Mein Kampf

Chapter 12 Part 1

Nation and Race

By Richard E. Noble

Chapter XI of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf is entitled "Nation and Race", and this whole chapter is an outright attack on the Jews. As the book progresses, Adolf's anti-Semitism becomes stronger and stronger.
Here again, it seems important to me to mention that this book was published in 1925. I still hear people today claiming that the world was not aware of Adolf's anti-Semitism. He makes his case very clear here in Mien Kampf. All of his speeches throughout his rise to power are filled or littered with anti-Semitism. There could be no politically aware, literate person in the world that did not know that Adolf was a Jew-hater. My question would be what was the world view of the Jew throughout this decade, 1920-1930, and up until the outbreak of World War II? My limited insight leads me to believe that not only were Jews hated on an acceptable basis throughout Germany, but that the entire western world was in a similar condition, or at the least sympathetic to the notion. Although Adolf concentrates his venom on the Jews for the most part in this chapter, his main premise is greater than the basic inferiority of the Jews. His thesis attempts to develop a 'natural' separation of the races. He begins with this 'profound' insight;
"...people wander about in Nature's garden; they think they know almost everything, and yet, with few exceptions, they walk blindly by one of the most outstanding principles of Nature's working; the inner seclusion of the species of all living beings on earth ... Every animal mates only with a representative of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the common mouse, the common mouse, the wolf the wolf, etc..."
Do I even have to write the illogic of this bit of stupidity?
White, black, yellow, and all of the ranges of color within mankind are not different species of 'humankind'. They can all successfully mate with one another, just as a black horse can mate with a white horse and a brown titmouse with a mottled titmouse. Color within the human species does not constitute a species, but merely a type within the species. Types within different species are capable of mating, and do mate quite naturally and with great gusto as far as my observations carry. Whether or not inter-breeding within a species produces a better dog or human, as the case may be, has been a subject of much debate throughout the centuries. Inter-breeding of two very perfect specimens of the same parentage within a given species can result in some horrific progeny. Tom Paine points out the negative effects of the inter-breeding within the Royal Families of Europe in his Rights of Man. And if I am not mistaken he makes a comparison of the perils of Historical in-breeding among the Jews as further example of the negatives of such practices. So we see this accepted prejudice against Jews in the 1770s. Tom pointed out this particular prejudice as matter of fact, just as Benjamin Franklin points out the accepted inferiority of women and the appropriate lack of any necessity to educate them, in his autobiography. Could we go from here into our sexist argument of the present day? Who is 'smartah', the man piaba, or the woman piaba as Harry Bellefonte put it.
Couldn't similar calculations be derived from the in-breeding of German to German, or Catholic to Catholic, or Russian to Russian, or American to American? And if we return to the basic concept of an Adam and Eve, are we then not left with the abomination of an inbreed human species from the outset, and also the in-bred unnatural world of all living things?
The question of whether following Mother Nature will lead us to an eventual perfection of anything is also highly debatable. Is Mother Nature seeking perfection, or merely change - or possibly her own eventual destruction? Does Mother Nature have any direction whatever? Does Mother Nature in reality follow predetermined rules of order and/or design? Or is she more or less a reaction? An intermingling of forces or elements, the results of which are more suited to be catalogued, than predicted? Do we at present have any absolute truth as to any so called principle of nature? Are the rules of nature as we presently understand them merely relative to our planet, or Galaxy, or do they apply throughout the far and distant reaches of the universe? Could our whole Universe as we understand it, be really a mere molecule within an even more astounding oceanic Universe, and all of our natural principles merely the limited studies of a man trapped in a glass of water? Is what we perceive to be the ends of our Universe merely the beginnings of an even greater more astounding phenomenon, operating under entirely different rules as a particle of dust trapped within a cyclone? What do we know as to the true nature of all that is? Are we a perverse adaptation surviving in a limited perversion of what is truly an anomaly of what really is?
The attempt to define the 'Natural', may be as perilous an adventure as the personification of God. Here again Adolf's faith in the plan of Mother Nature, shows his faith in a Divine Plan. A Divine plan of his interpretation, but a faith, none the less. To say or think that Mother Nature's 'Plan' or intent is the perfection of anything, is a notion based on religion, and the established notion of past believers. Though many great thinkers have tried to prove the reality of a plan, Divine or otherwise, there is no evidence to substantiate the idea. The Universe is nothing more than a complicated circumstance or phenomenon, the purpose of which is indeterminable, and both the beginning and end unknown.
From defining 'Mother Nature' Adolf then takes us into the realm of the 'superior'.
"...Any crossing between two beings of not quite the same high standard produces a medium between the standards of the parents. That means: the young one will probably be on a higher level than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will succumb later on in the fight against the higher level. But such a mating contradicts Nature's will to breed life as a whole towards a higher level..."
The notion that Nature is leading, through mating tendencies or inclinations, mankind onto breeding to a higher level, I find ludicrous. I know men who, in their sexual evolution, have tried to mate with an Electrolux vacuum cleaner, a piece of fruit, a sheep, a cow, an Orangutan, not to mention one another. And from what I can see of the human inclination, most of the human species would, if it could, mate with itself - our newly discovered cloning techniques being the perfect example. The sexual impulse, I would say has nothing at all to do with improving its genetic condition but in satisfying a compulsive urge.
That one type of human, due to its color or its place of birth, or its sex, is superior to another, I would say has no foundation in scientific thought or research. The fact that certain groups or societies of people have accomplished more in terms of discovering natural, or scientific truths, seems to have some basis, but what do we know of all of those societies who have been conquered and destroyed by other less substantial intellectual societies. The body of knowledge that we have today may pale if it could be set beside what might have already been, if it had been recognized and preserved - the library at Alexandria being only one of any number of possible examples.
If we want to pick out one particular society that has produced and contributed most to the progress of mankind in general it might very well be the Jewish culture that our friend Adolf so fiendishly despises. In a recent book that I have just finished reading, a comparison was made as to the number of Nobel prizes awarded to German citizens prior to the establishment of the Nazi government and those awarded to the German citizens after the Jewish exodus and attempted extermination of the Jews. The inference being, that after the departure of the Jews and their influence from German culture, the Germans became considerably less intellectually notable, while countries to which the Jews fled increased notably.
"...Any mixing of the blood of the Aryan with lower races the result was the end of the culture bearer. North America, the population of which consists for the greatest part of Germanic elements - which mix only very little with the lower, colored races - displays a humanity and a culture different from those of Central and South America, where chiefly the Romantic immigrants have sometimes mixed with the Aborigines on a large scale. By this example alone one may clearly and distinctly recognize the influence of the race mixture. The Germanic of the North American continent, who has remained pure and less intermixed, has become the master of that continent, he will remain so until he, too, falls victim to the shame of blood mixing ... To bring about such a development means nothing less than sinning against the will of the Eternal Creator..."
Boy, do you think that Juan and Evita Peron knew of Adolf and his Nazi followers low estimation of their culture and their kind? Maybe if Juan had read Mien Kampf he wouldn't have issued all of those passports to escaping Nazi war criminals after World War II. Can you imagine all of those superior Nazis wallowing in the pits of South America, no doubt inter-breeding with the natives, and further polluting the species? The Aborigines may never recover.
Did you know that North America was an Aryan stronghold? I was raised on the completely opposite notion. North America was a 'melting pot' where the raw, crude, rusting elements of all the old world were re-smelted into a stronger more brilliant steel. "Send me your tired, worn etc. etc. yearning to be free." But to Adolf, North America was basically German. Hummm!? Adolf has very little positive to say about anything much other than himself and his brave native Germany. Why these praiseworthy inclusions of North America as a tribute to Germanic pride and prosperity? Very suspicious.
This leads to my second pressing question as to the rise and fall of Adolf. Where did he get his money? Austria and the Anschluss were too easy. Certainly Austria was involved. France and its Vichy government, is too obvious. The French were not only compliant, but must also have been supportive. But learning from Adolf that England and the United States were also provinces of the Germanic people, points me to both those countries as possible sources of investigation. I've been reading recently about the Swiss involvement, and the bank of international affairs (predecessor to the World Bank) in contributing to the rise of the Third Reich, I'm sure that England and the U.S. are not far behind. Or should I say certain factions or groups within these various countries.
The comparison between North and South America, I have heard very often. I find this type of prejudice similar to many other fine sounding prejudices that I have heard over the years. Why are there no great women novelists, or poets? Why is it that there are so many Negroes, even today who are illiterate? Why are men more dominant and successful in such and such a field? Could it be that the dominant group of the age or the time made it impossible for other groups to compete in these areas? Women for centuries have been denied education. Can you become a great poet when you are denied the opportunity to read, or to learn how to write? Can you become wealthy when you are denied the access to money? Is it fair to criticize a person for not winning any Olympic medals in the fifty yard dash after you have cut off his legs? To point out that dominant societies, whose main attributes may be belligerence, aggressiveness, and brutality, have made a noticeable impact on History, where as those whom they have conquered have not, or who at present may not seem to be making such an impact, is rather ridiculous. The best and the brightest may never have even got the opportunity to shine. We only have to go back to the ancient parable of Cain and Able to understand these human phenomena. It also occurs to me that in the long run of History who or what cultures have really dominated? What remains of the Egyptian Pharaohs and their empire, and how does that compare to the slave culture of their Judo-Christian inferiors, today? How well do Roman values and traditions stand against the legacy of the Christian Slave culture of that day? One might well ask who was really the dominant culture, or superior people.
To contend that the differences between North and South American development are basically differences of color and race, has to be an educator's nightmare. Could the fact that South America was established one hundred and fifteen years before North America, have anything to do with it? Could it be that the fact that this was before the protestant reformation and the age of enlightenment have anything to do with it? Could it be that South America became entrenched in the expansion of the European Feudalistic system of the age, as promoted by Spanish and Portuguese colonialism, while one hundred and fifteen years later, Capitalism was burgeoning? Could the uncompromising, dogmatic views of Catholicism and their persecution of any beliefs to the contrary have anything to do with it? Could it be that Feudalism and slavery were the accepted norm in the early development of South America, while individualism and Capitalism, revolutionary independence and personal survival were the norm of North America? Columbus landed in South America in 1492, and it wasn't until 1607 that the first English Colonial attempt was made at Jamestown. During that time the economic system had changed, the class structure had changed, a burgeoning middle and artisan class was emerging, the religious atmosphere had changed, and science and technology had just begun. To truly explain the differences between North and South America one would have to study global, environmental and geographic differences, historic and cultural difference, economic and social differences, political and governmental, religious and ethical, philosophical and theological, and I am sure a host of other factors. To say that South America differed from North America because one people were browner, or another group whiter, has to be considered by any intelligent human, as the grossest of oversimplifications of an historical development. But so goes Adolf and the same seems true of many political spokesmen even today.
I am not a geneticist, but I would even doubt the notion that if you mated a total idiot with a genius, that the offspring would fall somewhere between the two in terms of ability and achievement. Intelligence, ability, achievement capabilities, potential success quotients, and the like are at this point still indefinable, would be my guess. Did Adolf fall somewhere between his Mom and Dad – less than one and more than the other?
"...sinning against the will of the Eternal Creator..."
The fact that Adolf is on the side of the Eternal Creator is enough to turn me against Him. But whatever, once again we see Adolf, the man of God, pursuing God's course, as he sees it. Adolf sees Himself without doubt, as a man of faith, believing in God, and championing His will. So once again one must caution oneself against God's champions.
Once again may I point out that Adolf's God is cruel but realistic. He is harsh. He is destructive. He is brutal. He is to be feared, certainly by all God-fearing people. He is the ultimate killer of all mankind. Actually Adolf's religious convictions are fairly conventional, only lacking in the spirit of redemption, or atonement, and a heavenly reward for enduring God's cruelty. Adolf hasn't killed God, or done away with the concept of God. In reality, he has simply proclaimed himself the new Messiah. Here once again he sets himself up as the alternative or antithesis to the Communists, who are God-less.
And next, we have a very interesting statement.
"...he who actually desires with all his heart, the victory of the pacifistic idea in this world would have to stand up, with all available means, for the conquest of the world by the Germans, for if it should come about the other way round, then with the last German, the last pacifist would die off, as the other part of the world has hardly been taken in so deeply by this nonsense, adverse to nature and to reason, as unfortunately our own people. Therefore, whether one wanted to or not, if one had the serious will, one would have to decide to wage war in order to arrive at pacifism. This and nothing else was what the American world-redeemer Wilson wanted to have done, at least our German visionaries believed in this. With this then the purpose was fulfilled..."
Dah! I've read this paragraph several times but I still don't get it. I can only presume that Adolf is being sarcastic here. He seems to be saying that there are more stupid pacifists here in Germany than anywhere else, so if you want this idiotic belief to live on don't kill Germans?
Or that Wilson is a hypocrite who talks of Pacifism while he is the conqueror who is presently ruling the world. Sure Wilson wants everybody to be a pacifist so that he can stay on top.
So if pacifists support German world domination, once the Germans dominate the entire world, there will finally be peace – because anyone who disagrees will have been killed or will be killed. I suppose that is one way to bring peace – kill everyone who disagrees.
Actually, this sounds very much to me like the Reagan philosophy or the present Bush philosophy – the world will only be able to establish peace when all the world is democratic – and they will become democratic, ready or not, by choice or by force and invasion.
And who is he referring to when he makes reference to the other part of the world? When you classify Germany as one part of the world, 'the other part' takes in a whole lot of ground. As far as I know during this period after World War I and World War II, the notion of pacifism was wide spread throughout the world. It is interesting to note that Woodrow Wilson predicted that if a League of Nations was not established after World War I, the world would again be at War within a generation.
"...Naturally, here the one or the other may laugh, but 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, if people forget that they owe their higher existence, not to the ideas of some crazy ideologist, but to the knowledge and the ruthless application of Nature's brazen laws..."
So again we have to ask, what are Nature's (God's) brazen laws - the survival of the fittest? Again, is Nature's law, 'the survival of the fittest', or is it the survival of the most adaptable? Is the most adaptable necessarily the strongest, the wisest, the most cultured?
The cockroach has done pretty well over the centuries, and so it seems has the rat, but does their ability to adapt make these truly the greatest of all of Nature's (God's) creatures? Is there truly any hierarchy in any of Nature's Creatures, or are we once again seeing more of Aldolf's basic religious training?