Private Property

Private Property

My zone, your zone, our zone and the ozone.

by Richard E. Noble

We hold sacred the Right to Private Property here in the United States. But this Right has not been without controversy. This notion once included the right to buy and sell other human beings and their children. It was also used by industrialist and Robber Barons alike to shoot their disgruntled workers and to deny them the right to organize and to bargain collectively for better working conditions and higher wages.
At one point in our history it applied to women and children. A man once owned his wife and children.
This Right to Private Property has also conflicted with the State and the Federal Government - Public Domain, Eminent Domain, National and State parks, National and State forests - roads, highways, interstate, damns, reservoirs etc.
On the international level, Private Ownership has been the divisive issue of the last two centuries. We define our current political systems by it:
Capitalism = Democracy + Private ownership
Socialism = Democracy + Public Ownership
Fascism = Dictatorship + Private Ownership
Communism = Dictatorship + Public Ownership
Conflicts with regards to public and private ownership are all around us today because of zoning laws and building codes and, of course, taxes. I’ve often wondered at what dollar amount a property tax turns into a rent. And considering the above definitions, when and if a property tax becomes so large that it is considered a rent; does Capitalism then evolve into Socialism? But even more interesting than that is the question of the basis and foundation of Private Property.
Private Property is based on a principle that, I think, no American would accept as fair, just, or even reasonable today.
Property has always been gained, from the beginnings of mankind’s times, through power, force and military might. The borders of countries have, for the most part, always been determined by conquests, invasions and war. Kings and power lords conquered and doled out property to their favorites. If there were people living on the property, they went with it. If you owned the property, you owned the people who lived on it also.
In the establishment of the American Colonies, we had what were called Patroons. The Patroons owned vast estates that were given to them by charters or grants or purchased from the Crown or others or that they finagled by deceit or fraud. It wasn’t until 1839 in New York that this manorial system was seriously challenged by the tenants who lived on and farmed the land. The land barons were forced by the revolt of the people and the New York Legislature in 1846 to sell off their estates in small farms to the people who lived and worked them. Of course, they sold off these vast estates at exorbitant prices, but nevertheless the tradition of small, individual, property ownership was enhanced.
Then the big money moved to the city. It was here that men like John Jacob Astor and industrialists like William “Billy” Wood and Andrew Carnegie, Pullman and bankers, like J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller Jr., turned the development of cities into their personal gold mines. Tenement housing, an apparent monetary triviality, turned into multi-million and billion dollar opportunities for their investment capital. While Astor, and those of his unscrupulous agents and middlemen, got richer and richer, they turned the tenement factory worker communities into death traps for the poor and hard working. Diseases like typhoid fever, tuberculosis, cholera and others spread rapidly throughout the tenement communities. But the millions of dollars rolled in over the bodies of the poor until once again, as the rural tenant farmers had exploded in 1839; rebellion rankled in the streets and the tenement neighborhoods of Brooklyn, New York, Philadelphia and Boston. The disgruntled and downtrodden, brought to the end of their faith in tolerance and acceptance, were finally motivated to risk their lives in the streets and back alleys. Somehow their protests were finally able to rouse the politicians, and laws began to evolve to protect the health and well being of the families living in these pits of American industrial revolutional squalor.
Astor and his super-wealthy friends then decided that it was time to give or dump the tenements onto the masses. The investment brokers would liquefy their assets. They sold their uncared for, unhealthy, vermin and rat invested, tenement disease incubators, before laws could be promoted requiring the landlords to spend some of their acquired millions to clean them up. It was a good business move. But once again, through a dark backdoor, the cause of individual ownership and private property was extended.
The prices of the tenements were high and exploitative, but somehow many hard working laboring families were able to become property owners - participants in the prized evolution of the propertied class.
Adolf Hitler dealt with the historical right to national territory and property rights - by way of Power and Might - extensively in his autobiography, Mein Kampf.
Adolf could not accept that a great nation, like his own, could be, cramped in such a tiny space in central Europe, while a much inferior nation like Russia had such a vast expanse of land to the west. He used the history of mankind to make his claim that the borders of any country are determined by the will of their peoples. Those with the will and the power, take; and those without the will and power are destroyed. To Adolf this was the fundamental principle of Civilization and an undeniable law of Nature - the survival of the fittest.
Russia and a good many other nations of the world disagreed. A catchy phrase of the period was - Might does not make Right. As far as I know, nobody wrote a book explaining why Might did not make Right but many people felt that the notion had merit - even if they didn’t know why. Adolf went ahead and tried to prove his point, but failed. At least he failed to prove that his people and his nation had the will and the power to establish their Might as Right. Whether or not Might actually does make Right still remains questionable, but, by no means, absolutely without foundation.
During a period called the Enlightenment, the world seemed to go through a sort of introspection and soul searching. Philosophers, social thinkers, economists, political reformers and the like all began to question the right of Private Property along with a good many other long established notions. William Godwin wrote a book, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice in 1793, and in the Colonies a controversial pamphleteer, Thomas Paine, wrote a piece that he entitled Agrarian Justice. Godwin questioned the whole idea of Private Property and Paine, accepting that Private Property was a basic injustice, went on to devise an accommodation for property-less individuals.
An economist, Richard Ricardo, challenged property owners and the negative influence of their rents on the economy and wrote a book, Principles of Political Economy, challenging their moral and economic right to do so. He threw his support behind the new moneyed industrialist, entrepreneur and business community - he was a stockbroker by trade - and against the old, established class of property owner. He fought against the protective Corn Laws that were making land owners wealthy, claiming that these laws only served to increase wages, raise prices and create what is now called inflation. Ricardo, unintentionally, plants the first seeds of the class warfare which followed in later generations.
John S. Mill in his Political Economy - accepting Paine’s notion of the injustice of the un-propertied - tried to devise another solution. Paine had suggested that a tax should be placed on the propertied and that at the age of maturity every man without property would receive a cash inheritance as compensation. Mill suggested that the state would buy back from individuals all property and from then on, property would be rented or leased by the State. Henry George later expanded this idea into his Single Tax notion - but with no buy-back from the present property holders.
Then came Karl Marx and Frederick Engels who espoused an evolutionary theory of property that brought things back to Godwin. Their original idea was that private property would simply dissolve into an egalitarian utopia due to the inevitable collapse of Capitalism which would be prompted by the evolutionary destruction of monopolization. Lenin and others believed that this utopia was truly evolutional and inevitable, but evolution was just too slow. Lenin, and those who believed similarly, decided that the historical evolution of a classless, egalitarian economy needed the prodding of a benevolent dictator. True believing followers, like Joseph Stalin felt that benevolence was over-rated.
We no longer discuss the rights of the un-propertied or the moral justice of inheriting property, or people having too much property. We seem to have come to the notion that as long as a majority of individuals have the opportunity to work, save money, and buy their own piece of the planet - this is fair and just enough. The negative historical roots have all been put to the side, as beyond reclamation and practical justification.
Nevertheless, in recent years a return to introspection and moral and Agrarian Justice and soul searching has been revived. The exploitation and pollution of property and the planet has been suggested as morally unjust. There is now an argument between the property owner and the long term interests of random mankind.
Teddy Roosevelt had his preservation and set-aside notions which have given us our National Parks, forests and monuments. Today, we are now considering morally, environmentally and economically the use of an individual’s or developer’s property in relation to his neighbors - his community, his state, his country, the world - to future generations. It is the tree huggers against the libertarians.
Some go so far as to call this a revolution. The Green Revolution it is called. Peace and goodwill to man via clean water, clean air and socially correct balanced growth. The libertarians say these tree lovers are fanatics who care more about woodpeckers and brown-speckled, sap-sucking, bank climbing beetles than they do people. These people (tree huggers) hold Walt Disney as a god and fantasyland and Disney World in Orlando as a real possibility for the future of mankind and community development – these Libertarians say. And sometimes it is difficult to see if these Green revolutionaries are trying to make the world safer for people or fire ants.
On the other hand, if the libertarian has his way there may not be any more fire ants or people. We could revert back to cesspools of congested living, and rivers, lakes and oceans filled with green dyes, mercury, toxic chemicals and non-edible, deformed, dying and disappearing sea creatures - not to mention, people (including Americans).


The “History of the Great American Fortunes” by Gustavus Myers was used in this essay – a very interesting Radical analysis of this accepted American Right.

Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson
Aug 24, 2005

Daily Journal of Richard E. Noble

I imagine that the only immediate value of my keeping a journal will be the fact that I will be forced to record the date each time I make an entry. This will help to keep me abreast of where I am in terms of the present century.
A journal is traditionally a record of ones personal opinions; but I am truly bored sick with my own opinions. I know pretty well what I think about most things at this stage of my life and I have also learned that most other people could care less what I think about anything.
So, the bottom line is, I guess, that this will be practice for the improvement of my punctuation and spelling along with forcing me to keep track of the day, month and current year.
I am now a journalist, I’ll have you know. A journalist, I am being taught, is a person who writes without revealing his personal opinions. My editor wants me to write in this manner, primarily, because he does not like my personal opinions.
I have recently met more journalist than ever before in my life. I don’t know why people aspire to becoming journalists. Obviously, they must make more money at it than I am currently earning.
In any case, I feel that writing for my present generation or the contemporary world is not sufficiently inspiring, so I think that I will try to write to a world 100 years from today. First of all, that would put me in a more positive frame of mind. The very fact that I think that there will be a world 100 years from today, is a positive step in itself. Also, I can talk to a future population who will look at what I’m saying, hopefully, with objectivity - or at least with historical curiosity - rather than with contemporary confusion, and political prejudice.
Right at this very moment my country, the United States of America, is waging two minor wars simultaneously. I am not going to get into the justification of these wars other than to express the hope that you people of 100 years from today, have gotten over this phenomenon.
It is sad to say but we, the human race, began another century with yet another war.
Our last five or six wars; in fact, all of our wars for the previous century, have been of a political nature. These latest two wars seem to be a return to “the good old days of yesteryear”. We are once again, it seems, fighting over religion.
Religion has to do with the concept of God, the creation of the universe, and social and sexual practices, prohibitions and mores. I only make this explanation in case you folks have somehow gotten past this point of controversy also.
Yesterday, I turned on the TV and a preacher by the name of Pat Robertson was lecturing to his listening audience. Pat Robertson is like Billy Sunday or Father Coughlin, or Cotton Mather - if you happen to be a history buff. I guess you would say that he is in the historical tradition of the type of preacher who is more concerned with socialism than with soul-shall-ism.
In any case, Pat Robertson - this man also ran for the president of the United States at one point in his career - was advocating that the U.S. government assassinate a leader of a foreign state in South America - the new dictator, or president of Venezuela. He claimed that this man was evil and that he was jeopardizing oil flow to our country.
He then conducted an instruction course on the history of the process of judicial review in our Supreme Court - which he followed with a prayer session.
He closed his eyes, took the hand of his secretary - a lovely looking black lady - and asked the home audience to join him in a sincere prayer. In this prayer he asked God to please make some vacancies on the present Supreme Court and fill those vacancies with judges who were inclined to believe similarly to him on these legal issues.
So first, he asked the president of the United States to kill - covertly - the evil leader of another country and then he asked God to make some “vacancies” on the Supreme Court.
With regards to the former suggestion, Mr. Robertson suggested that removing an evil dictator by CIA covert (secretive) action, we could save 200 billion dollars, since this is the amount that it had cost us taxpayers so far to remove another evil dictator in another country, far, far away.
Although Pat made no mention of all the lives, American and otherwise, that have also been lost thus far, I am sure that it was not just the 200 billion that had him so upset. I’m sure that he mentioned the 200 billion and not the lives that have been lost, only because he was at that particular moment in an economic frame of mind; much as a bereaved might inadvertently mention the price of the coffin or casket at the funeral of a spouse or son-in-law, for example.
Nevertheless, I thought this was questionable behavior on the part of Mr. Robertson. Even if I reversed the order of his requests and prayed that the president kill, covertly,  some members of the Supreme Court and that God make a “vacancy” in the leadership of the country of Venezuela - it still didn’t sound all that good - especially for a preacher. I wondered what the reverend Pat Robertson would have thought if a large group of seemingly normal people, but of an opposing religious conviction, appeared on his front lawn or on another TV network; closed their eyes and prayed that God would make Pat Robertson vacant and replace him with someone whose beliefs were more in tune with their own.
Then Mr. Robertson “journalized” a documentary on a loving missionary husband and wife team. This couple had gone on a mission to Iraq. Their goal being to convert the poor misguided Muslim people of that war torn country to the truth of the Christian Gospels.
They were machine-gunned at a downtown street corner in Baghdad. There were five missionaries in their vehicle. Only the one lady survived. Her husband and all of her friends died from their wounds. This woman was then asked how she could find it in her heart to ever forgive these horrible, brutal Muslim terrorists who had slaughtered her husband and friends in downtown Baghdad. They were missionaries and they were simply going about the holy and proper business of trying to save the souls of these misguided Iraqi people - who were obviously lost in the poverty and ignorance of some pagan belief. They simply wanted to introduce them to the truth of the Christian Gospel.
Well, she told Pat, that it was not easy, but that her and her husband truly loved these Iraqi religious indigents and that Christ had taught her to forgive. The woman who had only a piece of her left hand remaining, along with a small portion of one lung, did not say when or if she would be going back to Iraq to continue her mission, but I for one wish her god-speed and the best of luck.
Pat then held hands with his lovely ebony secretary and prayed that all people of the world would be endowed with the spirit of this kindly woman who clearly possessed an over abundance of “Christ’s forgiving legacy”. He prayed that we should all be willing to turn the other cheek and forgive our enemies because this was the true message of Jesus, the Christ and Savior.
At this point in Pat’s monologue there was no mention of the suggested assassination of the new (or old?) president of Venezuela or the prayed for “vacancies” on the future Supreme Court.
What a show - the greatest show on earth - one might say, with apologies to Barnum and Bailey, of course.

Boot and Shoe Makers Trial - 1806

Boot and Shoe Makers Journeymen’s Trial of 1806

by Richard E. Noble
The laborer’s condition in the original Colonies was not a happy one. The vast majority of the original settlers were not laborers. Upwards of 80% of the early Colonialists were Artisans, Craftsmen, Merchants, and Farmers. They were the propertied class. The actual laboring class amounted to between 14 and 17 percent of the entire white population.¹ Blacks were for the most part slaves. Two thirds of the white laboring class were contracted or indentured servants. In the Southern colonies this group was virtually indistinguishable from the black slave community. They could be bought, sold, beaten and killed. On the average, one in ten survived their typical seven year contract or indenture in Southern colonies. Immigrants came to the colonies as a result of false advertisements directed towards the gullible and discontented.² These ads proclaimed a better, more prosperous existence in the colonies. Some came in an attempt to escape debt or debtor’s prison, or as a part of early release prison programs. In these times the working classes were, to say the least, not respected in British society. A person, adult or child, could be executed for any one of five hundred different felonies. In the Northern colonies conditions were somewhat better, but not by a great margin.
As we approach the year 1776, and the war of Revolution, things gradually improve for the working class. Laborers, journeymen and apprentices become more and more scarce. In 1774 the British go so far as to enact a law limiting immigration. The industrial revolution is burgeoning and the British need all the unskilled and semi-skilled labor they can find. In the colonies demand for labor is high. Even though in many colonies there are laws limiting wages, they are impossible to enforce. Not only can free laborers move from town to town or from colony to colony, they can also move out into the wilderness; trap, hunt and settle free, “unoccupied” land. All they had to do was beat off the Indians. Which was often easier than beating off their masters, it seems. Consequently at the time of the American Revolution, common laborers, journeymen and apprentices were enjoying a heyday. Wages were 30 to 100 percent higher than in jolly old England.
But the tradition of discontent and worker rebellion goes way back in America. As early as 1636 John Winter, an overseer in Maine, was complaining about workers who struck in illegal consortship. For workers to unite in combination for the purposes of improving wages or working conditions was traditionally illegal.
This notion went all the way back to the English Tudor Industrial Code. Wage and price limitations were the standards of the day. Maximum wages were traditionally set. Prices were not set, but the concept of a “just” price was understood. If a businessman raised his price above what was considered “just” by the community, he could suffer serious repercussions.
Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” wasn’t published until 1776. Supply and demand and the self regulating market were not the rule of the day. In the year 1644, in Boston, Massachusetts, Robert Kaeyne was undergoing a trial for avarice. He had made over sixpence profit on the shilling. This was shameful. Other things that were considered shameful at the time: that a man might sell as dear as he can, and buy as cheap as he can; that if a man lose by casualty of sea etc., in some of his commodities, he may raise the price of the rest; that he may sell as he bought, though he paid too dear.
A merchant who sold his product over what the community considered a “just” price could have his business ransacked; or could be tarred and feathered and run out of town. Business was regulated by tradition and authority. The rules of price and wage were set by law, social custom and community morality, not the Laws of Supply and Demand. The first piece of legislation passed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony was that skilled workers would not be paid more than two shillings per day.
In 1741, New York City Bakers struck and were prosecuted for a criminal conspiracy, but no action was taken. In 1746 House Carpenters went on strike in Savannah, Georgia. In England, they were tried, condemned and fined, but here in the colonies, no action was taken. Finally in 1806 in Philadelphia a group of journeymen boot and shoe makers were tried for joining together in a conspiracy and acting in an illegal manner in the restraint of the trade of their employers. They were found guilty of forming a combination to raise their wages. They were fined eight dollars each and court costs. They were to be held in jail until their debt was paid.
This decision by the courts was basically the law of the land until 1842 when a Massachusetts court reinterpreted the doctrine of criminal conspiracy. Chief Justice Shaw in the case of Commonwealth v. Hunt defined a conspiracy as a combination of two or more persons acting in a concerted action to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means. As applied to workers, this meant that workers activities are criminal if their aims are illegal or if the methods that they use to attain their purposes are illegal.
The General Law on collective action is a part of the common law and contains two main principles; the doctrine of conspiracy and the doctrine of restraint of trade. The conspiracy doctrine or law of combinations stems from a statute passed by the English Parliament about 1350. The Black Death had greatly reduced the size of the British working population. As a consequence, the wages of working folks went up. The first statute that was passed demanded that wages be “just” and not excessive. Then in 1800 an Anti-Combination Act was passed making it a criminal offense for laborers to combine together for the purpose of raising their wages or improving their working conditions. As stated above this was the law until 1842. None of this proved to be very helpful. Although employer’s rights were established, what rights workers had was still to be determined.
Unions and labor organizations had the right to join together for fraternal or benevolent purposes. They could accept or reject the wage offerings of their employers. If they rejected the wage offered, they could quit, find another job, or pack up and head West. Up until 1842 anything in excess of these options was illegal. They interfered with the constitutional rights of the employer, his property rights, or his right to conduct business.




1 “A History of American Labor”, Joseph G. Rayback.
2 Ibid
3“The Worldly Philosophers”, Robert L. Heilbroner.
4“Labor Problems in American Industry”, Carroll R. Dougherty.
5 used in this essay include; “The Worldly Philosophers”, Robert L. Heilbroner; “Labor Problems in American Industry”, Carroll R. Dougherty; “The History of American Labor”, Joseph G. Rayback: “The Annals of America Vol. 4, 1797-1820; Tom Paine and Revolutionary America”, Eric Foner; “The Story of American Freedom”, Eric Foner.

A History of God - Karen Armstrong

“A History of God” by Karen Armstrong

Book Review

by Richard E. Noble

Karen Armstrong was, at one time, a Roman Catholic nun. She left the nunnery behind in 1969 but not her search for God. This is a good book.
Her book deals primarily with God in the Judeo-Christian theologies; Judaism, Christianity and Islam. She gives a good criticism and analysis from atheism to mysticism. She goes through each of the religions and the evolution of their thought. I suppose that the word “evolution” would not be proper because there is no actual progression of thought culminating in a final conclusion. It is a comparative analysis, exploring all the tangential pathways engaged in by all three of the theologies. The point is made that all three theologies have shared all of the various pathways in seeking a God. Each group has had its radicals, its rationales, its fundamentalists and it mystics.
I would not classify Karen as an atheist or even an agnostic. I would place her into the category of the want-to-believer. Her problem, as a want-to-believer, in dealing with conventional religious thought with regards to the concept of God, is that, unfortunately, she is too smart. She defeats all of the conventional and conservative logic with regards to God, but yet is still left with the desire to have a God to believe in. I suppose that this would be considered the Kantian point of view.
Mankind needs to have some kind of a belief in some sort of God. Why? Because the pit and depression that comes with an empty eternity is not conducive to the hopeful human spirit. There is this notion that this “feeling” stems so far back into the psychology of man that it is not only necessary but instinctive.
I don’t know why oblivion would be or must be considered a “hopeless, depressing, pit” - certainly an eternity of hell is even more depressing. If you don’t exist, you wouldn’t even know that you were hopeless or in a pit. You couldn’t despair either. And just because an idea goes back into time with a seeming endlessness, that doesn’t mean that it is instinctive. It could just be traditional ignorance. Like; the world is flat; the earth is the center of the universe; fire is the addition of something called phlogiston; and, all woman look the same upside-down
On the practical side, at least at this point in man’s evolution, no atheistic notions have been capable of transforming established thought on the matter of God. God has been transformed over the centuries but only by means of reform. The old God must be replaced by a new God who is transformed to conform to the times. So you don’t want to tell people that God is dead or that He is impossible, you want to explain to them how God has been misinterpreted by the current established order; or how a belief about God that was once held in the past is more accurate than any going around at the present. In other words, if you want change, you must invent a new God or re-establish an old one. But the logic and arguments against the God notion have become so substantial and sophisticated that the above proposition becomes more and more difficult - whether the gods are old or new.
Karen is clearly leaning toward a mystical God.
Karen establishes that the whole God-thing started with the notion that there must be a Creator or a First Cause to all things. This notion got muddled, and in all of the three theologies there came about a desire to prove the existence of this Creator, rationally. This caused a good deal of debating and argument - for centuries.
Karen agrees that all of the arguments proving the existence of God failed or were eventually defeated. What resulted was a new group of Godless atheists who contended that God couldn’t be proven or verified rationally and was therefore an impossibility; and another group who agreed with the atheists that God could not be proven a reality but that He was valid nevertheless. The fact that you could not prove the existence of God simply made God all the more “mysterious” - thus evolved a group called Mystics. Most believers are at heart Mystics - no amount of logic or reason can convince a believer that God does not exist.
God was initially the creator of all things. Unfortunately, someone had to ask: If God is the creator of all things, from what did He create all these things that are?
He created all the things that are, from all the formless stuff that was floating around Him, said some. Then, of course, somebody else said; There was stuff floating around God? - stuff that existed eternally, and simultaneously with God, for ever and ever? Then there must be two Gods - the eternal God that is just Stuff and the other God that is ... what? What is God made/composed of anyway?
This problem led some to conclude that God and the Stuff that was floating around the Universe were actually One. So, God was the Stuff of the Universe. If God was the Stuff of the Universe then it must be that God created the Universe from Himself If God created all the things that are, from Himself - then everything in the Universe must be divine. Then - we are all God.
Hummmm?
There were many who accepted this notion that everything was a part of God, but there were others who didn’t like the idea. So, they said that God did not create the Universe from Himself. He didn’t create it from any stuff that was floating around, either. He actually created the Universe out of nothing. But how can something come from nothing? Ex-nihilo.
It was magic. It was a miracle.
Okay, if God created the Universe from nothing, what is God? Is He something or is He nothing?
God is nothing, too. Where does He live? He lives nowhere. Is He tall or is He short? He is both tall and short. Is He male or female? He is male, female, animal and mineral. He is all things and He is no thing. He is at the same time nothing and something. He is one and He is many. He is single and individual, yet, at the same time multiple and diverse. He lives beyond the boundaries of the universe. He transcends both space and time. He is faster than a speeding bullet and can leap tall building in a single bound. He’s … he’s ... whatever you would like Him to be.
If you have no trouble following this type of thinking, then, you are a mystic. Mysticism seems to be the last refuge for the struggling want-to-believer from the pits of despair and atheism.
Karen also points out that there has been an unfortunate return to Fundamentalism. In the West and in the United States it is fundamentalist Christians, in the mid-East it is fundamentalist Muslims; in Israel it is fundamentalist Jews.
A fundamentalist usually has some basic “truth” that he clings to. It might be a book or a notion. He believes wholly in this notion and feels that all others should believe it as well. Karen feels that Fundamentalism is a backward step in mankind’s progress toward an understandable or, at least, acceptable God.
Karen thinks that it is time that the world created a new God. She suggests a mystical God of some kind. Unfortunately, a mystical God is an UN-reasonable God. The trouble with UN-reasonable Gods is just that. A God that is not subject to reason can certainly evolve into something just as tyrannical as the “One True” God of the fundamentalists. Gods that come from “nothing” and find their being in “non-existence” are simply and purely double-talk.
The problem here has to do with the philosophical definition of nothing.
Religious thinkers, along with many philosophers, keep attempting to make nothing into something. I have even read some who claim that nothing is simply the absence of something and that something is simply the absence of nothing.
Nothing is not the absence of something; nothing is the absence of all things. Something is not the absence of nothing; something is the absence of all things but one - that one thing that it is.
This “Nothingness” business is confusing. It is attempting to make nothing into a quantity like zero in mathematics. A thing or amount that can be added and subtracted. Nothing is a concept not a precept. It describes the imagined state or condition of non-being - that state of no innate potential to be actualized and no innate tendencies to actualize itself. Nothing is what isn’t and consequently what can never be in and of itself - what can not become. Ontologically, it has no being and no potential for being. To say that something can come from nothing is simply a contradiction in terms.
Something is also a concept but it is used to describe things that exist - things that are perceived - something is a universal description of things that are things that have being in themselves - being in-itself; being that transcends phenomenon and appearance and is, in and of itself. It is a thing; it is something. Ontologically speaking something describes things that are - a thing that is - has being in-itself- not in the imagination but in reality.
Parmenides had it correct - That which is, is and that which is not, is not and can never be.
So when the mystic says that God is Nothing, he is saying that God does not exist and He can not come into existence. With this I would agree, but when the mystic goes on to state that it is from this state of Nothingness that all things have come into existence, he is simply babbling non-sensical gibberish.
Karen, in my opinion, falls into this trap of thinking Nothing to actually be something with the potential for existence - by the very definition of the word nothing, this is not possible.
I certainly agree with Karen the world needs a new God, but I have no suggestions. I liked it a lot better when people kept there Gods to themselves. It was a much better world when believers were less demonstrative and less sure. Many of today’s believers and want-to-believers border on the repulsive and the obnoxious. I consider them all to be psychotic, possible schizophrenic, and without doubt - dangerous.
“A History of God” by Karen Armstrong is, to say the least, educated, informative and well-researched. I’ve been reading about the gods and Gods now for over fifty years. Karen’s survey gave me more information than I personally felt necessary. But, I like that. I feel I got my money’s worth.
On the down side, she can get a bit confusing. She skims on many traditional explanations, presuming that you, the reader, are already familiar with such notions or that they are not that important; but then goes on extensively in areas of lesser importance - or where “more” is hardly necessary.
Karen spends a good deal of time on mystical notions, for example. It is plain that she finds some sort of ‘hope” in that brand of foolishness. She also spends very little time on the idea that nothingness is impossible. She is more into the confusing school of Martin Heidegger who it seems tries to prove that nothing is really something.
If one can somehow contemplate the notion that God could have emerged from nothing into something; or that nothing preceded something, or that something and nothing are two interchangeable quantities; or that God who is Himself nothing, could have created the universe from a nothing that was separate and distinct from His own brand of Nothingness - then I suppose that Mysticism becomes some sort of possibility. Actually, if nothingness can truly be found to be something-ness then, of course, anything becomes a possibility.
I think this is getting us into Wittgenstein here. If nothing can be something then we are obviously lost in semantics and have stopped dealing with reason, logic, or science.
The mystic is, in my opinion, a person who begins his inquiry into God’s possible existence, with the assumption or positive notion that God is a reality. Now, all that he has to do is defeat any arguments to the contrary. This course has left him in a never-never land where nothing and something both have a reality; where the universe and all that is - really isn’t; where rational thinking is a trick; where scientific inquiry is a deception; where everything that is, is only part of the story; where the unreasonable becomes the reasonable; where there are places beyond all places and things beyond all things; where God can exist beyond existence - beyond time and space (St. Augustine).
It is one thing to say that proving the existence of God is impossible and therefore one must rely on faith to accept such a proposition, but to build on this “faith” in an Unconfirmed Suspicion, a set of rules, laws, commandments, principles - even books supposedly written or dictated by this Unconfirmed Suspicion should be a little much, to say the least, for any sane human being.
I enjoyed Karen’s book, nevertheless. Karen’s notion that the impossible could become more acceptable if it is blanketed in the mystically paradoxical is not an answer that I can accept, but it is more than possible that mankind, in general, could find it temporarily sustainable. I feel that this would only bring the human race out of the frying pan and into the fire. Fundamentalism is certainly a step backward, but mysticism is no step forward.
I personally feel that in her quest for God she has one final step to take, but is afraid to take it for the fear of that “pit of despair and hopelessness” that she mentioned in her book. Kierkegard had a similar problem. He chose to “leap into the absurd”.

Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design

“The Clock”

by Richard E. Noble
The basic contention of this argument is, as I perceive it, that the Universe or individual aspects of it (life, the human eye, etc.) are so phenomenal that they could not have possibly evolved, but instead must have been initiated by an “Intelligent Designer”.
I don’t understand why this argument has promoted such a stir, nor do I understand why it is considered, today, more viable than when it was first introduced centuries ago by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Proponents of this notion enhance this old argument by Design with notions involving probability statistics and the old “clock” argument.
The Clock Argument has also been around for quite some time. This argument compares a Clock or a Watch to the Universe. It goes like this: If all the parts of a watch or a clock were placed in a sack or cast to the wind does anyone believe that these random parts could assemble themselves into a functioning watch or a clock? Certainly not! Then why would anyone believe that the Universe could have assembled itself?
By the same argument could the wind or a tornado assemble the random parts of an automobile, could a monkey select the proper letters on a typewriter to spell out a Shakespearean Tragedy? So then why would anyone assume that random chance has created the Universe?
The Clock: The clock is a mechanical device constructed by man. Because the wind could not construct a clock, this is reason to conclude that there must be such a thing as an Intelligent Designer? Are we saying that only a God could create a clock? But a God did not create the clock - a human being did, and the Universe is not a mechanical apparatus. So because a monkey can peal an orange why is it that a gorilla can not construct a tricycle? What does one have to do with the other?
Man constructs a watch that the wind cannot duplicate; the ant constructs an anthill that the wind cannot duplicate; a bee constructs a beehive that the wind cannot duplicate. But the ant cannot construct a watch or a beehive; and the bee cannot construct an anthill or a clock; and a man cannot construct a beehive or and anthill. So what?
So then an Intelligent Designer must somehow be responsible for all of these things. And what is an Intelligent Designer?
An Intelligent Designer is a humanly imagined, super natural, unsubstantiated suspicion; with no discernible qualities, who exists beyond Existence and outside of the limitations of time and space, beyond the realm of the known, the understandable, or the rationally consistent.
And this is what is responsible for the Universe?
If this be the case, could we not also say that it is Santa Clause that is responsible for the Universe? As far as I know Santa fits the entire above criterion. Santa traditionally has centered his abilities on creating toys for children and delivering them simultaneously about the world, but I am sure that he could construct a clock; and I can imagine that he could do so by first constructing all the various parts and then casting them into the wind - where they would then assemble themselves. And I wouldn’t be surprised if when the parts assembled themselves, they would be able to speak and tell us all what time it is. Hey kids, it’s Howdy Doody time!
Probability?
The notion that something is not probable does not mean that it is impossible. It is true that we live in a very improbable universe - but clearly it was not impossible. It is!
When you exist in an infinite Universe, the possibilities of anything happening are infinite. I would say that this leaves the realm of what is possible wide open.
To say that you have doubts that something could have come about via an infinity of possibility and that therefore it must have come about via something “un-natural” or “super-natural” is incomprehensible to me.
It seems to me that you are trying to replace the improbable or even the highly improbable with the impossible - the totally impossible. If I must choose between the impossible and the improbable, I will choose the improbable.
As I understand the “laws” of probability, they are not laws at all. It may seem highly improbable that a coin could be flipped into the air and land on one side or the other a thousand times in a row - but it is not impossible. Many people have lost a fortune going to gambling casinos and betting on the probable. The “laws” of probability say that a coin will come up either heads or tails fifty percent of the time, but unfortunately the coin in question has not read about the laws of probability. If a coin has been flipped nine hundred times and it has come up heads each time, one might conclude that on the next flip that the laws of probability would favor tails. Not so. The chance of heads or tails is still 50/50 no matter what the previous results. Unfortunately the coin does not have a memory - nor is it involved in the passions of the gamblers.
Intelligent Designer equals God?
Philosophically, I think that it has been well established that the concept of God is un-definable.
That the Universe has a design has not been established by anyone. That there are patterns and events that seem to be repetitious is obvious, but that anything is infinitely repeatable or predictable throughout the universe for all eternity, as far as I understand, is not known. Many great scientists have not felt this to be true - Newton, Laplace, Einstein.
Newton and Einstein saw predictability and claimed a Designer, Laplace saw the same predictability but yet found no need for such a presumption or hypothesis. There are some scientists today who think that they know the beginning and can even predict the end of the Universe. I don’t think so. Can we look at one tiny particle of infinity and claim that it is but a grain of sand on the homogenized beach of the never ending?
But let’s say that the Universe does exhibit design. Let’s say that there are laws of the Universe that apply consistently throughout the Universe. Why would this presuppose that there is an undesigned, supra-natural, un-reasonable, illogical being (or “intelligent” entity) that is responsible for such design? - never mind that this intelligent entity, dictates novels and has literature and poetry transcribed, or can contain and establish justice and morality in what is claimed to be His own personal immoral, unjustified creation. There is no reason to presume any such thing.
Today we have DNA. Does this mean that Man has been preprogrammed? Can we now say, as Calvin claimed, that each man is pre-destined and his fate is sealed by the DNA Designer? I don’t think so. So what if all living things contain a genetic record? So what if all things living or not living contain an encoded history?
A table may imply a table maker but the wind does not imply a wind maker; the sun does not imply a star builder, and an infinite Universe does not imply an Infinite Creator. An infinite Universe has no center; no bottom and no top. By the very same logic it may have no beginning and no end.
And if this Universe has no beginning and no end, is that any reason why I should “worship” it?
What some scientists today describe as the beginning of the Universe is clearly and logically not the beginning. What they have pointed out as the “beginning” is merely a cataclysmic event which may have happened at some previous moment within the realm of Existence. Clearly there was something in existence before the moment they describe - whether it be energy, light, matter or whatever. And clearly there will be something existing beyond what they predict as the end of the Universe.
What we presently understand as the Universe may have both a beginning and an end, but Existence, itself, will remain beyond the end and was clearly in place before the beginning. As Epicurus pointed out many long centuries ago: Something does not come from nothing. In the beginning, there was something. If in the beginning there were nothing, then there would be nothing today and there would continue to be nothing for all future eternity.
Intelligence?
The concept of intelligence in relation to a God is very confusing. I don’t think that any of us can think of “intelligence” without thinking of a human being.
Human intelligence involves thinking, reasoning, judging, understanding, induction, deduction, theorizing, prefacing, concluding, remembering etc. To a God - the perfection of all things - all of these processes and/or attributes are impossible. God cannot think; He must know, and what He knows - must be; it cannot “become”. Intelligence, as we understand it, would not be possible for God. Intelligence implies ‘before and after”. God cannot learn - He has no need for learning. If God must learn, then He must not know. If God doesn’t know something, then He is lacking in knowledge. If God lacks any knowledge, He cannot be All-knowing. If God is not All-knowing, then He cannot be the ultimately perfect entity or being and therefore He would not be God. For that matter God cannot be a “being”. Because a “being” is only one thing among many things; and for God to be God, He must be all things.
This is the type of round-about analyzing that has led a good many theologians to conclude that discovering or defining God is impossible. The theologian might say that it is the discovering of God that is impossible; while the Philosopher and skeptic might say that it is God that is impossible. The theologian chooses to “believe” in the impossible; the Skeptic does not.
To teach the possibility of the impossible, whether you believe in it or not, I don’t think can be considered science. It has been and will most likely continue to be considered Religion. From my point of view, I would rather not teach religion as science, nor would I be inclined to teach science as religion. Science should not have to be believed; it is supposed to be demonstrated.

News From the Front

“News From the Front”

by Richard E. Noble

“A Soldier Fights from Sun to Sun,
but a Reporter’s job is never done.”

“Good afternoon. This is Dan Blabber with your three A.M. update on the war. For a new perspective on the conflict, we now take you to our roving correspondent, Leonard Lunatic, somewhere in the war zone. Leonard, can you hear me?”
“Yes Dan, I can hear you.”
“Where are you, Leonard?”
“Well, right now, Dan, I’m in a dug-out bunker on the enemy side of this conflict. I am here in this foxhole-type bunker with nine hundred enemy soldiers.”
“How interesting, Leonard. Tell us, how is the morale inside this enemy bunker?”
“Well, it is kind of difficult for me to tell, Dan . . . none of these soldiers speaks very much English, but my intuitive reporting instincts tell me that these fellows are pretty upset about something. Listen to this, Dan . . . I’ll hold my microphone out towards the enemy here with me in this bunker:
‘Die you pig!’
‘May God grant me the power to cut out your heart and feed it to your mother!’
‘May all of your children be born with one foot and forever be forced to hop through life and through eternity on their one bad foot which is infected with the gout!’
“Can you hear all of that, Dan?”
“Leonard, we are getting the message loud and clear. But, tell me, Leonard, have you been able to determine what seems to be upsetting them so?”
“Good Question, Dan. I can’t put my finger right on the main point of their anger, but I think that it has something to do with this . . . listen Dan, listen as I extend my microphone outside of this bunker.”
“We’re listening, Leonard. Go ahead.”
BOOM! Boom boom boom! Bang! Big explosion, big explosion, big explosion!
“Did you hear that, Dan?”
“Yes, loud and clear, Leonard. Could that be bombing by the American air attack, do you think?”
“Yes Dan, it could very well be. In fact, I’m almost sure of it.”
“And, if I’m reading you correctly, is it your opinion that those soldiers are opposed to the bombing?”
“Yes Dan, I think so.”
“Well, thank-you Leonard and hold on - we will be back to you momentarily.”
“Okay, Dan.”
“Now we go to Mortimer Mortuary, who is also reporting from somewhere in the combat area. Mortimer? You are on the air.”
“Dan. . . DDDDDDan! I’m very excited, Dan. I’m here with a group of enemy soldiers on a SCUM mobile missile launcher somewhere in enemy territory.”
“That’s SCUD, Mortimer.”
“Pardon me.”
“I said that is SCUD not SCUM. . . That’s a SCUD mobile missile launcher.”
“SCUD . . . SCUM? What difference does it make, Dan? I’m here in harms way getting footage from enemy soldiers.”
“Yes Mortimer, but a good reporter knows his SCUM from his SCUD.”
“Oh really, Dan? How’s everything behind that nice, big, safe desk in the studio. You’re not frightened, are you?”
“Ah Mortimer, I did report the war in Vietnam, you know.”
“Yeah, what do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on?”
“Listen, butt-face, do you want to get on the air? Because I can cut right back to Leonard Lunatic by simply pushing this little button right here on my desk, you know.”
“Hey Dan, whatever floats your boat, Pal. I could care less.”
“Well, Okay . . . now we go to Inga Idiot who is at the enemy capital. . . Inga?”
“Yes Peter? I’m here at the main office of the Zierra Club. I’ve been interviewing, not only enemy Zierra Club members, but members from the Moutoban Society and, of course, Mean Peace. And I will tell you, Dan, the mood here is somber. From listening to these environmental advocates, I think that the enemy leadership is in big trouble. Right at this moment, they are organizing a sit-in directly on top of the Head Command’s underground headquarters. And I can tell you, Dan, they are P.O.ed. I think that this group of bad guys has finally gone too far. These environmentalists really mean business. For one thing, they are claiming that although this underground bunker may be bomb safe, it is, nevertheless, environmentally unsound. It seems that radioactive gases from a nuclear explosion could accumulate within the underground bunker and endanger the near extinct Bunker Beaver and contaminate the medicinal fruit from the underground bunker berry bushes - that is to be distinguished from the George, Jeb, Neil and Sherman Bushes all of who seem to survive and thrive underground and in the dark.”
“Do you really think that the environmentalists could really have an effect on this war, Inga?”
“Dan, I’ll be very honest with you, if these environmentalist groups can get their groups in gear, this war could be over in a Sununu, or faster than you can say ‘Newt Gingrish has a new girl friend’. You can count on that.”
“Thank-you Inga. Now back to Leonard Lunatic in an enemy bunker somewhere out in the war zone.”
“Dan, Dan! . . . they are just about to launch another SCUM missile.”
“Whoops, wrong button. Let’s try this one. Are you there, Leonard? Leonard Lunatic, can you hear me.”
“Sure Dan, but isn’t it supposed to be YOU ARE THERE, and not ARE YOU THERE? Oh never mind. . . Dan, I have never seen anything like this. These fellows are really, really upset. They want to fight, destroy and kill. And - this is sad to say, Dan, but - these people want to kill Americans. For some strange reason, Dan, right at this very moment, they are attaching bayonets to their weapons. I don’t know how bayonets defend against bombs, but something is about to happen here, Dan.”
“Well, Leonard, you are an American, aren’t you?”
“That’s correct, Dan, I am. And very proud of it, I might add.”
“Yes, that’s commendable Leonard, but do you think that the bayonets could have anything to do with these enemy soldiers having an American reporter right there with them in their bunker?”
“Oh shit! Gosh, what do you think that I ought to do Dan?”
“Do you have a gas mask, Leonard?”
“Yes I do, Dan but I really don’t think that it works. My mom is sending me one from the Army/Navy store at home that has been certified, but I haven’t got it yet. This one that I have here is government issue, just like the Marines get - no chance in hell with this thing. It is like one step above Toys-R-Us . . . but wait a minute! Something is about to happen here. The enemy soldiers here in the bunker are beginning to come towards me. AUGH! AUGH! Gasp gasp gasp. Dan, Dan! I’ve just beeen bayoneted ... twice. Did you hear me Dan?”
“Yes Leonard, but tell me, on behalf of the folks back home who have never been bayoneted, how did it feel?”
“Well Dan, it is a bit hard to describe. It is a rather cold, hard, penetrating feeling.”
“That sounds somewhat sexual. It isn’t like sex, is it?”
“No Dan, it is not sexual. In fact, Dan, it is really not pleasurable at all.”
“Leonard, that still could be a sexual experience - so my wife tells me, anyway - but, nevertheless, do you think that they will attack you again?”
“Dan, no one can ever be sure about something like this, and I don’t want to commit myself, but from the looks on their faces, it looks very likely. In fact, listen to this, Dan; I’m placing my microphone on my chest. . . THUMP! - Ugh! THUMP. . . thump! Ugh. . . ugh! Dan (pant, gasp-gasp) did you get it?”
“We got it, Leonard. Great reporting! I don’t think that any network will be able to compete with this. Good job, and from all of us here at the studio - a well done and a round of applause. Our hats are off to you, Leonard. Now put on that gas mask and see if you can’t find a safer bunker.”
“Thanks Dan. . . gasp, gasp, gasp . . . but I think that it is too late for that . . . “ gasp . . . expire.
“And that was Leonard Lunatic reporting from inside an enemy bunker. And now we return you to our regular network programming.”
“Dan! . . . the SCUM missile has just taken off and it is heading for the Holy Land.”
“Whoops . . . wrong button again. Sorry folks, let’s see if I can find “The Days of Your Life” on here somewhere. This is Dan Blabber signing off. . . Peace, no. . . . ah . . . that’s War. Good night America . . . and. . . . WAR!
The end
(or is it just the beginning)

[ This piece was written between 1988 – 1992 ]

EDITH

EDITH

by Richard E. Noble

I guess, I thought it would always be,
my life, my health ... my longevity.
I’d never need ... not me ... not I!
I was the kind that would survive.
I’d always be, like I used to be.
Filled with the spirit ... filled with me.

But now, despite myself, it’s all gone.
I exist like a rock …
the thought of a stone …
sleeping ... unknown.

I thought when I reached a point such as this,
I’d tip my hat, and with a shrug and a sigh,
I’d wave to the crowd ... blow a kiss,
and tell the world ... good-bye.

But here I sit as helpless as a child,
crying all night, and praying for a smile.
I hate to say it ... it makes my ego blush,
but I don’t wish for death,
be it from a bang, or a purr felt hush.

God forgive me, but I’m in no rush.
As bad as it may be
and in this sad state as you can see,
as helpless and dependent, as I may be,
I still long to look out my window and see;
a cat with a string,
a boy with a rope,
a bird with a worm,
a pear with a frost,
a tree with a leaf
a day with a sun,
or the raindrops, as down my window, they run.

I’m old and as useless as I can be
but I pray ... I honestly pray …
please God, can’t there just be, a tiny, tiny bit more ...
… for me?

Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler

Chapter 2 - Part 4

by Richard E. Noble

“… One thing we must and may never forget; here, too, a majority can never replace the Man. It is not only always a representative of stupidity, but also of cowardice. Just as a hundred fools do not make one wise man, an heroic decision is not likely to come from a hundred cowards …”
If in that first sentence, Adolf is saying that the rights of the majority should not supersede the rights of the individual, then I don’t think that he is criticizing our American Democracy. The American People have been arguing and fighting for this principle for a couple of centuries. This statement may be meant as more of a slam against the notion of communism than American Democracy. But, I have read this criticism against the basic concept of democracy. In which case, I would agree that this is a problem that all the citizens of any democracy should be guarded against.
And a coward is, of course, anyone who relinquishes his opinions, or the course of his actions to the will of the majority. I guess that would make almost all of us, living in democratic societies, cowards - I would suppose. One could certainly argue that the decisions of one intelligent man are often better than the opinions of ten thousands morons, but who is to say, in a world of ignorance, who is the intelligent man with the wise opinion? Adolf felt that “wise man” to be himself, I for one, do not see the resemblance. For my part, I always thought that playing “Follow the Leader” was a children’s game. I listen to my leader and follow my personal conscience. On occasion, my leaders and my Country have not been happy with this idea but ... “so it goes”.
Another sign of cowardice is, obviously in Adolf’s opinion, the inability on the part of a group to make a firm decision. But, once again, making a wrong but firm decision should not be the goal of good leadership either.
“… by far the greatest bulk of the political ‘education’ which in this case one may rightly define with the word ‘propaganda’ is the work of the press ... This rabble, however, manufactures more than two thirds of the so called ‘public’ opinion and out of its foam rises the parliamentary Aphrodite ...”
Well yes. And the solution is to take over the institution and print your own propaganda?
We have a different solution. We say that everybody can print whatever propaganda they want. It is rather chaotic at times, but seems to work. But whether it works or it doesn’t work, what are the alternatives? Certainly the suppression of all opposing arguments is not the way to go. Until we come up with something better, I think that we will, in the name of freedom, be forced to continue stumbling along with the hope that as even the ugly can appreciate beauty; we, the ignorant, will be able to recognize wisdom and truth.
And obviously we have here an example of the written word influencing people to a point of Adolf’s distraction. I thought that writing was hogwash, Adolf?
Adolf hated newspapers, but not enough to inhibit him from starting and maintaining his own newspaper under the directorship of one of his old World War I buddies. His newspaper was around a long time and made good money.
“… It is easier for a camel to go through the head of a needle than that a great man is ‘discovered’ in an election ...”
And then by what other methods do we discover a great man? By his ability to stand up on a soap box on a corner and tell us of his greatness, or to write a book, like Mein Kampf, or to be powerful enough to beat us all into submission? I assume that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt etc. were not all that impressive to our friend Adolf. I suppose himself, Mussolini, Franco, Mao, Stalin would be considered much greater. Even Popes are elected by Cardinals - I would guess that they don’t measure up either. Of course, we all know by now that the greatest men are those who assume their power by force and violence rather than elections and consensus - according to Mr. Adolf. But, you know, even Adolf was first elected to office in a German democratic state. I guess that would substantiate his point and not mine.
“...Why does one elect five hundred if only a few of them have sufficient wisdom to define their attitudes towards the most important matters? ...”
This criticism is right out of Plato dialogues. It could be a quote. One answer might be; In order to give us, as a society, greater chance of sifting out the great ones.
I would yield here to Tom Paine’s “The Rights of Man”, to counter any argument in favor of divinely inspired kings or inherited wisdom. I wonder if Adolf had been exposed to Plato and Socrates? These type arguments are right out of Plato’s dialogues. It is truly easy to criticize and poke fun at the expense of democracy, but very, very difficult to devise something better - even better than our inadequate version of democracy. As Winston Churchill once said, if I may paraphrase; Certainly the democratic government is the worst form of government yet concocted - except for all the others.
“… This institution can be pleasing and valuable only to the most mendacious sneaks who carefully shun the light of day, where as it must be loathsome to every honest and straightforward fellow who is ready to assume personal responsibility...”
Why? Why more so in a democracy than any other form of Government? And if we are going to talk about “mendacious sneaks”, once again I think our hero Adolf, would come out a leader in that category by anyone’s standards.
“… this system is opposed by the true Germanic democracy there will be no voting by a majority on single questions, but only the decision of the individual who backs it with his life and all he has...”
He likes a representative democracy as opposed to a true democracy? I think not. He likes the system where the ruler comes about by his ability to knock all others down, or defeat them in the streets with clubs and sticks, or guns and bullets.
Prisons around the world and throughout history are full of these type individuals - people who are willing to take the law into their own hands at the risk of their own life.
It is courage and valor for an individual to stand up at the peril of his life in a kill or be killed fashion to his country’s enemies, but it is treason and terrorism to take the same course against one’s friends, neighbors, countrymen and family. This is what nationhood, patriotism, democracy, peaceful decent, public protest, passive resistance, civil disobedience and love thy neighbor are all about.
“… But in general it should never be forgotten that not the preservation of a state or a government is the highest aim of human existence, but the preservation of its kind…”
Adolf would have made a much greater statement above, if he could have changed ‘its kind’ to ‘human kind’.
“… The instinct of self-preservation of the oppressed ... is always the most sublime justification for their fighting with all weapons ... Human rights break State rights.”
And here we have him justifying his own right to overthrow the State. But I would imagine that the Marxist Jews, whom Adolf hates so bitterly, are also advocates of the notion that ‘human rights break states rights’. Adolf is clearly an inconsistent individual, but like all defenders of the establishment and revolutionaries alike they find something to be correct and proper when they do it, and improper when the enemy or rival performs the same tactic.
“… If a man is not ready and able to fight for his existence, Providence has already decreed his doom ... the world is not intended for cowardly nations ...“
Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Socrates and Martin Luther King would not have made his list of heroes. There is a difference between being “ready to fight” and being “ready to kill” – and to kill possibly innocent civilians and non-combatants, to say nothing about means and methods of killing even enemies.
“... The bespectacled theorist, however, would rather die for his doctrine, than for his people ...”
This seems to me to be a direct slur at a particular individual. I wonder who? Trotsky, maybe? Did Karl Marx wear glasses? But it is clear that he does not admire intellectualism. At the end of his ‘reign’, Hitler is quoted as saying, that if the German people lose the war then it is obvious that Providence has deemed them unfit. Does not a statement such as this make him also a man of theory as opposed to one of his people? If he were a man of his people wouldn’t he sacrifice himself for whatever improved the lot of his people? In the end, he tells his people if they lose, it is their fault - not his. They did not fight hard enough, or courageous enough.
"... for let it be said to all knights of the pen and to all the political dandies, especially of today; the greatest changes in this world have never yet been brought about by a goosequill! ...”
So then, why are you writing this book? Believe it or not Adolf, today this book is all that remains of you and your philosophy. If you only spoke and didn’t write, you would probably be in the myth category, as with all the other great speakers who chose to speak and not write. Name one great movement in history that does not have a body of writing to support and define it?
“… Here one can really not serve two masters. In this, I consider the foundation or the destruction of a religion essentially more important than the foundation or destruction of a State, let alone a party …”
Not a defender of the individual in this area. Support for the group or the ‘sniveling masses’ is more important than one’s individual concept of God, Truth, personal salvation or eternal damnation. The State is Adolf's God. But more important than the State is the ‘Rights of the Oppressed’, and of course Aldolf's personal right to overthrow the State himself. What happened to “the Man”?
“… in order to achieve any success, one must not present, for purely psychological reasons, two enemies to the masses ... It is part of the genius of a great leader to make adversaries of different fields appear as always belonging to one category only ... as soon as the wavering masses find themselves confronting too many enemies, objectivity at once steps in ... Therefore, a number of essentially different enemies must always be regarded as one, in such a way that in the opinion of the mass of one’s own adherents the war is being waged against one enemy alone. This strengthens the belief in one’s own cause and increases one’s bitterness against the attacker...”
Again, we have no concern here about a righteous cause, or the truth of a matter, only the method for manipulating people to your side. Certainly more of a psychological approach than a philosophical one. Adolf does not seem to be nearly as concerned about truth and justice, as he is about the problem of ‘winning’. He is obviously more of a politician than he believes himself to be.
This tactic seems to be a very popular one. Karl Marx started it with the hateful “Capitalist”; Ayn Rand took it up with her Religious “Witch Doctors” and “Monopolistic Governments”; Tom Paine had somewhat the same idea with his “Kings and Royal Families”; today’s Republicans have been very successful with their “Liberal” scapegoat; Hitler, of course, had his “Jew”; Clarence Darrow and the leftists of today have “Society”; and most of us just for general usage have “They” or “Them”, a group whom we are constantly redefining, but you all know who “they” are. The truth is never so simple as being defined by one culprit or cause; but there is no doubt here, Adolf is correct. The masses like a simple enemy and all enemies defined under one banner are much easier for anyone to organize behind - keep it simple, stupid. One can readily see how Adolf applied this concept to “the Jew”. We will see this concept exemplified more and more throughout this work.
“...1 detested the conglomerate of races that the realm’s capital manifested; all its racial mixture of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Serbs and Croats and among them all, like the eternal fission fungus of mankind - Jews and more Jews …”
It is interesting. I will bet that if we had a crowd of all of the different ‘races’ mentioned above, we couldn’t successfully pick two of one kind out in a row, out of any crowd.
Today, I think most anthropologist agree that there is only one race and that is the Homo sapien. Genetically, we are all mongrels with cultural, regional and national similarities or dissimilarities. Genetic research has discovered that a person with black skin my have more white genetic inherited links than he has black - and this applies to all colors and types. At best, your immediate ancestors might show on the surface but on the inside, your “flesh and blood” is universal, international, and most likely “inter racial”.
And there we have chapter three. Not much respect for democratic principles; religion and all else, secondary to the survival of the State; not much respect for Germany’s neighbors; a system of principles for manipulating the masses, or at least public opinion; a theory on what impresses ‘little’ minds; a rather hardy disrespect for the masses in general; not a lot of praise here for the press, either.

[This is part of a continuing series appearing on this blog – if you would like to read more Analysis of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf; click on “search this blog” for previous entries listed under Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler. This has been my fifth entry]

Trading with the Enemy

Trading with the Enemy

by Richard E. Noble

Do you want to read a book that will really rock your boat? Then pick up “Trading with the Enemy” The Nazi-American Money plot 1933-1949.

Since I have taken up as a research project for myself, the investigation of World War II, from the philosophical perspective of ‘The Just War’ notion or concept, I find myself being lead down many a strange alley.

After reading much of the conventional literature on the rise of Adolf Hitler, the obvious question occurred to me; Where did Adolf get his money? Nobody gains political power, EVER, ANYWHERE, without money. Anybody who thinks that even our soft spoken, country gentleman Jimmy Carter jumped out of a peanut patch, or Harry Truman out of a Haberdashery store in Missouri, or Abe Lincoln out of a log cabin, or Sun Yat-Sen out of a rice paddy, or even Fidel Castro out of a sugarcane field, is very naive to say the least. Without money, nobody goes nowhere in politics - anywhere in the world - nor throughout the annals of History. It just doesn’t happen - ever.

So as an adjunct to discovering the moral righteousness or immoral iniquity of World War II, I have been led to investigating also, the financing of the Third Reich, and the personal backing for Adolf and his buddies. This is without any doubt a story yet to be written, of unbelievable proportions.

The first name that stands out in this investigation is Henry Morgenthau, who seems to be, very rapidly, turning into a real American hero. You will find his name written all over older American paper money. He has over a thousand volumes of his files stored at the F.D.R. library. This should be some interesting reading. (If you read, sometime in the near future, of the sudden disappearance of the Margenthau files, remember you read it here first.) He had a plan for the demobilization of Germany - forever. Germany was to be stripped of all industry and manufacturing and the entire nation reduced to farmland, raising grapes, sauerkraut or schnitzel.

Morgenthau was also in charge of compiling files on American business and individuals suspected of aiding and abetting the enemy in time of War - treason. The British have similar files and after the war there was a movement accusing the entire upper crust of England of treason. Winston Churchill in his “The Gathering Storm” out-right accuses the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, of acting insensibly and certainly against the proper interests of his Country. I have no doubt that in this book, Winston challenged future historians to an investigation of the true motivations of the Prime Minister Nevelle Chamberlain. I have yet to see anything on the subject in print. And I am told that Neville had refused all offers and resisted all endeavors by biographers.

In “Trading with the Enemy” you will find the names of many well known manufacturers, Industrialist, and bankers suspected, if not known, to have been “trading with the enemy” not before and up until the bombing at Pearl Harbor, but through the entire war. Mister Higham’s accusations are point blank, no pulling punches in this book. I am still shocked and disappointingly amazed.

Frederick The Great 1740-1786

by Richard E. Noble

Frederick the Great, otherwise known as the philosopher king was neither “Great” nor a philosopher. To give you some idea of what kind of a guy Freddy was, about two hundred years later, Adolf Hitler idealized the man.
Freddy’s father, Frederick William I, was kind of like Teddy Roosevelt; he believed in carrying a big stick, but instead of walking softly, he thought it better to hit people with it. He was prone to walking around the streets of his Austrian princedom and beating the poor and unemployed, or little old ladies who were selling apples but not doing their knitting. He also used his stick to beat up little Freddy.
Frederick the not so Great was an obstinate little child. Whatever daddy liked, he liked the opposite. Freddy consequently liked the arts, wrote poetry, spoke French, and played the flute. He also liked other little boys, and as a young man, tried to run off to England with two of them. His daddy caught the naughty little boys and put one in prison for treason, and had the other one beheaded in plain view of Freddy’s bedroom window. This did not succeed in changing Freddy’s sexual direction in life, but it did stop him from bringing any of his boy friends home to meet ‘Pops’.
Freddy wrote a book about how a good philosopher king should act, and very shortly thereafter began invading countries and killing people who didn’t like it.
Freddy liked to invite famous people to come and live at his palace. Voltaire was a house guest for three years, which kind of makes one wonder a little about Voltaire. Freddy finally accused Voltaire of stealing some silverware or candlesticks or something, and Voltaire had to scat for his life. In retrospect, Voltaire said that Freddy was a ‘likable whore’.
Freddy liked to write and wrote thirty-eight volumes of something that nobody but probably Adolf Hitler has ever read.
Freddy was also a part of Adolf ‘s Jewish inspiration. He liked to kill or exile the poor ones, but the wealthier ones were allowed to live ... for a price. They could also go from town to town - as long as they didn’t mind paying a toll at every street corner and getting beat up and robbed by the local German population. Also one son of a “prized” Jewish family could take a bride ... for a price of course.
Tom Paine wrote in his “Rights of Man” that if the world could get rid of its Kings and Royal families, the world would at last be free from war. I always wondered where Tom got such a naive idea, but reading about Freddy and the rest of the Royal families is beginning to make it all clear. And even if it didn’t stop war, it might have been a fun thing to do, just for the hell of it.

William Greider

William Greider

One World Ready or Not

by Richard E. Noble

I read a book by a Mr. William Greider, “One World Ready or Not”. On the back cover of his book it states that he is the National Editor of the Rolling Stone. I thought that was a magazine about Mick Jagger and other horribly disfigured people who have made a success of promoting the concept of noise around the world.
I consider this book an economics book - but it is not a compilation of difficult theories. It is a vivid and insightful description of what is going on around the world, with chapter after chapter of everyday life descriptions. It is about the New Global Capitalism - the privatization of the world.
Mr. Greider’s book is a primer on getting up to speed on what is presently happening in world economics. I consider it to be very intelligent and well thought; especially for a man who I presume spent the early part of his life following the Grateful Dead - the Rolling Stone Magazine, you will remember.
When I reflect on Mr. Greider’s book one of the many things that comes to my mind is a problem that he pointed out in the conclusion.
In a world of, more or less, dedicated Capitalism where supply and demand and profit-making are the sole motivation for investment and action, how does necessary but non-profitable “good” happen?
For example, you are a Capitalist Doctor in a Capitalist world. You are riding along the highway and you stumble upon an accident. Many people are lying along side the road bleeding and injured. You quickly discover that these people have no insurance and no money to pay for the necessary supplies, never mind your expertise, training and college loan. With Capitalism and supply and demand as your guide, how do you devise a profitable system or method for their care?
Charity is not a system or method of Capitalism, it is a band aid. Charity is a notion that drains off the goodwill of Capitalism. It stands out as a flaw in the Capitalistic dogma, not as a positive attribute. Charity only becomes necessary because Capitalism has failed. Charity doesn’t make a profit. It is not a business. We can’t depend on Charity as an economic tool.
The notion that people should all be pursuing their own personal good does not help our good Samaritan dogmatic Capitalistic Doctor.
As a Capitalist he must devise some sort of rationale whereby he can gain a profit from the suffering and tragedy he has encountered.
How does Capitalism feed the hungry who have no money to buy food, even if the Capitalist can produce sufficient quantities; how does Capitalism provide Aids medication to those with no money to pay even for its manufacture? How does Capitalism provide a profitable avenue for environmental safety when clearly polluting pays? How can profit-making provide living wages to workers when providing living wages means less profit and higher prices? The list where Capitalism has traditionally provided no answers goes on and on.
In the past, governmental socialism has been the safety valve of the Capitalist World. When the going gets tough the taxpayer takes over - that’s socialism, not Capitalism.
In the United States, back in the Wilson days, when the banks kept collapsing, the government and the taxpayer stepped in with the Federal Reserve System (Banker Socialism). When the Depression struck, it was Government Socialist spending that stepped in to save the day. Even if you say it was World War II that saved the economy, it was not the killing and the destruction that saved the world from the Depression; it was the government spending on the war effort that produced the jobs, that supplied the wages, that turned around the spending, that stimulated the investment, that paid the soldiers, that built the middle class, that saved the house that George (Washington - not Bush) built.
We didn’t need World War II to save us from the Depression; we needed unlimited Government spending on a project that satisfied the moral work ethos of the people of the world. Any project would have done the trick, a pyramid or two, an aqueduct, an interstate highway system, a man on the moon.
Why can’t the project to save the world, and stimulate Capitalistic spending be something morally sound; as opposed to something architectural, or industrial or totally destructive, - as War?
When Europe had no money to buy products from the Capitalist world, we gave them the money.
We said that the Marshall Plan was a loan but most of the Marshall Plan money was never paid back. So, in effect, we made TVs and refrigerators - financed Europe’s reconstruction - for people and governments who could not afford to buy these products or materials.
We gave them the money to buy them; we gave them the money to manufacture their own TVs and refrigerators; pretty soon their economies were flourishing and they were selling us TVs and refrigerators. We had to start producing other things here at home to employ our own people to fill new markets from a more demanding world. I even hear Republicans today bragging on this world wide socialistic welfare project called - the Marshall Plan.
Why could this same technique not be used in curing the world of hunger or disease?
If people in Slumbovia need food, we loan (lend/lease) them the money, then sell them the food (deferred loan payback option - lOUs). Once they start eating more regularly, we loan (lend/lease) them some more money and start selling them some tractors. Pretty soon they are growing their own food and manufacturing their own tractors and we are selling them fertilizers, tractor parts and engineering expertise, and they are standing in line to buy tickets to Disney World. And all the while we are paying Henry Ford the II, 3rd. or 4th to manufacture this stuff.
Henry then gives everybody a raise at the factory and takes on more employees - just like we did in World War II. The only difference is we don’t have all the dead bodies and all the bombed out building to rebuild. Instead we start housing developments in Slumbovia. Pretty soon everybody is doing so well, we simply cancel all their debt obligations (call it a tax rebate to stimulate the trade balance, encourage consumption and new investment). The Donald moves to Slumbovia to find a new apprentice and he takes Martha Stewart with him. How can we lose?
There is a lot of world out there to be made prosperous and a lot of money to be made supplying the initial investments, the knowledge and the know how. If it works for war, and the Military Industrial Complex, why can’t it work for peace and refrigerators?
If this concept can work for refrigerators, TVs and even hula-hoops and pac man, then why can’t it work for healthcare, the environment, science and the betterment of mankind in general?

Spring Is Here

Spring Is Here!

[Here is another gem for all you journalism students out there – I was asked by the boss to write something on the bear problem here in Franklin County – This appeared last week in the Franklin Comical … I mean Chronicle]
by Richard E. Noble
Ahh yes, once again it is spring - tweet, tweet, tweet. The Robins are here with all of their little friends; the Blue Jays, the cooing doves, the Mocking Birds, the bees and the Humming birds. The Bald Eagles and the Ospreys are building their nests. The birds are all a-flutter, the Cyprus are turning green and “I’m as giddy as a kitten up a tree”. You might think that I have spring fever - if you didn’t hear me cursing every morning as I gather up all the broken egg shells, coffee grounds and gooey garbage that had been strewn about my front yard by the raccoons and black bears that are now an integral part of this - the Franklin County Wildlife Preserve.
Last month, a little past twilight, as I sat on my screened-in porch, I happened to notice that a fourteen or fifteen hundred pound Black Bear was standing there on my septic tank. Naturally I was somewhat apprehensive, so I did what any macho-man would do - I called my wife. She took one look at the bear standing on our septic tank eyeing her garden, and ran out into the yard to confront the bear. She clapped her hands several times and yelled; shoo, shoo you bad old bear.
I was, of course, still inside the house. I decided that since this was just a big, old, dumb animal out in my back yard, I would take some intelligent thoughtful action. “Honey, are you out of your mind!” I screamed.
While my wife continued to play patty-cake with the two thousand pound Black Bear, I called the Florida Fish and Wildlife (888-404-3922 or “bear guy” 850-265-3677). I told the man on the phone that there was a bear in my yard. He chuckled.
I said, “What do you suggest that I do?”
He said, “Stay indoors until the bear goes away.”
I was expecting something a little more than that response.
“Yeah, but what if the bear decides to come inside and join me?”
“Oh wow! That would be something wouldn’t it,” he said laughing.
“Right now my wife is out in the yard clapping her hands and shoo-ing it.”
“Yeah, lots of people have been doing that.”
“Is that a good thing to do?”
“I wouldn’t say so. I heard about this lady who rubbed peanut butter on her arm and tried to get a Black Bear to lick it off.”
“Oh my god!”
“Yeah, she didn’t do well. I saw some pictures.”
“Well the only weapon I have is a BB gun. Do you think that if I shoot it with my BB gun …”
“Oh, don’t do that!”
“Why, does that make the bear mad?”
“No, but you could hit the bear in the eye or something and then you might find yourself before the County Judge getting a stiff fine.”
“Really?”
“Oh yeah. You hurt the bear and you could be in big trouble.”
“Well, what if the bear eats my wife?”
“You shouldn’t allow your wife to harass the bear.”
“Honey, honey!” I yelled. “The wildlife guy says that you should stop harassing the bear.”
“But the bear is stepping on my daffodils.”
“Yes, but if the bear eats you and then develops heart problems and dies from having too much cholesterol in its arteries, I could be prosecuted, fined or imprisoned or both.”
Eventually, my wife chased the bear out of her daffodils, but I sat her down and gave her a good talking to. I said: “You know honey, I took a vow “to death do us part” and it has always been my intention to honor that commitment. Not only that but as the alpha male in this “herd”, I have always considered it my responsibility to love and protect you from all harm. But, I must say that if a two thousand pound bear decides to eat you, there really isn’t that much I can do about it. Nevertheless, you have my word that I will remove your mangled body from on top of the septic tank - after the bear is gone.”
“Thank-you,” my wife responded. “You have always been my hero - the wings beneath my feet - I’ll cherish your concerns and sentiment.”
In any case, if you have a two thousand pound bear in your daffodils, you too can call “the bear guy”, Robbie Edalgo at 850-265-3677. He is a lot of fin - not a lot of help - but very funny.

Illegal Immigration

Illegal Immigration

By Richard E. Noble

This is a difficult subject. I told myself that I would not get into it. My goal these days is to win friends and influence people and not make enemies - if it could be avoided. But since my wife and I have traveled all of these United States picking fruits and vegetable for a number of years, it would be logical to conclude that I have an opinion on the current controversy. Of course, I do.
By the way, if you would like to read about our adventures as migrant farm workers, you can find the whole story in my book, “Hobo-ing America” - contact me via my e-mail for more information.
If you have already read Hobo-ing America you realize that illegal immigration is more than a physical problem at our borders. We have people here from all over the world who have come by one legitimate method or another, but once here have violated that agreement and taken up illegal residence. Not only that, but we have governmental immigration services that are not only inadequately staffed, but are also permeated with corruption. In my travels I learned from illegal aliens from all parts of the world that all the legitimizing paperwork to bring a person from an illegal status to a legal status can be purchased directly from unscrupulous government employees working at those agencies. This is what I have been told; I have no personal experience with the practice. I was born in this country and therefore qualified to work any lousy job this country has to offer.
A green card can be bought for “x” number of dollars; a social security card can be purchased in the same manner; and any other paperwork that one might need guaranteeing permanent residence can be bought for a price. This is what I was told by any number of illegal aliens. Some freely showed me their papers. They were very proud that they had earned enough money to buy them.
Many illegal aliens come here on student visas, or as a part of a political asylum. The U.S has been involved in so many corrupt governments and revolutions around the world that it would be difficult to determine how many illegal aliens are here with our government’s permission - in a sort of protection program.
Many of them were working at jobs procured through employment agencies, some head-quartered right in Washington D.C. They showed me their paperwork. Employers around the nation were signed up for this service and the workers paid large sums of money for the privilege of working in a chicken factory or a meat packing house somewhere in “anywhere USA”.
This is a big business, not only for the placement agencies involved but for the corrupt employers as well. You can be sure that these businesses have their butts protected via sub-contractors and other phony or not so phony agencies. When confronted they will deny any knowledge of the illegal nature of their practices – but they know. This is big business - and the government agencies along with the business community are in it up to their ears. This is my opinion based on what I have seen with my own eyes and heard from the people who are the customers involved in this racquet - and it is a racquet in my opinion.
To say the least, the illegal immigration problem is more than rounding up a few poor Mexicans at our southern border. It is systemic. It won’t be solved overnight by one bill being passed in the Federal legislature. You can pass all the laws that you want but if they can’t be enforced or you’re not ready to spend the money necessary to enforce them - it won’t happen.
I shouldn’t have to say this because it should be obvious, but illegal Immigration is illegal.
If I said to you; Are you against people illegally withdrawing money from banks? Your answer would be simple and unqualified. I doubt very much if you would start telling me about all the economic advantages provided to the community by bank robbers. I also doubt that you would tell me that the bank robbers or illegal withdrawers are just poor people who need those funds. You wouldn't you tell me about all the good that has been accomplished by past bank robbers who have invested their illegal withdrawals wisely, either. The same can be said for any illegal activity whether it be drugs, prostitution, or organized crime.
But, you say, an illegal immigrant isn’t a bank robber. True. A friend of mine said to me a while back; Your problem is with the word illegal. Just eliminate the word illegal and then what is your gripe?
If this is your attitude, then I must assume that you are for an open immigration policy. I can only imagine what the United States would look like in a few years if we did away with any restrictions on immigration. My god!
I’m sure that right at this minute there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in Poland who would like to migrate to this country if they were allowed. I’ll bet that there is no shortage of Russians, Chinese, Croates and whatever. Is it fair to deny these eager, enthusiastic folks; these huddled masses yearning to be free; these poor hard working struggling folks who simply want to be a part of the American dream; these honest, decent, hard working people - is it fair to deny them this opportunity to be free?
Of course it is. If you want to have a Nation or a Country, it is. It is unfortunate, but it is necessary.
Now we come to the more practical arguments. What do we do with the eleven million illegals who are here right now? And secondly what about all these jobs that Americans refuse to do?
They say that there are eleven million illegals here, my guess is that the number would be closer to twenty million; and I would not be surprised if after and actual count, it was found to be even higher.
I don’t know. This is going to be a big, big problem. If I was here illegally and it was announced in some newspaper that I should go down and register, I wouldn’t do it. Unless the penalty if I got caught was extremely severe, or the reward to my advantage,
I wouldn’t register. I’d take my chances. What the hell, I have been illegal for all these years, what’s a few more?
Whether it is the right or wrong thing to do, I do not think that all illegal aliens can be rounded up and deported. Some method of incorporating these people into the society will have to be devised. But this is going to require thousands and thousands of new government jobs. These people are going to have to be recorded and processed.
If the stern Republican approach is taken, this will require the same monetary outlay. The Republicans who are asking for this type action will not be willing to pay for it. I think that they are putting up a big show. If they get their way I doubt if anything will be done to change the situation at all. And that would be in tune with their traditional point of view - help the Bosses.
If the Democrats get their way it will be another kiss and make up amnesty deal and when they try to get the regulatory jobs and the border enforcement jobs it will all turn into political mush. The final product will have no teeth. Nothing will be accomplished, nor will the situation be changed.
So to tell you the truth, I don’t take any of this debate seriously. It is a political campaign issue, and nothing more.
But, let’s pretend.
On the issue that there are jobs that Americans just won’t do - I take serious issue. This is totally bogus. Anybody who says this in my opinion is (pardon my French) full of shit.
Americans have always been willing to do any jobs that have been offered to them - but they have never been stupid.
The problem is not with the American worker, the problem is with the jobs themselves. There are jobs in this country that are difficult to find workers to do. For the most part these jobs are very limited. They deal almost entirely with the harvesting of seasonal crops in Agribiz. All the other jobs in all of the other industries are simply jobs that employers are unwilling to pay a living wage or a decent respectable wage to their workers. They want the money or they are being pressured out of business by foreign imports and virtual slave labor, overseas conditions.
The employers have some legitimate reasons for this complaint. One is world free market competition. I’m sorry but the advocation of this policy is a paved road to disaster.
If one accepts the logic that better wages, fair wages, higher wages automatically means higher prices and eventual inflation and vanishing businesses, then the same principle must hold true for greater profits, higher dividends, and bigger pays for CEOs and CFOs and Doctors, Lawyers an accountants and Indian Chiefs who now own gambling casinos. If this principle holds true for the lower income jobs then it should also hold true for higher income jobs - and profits and dividends from the stock market. In which case, poverty is the goal and success or a better life means destitution. This is pure horseshit and obvious class prejudice.
This argument advocating lower and lower wages for the poorer hard working folks in our society is illogical. If it were true then it would also be true that more people making more money on any level would eventually lead to the collapse of the Capitalistic, free enterprise system. The principle is not valid. If more competition and lower wages means a better more prosperous world, then why did we ever do away with slavery; why did we have the 1929 depression? This logic is just plain and simple stupidity.
This country has not become the greatest, wealthiest nation in the world because we have a few very wealthy, smart people. All countries have a few wealthy, smart people. This country has become the greatest economic nation in history because it provided a means for more and more people to become modestly well off and for the average worker to have, at worst, a roof over his head, food on his table, and a hope for the future.
It took a combination of economic philosophies to accomplish that. It took a little Capitalism, a little mercantilism, a little socialism, a little protectionism, a little foreign trading, a little free marketing, even a little communism. It took a number of strong leaders in government and in private enterprise, and a good dose of moral economic conscience - provided by labor unions, churches, charities, environmentalists, suffragettes, and fearless champions of every type of minority right. This Country is not great because we adhered to inflexible dogmatic notions of anything and not because we have always had the most powerful military in the world. We have always been like the Universe around us, a nation in flux, steeped in change, a people willing to do and try anything.
Most of the businesses around this country who depend on illegal workers could have all the legal workers they want - they simply have to offer a living wage. If there are legitimate reasons why they cannot - other than simple greed and more and more for the bosses - then the legislature should enact policies accordingly - whether they be called projectionist, or nationalistic, or even isolationist. If we let middle-class America go down the tube, we can forget the American dream altogether.


[Related information – Search This Blog – Minimum Wage; Me and the Global Economy; One Nation; Global Economy.]