that he eventually sold his mills, took his millions and went off to reform the entire world. But, a good part of the world didn't want to be reformed, and another part thought that things were just fine the way they were. But nevertheless Robert Owen went on to make a name for himself in British and world History.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Mein Kampf - chapter 13 - part 1

Mein Kampf

Chapter 13 Part 1

By Richard E. Noble

"...It is a futile enterprise to argue which race or races were the original bearers of human culture, and with it, the actual founders of what we sum up with the word 'mankind.' It is simpler to put this question to oneself with regard to the present, and here the answer followers easily, and distinctly. What we see before us of human culture today, the results of art, science,and techniques, is almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan..."
It is a futile enterprise to argue which race or races were the original bearers of culture, because it is more than likely impossible to do so. First to find a pure race and then to find a dominant culture that doesn't have at its core a blend of several other ancient cultures. But aside from all of that, what the Hell does Adolf find so pride-worthy? The culture of humankind thus far is one of disgust, depravity, and murder. If it is the Aryan that is responsible for all of this certainly we should be trying to find each of such a 'species' and lock them up somewhere before they do any more damage.
As we go through this book it becomes more and more evident that these arguments of Adolf’s on varying subjects are still much of the political debate of today. A big debate going on right at the moment deals with the study of Western culture. Some are ashamed of it, some are proud of it. We have the aids virus, and Adolf had the problem with syphilis. There is a continuous and on-going argument as to what society should do with its non-achievers. The problem with youth, vagabonds, the homeless, and street corner hooligans seems to be ever present. How a government should operate, and what should be its legitimate limits and concerns, is always in discussion. What is the destiny of our nation, or other nations? What should a society do with its sick, aged, and infirm? What should be a country's attitude towards War and aggression? What is the purpose of the media in a society? What is the main function of our educational institutions? What is the role of banking and finance? Who should be in charge and how should they get there? What is the role of religion, and what should be the attitude of the state towards religion? What should our attitude be with regards to our expanding population, and the expanding population of the world? What is the role of science, architecture, the arts, and history in our present day society?
The argument of which race is the greatest is as vibrant as ever. We have even managed to expand this argument into which sex is the greatest. The Japanese are still reeling from their incarceration in the U.S. during World War II, and the fact that the only nuclear bomb ever, was dropped on their tiny island, as opposed to Western Europe. The African and Spanish cultures are in a heavy battle to make prominent their share in the history and cultural development of the world. And China is rushing towards super power status, and even today it seems as remote and strange and distant as it ever was.
Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are related in bitterness as seriously as any moment in the last hundred years. The competition within the species goes back to the foundations of human history, recorded and unrecorded. Humans were engaging one another in war before this bloody competition even had a name. The internal and external struggles for power between and among representatives of the human species are ever present, and seem to be incurable.
Adolf says to the human race that it must face reality, and actively engage itself in the battle for the survival of the greatest. I say that if this lunacy is not eventually controlled and hopefully stopped with the recognition of the greatness (or mediocrity of all) the bitterness, and beyond that lies in the hearts of the human beings will eventually destroy its kind entirely, or continue to reduce the progress of the human race to its present and historical state of crawl.
Adolf says that me and those like me are cowards. Yet in his attempt to destroy us, found his own cowardly end. I guess that it is up to each of us to decide which philosophy will lead to the greatest eventual good for the future of mankind. Pick a side.
Strangely enough, it seems, the greatest motivation in the world is to tell an individual that he is inferior, or incapable, or unfit to achieve a goal. I wonder if what we are seeing in China, Africa, and the Arab world today isn't simply the antithesis of Adolf and his Aryan, Western Civilization propaganda.
A note; Germany ... Ger; Spear (old German): mania; a form of insanity characterized by great excitement, with or without delusions, and in its acute stage by great violence.
Ahh yes! Our little Adolf was certainly of Germania born.
"...if, starting today, all further Aryan influence upon Japan should stop, and supposing that Europe and America were to perish, then a further development of Japan's present rise in science and technology could take place for a little while longer; but in the time of a few years the source would dry out, Japanese life would gain, but its culture would stiffen, and fall back into the sleep out of which it was startled seven decades ago by the Aryan wave of culture ..."
Why did Japan attack the U.S. at Pearl Harbor in 1941? Really, why? One must wonder. So now we have a new area of enquiry. The Japanese certainly could not have admired Adolf, and certainly Adolf was no admirer of the Japanese. Were we here really dealing with two separate wars and purposes? Actually, Japan had been at war with China since 1931. What were our relations in China and Japan at that time? History becomes more and more a chess game of diplomacy, and involvements. Did we have this massive Armada at Pearl Harbor acting as some kind of threat to the Japanese, against their threat to the Chinese? And if we were involved with protecting China, what happened after World War II to turn them into such a hateful foe?
Adolf claims the rise in Japan is due to Western involvement in the 1850's. What was going on in Japan and China in the 1850's?
Why was this time period (the 1920's) so ripe for this type of Ger-maniac lunacy? Franco was in Spain; Hitler in Germany; Stalin in Russia; Mussolini in Italy; Hirohito in Japan. Who started this notion of superiority of one group over another, and how did it spread? Unlike Adolf, I would go to the written word to seek the source of this notion. Was it Nietzsche, Schopenhouer, and Hegel? From who or what did THEY inherit this line of thought? How did this same basic thought get to a completely different culture on the other side of the world? Weren't the Japanese also screaming about the superiority of their race? Is it not also interesting, though this notion of superior nations still prevails, that all of these self proclaimed dominant cultures were defeated by the worlds most bastardized groups of interbred mongrels; The United States (The melting pot of not only western but eastern Slavs, Turks, Arabs, Jews, Negroes and native indigenous populations) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Russia (who is as diversified in its own ethnic as the U.S. is in its, if not more so), and China which is a blend and a mix of all of the Asiatic peoples, and hundreds of different religious conceptions.
Could it also be that this notion of superiority is part of the basic makeup of mankind, no matter what the color? Dominance, elitism, my kind is better than your kind, jealousy, aggression? Is love a positive value, or only the repression of hatred? Compassion, according to Adolf is merely a form of cowardice.
"... If this hour of trial had never come (World War I), then hardly anyone would ever have been able to guess that a young hero is hidden in the beardless boy. Nearly always such an impetus is needed in order to call genius into action ... true genius is always inborn and never acquired by education or, still less, by learning ..."
First, no insult intended, but what does being a war hero have to do with being a genius? Secondly, many people are born geniuses but never amount to anything at all. Genius, most often, only becomes noticeable through education and learning of one type or another. Over all, certain qualities of personality are much more dominant in determining success, I would guess. Without the quality of ambition, I would hazard to say, a man of born genius would probably go nowhere.
To Adolf, courage is fearlessness on the battlefield, and the ability to kill and murder without feeling or remorse. The man behind the machinegun is the man of courage. The man, like Gandhi, who stands before the machinegun, faces death bravely and refuses to kill his human brothers, is not only a coward but a fool.
What was happening in India during World War II, and what effect did the Nazis have on Gandhi and his followers? Pacifism has never been a very respected belief. In the best of nations it is only tolerated, but never really encouraged. Even Albert Einstein had to back up on his support of pacifism in the face of Adolf Hitler.
"... Without this possibility of utilizing inferior men, the Aryan would never have been able to take the first steps towards his later culture; exactly as, without the help of various suitable animals which he knew how to tame, he would never have arrived at a technology which now allows him to do without these very animals ..."
This is like saying that a man confronts a fence too tall to climb. His first solution in surmounting the fence is to kill twenty or thirty people and stack their bodies in a manner to allow him to climb over the fence. Years later a kinder, less ignorant, individual constructs a stairway made out of wooden planks to accomplish the same purpose. The first man then says; "Yah, but if it weren't for my original stairway of murdered human beings, you would never have thought of such an idea." I would like to say that this is the logic of a complete moron, but obviously this philosophy is pretty much accepted world wide. There are those that have argued that if it weren't for pain, how would we be capable of comprehending pleasure; or if it weren't for evil how would we be able to comprehend good. Is this saying that pain, and evil are the 'real', and that their absence results in pleasure and goodness? Evil and pain are positives and good and pleasure are simply their negation?
I will admit that the absence of a back ache is good but a physical massage is even better. The absence of hunger is good but a beef steak smothered in mushrooms, accompanied by a fresh baked loaf of bread, and washed down with a nice glass of wine is even better. I would also suggest that being impotent, or an eunuch, would free oneself from the pain and agony of unfulfilled sexual desire, but ... (I think you can fill in the rest.)
Adolf is obviously a person who has a big problem dealing with guilt. He is clearly on a campaign to rationalize all of his own personal evil deeds of the past, whatever they have been, and to lay a philosophical ground work for the perpetration of any evil and cruelty that he may be forced to participate in, in the future. Unlike most religions, the religion of Adolf has as one of its fundamental tenets the justification of evil and cruelty.
Most religions justify the evil and cruelty of the life situation with a combination of self guilt, and a future reward. In order to be considered religious in most beliefs, one first must recognize his own evil or sinful nature. Adolf refuses to do this in any way shape or form. If he is personally responsible for evil, then God is evil also, and more so. It is really difficult for me to defeat this logic. If there is evil in the world, and there is a sole Creator of the world, then He must be responsible for the creation of evil. If at the same time we believe this sole Creator to be essentially 'good', then we must attribute a good purpose to this Creator's incorporation of evil into the world, which can only rationally be done by denying that evil is really evil. And isn't this exactly what Adolf has done?
The only rational alternative to this dilemma, as I see it, is to say that the notion of a morally just Creator is not reasonably possible. If there is no justifiable God then life is what it is, no more no less, not just, not unjust, not fair not unfair but simply a state or condition of being. What moral conditions will govern us is a matter of our own rational judgment or the conformed rational judgments of our institutions. And when we boil everything down isn't this exactly what we have?
The Bible presents one explanation to this philosophical dilemma. Man's existence in this earthly state of pain and evil is a result of his first Ancestor's disobedience in the Garden of Eden. The overall goodness of God is then established by the sacrifice of his only son for the redemption of the inherited sins of mankind. His goodness is then further established by the existence of a heaven provided for those who give up their evil natures and become obedient to His law, or laws.
Adolf has a different spin. God is good, but He has created 'evil'; evil then can not be bad. Evil must in truth be good, or God wouldn't have created it. And, by the same logic, whatever I have done in my life must be good or God would not have allowed me to do it. Like Plato, (the philosopher of the soul of Christian belief) what appears to us as evil is not the reality, says Adolf. Evil is merely the shadow of good. Just as death is the justifiable summation of life by the hand of God, killing is merely an extension of God's will by man. We know God's will by our observance of Nature. Nature tells us that the 'unfit' were not meant to survive. To kill the unfit as a means of assuring the survival of the fit is to act in accordance with Nature, and hence, conform to the will of God. But one must ask, If Nature wants only the fit to survive why does she keep creating so many unfit? And if it is true that only the fittest will eventually survive why do we not let Nature take its course, and let Her perform the dirty business of picking and choosing? If it is true that what will be, will be; then, let it be!
This logic of Adolf's would explain his ease at exterminating the sick, the deformed, the mentally ill etc, but how do we extend this philosophy to include all of the 'race of the Jews', all of the Slavs, the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the negroes?
One remark attributed to Adolf near his end, was that if the German people were unfit to win in their world struggle, then they deserved to be destroyed. If Adolf was nothing else, he was consistent.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911

America on Strike

By Richard E. Noble

The shirtwaist industry had been notorious for abusive safety and labor practices for some time. In fact there was a massive general strike in 1909 called the Uprising of 20,000. After the four month strike the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory refused to sign the agreement. There were general strikes not only in New York but also in Philadelphia and Chicago. The Needles Industries, as they were called, were just another example of everything bad about 20th century American Industry.
There were inadequate toilet facilities, the floors in the work areas were littered with cloth, fabric and scrap material, smoking was not prohibited, the fire escapes were unsafe and inadequate if they existed at all and the illumination was by open gas lighting.
In 1909 a fire prevention expert had written to the factory management at the Triangle plant about their poor fire safety practices and how they could be improved. His letter was ignored. The building was approved time after time by the city fire inspectors.
The Triangle plant was no different than hundreds of others in the industry. Safety practices throughout the industry were relatively non-existent. The only fire safety measure at the Triangle plant at the time of the fire were 27 buckets of water scattered here and there. Most of the doors were locked to prevent employee theft. The employees were searched each night as they left the building in single file. Those doors that weren't locked, opened inward. Nineteen burnt and charred bodies were found stacked against these doors after the fire.
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in New York on March 25, 1911 was the largest industrial disaster to that date in that city. It was the worst workplace disaster in that city's history prior to September 11, 2001.
The fire started on the 8th floor. For some reason the 9th floor was the last to be made aware that a fire had broken out. Most workers on the 8th and 10th floor managed to escape. The 9th floor had only 2 exit doors. One of these doors was locked. One hundred and forty-eight workers were either burnt to death in the fire or leaped from the ninth floor windows or down the elevator shaft to avoid that type fate. The majority were girls between the ages of 13 and 23. The girls worked 14 hour shifts and a 60 to 72 hour work week. On the average they earned between $6 and $7 dollars per week.
The ladders on the fire trucks only reached the 6th and 7th floors. Their hoses could only spray to the 7th floor. The factory was on the 8th, 9th and 10th floors of what was called the Asch (also Brown) building. The building was on the corner of Greene Street and Washington Place in New York City. It was owned by Max Blank and Isaac Harris. The two owners were in the building at the time of the fire. They had escaped to the roof and survived. The factory employed approximately 500 workers. The majority were Jewish or Italian women and girls.
The sidewalks around the base of the building were littered with the dead bodies of the young girls who had leaped to their death. The 62 bodies landed with an unforgettable thud. Firemen from Companies 72 and 33 were the first to arrive on the scene. Some firemen tried to catch the girls with blankets and nets, but the falling girls ripped through to their deaths. Some of them leaped from the 9th floor to try and grab onto the ladders topping at the 7th floor. None were successful and they all fell to their deaths.
As in all tragedies there were numerous acts of bravery. Joe Zitto and Joe Gaspar, the two elevator operators, were able to get their elevators back to the 8th floor 15 and 20 times and rescue many of the panicking young women. Three other male workers formed a living bridge between two windows. Many women were able to crawl along their backs to safety until the three men lost their grip and fell to their deaths.
It is said that this terrible tragedy set the way for workplace safety laws of the future. The Factory Commission of 1911 was set up with Senator Robert F. Wagner, Alfred E. Smith and Samuel Gompers as appointments. One of the important accomplishments of this Commission was a Fire Prevention division as part of the fire department. Traditionally government had shied away from making any kind of regulations on business, but after this horror it was mandatory.
Frances Perkins, FDR's future Secretary of Labor, had witnessed the horror from the street that day. She became a champion on behalf of labor safety and worker compensation laws. Factories were required to have all doors open outward; no doors could be locked during business hours; sprinkler systems would be required on all factories employing more than 25 people above ground level.
The two owners Max Blank and Issac Harris were brought to trial for manslaughter. The slaughter was decided to be "an act of God" as opposed to a tragedy of neglect or abuse. In effect, how could these two men be convicted without convicting the whole system. Of all the many people who could have been held culpable only these two owners were brought to trial. Their lawyer Max Steuer managed to destroy the prosecution's witnesses by demonstrating that they had been coached and that their statements had been memorized. One witness, Kate Alterman, was made to repeat her testimony a number of times. She repeated a number of key phrases over and over. The jury became skeptical.
Judge Crain had also charged the jury with defined guidelines. Since the owners were being charged with a felony, it was required that the jury find that the door had been locked and that it had been locked with the defendants' personal knowledge.
Jurors like Victor Steinman found this troubling. How could they be certain that the owners were personally aware that the door had been locked? And even though the door had been locked, a key on a string was supposedly left for it to be opened when necessary or approved. Could one of the girls have locked the door by mistake or knocked the key out of the door in her frantic rush to escape?
One hundred and forty-eight girls and young women were dead and it was nobody's fault. No one was punished. A subsequent civil suit took place in 1913 and the plaintiffs won a reward of $75 for each of the deceased victims.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

John Calvin

John Calvin (1509-1564)


By Richard E. Noble

Ahh yes, Little Johnny Calvin, his dad was a prosperous middle class, money maker. It is interesting that the fact the John's father was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for embezzlement is hardly ever mentioned as a possible encouragement for Johnny's Protestant reformist zeal. But, nevertheless, somewhere between the ages of seven and eleven Pop had little Johnny already set up as a chaplain in some church, making bucks. John was then sent to Paris to study and learn about God. The Religious institution at which he studied is described by Erasmus as a prison and torture chamber for the Godly inclined youth of the day.
Little Johnny stayed with uncle Jacques a blacksmith. It was an accepted notion that a few deep scares on the back or buttocks was good for a young man's character, and uncle Jacques supplied little Johnny with just that kind of “character”. At school they were also starved, beaten and abused, many a youth died before graduation or left, diploma in hand, in a state of disease, crippled, or with leprosy. (And I thought that the Nuns, Brothers, and Priests of my education days were tough? Pheww!)
Johnny graduated somewhere between the age of fourteen or nineteen. He was alive but in bad physical condition. Physically, a wreak, he went off to law school. He left law school on graduation day through a window, running for his life. He had taken up with the Protestants, many of whom were currently being bar-b-qued or disemboweled for their lack of “Faith”.
Well, by now Johnny was a confirmed psychopath. He believed that every man, woman and child currently on the planet, or who had ever been alive deserved to be in hell, and that it was a darn good God who had the courage to see that this would be the case. If there be any few humans who were going to be allowed into heaven it was due to the kindness and charity of a benevolent God, and certainly not because they had done anything to deserve it.
This was nothing new philosophically or theologically. This was the revival of the theories of another ancient sadomasochist ... Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine even recanted to crimes that he had committed against God while still in the crib! And once again we were talking about the “elect” and the “chosen” people. How do you know if you are one of the chosen? Well, if you have a big bank account and you are presently driving a Porsche, you are probably one of the chosen.
Johnny didn't like philosophers. They thought too much, and made everything too confusing. They were always arguing, and to argue with little Johnny was to slap Jesus Christ, Himself, right in the face.
If you laughed at one of Johnny's sermons in Geneva where he was now “Pope”, you could find yourself in prison. If you disagreed with any of his religious notions you might find yourself bar-b-qued or beheaded, drawn and quartered, and set out on a street corner as an example to others.
Johnny was as sure that he had the backing of God Almighty as he was that the earth was the center of the universe around which the sun and the heavens all revolved. And if you disagreed with that the interest payment on any loans you might have gotten from any of the “elect” could be automatically doubled.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Ronald the Redneck

The Eastpointer

Ronald the “Redneck”

By Richard E. Noble

Very shortly after I arrived in Eastpoint I met Ronald. Ronald was a very blunt, outspoken individual. He always reminded me of the cartoon character Foghorn Leghorn, the giant rooster. Ronald bellowed and blustered everything he said just like Foghorn Leghorn. You might ask him to repeat what he had just said but it was never because he didn’t say it loud enough or with adequate authority.
One of his annoying little habits came with my introduction to any of his friends or relatives. He would introduce me in the following manner; “This is my friend Richard Noble,” and no sooner would his relative or friend grab my hand when he would add, “He’s a Yankee.”
I would give him my annoyed and frustrated look and when he would look into my eyes and see my anger he would laugh uproariously. He did this each and every time he introduced me to anyone. It was obvious that he thought this to be very funny. I don’t know what made him laugh the most, the Yankee part or my annoyed response, but whatever, he just loved it.
Finally the opportunity came for me to introduce Ronald to one of my buddies. I said; “This is my good friend Ronald,” and just as Ronald and my buddy went to shake hands, I added, “He’s a Redneck.”
When Ronald heard someone call him a Redneck, it didn’t set any better with him than Yankee suited me.
So from that time forward, as long as Ronald persisted in introducing me as a Yankee, I returned the favor with my Redneck qualifier.
Ronald kind of lived in his own country. In Ronald’s America the word freedom took on a whole new curious interpretation. He had a truly interesting perspective with regards to drinking and driving I thought. I’ll let him explain:
“Now every man that is worthy to call himself a man has a little drink every now and then. I drink a little myself. Why even Jesus Christ drank a little wine. But I’m more partial to beer myself. Congressmen and Senators, they drink too. Why every other week one of them is found in some motel as drunk as a skunk with some bimbo. Sure, half the time they get it all covered up, but everybody knows. But what really gets me is this drunken drivin’ business. My god, what man that’s worth his sweat can’t drive a pickup truck and drink at the same time? I’ve been drivin’ and drinkin’ since I was nine years old out on my daddy’s tractor. And what’s wrong with it?
“All these pointy heads out there try to tell you that if you drink while you’re drivin’ your drivin’ is “impaired.” Impaired my foot! Why I drive even better when I’m drunk than I do when I’m sober.”
“Oh come on Ronald, that’s impossible.”
“Heck it is! I swear, I drive better when I’m drunk than when I’m sober.”
“You see when a man is sober, he don’t hardly pay no attention. I mean there he is going down the road jibber-jabbering, laughin’ and talkin’. There he goes with a cup of coffee in one hand and a cheese burger in the other, or smoking a cigarette or something or the other. He ain’t paying no dang attention. But when a man is drunk ... why dang it when a man is drunk he knows that he’s drunk. He has to pay attention. He has all he can do to keep between them dang lines. And if he don’t, why he’s over in a ditch before you can say Ty Cobb. I mean if you are drunk and you are trying to stay on some interstate going 70 miles an hour, you’d best be paying attention boy! If you ain’t, why you could end up dead with your body wrapped around some dang telephone pole.
“And I’m going to tell you another thing. When I’m drunk as a congressman drivin’ home on some dark road in the middle of the night, the last thing that I need is some dufus cop over there hiding behind some billboard. I mean why kain’t he sit out there in the open like a man? I mean I’m nervous enough drivin’ drunk as a skunk and trying’ my best to see where the heck I’m goin’ sos I don’t kill myself. Why the very last thing I need on top of all of that is some silly, sneakin’ cop hiding over there someplace making me more nervous. Don’t them dang po’leece know that drivin’ drunk makes a man nervous enough and that we sure don’t need them sneaking around out there in the woods trying to get us more upset than we already are? If that ain’t the dumbest thing them po’leece could ever do!”
“Well, you sure do have a point there Ronald. I guess I never really thought about it in that light.”
“No, sure you haven’t. Nobody ever does. And that’s what’s wrong with this country, all the jails are plum full with innocent drunken drivers; they ain’t hardly got no room for any real criminals.”
“Here here! You know Ronald, you ought to run for the Senate or something.”
“You’re dang right. I think I should too!”

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been an “Eastpointer” for around thirty years now. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on 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.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Liberals are Nicer



Much Nicer than Conservatives

By Richard E. Noble

I have come to the conclusion that - unfortunately for the Liberals - they are much "sweeter" than the Conservatives.
Conservatives seem to be willing to say anything and everything that comes to their mind and everybody just laughs and thinks that they are the cleverest of people.

For example:

One conservative writer recently criticized the spouses of the 9-11 slaughter of being mercenary and money grubbing.

A very prominent Conservative elderly lady recently said that the fate of the poor people in Mississippi was really not that big a concern because the majority of "those" people were previously on welfare anyway. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal supported this allegation and added that there really were no poor in the United States. There was instead a criminal underclass of antisocial misfits who wouldn't work even if a good job walked up to them and slapped them in the face.

During a recent election a Vietnam veteran was called - by a Conservative group - to be a coward, a traitor and a liar - it was even insinuated that he had received his medals dishonorably.

In another recent election an incumbent Senator who was in a wheelchair and without both of his legs due to his combat veteran service in Vietnam - was put out of office by a Conservative who had never been in a war. The man who had never been in a war accused the Senator with no legs of cowardice and treason because he was not in support of the current president's war in Iraq.

A very well known Conservative commentator said on TV the other evening that the cause of poverty in America was well known and easily curable - he recommended curtailing teenage pregnancy. I presume that he would curtail this teenage pregnancy among the poor - because if a teenager was of a wealthy family and pregnant, there would be no problem.

A religious Conservative attributed the disaster in Mississippi to a knowing and willful act of God. He compared Mississippi to Sodom and Gomorra. New Orleans, to be more specific, had a long reputation of prostitution, crime and "sex." I must presume that amongst all those dead bodies floating around out there, there wasn't one good Christian.

Another religious Conservative was praising, on national TV, the wonder and glory of God for providing his chosen people (the Jews) with jet planes so that they now had the power and glorious ability to bomb and destroy pernicious and disgusting non-believers. It wasn't long ago that I received a pamphlet in the mail praising God for his divine providence in inflicting aids on the homosexual, poor and drug addicted communities.

Another prominent TV evangelist advised the assassination of foreign leaders who were not in accord with American beliefs. He advocated this policy as being a cheaper alternative than war. Again, I must presume that God has recently got into economics. It is suddenly somehow important to God that we kill people at a reasonable cost. I think this preacher has got God mixed up with Adolf Hitler and his solutions to the "Jewish Problem." But of course if his source of religious inspiration is the Old Testament, it would probably be difficult for him to distinguish between God and Adolf Hitler - or God and the Devil for that matter.

A Conservative editorialist has just placed in public print his notion that Meryl Streep, Bono, and other Liberal evangelists should discontinue their inane and idiotic attempts to feed the hungry, cure the sick and rid the world of poverty. He considers all of these problems to be an exaggeration of the truth and an economic burden to the "better off" of the world.

I read another fellow who protested that Mother Teresa was a hypocrite because she cared more about the souls of the poor than their bodies.

And the other Sunday afternoon I was watching an Evangelist explaining the current situation in Israel. He predicted a nuclear Holocaust - but this did not frighten him. On the contrary, it filled him with tears of joy and religious euphoria. He advised his viewers that when the bombs start dropping they should "look up" because Jesus will be coming down from the heavens to slay the anti-Christ and banish all the non-believing sinners to hell. He began to cry shedding tears of profound joy - for at last the world wound finally come to its deserved destruction and now we could all live happily ever after under the divine dictatorship of Christ. This man has been telling the exact same story for over thirty years now - the catastrophic events have changed over time but the conclusion is always the same. And this man was not broadcasting from a mental institution. He is "free" and I'll bet he is a Conservative Republican.

Now you would think that any decent, normal person would be ashamed to say these type things - even if they secretly harbored such thoughts - but they are not. So why are Liberals so nice?

I could go on and on but I would like to elevate this conversation ever so slightly by retreating into our modern history for a moment. I would like to go back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor.

I have been listening to and reading about the involvement of the "Liberal" hero of the Depression and World War II, FDR, being involved in a conspiracy to kill and destroy American soldiers at Pearl Harbor since as far back as I have memory. I think that there were at least four different investigations - initiated by Republican Conservatives of the day - into this possible conspiracy to kill Americans at Pearl Harbor and FDR’s involvement in precipitating this event - during the war years.

I was watching just the other week a Conservative who had written yet another book on this subject. In this book the author claimed to have new, definitive proof that FDR had murdered our brave soldiers stationed at Pearl Harbor. I have read at least ten different historians who have researched this subject and all deny any implication of FDR in any such conspiracy; but yet the accusations continue to grow on this subject.

This brings me up to the present day and the 9-11 tragedy. I have heard of no investigation into the president's possible complicity in the 9-11 catastrophe. I have heard no Liberal individual or group claiming that Mr. Bush may have mastermind the whole thing - as was the case with Pearl Harbor. Now history tells us that there is precedent for such suspicions - remember Adolf Hitler and the German Reichstag. And we know that the Conservative movement has its roots in Fascist and Nazi philosophy just as well as we know that the Liberals are linked to unions, labor and communism. And the Conservative movement today does not hesitate to support books and information that question and even accuse FDR of doing such a thing. How does George Bush escape such allegations? Is it so preposterous?

Is it not a fact that George Bush and his father have enhanced their recent fortune via oil adventures? Is it not common knowledge that both these presidents have intimate ties with the bin Laden family, oil and the arms industry? Was it not Grandfather Prescott Bush who had his fortune confiscated by the United States government during World War II for treasonous behavior - trading with the enemy, Nazi Germany? Was it not Neil Bush who was involved in the Silverado and Savings and Loan scandals? Has everyone not read about Zapata Oil, the Bush/bin Laden family connection, Conoco etc? Was not Daddy Bush involved in The Iran Contra Scandal - with heavy accent on arms and drug profiteering? Is there anything that could be considered below this family’s moral character when it comes to making money? The Bush family has a history of this very type involvement.

If allegations can continue with regards to FDR to this very day - doesn't anyone feel that possibly we need to take a tiny peek into the Bush family fortune and the possibility of there turning this world upside down for their personal gain? After all is not personal gain the founding principle of the Conservative philosophy - greed is good, you will remember.

But I hear no Liberals even suggesting such a thing. Do you think that if it were a Liberal Democrat in office when the 9-11 disaster occurred there would be no investigation or at least accusations of this sort?

Where are the hatchet men and women from the left? Where are the leftist Rush Limbaughs and Bill O’Reiley’s? It seems to me if there aren't any, some leftist political group ought to hire one or two. There are certainly plenty of dirty, terrible things that could be suggested with regards to the virtuous right and the moral majority - and the Bush family.

Monday, March 24, 2008

State of Working America

The State of Working America

Highlights II

By Richard E. Noble

The following are a few highlights from the second chapter of a text published by the Economic Policy Institute. This is a group that studies the American Economy and writes a yearly report on how working people are being affected.
1) Federal Reserve officials view faster productivity growth as forestalling inflationary pressures.
2) The economic recovery that began in November 2001 set a record not for growth but for hosting the longest “jobless recovery” on record ... the employment rate (the share of the population at work) was still below its 2000 peak.
3) The living standards of most working families have been stagnant in recent years. In fact, by 2004 (the latest data) the real income of the median or typical family was lower than in 2000, and inflation adjusted wages, whether for high school or college educated workers, grew hardly at all since 2000. The number of poor persons grew by 5.4 million between 2000 and 2004, while 6 million were added to the ranks of the uninsured.
4) If the nation is indeed wealthier in 2006 than at the peak of the last business cycle in 2000, but many family incomes are lower and the share in poverty has grown, where is all the money going? This answer is fairly obvious as well: wage, income, and wealth are being drawn to the very top earners and families; this redistribution is a continuation of a historic trend that began in the late 1970.
5) Globalization ... its fingerprints are all over the diminished bargaining clout of blue and white-collar workers who now compete directly with workers from abroad, many of whom are highly skilled but from low wage countries … The 2000s have also been a period of offshoring jobs ... employer provided health and pension coverage also contracted in the 2000s ... employers have been shifting more of the cost of these fringe benefits onto workers.
6) The unemployment rate is artificially reduced if job seekers give up their search. Only those actively seeking work are counted as unemployed ... It is likely that many of those workers, were they to enter the job market, would be added to the ... unemployed, leading to a significant higher unemployment rate.
6) The growth in profitability has left less room for wage growth, and might be considered the consequence of business’s successfully restraining wage growth as sales and profits grew.
7) ... more young men age 25-34 are living with their parents ... In fact, the earnings of every age group of workers with some college in 2000 were less than what that same age group of some college workers earned in 1970s ... So, despite an economy that was two thirds more productive in 2000 than in 1970, the beginning earnings of high school and workers with some college were actually lower.
8) There are aspects of today’s economy that ... tilt against the bargaining power of American workers: increased global trade, fewer unions, and more low skilled and high skilled immigration. There are fewer favorable social norms that guide employer behavior and support public and employer policies that provide adequate safety nets, pensions, and health care arrangements.
9) When it come to an economy that is working for working families, growth in and of itself is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The growth has to reach the people: the backers need to benefit from the bread they create each day of their working lives.
10) America’s working families continue to work harder and smarter. But, while the economy provides them with the potential for prosperity, that potential has yet to be consistently realized.

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 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.

And Then There was Adam

And Then There Was "Adam"


By Richard E. Noble

And at the twelfth hour of the eleventh day in the thirteenth millennium, at high tide, and on a full moon, God created ... MAN!
And Adam awoke to find himself in the Garden of Eden. And the garden was filled with all the beauty and wonder of God's imagination. There were trees, some bearing leaves and cones, and others bearing berries; and the ground was littered with melons and vegetables. And there were deer and pheasant and ducks and geese; chickens, raccoons, and walruses; and Adam was happy.
And Adam ate the fruit, and melons and the berries, and Adam was satisfied.
And Adam slept under a coconut tree.
And when God looked upon the scene, God was proud; and so He, on the following week, returned to the Garden to talk with His newly created son, about the wonders of this Garden, and the beauty and splendor of this, His newly created paradise. But Adam was not to be found.
And God looked, and looked, and looked. He looked under the fruit trees, and behind the berry bushes, but Adam was not to be found.
And finally God called out, "Adam!"
And Adam answered; "Over here, God. I'm over here." And God found Adam at the bottom of a deep hole. And God was confused, for He had made no holes in the Garden.
"Where did this hole come from?" He asked?
And Adam replied; "Why, I dug it my wondrous Creator." "And why would you do that?" God inquired?
And Adam cried out from deep within his hole; "Because of all the "piles," my Lord."
And again God was confused. "What piles, my son?" He asked?
And Adam replied; "All the piles that exude from my body after I consume all the fruit and berries; like the one you are standing in, my Master."
And God said, "oh sh_ _!"
And Adam said, "Exactly."
And God said; "How could this happen?"
And Adam said: "Well, I ate a whole bunch of fruit and berries; then the next thing I noticed, my stomach began to gurgle; then I felt this pain in my side and soon thereafter, there it was... laying on the mantle of your most wondrous garden ..."
And God said; "No, no, I can see that. What I was wondering was, how could I have made such an oversight?" And Adam said; "Beats me!"
And God said; "What plan have you devised to care for these piles?"
And Adam explained, "Well, I'm digging this combination latrine and pile-hole over here. I think I'll call it a "privy" and then whenever I feel the urge, I'll come over to this hole and deposit the pile. And in that way, your Garden will remain wondrous and free of this material; and I will know where all the piles are and neither of us will be stepping in them."
And God was proud that Adam had thought up such a plan. And Adam was proud, that God was proud.
And all of Heaven was proud.
And the Angels were proud.
And it was a "wonder."
And God was so happy, He went off on a trip through the clouds of His Universe.
And then one day when God was relaxing behind a cloud, He heard a noise coming from the Garden.
And it was a strange noise.
And it was an annoying noise.
And this noise was getting on God's nerves.
And so God took a stroll down to the Garden of Eden to investigate, and there he found Adam chopping down a pine tree ... or was it an Oak?
And God said; "Hold it! Hold it! What the heck are you doing there, son?"
And Adam said; "I'm building myself a log cabin. I made this ax out of a stone and a limb from one of your trees. Aren't you proud?"
And God wasn't sure. It was kind of clever of Adam, this ax and all, but what was a "cabin"? And again, God was confused.
"But, my son, why do you need a "cabin and what is a cabin?"
And Adam explained; "Well, a cabin is a house, my Lord. Every man needs a roof over his head and food on his table." And God was bewildered. "He does? But why does he, and what is a table?"
And Adam laughed.
And God frowned.
And Adam explained; "Well Master, these particular trees here, have no fruit on them; so I figured that they had no particular use. So, I thought that I might just as well cut them down and build me a cabin."
And God asked; "But why a cabin, Adam?"
And Adam thought; "Well, it doesn't have to be a cabin. It could be a duplex."
And God exclaimed; "A duplex!?"
And Adam responded timorously; "Well, how about a ranch?"
And then Adam showed God his blueprints.
And God had mixed emotions ... He didn't particularly like the duplex, but either the ranch or the log cabin had possibilities. "But," God said, "just because a tree doesn't bear fruit, that doesn't mean that it has no function, Adam."
And Adam was confused.
And God knew, then and there, that Adam had never read Paul Ehrlich or heard Sting, or thought about the Amazon rain forest but it was just a few trees and it made Adam happy, so God figured; What the heck? What harm can it do?
And so God let Adam build a cabin.
And Adam was proud.
And God was proud that Adam was proud.
And all of Heaven was proud.
And the Angels were proud.
And it was a wonder.
And for a month or two, God became pre-occupied somewhere in another galaxy. But, when He returned to the Garden of Eden, He was horrified. Adam had dug up every tree and berry bush in the garden, and the entire Garden of Eden was laying on its side.
And God was outraged.
And the deer, and the pheasant, and the ducks, and all the animals were confused.
And God said: "Holy Moses Adam! What in the Garden-of-Eden are you doing?"
And Adam felt God's anger, and he began to cry. "You never like anything that I do," he said. "All that you do is criticize me. It is just one thing after another. You go away on your little trips, and you play all over the Universe, while I'm stuck here in this stupid garden. You never show me any attention. Sometimes, I wonder if you even like me. And if you don't like me, why did you create me in the first place? You hate me, don't You? You do, don't You?"
And God felt guilty. "I like you Adam," God said. "And I know that it is not all your fault. But, you're always digging holes, and building cabins, and now you have dug up every tree in my beautiful garden. I love you Adam. If I didn't, why would I have created you in My own image and likeness? Now stop crying, and tell me; what on God's earth are you doing?"
And Adam sniffled, and stopped crying.
And Adam explained; "Well, the way you have this garden set up is a mess. You have an apple tree over here and a cherry tree over there. You have watermelons growing under coconut trees and honey dew melons under blueberry bushes."
And God said; "So?"
And Adam said: "Well, I thought that it would be better to have all of the apple trees in one area. You know, like an orchard; and all the orange trees in one grove; and all the watermelons in one patch; and all the pine trees in a forest and I could have a hardwood forest, and a pine forest. And you see this waterfall that you had over here? I dug this big reservoir and all these trenches and whenever I want to water the watermelons, I pull this lever, and it opens up this trap, and all the water from the dam dumps into this trench and is channeled right over to the watermelon patch, or to the cherry trees, or to the apple orchard."
And God shook his head.
And Adam began to cry again. "You don't like it," he said. "You hate me, don't you?"
And God said: "No, no, I don't hate you Adam. You are a good little fellow. You have your own mind, and I respect that." And Adam said; "You do?"
And God said: "Yes, I do. You may do things a little backwards, but your heart is in the right place. You go ahead about your business."
And God went off behind a cloud, to rest.
And when again He returned to the Garden, He found Adam barbecuing a hog, over an open pit fire.
And God was shocked.
And Adam said; "What's the matter?"
And God said; "You are supposed to pet the animals and eat the fruit and vegetables; not pet the fruit and eat the animals." And Adam said; "Obviously you have never eaten roasted pork. Try some of this, and put a little of the barbecue sauce on it, too."
And God left the Garden in a huff, and went off behind a cloud to think. And suddenly he had an idea. And when He returned to Adam and the Garden, He announced to Adam; "Adam, I have come to the conclusion that you are bored, and that you are lonely. So I am going to create for you a companion; one that you can love and cherish and one who will love and cherish you; one that you can have and hold from this day forward; one that will give you pleasure, and bear for you a son. He will be your son, as you are my son, and you will never be lonely again."
And Adam said; "Oh Wow! That sounds great. When are you going to do it?"
And right there and on that spot, God created Eve. And Adam looked upon Eve, and Adam fell in love. And Eve looked upon Adam, and Eve was in love also. And God was proud.
And Adam was proud.
And Eve was proud.
And all of Heaven was proud.
And the Angles were proud.
And it was a wonder.
And God went off behind a cloud and rested.
And so it was.
And time passed ... but strangely Eve bore Adam no son. And God was confused.
And God went down to the Garden to speak to his children but they were not to be found.
And God looked and searched.
And then finally, He heard their voices off behind the barn. And God was pleased.
And He called out to them but they did not hear.
And so He went to where they were.
And they were behind the barn frolicking and making love. And God was embarrassed.
And God turned quickly and prepared to leave. When suddenly He realized what was wrong.
And God turned to his son; "Adam, you fool!" He screamed.
And Adam said; "But ... but ... but."
And God said; "This side up, you idiot!"
And Adam began to cry.
And Eve began to cry.
And all of Heaven began to cry.
And the Angels cried.
But one day, Adam and Eve finally got it right. Then they got it right again ... and again ... and again. And they did it over and over and over; and again and again and again; and over and over and over; and ... Oh well ... you get the idea.

Sunday, March 23, 2008


Saint-Simon 1760-1825


By Richard E. Noble

It has been decided by many and diverse people that the world was going to Hell in a handbag and drastic steps had to be taken to straighten it up. Owen and Marx were really of this ilk. Owen had a lot of positive ideas and by example proved that things could be made somewhat better by just treating people better.

Marx decided that Ricardo's rent collecting class had to go. Actually, property, Capitalists, bankers, entrepreneurs, traditional marriages, Religion, farmers everything had to go. All that could stay was exactly what a man could produce with his own hands, and then this had to be charged for appropriately or divided up evenly. God forbid that there should be any surplus value laying around anywhere.

Edgeworth, Leon Walras, and W. Stanley Jevons reduced all of economics to a form of Utilitarian mathematical formula. Earlier, there was a guy named Bernard Mandeville who tried to turn everything inside out by twisting vice into virtue and morality into iniquity. He published a book "Fable of the Bees" which was declared a public nuisance in 1723.

He might be considered the father of the present day Tea Party Movement.

Count Henri de Rouvroy de Saint-Simon was a French aristocrat. He fought in the American Revolution. He was put in prison during the French Revolution but somehow escaped with his head. While in prison he had a visit from Charlemagne (a dead relative) who told him that he was to become a great philosopher. Naturally he figured that he had better start reading some Philosophy. He read about it and then he wrote about it, but he couldn't sell any of it or even get many people to read it for free. This can be very discouraging especially to a man who is destined to become one of the greatest Philosophers who has ever lived. I know exactly how he felt.

Trying to become the greatest philosopher who has ever lived isn't easy, and it isn't cheap. He was nearly bankrupt when he finally decided that it would probably be best to just shoot himself.

So he did it.

He shot himself ... but, he missed.

He only succeeded in blinding himself in one eye. Obviously, he was always a little off the mark. But he wrote and said a lot of great things even if nobody bought them or read them. Here's one ... “Remember that in order to do great things, one must be impassioned.” Naturally with such an impassioned life as this, there were a lot of people who thought that his life could be a good example for a religion. So they opened up the Saint-Simonian Church. I think that I would like to join that church. I'll bet that I could try and shoot myself and miss entirely, if I put my mind to it.

Saint Simon had another good analogy. What if ten or twelve of the greatest scientific minds in France were to be lost tomorrow? What would happen to the French Nation? He asked. (He didn't wait for an answer, because unfortunately no one was listening. I'm sure glad he wrote it all down, aren't you?)

Why, France would be devastated, he suggested. But what if France, on the other hand, were to loose its King and Queen or its entire upper crust for that matter? What would happen to the Nation and its people?

Why nothing. Any bonehead off the street knows how to be rich.

Wow, I like this guy. But I've got an even better one. What would France do if it lost all it greatest World War II

Nothing. The people would just have to find somebody else to surrender.

Sorry, old German joke.

Friday, March 21, 2008


Pythagoras (530/570 B.C.-???)


By Richard E. Noble

Pythagoras, more than anything else, seems to have been a religious leader. He started a secret society and neither he nor any of its members wrote any books about it. Everything we have on Pythagoras is a hand me down from somebody else; Plato and Aristotle in particular. If we say that Jesus was interested in morals and Moses was interested in laws and Buddha in sociology, Pythagoras was interested in numbers. He was the mathematician and scientific mind of the religious right of his day.
Pythagoras was an Ionian Greek, born on the island of Samos between 530 B.C. and 570 B.C. Everybody seems to have an estimate of when he was born but no one seems to care very much about when or if he ever died. I will presume that he did die at some time. But, as with all religious leaders, Pythagoras started a movement that lived centuries beyond his personal life span. What we know or understand of the movement today may or may not be representative of Pythagoras, as with the other religious leaders. But, nevertheless, he gets the blame or the credit depending on your point of view.
Many writers credit Plato's mysticism and "theory of ideas" and the Demiurge to Pythagoras, others add Euclid's geometry, many add Copernicus, Kepler and Tycho Brache's cosmologies, and some even go so far as to include Einstein and Relativity. I don't know about you, but I would like to see either Plato or Pythagoras sit on one of Plato's "real" chairs. Honestly, to me, this guy sounds like another religious wacko.
He supposedly advised his followers not to eat meat or beans, not to walk in the main street of town, not to stand on your nail clippings, not to draw pictures in ashes and don't sit on a bushel.
With numbers he really went into orbit. Numbers were fundamental and real. They represented shapes - hence, our notions today of numbers to the square or the cube. He brought his mathematics and numbers into his religion and took his religion into his politics. I don't know what his politics were but they must have been serious because other folks killed, burnt and chased his followers out of Kroton in southern Italy, and then out of Italy entirely. We could only be so lucky if a similar attitude was taken towards such religious wackos in our society today.
He also connected his numbers to music. He felt that the planets and all the moving bodies in space were making music. We can't hear it because we are so much conditioned to this celestial noise that we no longer notice it. He believed in the "soul" and in its transmigration. He once counseled a friend to stop beating his dog, because he heard in its yelping the voice of an old friend. I can understand the logic in the transmigration of souls but then why the emphasis on the contemplation and meditation and perfection of our own divine transmigrating soul? I mean, if you are going to be a dog or a rat in your next life, what's to think about?
Copleston states that Pythagoras was more interested in establishing a "way of life" rather than a cosmology. Thus Copleston considers him more a religious leader than a philosopher. So, if religion is looking for "the way", and philosophy is looking for "the how", who or what is interested in the "why", I wonder?
Oh Ya, let's not forget a square + b square = c square.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

J.Q. Adams

John Quincy Adams

(president from 1825-1829 6th)

By Richard E. Noble

Son of the irascible John Adams, John Quincy seems to have inherited his dad's personality. He too was a patriot, right from the time when at eight years of age, mom took him to watch the Battle of Bunker Hill. (What was it, a sporting event or what?)
John Quincy had an active political career of which the presidency was merely an interlude. Before being elected to the presidency in 1825, he was ambassador or minister to everywhere. Besides going to Paris with his dad, he served as secretary to the Russian minister, then serves, himself, as minister to the Netherlands, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain. He served as a State Senator, a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State under Monroe and then as a U.S. Congressman for another eighteen years until his death in 1848. They recently made a movie of his defense of the rebellious slaves in the Amistad case.
Like his dad he only made it through one term as president, and also like his dad, he seems very lucky to have managed that. He was not popular with his peers, which must stand as a compliment. Anyone hated by his fellow politicians can't be all that bad. He signed the treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812, which really doesn't seem to be that great of an accomplishment. The treaty didn't seem to solve much of anything. John Quincy Adams is credited as being the real blood and guts behind the Monroe Doctrine, and the man who made it work with the Spanish, the British and the Russians.
One of the best stories I've yet read about John Quincy had to do with his grandson. It seems one day his grandson was having a debate with his mother over the benefits of education. He didn't want to go to school anymore. The eighty year old Grandpa steps out of his bedroom and without a word grabs junior's hand and escorts the boy all the way up the hill and down the road to his desk at the local schoolhouse. He never released the boy's hand, until he sat him in his chair at the schoolroom and he never spoke a word. But it was an event the little boy later admits that he never, ever forgot. Good for Grandpa!
His election to the presidency was very, very controversial. Neither he nor Andrew Jackson had the necessary majority of electoral votes. Jackson had 99 to Adams's 84, and Jackson had 40,000 more popular votes. Henry Clay who was also in the battle had 34. Henry, an old associate but not clearly a friend of J.Q. Adams, threw his support behind Adams and Adams won. A few weeks before Adams' inauguration, he announces that Henry Clay will now become his Secretary of State, and the poop hits the fan.
During his term Adams proposed an interstate network of roads and canals; a department of the Interior to regulate natural resources; expeditions to map the country; a naval academy; a series of astronomical observatories; a federal aid to education program; and guaranteed lands to the Indians out West. All of his proposals were defeated.
He refuses to get involved in party politics and allows Congress its head on a tariff decision, and gains himself credit on the passing of what becomes known as the Tariff of Abominations. He refuses to campaign for a second term, declaring campaigning for office below the dignity of the Adams's, in effect, turning the presidency over to Andrew Jackson with hardly a fight.

The Pemberton Mill Disaster of 1860

Striking America

By Richard E. Noble

A curse on ye, ye millionaires,
Who sit at home in your easy chairs,
And crack your nuts and sip your wine,
While I wail over this son of mine!

On January 10th in 1860, at twilight, in the industrial mill town of Lawrence, Massachusetts, the massive five story, redbrick Pemberton Mill collapsed. More than 115 died in the disaster and estimates of injured range from 165 to 300. The factory employed between 800 and 1000 workers.
The huge cast iron pillars that supported the floors and the less than adequate mortar that was used on the redbrick was said to have been the cause of the collapse. Mary Desney, who came to the mill that afternoon looking for work, had a feeling. She scurried out of the area where she was waiting for her interview minutes before the building tumbled to the ground.
The building was originally financed by John A. Lowell and his brother-in-law J. Pickering Putnam. It was built in 1853. The chief engineer was Charles H. Bigelow. The expense for the construction was $850,000 - a fortune for those times. Lowell and Putnal sold the building in 1858 to George Howe and David Nevins at a loss for $350,000. The new owners installed more machinery in the attempt to increase output and achieve greater profits. For some strange and foolish reason, the upper floors were especially burdened with extra heavy machinery. At the time of the collapse there were 2,700 spindles and 700 looms in operation. The mill earned $1,500,000 per year. Most of the workers were either Scotch or Irish Immigrants.
The scene after the collapse was a horror. Women, young girls and men were trapped under debris everywhere. Many were rescued but others could not be saved. A fire had broken out and many trapped victims were burned to death while observers stood by helplessly watching. Those that were saved were rescued in many cases by heroic efforts on the part of CO-workers, supervisors and passer-bys.
A young girl named Mary Bannon who was trapped under debris handed over her paycheck to a girlfriend asking her friend to pass it on to her dad and say good-by for her. She knew she was about to die. A foreman, Mr. Maurice Palmer and several other men, slit their throats rather than wait to be consumed by the rapidly approaching flames. Mr. Palmer was miraculously rescued, but ended up dying from his self-inflicted wound. In the final moments the trapped victims sang church hymns until there voices faded one by one into the consuming flames and tragic darkness.
Employees had long feared that the building was unsafe. Though massive in its construction the machines that it housed were equally massive. When all the machines were operating and especially when the looms chanced to be synchronized many workers claimed that the building actually rocked and swayed. The windows were said to be too large, thus weakening the walls. It was determined that the iron supports had casting defects. The mortar used to lay the brick walls was not the best but was not declared inadequate.
Jesse Glover, overseer of repairs testified at the inquest that he had always considered the building weak. John B. Tuttle, superintendent of brick work testified that he had complained to the architect, Bigelow, that he thought the walls were insufficient. Mr. Bigelow in turn blamed the owners. Bigelow said that it was the owners who were responsible for all the purchasing and the approval of the iron castings.
Though no precedent setting worker safety legislation resulted from the disaster or even more stringent rules for construction, an attitude was established. It was entrenched in the minds of the workers across America that greed motivated the wealthy and that workers should not be so foolish to look to the rich industrialist for their health, wealth, safety or security. The cause of fellowship, brotherhood, organization, and unionization were made stronger. Fellow workers lives, women, young girls and children, had been squandered, all for the sake of penny pinching savings in construction costs and cheap mortar. The blood of fellow struggling workers was wasted for the cause of greater production, higher profits, and a profitable corporate bottom line.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Captain Who?

The Eastpointer

Captain Who?

By Richard E. Noble

Now many of you readers out there may not be all that familiar with the nautical and seafaring traditions of this coastal area. For example you might have the notion that a Marine Patrol Officer or a Conservation Man would be a respected position in an area that is for the most part either water or forest. You may even have a relative that has been or is employed in one of these areas. You might even think that to inform a local fisherman that you have a cousin or a brother who works for the Conservation or the Marine Patrol might be a way to endear yourself to a local Eastpointer or a way of making small talk. Well, it isn’t.
To tell an oysterman that your brother-in-law also used to work on the water; he was a Marine Patrol would not be considered as a gesture of friendship. It would be like telling a Cherokee Indian that you have a friend who has a valuable collection of scalps and that you could send him some pictures, if he’d like.
So that being said, and if you will keep that in mind I will go on with my little story.
I was standing on the dock down in Eastpoint after a long hard day of catching oysters. My boss, the oysterman, owner/dealer that I sold my oysters to, came steaming up to the pier in his skiff.
He landed with a bang but didn’t punch a hole in his skiff and managed not to crash the entire dock into the Bay. He cut his motor and immediately began screaming. “That Son of a so and so; that no good SOS …”
“Who you talking about?”
“I’m talking about that no good, lyin’, underhanded, good for nothin’ Officer Mariner (not his real name). That worthless piece of trash gave me another ticket for undersized oysters. And you know why that illegitimate slime ball became a Marine Patrol in the first place?”
“No Why?”
“Because he was the laziest, sorriest oysterman this Bay has ever seen. And now I suppose the Marine Patrol Ball is coming up and that useless, lazy no-good needs to drum up some money to pay for his tickets.”
“They can’t use that fine money for their own personal use, can they?”
“Are you kidding me? Why that whole bunch of thieves have been crooked for so long they couldn’t straightened up now even if they wanted to. “But I’m going to tell you something; I didn’t just sit there and take it this time. I told that sorry bunch of pond scum to get the heck off my boat.”
I had been around and working the water long enough to understand most of what my boss was screaming and yelling about but there was one thing that had me a little confused.
The old boy seemed mighty happy and quite pleased with himself for having ordered these Marine Patrol off his boat. This had me somewhat confused. I was not all that familiar with all the “rules” of the sea. I never heard that an oysterman could order a Marine Patrol officer off his boat. But then I didn’t really know.
The Marine Patrol Officer always requested permission to come aboard your boat. They would pull up along side our little “Bail A little Sail A little” and holler; “Captain? Requesting permission to come aboard.” The first time this happened to me I started looking every which way to find a Captain. You mean we needed a Captain on this wooden bathtub we called an oyster boat? Where the heck was I going to find a Captain? We were lucky we found two life jackets this morning. We dug one of them up off the beach two days before. “Ahoy there! Captain! Requesting permission to come aboard?”
Well, after a bit I got used to that procedure but with regards to my boss and his situation I wondered; If the Marine Patrol must request permission to come aboard, maybe the “Captain” has the right to throw them off. What do I know? Like maybe a man’s oyster boat is his castle and they need a search warrant or something?
“You mean you are allowed to order a Marine Patrol off your boat, boss?” I asked.
“Why of course you can order them off your boat. This ain’t Russia yet!”
“And he has to do as you say?”
“Heck no! He don’t have to do nothing that I say. But I can tell him. I can tell him if I feel like it. I can tell him any dang thing I want to.”
“Well, what good does just telling the man do?”
“What good does it do? … What good does it do? It does a whole lot of good. It stopped me from killing that son of a bee right there and then, didn’t it?”
“I suppose.”
“You suppose darn right son. You’re darn right you suppose.”

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been an “Eastpointer” for around thirty years. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on 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.

Four Vanilla

The Eastpointer

Four Vanilla

By Richard E. Noble

It seems that when this old buddy of mine was a child his dad took him and his siblings for a ride to the ice cream parlor that was on the outskirts of his hometown. This event, of course, got the kids all excited. The father, in order to keep the kids occupied, would ask the children to perform the same task every week. "Now kids, I want you to be thinking of what flavor ice cream cone you are each going to order. We don't want to keep the lady waiting when we get there. She is always very busy."
The kids immediately went into their flavor discussions.
"I'm going to get a strawberry ... no, no I think I'll get a black cherry."
"I'm going to get a frozen pudding."
"Ouu, ouu, I'm going to get orange pineapple or maybe a fudge ripple."
"I think I'll get banana or maybe cherry vanilla."
All the way out to the ice cream stand the kids jabbered and discussed their possible choices enthusiastically. When the car finally stopped at the much anticipated destination, all the kids rushed out of the car and followed daddy up to the window. When pop got to the window, without the slightest hesitation and no consultation whatsoever, he placed his order.
"We'll have four vanilla please."
All the kids frowned and sulked as they licked their vanilla ice cream cones all the way home in silence.
Every time I think of that story I laugh. I'm sure it was a traumatic experience for my friend Eddie and his brothers and sisters, but I can see where the dad was coming from also. If all four children didn't get the same thing they would be arguing and fighting all the way home. The car would be a mess; the kids would all be screaming and crying; the whole trip would end up a disaster.
And this all brings me to our local County Commissioners.
A while back a fellow came to the County Commission meeting and accused the commissioners of "earmarking" the County Budget. This was rather humorous. Three of our five County Commissioners didn't even know what earmarking was. The County Planner had to explain the principle of earmarking to them. I think our citizen critic was watching too much C-span
Earmarking is what goes on in Washington D. C. and Tallahassee and it is the term used for the technique by which Congressmen and Senators secretly encode their home pet pork-barrel projects into the various legislations. It is really a very complicated process on the Federal level and it takes a budget large enough to hide things. Recently a group of young journalists have been studying the process and it has been no easy effort to unmask all the inveiglement and deceptive practices.
Most pork-barrel spending is money that is spent here at home - minus whatever was not outright stolen along the way. If it is cut from the budget what will happen to the money?
The pork-barrel critics think that by cutting pork and even domestic spending somehow the government will end up with a surplus and all the faithful taxpayers will then get their money back.
Well surpluses don't happen very often. Bill Clinton claimed a surplus in 1998 of $69.2 billion. This was the first supposed surplus in over forty years. But if the $99.2 billion Social Security Surplus gained from the 1983 increase in the Social Security tax is subtracted, Clinton actually had a 30 billion dollar deficit. In 1983 an increase in the Social Security tax was mandated to compensate for the future flood of baby boomers. In 1999 when Clinton claimed a $124.6 billion surplus, it seems that the actual surplus was 1.9 Billion after the baby boomer Social Security Surplus of $123.7 billion was subtracted. The most significant surplus in the Clinton years was in 2000 when an on budget surplus of $86.6 billion was actually achieved. Of course Clinton added in the old folk’s pension once again and came up with a surplus of over $230 Billion.
All this surplus money then led George the Lesser to decide that the federal government had too much money, so he sent the old timer's Social Security money to all of his rich buddies - sort of a CEO bonus plan. Now, once again they can scream and yell about cutting benefits to the old folks.
We have two political philosophies today. We have the tax and spend Democrats and the borrow and spend Republicans. Actually the borrow and spend Republicans are much worse economically than the tax and spend Democrats ever dreamed of becoming. Ronald Reagan borrowed and spent enough to increase our National Debt to double what all of the previous presidents from George Washington forward had accomplished. Bush the Major doubled the debt that Ronny had amassed and now Bush the Lesser is trying his best to out borrow and spend his dad.
So it looks to me that whether we have a Democrat or a Republican spending will continue. There will be no "four vanilla" type thinking or simple solutions. It will be every flavor under the rainbow and the squabblers will squabble endlessly. It is inevitable; our history assures it. And if the spending is going to continue I would rather have it spent on pork here at home than fat and pure lard abroad.

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 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.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Mein Kampf

Mein Kampf

Chapter 12 Part 2

By Richard E. Noble

Is man truly the greatest of all of God's creatures because he has figured out a way to eat all of God's other creatures? And when something figures out a way to eat all of us humans, will it then become the greatest of all of God's creatures? One day the earth may be ruled by, insects, bugs or a virus, and at that time will this be the completion of God's plan? Once again we are back to basic Philosophy.
Is there a God? Does he have a plan? Adolf says yes. And to counteract Adolf we have to deny the existence of evil, and or cruelty or injustice, and the notion of a Devine Plan. If we accept that evil does exist, then we have to explain it in relation to our belief in God.
Do we believe in one God? Is this God a good God? Then why did he create evil? Are there two Gods - a God of evil and a God of good, a God and a Devil? If there is only one God, can He be both good and evil?
Adolf says that there is only one God. He may appear to be evil, and His ways may be hard, and even cruel, but He has an ulterior motive. His motive is the eventual perfection of the human race on this earth. To help God in this goal of purifying the human race, and therefore producing the perfect human being and race, is honorable. It may seem to be cruel to the 'uneducated' and the 'non-believers' to exterminate inferior breeds of humankind but one must trust in God's angels and follow His guidelines as laid out in the findings and observings of that all knowing source of truth, Mother Nature.
This is really standard historical religious thought. The Biblical Jews thought similarly. The Christians under Constantine’s direction proceeded in the same direction. The Moslems with the guidance of Mohammed took a similar course of conversion through conquest. Let's not forget the 'infidel'.
I wonder, is the goal of Mother Nature, the eventual perfection of all creatures and plants on the planet and throughout the universe? What would lead to the eventual perfection of the parasite, or the potato for that matter? Would a potato become perfect when it could be eaten by no one ... or by everyone? I guess that this would depend on who is doing the evaluating, the man or the potato. If mankind could eventually conquer disease, and overcome death what would then become of the laws of Nature as presently understood by Adolf?
"...This planet has driven on its course through the ether for millions of years without men, and the day may come when it will do so again..."
Is this a warning, a prediction, or a wish? Our world can once again be devoid of humans if we don't do what? If we don't obey the laws of God (Nature)? And God's law is what? God's law seems to be Darwin's theory of evolution as interpreted through the mind of Adolf. And Darwin's law according to Adolf says what? It says that the human species is on a quest for perfection. Well, it is on a quest for survival, but it will not survive if it tolerates imperfection. Therefore in order for man to survive it must seek to be perfect. In order for mankind to be perfect it must free itself of all imperfect specimens, just as Mother Nature does, in Her processes of natural selection. The tendency on the part of man to try and preserve the weak is one of man's many defects. One must take strength not to give into this tendency. Man must neutralize the weak and encourage the strong. How do we identify the weak and the strong? The strong are the healthiest, the most virile, the most aggressive and the most willing to dominate and show their superiority through the Aristocratic principle. The strong will, by their very Nature, rise to the top of the social structure, and become the leaders. The strongest leader in terms of races is the Germanic. It is up to us, the inheritors of this legacy of the Germanic greatness, to use our strength, our power, and our superiority to purify the races of the world, to eventually conquer and then destroy and replace the inferior with our progeny. This is how the human race will reach its desired goal of perfection.
And how does one go about defeating this type of logic? Most debaters usually begin arguing against the superiority of the Germanic race, or denying that such a race even exist, or denying its purity, or the purity of any race. But let's begin with Adolf's founding principle. Mother Nature is seeking Perfection.
I think this idea stems from the anthropomorphic notion that God is the perfect human being. God is a human being who is all wise, all knowing, all powerful, all everything. God is a human being carried to the infinite power. Here once again we have standard Theology. Adolf is once again true to tradition. Traditional human thinking along this line has even gone so far as to create actual human being Gods. The most noticeable at the moment being, Jesus Christ. But Human Gods are nothing new. Before Jesus we had Pharaohs and the Japanese had their Emperors. The history of man is replete with human gods and half human gods, and multiple human gods, gods that are animals, precious metals, jewels, living things, dead things, mountains, volcanoes, trees, planets, the sun etc. So Adolf has a God, Mother Nature, and Adolf's God has a plan; a design. Mother Nature's goal is to lead all of her creatures on to their eventual perfection. But all creatures eventually die; couldn't it be the plan of Mother Nature to lead all Her creatures and creation not to their eventual perfection but to their eventual destruction? The Dinosaurs were once on Mother Nature's road to perfection. Then a giant comet, or something hit the planet earth, blocked the earth from the sun with cosmic dust, and whammo, no more dinosaurs. What's the deal here? Mother Nature got tired of trying to perfect the Dinosaur? What's with the comet? Mother Nature was trying to make the perfect dinosaur and the perfect comet at the same time and her laboratory exploded? What's the deal? The dinosaurs began worshipping false dinosaurs and Mother Nature got pissed? Mother Nature got involved in creating the perfect comet and forgot about Her perfect dinosaurs?
What would be the eventual perfection of a cancer? Is Mother Nature right now involved in making the perfect cancer, the perfect cockroach, the perfect Virus, the perfect disease? If Mother Nature wanted only one race, why did she make so many? If the perfect male looks like a sculpture by Michelangelo, why did She make the most of us look like Fat Albert? And if it is Mother Nature's desire that we all eventually look like a sculpture by Michelangelo, why do we have to go to the gym for lebenty-nine thousand jumping jacks before we even start to resemble such a thing? If there is anything to be learned from Mother Nature I would think that it would be that there is nothing that is "perfect" and never will be. I would also presume that Mother Nature didn't want everything to be "perfect" or she would have made it that way in the first place. We live in an ever changing imperfect world, and every change isn't for the better. It is also clear that the Universe does not revolve around Mankind.
The basic notion that Mother Nature is seeking perfection is not true as far as I can see. What can we say about Mother Nature that is true? Can we say that living things are constantly involved in a process of reproducing themselves? I personally have never been involved in such a process. Oh, I've had an overpowering compulsion to provide myself with pleasant sensation, but I have never had any desire to reproduce anything, least of all myself. So the notion that things are driven by Natural inclination to reproduce themselves may not be the case at all. Most living things might just be doing whatever feels good, and provides them with pleasurable sensations. The moth seeks the flame with the same sense of purpose that it builds its cocoon. Mother Nature is not a mother of anything. What we call Nature is a never ending, ever changing, evolution of actions and reactions, chemical, physical, biological, nuclear. We keep looking for a design within these phenomena as we look for faces in the clouds. Nature is not a thinking creature with a plan for anything. Nature is a ping pong ball reacting to each slap of the paddle. A + B may always = C, but A may only be for a moment in time and B may never be the same twice. We predict things because they seem to happen over and over again, but to say that they will forever be as such, one can only guess. A little more oxygen a little less nitrogen and the whole chemistry of the Universe changes and new 'principles' of Nature will have to be observed and categorized into new sets of possible alternatives. That there are no Absolute truths is absolutely true.
Why does each and every one of us humans have a personal identifiable DNA? Why are we all different? Why are we even male and female? Why aren't we self reproductive, or cloning? When we perfect our newly discovered cloning techniques, will each clone be exactly alike? Is there anything perfect about a human being? How do we define the word perfect? What is perfect in itself? Perfection like beauty seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
Adolf had a vision of what the perfect race should be, what the perfect nation should be, what the perfect society should be. It was His vision. Certainly not a true vision based on any science of evolution or whatever.
His vision of the perfect, involved killing, destruction, war, power, fear, vengeance, hate, retribution, torture, and it was all to be controlled and determined by him. And if the world would not listen, he would destroy it. And if we would not listen he would destroy us. And when his people stopped listening he tried to destroy them. And finally when he could not make the whole world, or even his countrymen conform to his dream of perfection, he destroyed himself. And what part of Mother Nature's design is putting a bullet through one's own skull?
I don't think that Mother Nature is seeking perfection. I think Mother Nature is like the compulsive gambler and She is seeking action. What results from Her restlessness is multiple and varied, and because of the overabundance of certain circumstances and phenomena, She is repetitious, and repeatable, and because of this often times, predictable. Is Science the art of observing, or predicting? Some have declared that there is truth in mathematics, but yet they can not produce a straight line in reality, never mind an obtuse triangle.
So what does all of this have to say about Adolf? Does anyone really have to sit down and disprove the theories of a man who says that killing and murder are proper and the way of God? How could so many people have believed such a thing? How could so many have supported such a notion with their money? How could human beings actually have participated in the slaughter? We must look into our logic and reasoning. If it leads us to the notion that killing, murder, and destruction are the proper course for Human Kind, we should re-evaluate. We should also look into our impulses, our aggressive tendencies, our competitiveness, our egotism, and our notion to look upon ourselves as the chosen specimen of any God, or some one thing that is any more special than all other things. These are all traps and delusions - a disease of humankind, if you will. We have a right to revel in the wonder of existence, the complicacy of the Universe, but to think that it was created by one of us, or one like us is pushing the limits of credulity. To even believe that it was created, never mind by what or who, may be greatly exaggerating the realm of the possible.
On the other hand men have been marching off to war for one reason or another since the beginning of recorded human experience, and we have no reason to believe that it wasn't going on well before that. In truth it seems to be those that are not inclined to march off to war for one trumped up reason or another, who are the anomaly. People who preach peace are continually shot, hung, or crucified. A soldier on the tube last night said that it is only the dead who have seen the end to war. And isn't Adolf saying that the only way to end war is to let him rule the earth. He will keep the peace by destroying any opposition. People have always seemed to be willing to march off to War in the name of God. There is a strong contingent of religious people even today who believe that Jesus Christ will one day return to the earth with sword in hand to lead a force of 'righteousness' against someone called the Anti-Christ. It seems like kind of a joke. Obviously even today's Christians didn't like the message of the first 'messiah', who taught the obviously misguided principles of peace, love, and passive resistance. So they have invented the second coming of the real Christ, who will return to the earth totally pissed off, brandishing a sword and wearing a suit of armor (Well, maybe we shouldn't take that so literally. He'll probably be wearing a set of fatigues, and be sitting astride a mobile missile launcher.) Even the path to heaven will be via some sort of war and killing, and God will be the General-ing soldier of this the last slaughter. Could it be that Adolf envisioned himself to be this Messiah?
Man as a beast is a survivor, but can the beast survive without killing? Is there an army of the peace seeking? Eisenhower said that the people of the world truly want peace, now if we can only get the governments of the world out of their way. But Governments are only a part of the problem. What about the militaries? What about the Military minded? What about the soldiers themselves? And what about what seems to be the basic inclination of the species itself towards violence and brutality?
Is war the result of the inner brooding of man over the injustice of his natural state, or am I giving man too much credit for intellectualism? Is War at its root the result of social circumstances - the satisfied against the dissatisfied?
Raping and plundering seems to have been a traditional part of man's desire to march off to their own possible death. Napoleon, I think, was the latest to preach and encourage this philosophy. Aren’t you all tired of all of this wish-y-washy idea of brotherhood and fraternity, he screamed, how about some good old fashioned raping and plundering. This message obviously had its appeal because Napoleon was able to amass the greatest army of the day to march off with this notion of killing plundering and raping. Adolf was somewhat more sophisticated. His message was one of rightful dominance and superiority, seasoned with righteous anger, and retribution. His was the fulfillment of a destiny, and justified by the principles of Mother Nature and her designer, The Almighty.
I am inclined to look at the proper evolution of Mankind as on a road to understanding, peace, tolerance, a basic 'domestication' of the Beast. But all around us, even today, are the chanting of the beast within. In our literature we see violence, brutality, killing on the part of the criminal minded and equally brutal killing on the part of the social minded. Our science fiction is filled with 'Star Wars', and the battle between the technological genius, and the inter-galactic barbarian - the two existing as one on either side of the battle lines; our mysteries dealing with the super-natural and those powers beyond all known powers. The fearsome powers of an uncontrollable, left handed God. A boggy man if you will. Ah yes, when reason sleeps, Mr. Goya, the demons abound.
Our love stories are more flights into sexual fantasies, than any embodiment of kind feelings, trust and mutual understanding between the sexes. The feminine movement seems to have evolved into the notion that women have the natural and social right to be as brutal, murderous, cruel hearted, sexually promiscuous, and uncaring as their historical persecutors. They drive tanks, run through the streets with machine guns, and seduce unsuspecting men. Some of them have become so enchanted with their new state as male impersonator that now, like Narcissus, they even fall in love with themselves, and or one another.
Our TV is filled with violence, the addiction of humans to powers beyond their control, a constant bombardment of sexual naiveté, and immaturity and a humor that is more sad than funny. Participants in even our non violent sports, drop their playful paraphernalia, and jump onto one another with fists and kicks - certainly no examples for the youth here. Nor do I see any great lesson to be learned by participating in these exhibitions promoted by the notions of greed, ego, and personal delusions of grandeur. The phrase Sadomasochism comes to mind - a basic desire to punish and to be punished.
Is not Christianity a study in this phenomenon? God the Father brutalizes His own Son in the name of human redemption. The human being who was originally created out of Love is condemned and persecuted in the name of disobedience. And God's anger is so great that it can only be diminished by the persecution and torture of His only begotten Son who is made temporarily human, but who in reality is really one with God Himself. So we have a Confused God creating and uncreating Himself; a God who is not at peace with His own decisions and abilities; a God who must nail Himself to a cross, or have Himself nailed to a cross in order to free Himself of His own misjudgments. So here we have man creating God in his own sadomasochist image.
If we eliminate God from the equation and say that there is no such thing. We find man, the confused beast, brutalizing himself; fulfilling an inner notion to strike out at others and to punish himself. It is somewhat logical to presume that man has created Hell for his enemies and Heaven for himself, but what of purgatory? A place, it seems that even the righteous must suffer for their inadequacies.
If we presume that there is no God, and man made up all of these religious fantasies, what then does that tell us about the nature of the beast? What if we study the present day religions of mankind for their psychological roots, as we study the Greek and Roman Gods to get an insight into the mentality of their kind and age? But for now let us return to Adolf and his personal fantasies.
"...He who wants to live should fight, therefore, and he who does not want to battle in this world of eternal struggle does not deserve to be alive."
Well, the gauntlet is dropped. Kill or be killed, says Adolf. It is one thing to realize that killing is a part of the human experience. We must kill to stay alive. We eat living things. What is now supper or lunch in one culture is a household pet in another. There are even groups today who are defending the tomato and the celery stalk on the grounds that these vegetables also have feelings and sensitivities, and what they say may well be true. It may help to talk to your vegetables and plants? We live and sustain ourselves in this world as vampires, sucking the blood of life out of other living things and creatures. But what do we do about it? And is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that killing, even one another is a required prerequisite for life?
I read a story not too long ago about a nun who was on a mission somewhere in this world. A conflict was going on about her. She was captured by one of the conflicting parties. She was brutalized and tortured. As a part of her brutalization, a dagger was placed into her hand. Her hand, with the dagger in it, was then forcibly plunged into another living human being until that person had been stabbed to death.
I see this as a part of the story of Adolf - a young man who was conditioned and brutalized by the world and its conflicts. Like the persecutors of the nun, dipped into the gory blood of the human struggle, reaching out like a hand sinking into the mire, to grab hold of any shred of what they consider hypocritical humankind and pull her or them into the pit, so that she and they can share in the loathsomeness of degradation, disgust and human misery. They, like Adolf, have been forced to kill their own kind, humankind. How does one live with that experience? The knife had been forced into their hand, and now they would force it into the hands of everyone. If it is good enough for me, it is good enough for everyone else. You will not fight! I will make you fight. You will not kill! I will make you kill. Who do you think you are? Do you think that you are something superior to me? Do you think that you are better than I am? And this brings us to another one of those crucial human questions - to kill, or not to kill? That is the question.
There is another question here. I read an account written by a reporter covering a conflict in Africa, possibly the Bore War. He was at a battle site with a British officer. A battle of hand to hand, or sword to sword, knife to knife combat was raging. The officer who had been talking to the reporter about the glory of battle and the exhilaration of conflict, jumped onto his trusty steed, speed off into the ranks of the natives, and with his saber, began splitting skulls. The officer then rode back to the side lines. He and his horse were now covered with human blood from head to stirrup. He looked down at the reporter and is quoted as saying something similar to the following. "You can't tell me that you wouldn't love to do that."
It seems to me that Adolf is saying that since killing is clearly apart of life, why don't we stop pussy footing around, and do what we were born to do. I think that the British officer above looked at the whole thing as sport, but Adolf was a more serious fellow, he actually wanted to turn killing into something glorious. One shouldn't feel guilty about it. One should have no remorse of conscience about it. One should do his duty to his country, and fulfill the destiny of mankind, by carrying out the will of God (Mother Nature). There should be no holding back and no guilt about your actions because, you are doing the 'Right' thing.
So what can I say? I guess in relation to the logic of Adolf, I am the underdog. I say do not conform to your Nature, do not follow the Will of God, do not obey your Natural instincts, bring yourself above your basest instincts, disobey your country if necessary, but hold yourself to a higher standard and seek to civilize the human beast within and without. This voice that I am speaking through is also a part of the Human Experience. Tears also flow from the human organism, along with the semen and the blood. Tears are also a part of Mother Nature's plan. Let the tears be your guide. Seek guidance through the tears of History. Bathe in the tears of today, and let the instinct of your own tears lead you to the better understanding of the human beast of yesterday, today and tomorrow. Yes life is hard, and many people unworthy, but toughen up, be better than you ever thought you could be. Surely fight to protect yourself, and those you love, and your beliefs, but be bigger than cruel, be admiring not jealous. Fight for the adjudication of the tears. Have sorrow, have pity, have compassion, have feeling, do what you must but don't give into the protective shell and false security of callousness and hatred. The path taken by Adolf and his followers has shown you what and where that leads to. Don't take the low road of hatred, jealousy, and violence. Get yourself up for the higher climb, even if it sometimes doesn't seems to make sense. Even if at times it seems futile. One day war will be conquered.