Mein Kampf

Chapter 13 Part II

My personal thoughts and commentary.

By Richard E. Noble

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.
But how does Adolf differ from the Christian? Certainly Christians don't believe in killing the 'unfit'. No, maybe not the 'unfit', but Christians have burnt the 'unholy' at the stake. Christians have gone off on Holy Crusades to slaughter the unfaithful. The unfaithful being those unfit to enter into the kingdom of God. Christians were also very much prone in their past to murder heretics; a heretic being a semi-unfit, but not totally unfit. So was Adolf a Christian or not?
But we can't pick on just Christians. All religious beliefs at one time or another have had similar destructive goals. Those that were bent on peace and love were cut out of existence, just as Adolf claims has been necessary for the greater to survive.
But was Adolf a Christian? Well, so far, we have seen no mention in his narrative of original sin, baptism, the virgin birth, Jesus Christ and the redemption, and so forth. So certainly, dogmatically, Adolf was no Christian.
But philosophically he is certainly walking in the territory of the faithful of all major religions. And historically he seems to be prancing right in their footsteps.
Was Adolf a philosopher?
The basic philosophical questions are; Who am I; Where did I come from; Why am I here; Where am I going?
Adolf's answers: Who am I?
I am the product of Mother Nature, the rational embodiment of God's will. I am a son of Germania, a descendent of the conquering Aryan race.
Where did I come from?
I came about through the Natural processes of evolution, a process which is directed through the hand of God (Mother Nature).
Why am I here?
I am here specifically to reproduce my kind, the Aryan, and eventually bring about the 'perfect' species of mankind.
Where am I going? My future lies in conquering the world and leading it through “proper” values and direction to the eventual establishment of the perfect human species.
But really he has no answer to this questioner. And other than describing a process, he has no answer to where he/we came from. But then again, who does?
So far Adolf hasn't dealt with the origins of the species. Not how the species developed, but where it originally came from. Nor is he concerned with the origins of the Cosmos; nor does he seem to be concerned with what might happen to an individual after his death. He is for the most part pragmatic, psychological, political and historical.
He has a plan, though. His plan is to depopulate the world and repopulate it with his chosen people, and the Jews are first on the list for extermination, or replacement. I don't see here a deeply philosophical man, nor do I see a theologian. For the most part Adolf seems to be a man bent on revenge. The world gave to him World War I and he intends to pay back, not in kind, but in double and triple. His logic I would not say is original and creative but of a copy-cat mentality, combative, tit for tat. He is “the little opposite Adolf”. Whatever is good is bad, and whatever is bad is good.
Were Hegel or Nietzsche philosophers, or social psychologists? Does Hegel's Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis have any real significance at all? What has been the historical Antithesis to Adolf and his historical re-affirmation of the legitimacy and inevitability of war? And if there has ever been an antithesis to the philosophy of War, what is the resulting synthesis? If the antithesis of Feudalism was Capitalism, and the antithesis of Capitalism was Communism what is the resulting synthesis of these counter actions?
Socialism? Capitalism plus Communism = Socialism?
Feudalism was at it basis, government by the rich and the powerful. Capitalism is basically control of the government by the rich and the powerful. And Socialism, I would say, results basically in the same circumstance.
And what is the antithesis of the control of the state by the rich and the powerful. The Communists say that they have the system that is the antithesis of the rule by the rich and the powerful. But as was inevitable the Russian revolution resulted in the conquest of the most powerful, and once in power the powerful made themselves the wealthiest. So once again we have the rule by the richest and most powerful.
In our system we say that we are ruled by 'the people' through a system we call democracy; a government of, by, and for the people. The people exercise this power through their franchise in their right to vote. But less than fifty percent of eligible voters ever register to vote. And of those who are registered to vote, less than fifty percent actually go to the poles and vote. So less than twenty five percent of the people actually vote for the leadership of our government, and up to fifty percent of those, vote for the looser.
Even fewer people than this actually participate in the political parties who determine the political candidates that we vote for. The results of all this seems to be that the rich and the powerful control the political parties. The rich and the powerful select the candidates that will be placed on the election blocks. And the result is that we have a country that is eventually ruled by the rich and the powerful.
Then periodically we have what we call 'revolutions'. In a revolution the discontented, unite against the established, and if successful, overthrow the rich and the powerful who formed the majority. They, of course, immediately become the 'powerful', and without question, after usually a very shot time they proceed to make themselves rich. And so once again we have the rule of the rich and powerful re-established. If this is an accurate description of the historical situation, then where does this Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis of Mr. Hegel come in?
What I see in history is a continuing reoccurring phenomenon. I see no synthesis of anything. I see the world socially just as it has always been, but unlike Adolf I do not say that we should resign ourselves to it. I think that we should struggle to improve on it or correct this re-occurring chain of events. And we should do this by recognizing the beast in ourselves and others and doing our best to keep it subdued, not as Adolf advises, indulged.
A destruction or lapse in one generation of mankind could set the whole human race back centuries. All that we call Civilization has been achieved one generation at a time, and has migrated from society to society. Destroy its books; kill off a generation of the most educated or make their knowledge a secret and any society can be reduced to the primitive in a matter of years.
What would be the antithesis of this re-occurring phenomenon of an emerging class of rich and powerful? Or, should I say what would be the correction for this ever re-occurring chain of events?
We could eliminate the possibility of anyone becoming rich and powerful, or eliminate the possibility of anyone becoming discontented. And isn't this exactly what all of the great thinkers and religious leaders of the past have tried to do?
Jesus Christ told the rich to give up their wealth, and relinquish their power and come and follow him in his work of pacifying the poor and discontented. Confucius said and tried to accomplish much the same thing. Mahatma Gandhi was more or less a repeat of the teachings and attitudes of Jesus Christ. The Hindus try to free themselves by entering into a state of Nirvana, which involves eliminating all of the 'trappings' (wealth, power, desire) of the world and immersing themselves in a meditation which involves a total concentration on 'nothing'.
I would hope to be more realistic. In India they eliminated the 'class struggle' by creating permanent class structures from which no one could escape no matter what the social circumstances. And isn't this simply a way of eliminating the discontented? Marx would have the world evolve into a state eventually ruled by one class, the proletariat, who would all work contentedly, side by side, without position or rank, pursuing the betterment of one another. Christianity directs us not to become overly involved in the worldly things of today because one day we will all find contentment and happiness in Heaven (thus, pacifying the discontented).
Adolf's basic notion is to eliminate the discontented. He intends to do this by exterminating them - killing them. In America our goal is not to eliminate the class of the rich and the wealthy but to rotate or make membership in this class possible to all classes. This one possibility seems to make the U.S. the first choice of destination of what seems to be all the fleeing populations of the world.
"... the Aryan ... renounces representing his personal opinion and his interests and sacrifices both in favor of a majority of people. Only by way of the general community is his share returned to him ... This disposition now, which causes the individual's ego to step back in the face of the preservation of the community, is really the first prerequisite for any truly human culture..."
Adolf has allowed his ego to step back in the face of the preservation of the community?
A truly 'human' culture and what kind of a culture is this? Human in Adolf's mind is obviously synonymous with killing, murder, and extermination. To be human in the estimation of the most of us is to be humane. To look upon 'the other' as one's self. To do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is not Adolf's definition of the word human.
To be human to Adolf is to be predatory, and dominant. To be human is to seek to rule. To be human is to place your faith, trust, and unquestioning loyalty in the wisdom and leadership of the most dominant. What is interesting here is that the most dominant gains his position as leader through the principle of the survival of the fittest. In order to attain this position he has the right to use whatever human means he has available to him. And with a little background on the rise to power of Adolf, we know that this license to dominate includes almost any rouse devisable.
Adolf cheated, stole, lied, and murdered his friends, his countrymen and his enemies; anyone who was in opposition to his leadership. So, understanding this principle of human leadership, anyone at any time could replace Adolf by using whatever tactic, murder for example, and then become the new ruler of Germany for as long as he could sustain his supremacy without being murdered himself.
What is confusing to me in this policy of kill or be killed is where do we then establish this secondary principle of loyalty to the Fuhrer; or loyalty to anybody for that matter?
If the way to gain power is to seize power, then it would seem to me that any State would be in constant turmoil. Logically the concept of loyalty should have no place in this scheme of things. Fear should be the second principle. In other words, if I gain power by murder, and I then make this method of gaining power a legitimate principle of nature and a guide to the understanding of the natural processes of cultural development then what should be good for me should be equally justified for my opponent. How do I reasonably then say to my opponents that now that I have gained power you should be loyal to me? Where do we find the basis for such a concept as loyalty, in a philosophy of the survival of the fittest?
The founding principle here is kill or be killed. The only logical secondary principle of a philosophy of the survival of the fittest would seem to me to be - Now all of you will obey my leadership or I will kill you also (fear). Where does this notion of love (loyalty) fit into this logic of hate?
Capitalism; one should pursue his individual ego, and his personal goals and thereby benefit his community residually. Some, like Ayn Rand, claim that these personal goals should be pursued even to the point of selfishness and even to the extent of the apparent injury to other individuals within the community. I would imagine that Ayn would draw a line somewhere. I wouldn't imagine that Ayn would recommend that one should pursue his or hers personal ego to the point of criminal behavior, or to the point of rape, pillage and plunder, but I don't know. I am not completely educated into the complete thinking, if there is such a thing, of Ayn Rand.
Communism; From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This seems very humanitarian and altruistic, but there is something missing in this statement. Who determines the ability that should be given, and who determines the need that should be satisfied? The missing ingredient in the above statement is the State. We could maybe rewrite it thusly; The State should demand (encourage) from each according to his ability, and the State should give (provide) to each according to his need. From what I observe of Communist countries this seems to be an accurate re-write. Now the question is how do we determine the State, and how do we determine its needs? This is the question, who, how, and what becomes the State?
In our system we have a democratic-republican form of State evolution. We elect representatives from our two party system. These elected officials form the county, state and federal representatives of the people who then form the governing body that we call our State.
In Communist Russia, as I understand it, they had a one party system. The representatives of their eventual State are selected from this single party. The selections are made from within this single party and not from the general public, as far as I know. I am also not aware of how these selections are accomplished, whether by election, or some sort of appointment.
In Adolf's system, the ruling State is to be determined in a kind of king-of-the-mountain fashion. He who has the ability and strength of will to seize the power in whatever fashion will have the right to reign, and he and his appointees will become the ruling body, the State. But it seems that suddenly after this king-of-the-mountain approach to Statehood, we abandon the every man for himself, dog-eat-dog ritual and we find this notion of loyalty and sacrifice to the dominant. And why should the mass of people be loyal and sacrificing to some brute who has just forcibly taken over the State, or established a State?
The answer: In order to form a truly human culture.
I guess what I need here is what in Adolf's mind constitutes a truly human culture, or just a plain old culture for that matter. I would have to guess that what constitutes a Culture according to Adolf, would have to be a 'Race', or some interpretation along racial lines.
So by hook or by crook Adolf (or somebody) becomes the ruler of the Adolf Race of peoples. As the now ruler of this Race, the peoples of this Race should now devote themselves loyally, and sacrificially to the Adolf racial cause. And in so doing they will eventually become the Race that will fulfill its destiny and rule over all of the races of the world. And will eventually replace all of the Races of the world, as the one true, superior Race.
This is very much in keeping with religious inclinations. There is one true leader (god) and only those who believe and are loyal to this particular leader (god) will be a part of the one true, ruling and eternally surviving State (church).
How did this man ever get any world support for this idea? I can see how he got local German support, but world support would then have to come under the heading of Aryan. I suppose Italy was considered Aryan, being the descendants of the Romans, but what explanation is there for the Japanese, and for that matter the French, Spanish and the Portuguese. He has pretty much said that these were all bastardized, corrupted Cultures. The only other Aryan Cultures as far as I can determine from the bible according to Adolf is the United States, England, and Great Britain.
It is interesting, Rudolf Hess escaped Germany, flew to England, supposedly with some sort of plan. I have yet to hear what that plan was, but could it have been similar to the plan of General Rommel and his cohorts? Rommel's plan was to capture Hitler, try him before a civilian court, imprison him, and then join with the allies in the war against Russia. But the Allies weren't at war with Russia ... were they??
We go back to our original notion. What was World War II all about? Was it a battle against Fascism, or Nazism, or were we really engaged in a struggle against the Communist anti-capitalist? Capitalist; a post World War I communist definition = Arms merchants, industrialists, bankers and businessmen who profit and promote war. Were these the people behind Adolf Hitler? We know for sure that Adolf had the support of these types of people inside Germany. What about elsewhere?
It is recorded and I have read it in several different historical accounts that when Hitler conspired with Stalin, the Warsaw Pact, which resulted in an invasion of Poland by the Russians and the Germans three days later, Joseph P. Kennedy, then ambassador to England, called President Roosevelt and announced amidst tears and sobs something to this effect "We've been tricked; we've been tricked. It's the end of the world! It's the end of the world!"
Who was tricked? And were they tricked by Hitler or Stalin? As far as I know we (our government) supposedly had no deals with either of these people. But what do I know? I know that Joe Kennedy was an isolationist. An isolationist could be anything from a pacifist, to a German Nazi, Bunt Hall, card member. Henry Ford, one of the richest and most powerful men in America, was a rabid anti-Semite and according to James Pool, Who Financed Hitler, Thomas Edison may have been Henry Ford’s mentor.
Charles Lindbergh was a well known German sympathizer. James D. Mooney president of General Motors, was also a known anti-Semite and sympathetic to German fascism. The Rockefeller banking system was involved with Swiss banking system dealing in laundering Jewish booty after the war, and possible conspiracy with Germany during the war. Montagu Norman was head of the bank of England and sympathetic to Germany to the point of returning money shipped to him by the country of Czechoslovakia after they were invaded by the Nazis. Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles were I. G. Farben's prewar lawyers in the United States. The Dulles brothers law firm and associates, Sullivan and Cromwell, were involved in handling pro-German lawsuits in the United States. And the list is growing daily as I read. The point being; Who was the real enemy of the United States in World War II ... Germany or Russia?
Also interesting to note that after World War II we had a purge of Communists in The United States under the leadership of Senator Joe McCarthy who was supported in this objective by the then young and aspiring Republican Richard M. Nixon. What bothers me about this purging of communists in our government, was that there was no simultaneous purging of Nazis. After all, the Russian Communists were our allies during the war and truly they suffered the greatest loses. So why were we hunting Communist and not Nazis? Certainly the Nazi philosophy was more vile and criminal in its outlook than the Communist. Not only has there never been any purge of Nazis here in the United States, but we even incorporated Nazis into our O.S.S, (which was to evolve into our present day C.I.A.) and into our Military, and into the ranks of our research scientists. And these vicious haters of the democratic way immediately complied, without any seeming resistance. Not a one of them bit any cyanide tablet, in an attempt to escape enslavement in Democratic America, home of their enemy and conqueror. And after the war, instead of executing all of the Nazi leadership remaining alive in homeland Germany, as suggested by all of the Allies - even General Eisenhower and Winston Churchill - President Truman initiated the now famous Trial at Nuremburg, where not one Industrialist (Arms merchant, etc) was executed. In fact Gustav Krupp wasn't even brought to trail at this famous international hearing. His son-in-law was brought up under a lesser tribunal, received a modest penalty, and then went on to become the richest man in the world organizing munitions plants for countries all over the world. We even went so far as to outlaw the Communist party in the U.S. (home of free speech, and government of the people, by the people and for the people), but yet even today we allow Nazis to have public exhibitions, and we even protect their rights to march through Jewish neighborhoods and speak to crowds about their exterminationist philosophy. I don't get it, do you?