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.
