Sunday, November 09, 2008
Mein Kampf - Chapter 18
Chapter 18 - Final Conclusion
By Richard E. Noble
Well, in our quest for culprits with regards to this question, we certainly have a good number of suspects.
The Military Industrial Complex must be considered number one on any list. Those that argue that there is an economic conspiracy going on for the promotion and continuation of war by those involved and connected to the Military Industrial Complex have a substantial argument.
This theory might well go back to the Roman Empire for all that I know. Tom Paine had a similar notion and linked it to the royal families and the Kings of his day. Karl Marx then helped promote the notion, but his was no voice screaming in the wilderness. There were plenty of others offering support.
The notion that war is a political method of promoting domestic tranquility also plays its part in this theory. This notion being, that it is inappropriate for any reasonably loyal citizen to be promoting discontent at home when his country is engaged in war. It then follows that when a government finds its citizens acting up over one popular issue or another, a way to quell the riots and discontent is to start a war or get involved in one, some way or another. This technique goes back to Julius Caesar. He used the technique himself and later warned the Roman Citizens about the idea.
World War I becomes pivotal with regards to these arguments. The case was dramatically presented after the war by numerous investigators, journalists, novelist, intellectuals and scientists. All of their various types of exposure of this issue led to the greatest peace-nick movement in the history of Mankind. People like Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell along with thousands of other prominent people, and millions of not so prominent people, lined up on this side of the argument. Their arguments are substantial. There is no doubt that a strategy for promoting arms sales during this period was to stimulate conflict and antagonisms between nations. This is substantiated time and time again in the literature of the era. Even to the point of arms sellers mining the harbors of potential costumers and blaming it on their neighbors, and owning and operating newspapers and magazines promoting violence and aggressive action in international disputes. Read any book of the period chronicling the history of these Merchants of Death and you will find substantial information with regards to arms merchants promoting War for personal gain. It was a standard practice.
People like Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler, with equal or even greater support, lined up on the opposite side of this issue. Hitler would be the defender on the far right or far left of this issue, depending upon your politics. As you have just learned, he proposed, philosophically, that war was "good."
Winston Churchill was closer to the center on this issue. He proposed that war was not "good," but necessary. A nation must be ever prepared and constantly vigilant. Consequently, both Adolf and Winston were a boon to the Armament Industry and the Military Industrial Complex.
The Military Industrial Complex would have to be considered a victor in the World War I struggle. After the War it continued to prosper. It may have shifted from one location on the globe to another, but certainly there was no down turn in military investment and research and development after World War I.
The period between World War I and World War II was merely a regrouping and rearming period on the part of the World combatants. The International Military Industrial Complex was alive and well. World War II substantiated the Military Industrial Complex once and for all. It was clearly now, the biggest business enterprise in the world. Every country contributed to this industry's prosperity without question. The Cold War theory sealed the war preparedness issue once and for all in the United States and elsewhere. There would be no cutting back in war expenditure and Military budgeting from then on. But the atomic bomb made things a little frightful. Now the game of War and its profitability was more than just a few million innocent lives or the dominance of one culture over another. If the whole world were to be destroyed in a nuclear confrontation, even the Military Industrial Complex could be put out of business. There may be money to be made on the sacrifice of some lives, but there is no profit in the sacrifice of EVERYBODY'S life.
A new strategy had to come about or be developed. Thus the concept of limited war was born. With this idea we could still have war and its residual gains, but limit the possibility of bankruptcy on the part of all humanity and the entire international industry of war.
Form the point of view of the International Military Industrial Complex (if there be such a unified, organized monster) Korea was good, Vietnam was great. Small conflicts anywhere and everywhere are fine. Things and conflicts that engage the world, piece by piece, are o.k. Things that have the portent of total destruction are bad. Little wars are "good," total War (Adolf's idea) "evil." Getting 'mad' is good; getting totally-mad is insanity (madness).
Saddam Hussein causing a war by invading Kuwait is o.k., but Saddam Hussein setting off a biological confrontation that could lead to the unstoppable spread of infection and disease which could eventually lead to the destruction of all mankind ... bad. If Saddam Hussein is the kind of guy who says; "If I go, I'm taking everybody else with me," he would have to be stopped even by the International Military Industrial Complex.
With the destruction of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia we really had a bad time coming for the International Military Industrial Complex. It looked like peace was going to break out in huge areas. In the U. S., they were talking of a "Peace Dividend" of all things. The International war machine was falling on the Dow Jones or whatever. Taxpayers wanted their money back, or put into other areas. If this trend were to continue the Bombs and Bullets guys were going to take a big hit. There would be bankruptcies, slow downs and big cut backs, along with serious re-organizations and diversifications. They certainly were not going to go out of business. There was no future scarcity of "small conflicts" to worry about. The whole damn world had not been struck by the peace and love culprits. The Industry was basically still solvent, but there would definitely be some "down-sizing."
Then comes 9/11 and the War on Terrorism. If Osama bin Laden had been working for the International Military Industrial Complex, he would have been kicked upstairs, given stock options, and a huge bonus. Osama killed over three thousand Americans, but he revived the world's greatest industry. I certainly can't read the mind of a man like Osama bin Laden but if his goal was to stifle any world peace movement, and promote the perfect replacement theory for the world's loss of the Cold War principle, he did well.
Now we have the "War on Terrorism." From the point of view of an International Military Industrial Complex, I can see nothing greater happening. Vietnam was a limited war that required great investment and seemed to be going on forever. The War on Terrorism is a limited war in every country in the world that will continue FOREVER. The International Military Industrial Complex has just been granted a contract for perpetuity, in a War where the location is everywhere, and the profits are infinite.
Now, interesting enough, war has become "democratized." We're not going to get the right to vote on anything, but all nations and people will be able to participate equally. The "draft" has ended. No longer is it necessary for the purpose of promoting the Industry that concentrations of particular people die in particular areas. People can be sacrificed to the cause randomly, anywhere, and at any time. Any action, anywhere and at any time, will serve the purpose of stimulating the sales of the Industry. We will never grow tired of an endless involvement in a particular area again. Whenever interest and public support wan, a new area can be hit and fresh blood injected into the Industry.
If all of this is true and such an international conspiracy actually exists, then, of course, the Military would be next on our list of accomplices. For those who, like Adolf, not only favor war, but consider it, not only inevitable, and profitable, but basically "good," there is no problem. There is really nothing to be concerned about. If you are like Adolf, not afraid to die, and you consider anyone who is afraid to die a coward, and that war is glorious, and death all a part of God's plan for the perfection or purification of the species - you have no problem with this. You might want to be aware of where the next terrorist strike might occur to prolong your excitement and enjoyment in the "glory" of war, or possibly to keep your own children away from a too early and needless death. But, one could always have another child for that matter, I suppose. Most of us would like to think that people with this pattern of thought do not exist, but the history of humankind proves the contrary.
For those of us who are not of the Adolf mentality and would like to combat this Conspiracy, granted that any such type conspiracy actually exists, what do we do?
First, we would have to verify the conspiracy so that all like minded people would be brought to the side of the "Cause." As in catching any criminals, evidence would have to be brought forward: documents, files, written statements, recording, wire taps, etc. After World War I just such information was brought forward, and published. But as far as I know, no one was ever prosecuted and nothing was ever done. After World War II no investigation of complicity of Industry or the Military Industrial Complex ever even got off the ground. A play, here and there, surfaced and rumors and innuendo abounded, but nothing happened. Instead of an investigation into the possible financial perpetrators of World War II; or a Military Industrial Complex Conspiracy promoting War for profit, or an investigation into companies who sold to the enemy during wartime or made excess and exaggerated profits during the war, never mind any investigation into any business or groups who assisted Adolf in his rise to power, we got McCarthy. We got a witch hunt for a bunch of nobodies, supposedly involved in criminal behavior for the purpose of promoting some nebulous political creed, or utopian ideology. Even if we did seek out Reds and Commies, why didn't we have even more if not equal enthusiasm for eking out Nazis? American companies, who tried to sabotage our victory over Germany and Japan; who worked actively here at home for the cause of our actual declared ENEMIES, rather than, or at least in addition to, those who may have been sympathetic to our ALLIES.
Interesting enough Alger Hiss was the head of one such committee investigating war time complicity of American companies with Nazi Germany. Henry Morgenthau supposedly had conducted just such enquiries, and had records complied on just such Americans and such American businesses. As far as I know this information is on file in the Morgenthau papers and the F.D.R. Presidential Library, if anybody is really interested. Why isn't or hasn't anyone been interested, I have always wondered?
But given that all of this about our past and the nebulous involvement of despicable industries around the world were implicit in, not only initiating and being complicit in war and its promotion, what has that got to do with Osama Bin Laden and our present war on Terrorism?
This brings us to "Why War" theory number Two or part "B."
Osama Bin Laden, as I understand it, is a spiritualist, or a religious zealot.
Adolf believed (see Hitler's faith in introduction) that he was a messiah or prophet from God. I don't think that there is really any doubt about this. His God was a confusing amalgamation of Christianity, War, Science and racial supremacy. Osama Bin Laden is the traditional religious Zealot. Osama considers himself a prophet from God who has been assigned the religious task of purifying the spiritual condition of mankind here on earth through the conversion and/or eradication of the infidel or spiritually unclean, or non-believer. There is absolutely nothing new here. If we consider Adolf a step back in time to barbarism, Osama is also a step back into the Dark Ages and the realm of spiritual revelation, religious mysticism, superstition, black magic, and voo-doo. Just as it was difficult for right wing political extremists to separate themselves from David Duke and Adolf Hitler, so too is it difficult for the religious right to separate themselves from Osama bin Laden. Their messages are based on the same ignorance and mistaken logic. They try to separate themselves by splitting hairs but the connections are clearly there in their philosophical foundations and only differ in extremes.
What are these connections? One, is that Belief or Faith rules. Osama, the Pope, Billy Graham, the local parish priest and minister all agree on this basic concept. As long as faith rules over common sense, reason, logic and legitimate scientific enquiry the human race has a big problem.
Second, are the notions that Good and Evil are black and white and not various shades of grey. This concept eliminates any area for discussion. It often turns "different" people into "evil" people and has been a big problem throughout human history. Witch hunts, the establishment of heretics and infidels who must be punished and destroyed, Crusades, Pogroms, purges, genocides, racism and the like are all the product of this type of thinking.
Thirdly, is the notion that there exists an "invisible" world. This invisible world is housed by invisible creatures, who have invisible souls, and inhabit invisible kingdoms, in an invisible Universe. The notion that this is the "truth" and not simply a fanciful hope or wishful dream is not a solution to the problems of mankind but a very, very big problem.
We might look at Hitler as a sort of Existentialist Osama bin Laden. Hitler brought "perfection" into the area of actual human attributes, blond hair, blue eyes, good abs and firm butt. Osama brings us back to the purification of the "soul." The problem for a lot of people here, especially religious people, is if Hitler and Osama are steps backward, what are steps forward?
So, "Why War?" brings us once again to Religion.
Religion is nothing more than primitive and misguided Philosophy. Where Philosophy took the path to logic, reason, and science; religion took the path more traveled to voo-doo, mystical right, and revelation. There is absolutely no substance to revelation, no matter who it was revealed by, nor when it was revealed. Revelation is "hear-say"; it cannot be considered any more or any less.
Religion is one of the most difficult of human qualities to deal with. Religion, as a primary tenet, abandons reason, and embraces faith. Where reason ends, faith begins. I would even begin to accept this logic if it were not for the fact that most Religions give up on reason far too soon. If we took up faith when and only after we had exhausted all reason, we still could be in the ball park. But, unfortunately Religion gives up Reason, often before any reasonable discussion has even begun.
Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler bring us a logic that offers no alternative to War. Adolf says fight or convert to my side or die. He even goes so far as to say that many of you will not even be allowed the privilege of conversion. You will fight or not fight, but you will die. So how does a reasonable man deal with this? There are no choices here. As long as there are people who profess and espouse such a philosophy, war is inevitable.
Gandhi offered the philosophical argument of peaceful resistance. I have no doubt whatsoever that Adolf Hitler would have killed Gandhi and every one of his followers.
So Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden make even the involvement of the International Military Industrial Complex superfluous. Even if there is an Industry supporting and even encouraging such people, exposing and dissolving these industries, though a definite step in the right direction, will still not cure the problem that such people exist and continue to gain followership.
It seems an impossible task to stamp out the ignorance of Religion, but working against the ignorance of religions that profess a philosophy of abuse and destruction with no optional alternative for disagreement should be a possible goal. Trying to promote compromise among reasonable, rational individuals is difficult enough. Trying to keep the peace between the clinically and criminally insane is a job for straight jackets, tranquilizer darts, and anesthesiologists.
This leads us to part three of "Why War?." What is there in the psychological make up of the human condition of man that leads him so easily to seek the destruction of others and even himself? Mankind has traditionally flocked to war as a moth to a flame. Why?
My contention is that man is twisted or naturally bent towards anger. He is bent in this direction due to his life circumstance - the same life circumstance that exist for all humankind.
Man's creation has been arbitrary. He is alive due to no exercise of his will. He was given no choice. Now if the conditions here were just hunky-dory for each and everyone, the resentment could possibly be dissipated somewhat. But nothing can remove the fact of the injustice of Creation. All material happiness will still not overshadow the inevitability of death. Even an eternity of ice cream cones and chocolate cake can not compensate for the basic injustice of Creation, and a life filled with death, pain, and the emotional suffering that must be endured while watching our loved ones suffer. There can be no payment that can justify, substantiate or ameliorate these wrongs. All religions hold life as unjust or unfair and propose some sort of compensation. Among the compensations are: heaven, reincarnation, eternal existence, nirvana.
Why life is unjust or unfair does not always have a religious explanation. Judeo Christianity offers the tale of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. Other groups have proffered other explanations, but none deny the fact of the unjust or unfair or painful circumstance of human existence.
I have no explanation or compensating rationale. But it is clear to me that one will not have peace inside himself without coming to grips with the reality of this condition, with or without an accompanying compensating rationale.
This is the first basic, objective FACT of life. Life is an injustice. Being on the negative end of this injustice makes a person angry. I don't see any way around this. Now if the circumstance of this existence is made pleasant, certainly this anger will be ameliorated. The more unpleasantness that is heaped onto one put into an unjust circumstance, the more anger he is going to have to deal with. Recognizing this justifiable anger and figuring a way to deal with it rationally is the problem of everyone. Some people are just blessed with a compensating nature, others a more favorable and tolerable circumstance, but whatever, the problem is real and exists for everyone either consciously or subconsciously. Some can accept a simple answer. Some can accept a lie. Some can accept an illogical answer. But everybody answers the fact of the matter in one way or another. For some, the whole problem is subconscious. For some the answer is in the social condition. But from a philosophical or psychological point of view, it is the intellectual recognition of this as a fact of life. Is it true or untrue that life is unfair and consequently unjust?
I remember reading in a Western, one character saying something about Billy the Kid or somebody, "What the Hell is he so mad about?"
"Aug!" The other guy moans. "He's still pissed about being born."
Bingo! Right on the money. No joke. That's it - being pissed about being born. This is where all the hatred starts. And from here it either grows or is ameliorated by love, joy and other of life's little compensations or it isn't.
So, from day one mankind comes into this world with a chip on his shoulder. His psychological, theoretical, and philosophical bent is towards the negative. He is fearful and without information. From here on his fears are either encouraged or smothered. But even with the tenderest treatment, he will never be secure. He is always subject to pain, injury, death, and attack. All of these feeling must be dealt with. But before one can deal with these things one must be aware of them and recognize them as real and legitimate.
All religions have been an attempt to compensate for the fear and shock of the obvious perils and insecurities brought on by man's un-requested existence and unjust creation. In trying to compensate for this unjust circumstance, religions, in my opinion, only make the matter worse. Mankind has clearly been placed in an abusive situation - life. Instead of recognizing the abusiveness of this situation and dealing with it somehow, religious philosophy continues to heap abuse upon the victim. Obviously, if there is a God and a Creator, He is the abuser in this situation. Religion refuses to blame God or recognize this notion of God as the perpetrator of the injustice of Mankind, but instead blames the victim. Just as abused wives and abused children heap the burden of blame upon themselves, so too, does Mankind and his moral agencies heap the blame on themselves. The rationale being, that if I am undergoing something terrible, obviously I must be deserving of such treatment; if I weren't deserving of such treatment, it wouldn't be happening to me. From the very beginning Man is conditioned to abuse. This, as I see it, is the beginning of the sado-masochistic cycle of the human condition. When we observe this type behavior in abused children or abused housewives or even husbands etc, we try to point out to these people that they are sick and need to recognize their sickness. This is usually met by what the psychologists call "resistance," or "denial." In the case of Mankind the response is the same. Mankind seems to be caught in a catch 22 type of logic. Either he is "good" and His Abuser is "bad"; or he is "Bad" and His Abuser is "good." Traditionally Mankind has accepted the later philosophy or outlook.
Mankind, through his religious thinkers, has thought up many a confusing and complicated rationale to try and somehow reconcile his hope and instinctive notions about his own goodness and the equal goodness of his Creator. The story of Adam and Eve and other such tales of woe are the result. These are obviously the irrational ranting of the borderline insane. These tales are all self-contradictory, irrational and logically impossible, but they persist. But then if these tales are all irrational and insane what is the truth?
The truth is that all of Mankind has been placed in perilous and dangerous circumstances for reasons that are at this point in time unknown and indeterminable.
This fact has driven some to total insanity. Most of the founders of our modern day religions had been driven out of their minds by their contemplation upon this dilemma. And just like men in insane asylums, they have taken on non-rational behavior patterns. They've experienced convulsions, fits, delusions. They've heard voices. They've talked with devils. They have tortured themselves, and sought their own suicide and self-destruction. They've had hallucinations. They've seen visions. They have spoken with trees, clouds, the moon and the stars. These are all the exhibited patterns of the institutionally insane.
But what about God? Is there such a thing or isn't there?
Accepting the basic fact of life, which is, that life is basically an abusive situation that must somehow be dealt with, what reasonable conclusions can be drawn?
Well, Bertrand Russell and other philosophers came to the conclusion that since "evil" did certainly exist, God must be possessive of this negative quality. God, if such an entity does exist, would then have to be evil. Bertrand chose not to believe in a God that was evil, so therefore concluded that God could not exist.
I think that Bertrand was logical. I think another logical and reasonable attitude to adopt would be that of Herbert Spencer and many other philosophers. The concept of God is beyond the ability of the rational mind, therefore the answer to the question, Does God exist; or is there a God, is I don't know.
Now, interestingly enough, many religious thinkers and philosophers opting on the side of God's existence begin their defense of this position with the argument that God is beyond human understanding. This would be fine, except that they follow this conclusion with the notion that since God is truly beyond human cognition, He can then only be understood and determined through "Revelation."
Well, if you can't even determine logically that there is a God, how can you possibly then come to the conclusion that some existing document was written by such an unfathomable unconfirmed suspicion? These people are, in my opinion, the people who are the most dangerous to the safety of mankind. As long as their "revelations" lead them to conclusions of truth, justice, fair play and kindness, we can all breathe fairly safely. But when and if these type individuals become violent and abusive, they must be subdued and institutionalized.
Adolf was an abusive creature. As with all of us, he started off abused by the basic life situation. This basic direction towards abuse and hostility and sado-masochism was encouraged by life and his social condition. Abuse was then further entrenched into his personality by World War I. He may also have been abused in his home and personal life. I don't know. It is certain that he felt his social status to be an abusive one. He was obviously not placed in the economic circumstances suitable to his personal character, ego, and intelligence. His artistic creativity was rejected by the university in Vienna. He couldn't find a decent job. Poverty struck him and his countrymen. The world then saw fit to further abuse him and his countrymen at Versailles, he reasoned. He decided to strike back, to heap abuse onto abuse. He would pay back his abusers with double and triple the abusive intensity, if he could.
But heaping abuse onto others brought on guilt, sorrow and regret. If these tendencies couldn't be stifled this sadomasochistic cycle would be brought to an end, and the resulting irrational satisfaction would be lost. So, this would have to be overcome or the abusive sadomasochistic behavior could not continue and bring with it its personal satisfaction. Adolf then thought up his compensating notions of "elitism." Elitism carried to extremes of intensity, led him to "racism."
Elitism is taking the basic fact of life that some people are superior to others in one ability or another, and turning it into a class privilege and right of destiny. Racism is elitism taken to the irrational notion that a whole group of people are superior to masses of other people due to some general accident of Mother Nature; size of feet, structure of skull, shape of hands, size of penis or breasts. In Adolf's case, the color of one's skin, augmented by one's supposed historical place of origin were used as the defining qualities. He elaborated on this elitist theory until he came to the final conclusion that the entire world was the potential right and inheritance of the German people and that all other creatures on the planet should be subject to slavery, incarceration, or elimination.
Adolf incorporated elitism and racism into a part of his methods of retribution and War. His goal was to literally turn all of these ideas into a "Faith." And what is Faith but the indoctrination of the acceptance of the irrational, or the acceptance of the "truth" of facts which don't make sense, or are beyond reasonable or rational explanation.
To enforce and organize his abusive goals, Adolf then added to his notions of elitism and racism; authoritarianism, Militarism, nationalism and anti-Semitism. Adolf was simply an abusively creative person. He actually created his own abusive system. He utilized a number of already established abusive structures and institutions, and then added his own inventions.
Why War? Conclusions:
1) Man is basically an abused creature. Being incapable of any logical explanation for this abuse, he incorporates through his institutions (religious, political, military, economic and social) irrational but abusively consistent explanations for his unfathomable dilemma. Thus a pattern of emotionally satisfying, sadomasochistic behavior is incorporated into his folkways, mores, and societal structures.
Recognize the problem. Confront it intelligently. Remove abusive tendencies and established patterns of abusive behavior from various traditional institutions, and personal everyday life situations. Incorrect, illogical and abusive thinking must be abandoned, replaced, or corrected.
Religion needs to be re-thought - all religions.
The military needs to be revamped, and restructured with an eye for removing the obviously abusive but traditional training procedures and extreme irrational discipline, and inconsistent and undemocratic procedures removed.
Governments must be more democratic, more representative, more generous, or more tolerant of different ideas.
Poverty, famine and starvation, slums, ghettos and other abusive conditions must be improved and eventually eradicated. Tolerating abusive conditions simply conditions abusive people.
Rational education must be improved, and spread through all the nations of the world. Ignorance promotes superstition, illogic, faith beyond reason, falsehood, lies and grave susceptibility to abusive tendencies.
People who are violently abusive to themselves and others must be separated, maintained and contained.
Each person can start with himself and then spread the program to those within their influence. We will then see if intelligent, reasonable behavior has the same capacity to grow, prosper and spread with equal the speed and vitality as ignorance and abuse.