Espionage and Sedition

Striking America

By Richard E. Noble

First came the Selective Service Act with its traditional opposition, then the Espionage Act, and then the Sedition act. From the radical Labor point of view, World War I was a Capitalist endeavor. The War had been started to quell The Revolution. What Revolution? The Revolution that was taking place around the world; the Revolution that was going to do away with Capitalism and the Capitalist, with the factory owners and their slaves. The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand was just an excuse. To quell the Revolution, was the goal.
How, exactly, the “People” were going to take the world back from the millionaire, monopoly, trust Capitalists who had highjacked it was a matter of opinion. The world, like the Newtonian universe, was now being guided by unalterable laws. Supply and demand was sufficient to dictate the life or death of men, women, and children. The Anarchists had their view of this Revolution. The Syndacalists had a view, the Communists had a view, and the Socialists had a view. It was somewhat like the Biblical story of Armageddon. It was going to happen. It had been foretold by the prophets - the economic prophets, the democratic evolutionary prophets. Its truths were being accepted by the poor and the laboring classes all over the world. The days of the rich and powerful were numbered. The “Robber Barons” were through. There would be a new evaluation of the worth of labor. The day of reckoning was inevitable, if not predictable as to where or when.
The Russians had walked off the battlefield of World War I, and were now engaged at home in the “true” war - the war for the liberation of the common man. In the U.S. a Civil War had freed the black slaves, but now the white wage slaves wanted their freedom also. The wage slaves had been fighting ardently for decades. Jay Gould, industrial baron, had suggested that the best way to end this labor revolution was to pit half the workers of America against the other half and then let them kill one another. Woodrow Wilson found the perfect means of fulfilling Mister Gould’s dream. He had Congress declare war on Germany.
No American war had ever been by the unanimous consent of the people. World War I was the most contested war in American history. The country was very quickly divided once again into patriots and rebels, into loyalists and traitors. The traitors, according to the Espionage and Sedition Acts, were those who opposed the war in any way shape or form. We had seen this type of legislation under the presidency of John Adams. Many were imprisoned for simply speaking their mind under the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson rescinded these Acts and freed the Adams’ critics from their cells.
Now we had Woodrow Wilson, a supposed “liberal”. We also had Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, a religious man, a man of peace ... a Quaker. Palmer and his predecessor began indulging in mass arrests. With the aid of the F.B.I., Palmer actually conducted raids all over the country - sometimes arresting thousands at a time. If you were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five, you could be stopped on the street and required to show to the authorities your Selective Service exemption card or papers. If you could produce no such authorized rejection you would be arrested. You would be held in jail or prison until it could be proved that you were not a “draft dodger”. If you could not show proof, you were inducted into the military service and quickly shipped over to Europe to help the cause of old Black Jack Pershing.
It was decided by the Supreme Court that once a war began your rights as citizens, guaranteed as unalienable under the Constitution, were temporarily suspended. It was further decided by the Supreme Court (Arver v U.S.) that Conscription, the Draft, was not slavery or involuntary servitude under Article I ... "the Congress shall have the power to raise and support armies."
One might be so bold as to ask what Congress’s right to “raise and support an army” had to do with arresting free men in the streets and impounding their lives. One might be glad that the southern pre-Civil War legislators didn’t get the Constitution to state their economic ... right to plant and raise cotton. We would undoubtedly still be living with slavery today. As the State is granted the power to usurp individual freedom in order to procure "slaves" for its armies of war, the plantation owner could restrict freedom and procure slaves for it "right" to grow cotton. Since when can our God-given rights be suspended for any reason? They can’t – unless we give them up.
Freedom is not something that is granted by the Constitution or the Parliament or the Politburo. Freedom as pointed out in our Declaration of Independence is a prerequisite of "birth". It comes with the territory ... if you want it and have the ability to hold onto it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness ..." Freedom comes with birth via a Creator, if you believe in such a thing. But Creator or no Creator, our forefathers felt that freedom was "self-evident". It didn't need a proposition. It didn't have to be proved. Freedom was an obvious fact of life. But even then as today in this country there are those who would deny this "truth". There were and are those who did not and do not understand the content of their own declaration.
The chief targets of the Espionage and Sedition Acts were the labor unions and the Socialist reformers, in general the dissident population.
The Wilson government and Mister Palmer began shutting down Socialist newspapers all over America. The first Amendment and free speech no longer applied. We were at war for God’s sake! If any newspaper wrote anything against the war, against Conscription, against President Wilson, the entire newspaper could be fined, imprisoned or both. And many had just such a fate.
The American Socialist Party, which had drawn millions of votes in previous elections, had elected Senators, Congressmen and Governors was now the party of traitors. Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist presidential candidate was arrested for speaking out against the War, convicted under the Espionage Act and sentenced to ten years in prison.
The Industrial Workers of the World, the I.W.W. would be the biggest single group to be attacked under these laws. It became a crime to simply be a member of this rather large and influential labor union. I.W.W. members were arrested by the busload and train carful. Around the country, I.W.W. members were arrested by the thousands. The United States of America v. William D. Haywood et al is a dramatic example of the circumstances existing at that time.
The entire I.W.W. organization was indicted ... "the indictment portrayed the I.W.W. as a violent, treasonous conspiracy to sabotage the war effort, seize control of industry, and overthrow the United States Government by unlawful, tortuous and forcible means and methods, involving threats, assaults, injuries, intimidations, and murder..."
There were five felony counts to the indictment. The first count charged that the Wobblies conspired to "hinder, delay and prevent by force" the execution of the declaration of war.
The second count charged the defendants with "conspiracy to injure, intimidate and oppress" those citizens who supplied war materials to the government.
The third count charged that the Wobblies conspired to hinder registration for the draft.
The forth count alleged that the defendants conspired to cause "insubordination, refusal of duty and disloyalty" in the United States Army.
And the fifth count charged that the Wobblies had conspired to violate the postal laws by using the mails to further the other four conspiracies.*
Though these charges were serious, evidence supporting these charges was lacking in credibility. The entire case for the prosecution consisted of nothing more than written statements and propaganda put out by the I.W.W. The "overt" acts charged against the I.W.W. were all literary. In fact these overt acts included two telegrams written by Big Bill Haywood protesting the Bisbee deportations.
The Bisbee deportations were investigated by the office of the president and these investigations were supportive of the opinions expressed by Big Bill Haywood in his telegrams to the President. The anti-draft and pre-war negative literature of the I.W.W. was included in the indictment. Even the preamble of the union itself was included as an overt act in the indictment.
The prosecution had 57 packing crates containing 25,000 copies of I.W.W. literature in evidence. There were over four hundred Wobblies arrested. The lawyer for the defense was George Vanderveer. Clarence Darrow would not come to his old friend's defense on this one. Clarence had put his passivism aside and was now in favor of the war.
The presiding judge was Kenesaw Mountain Landis. A decidedly biased man who personally felt that any man that was against the war should be stood up against a wall and shot. In 1917 he had sentenced over one hundred draft resisters to long prison terms. He announced that America was a nation of cowards. The very fact that a draft was necessary indicated to Judge Landis that Americans were cowards. If they weren't cowards they would already be in Europe fighting.
One might wonder why Judge Landis wasn't already there, himself.
It was April Fools Day, 1919 when over one hundred I.W.W. defendants were marched over to the Chicago court house. The prosecutor pointed out to the jury that free speech gave anyone the right to advocate breaking the law. The defense pointed out that the Declaration of Independence was just the type of free speech that the prosecution would like to outlaw.
The I.W.W.'s preamble stated that the working class and the employing class had nothing in common. This was considered incendiary and inflammatory, not to mention against the law. The Sedition Law stated that there would be no writing allowed that might turn the opinions of the public against the government.
The I.W.W. was obviously against the war. They were against war in general. They had made this position known long before war had been declared. No evidence of any nature, written or otherwise was brought forward indicating that they had ever acted on any of these ideas or theories. If patriotism means waving the flag while profiteering or believing that war is the best means of settling disputes then we are not patriots, declared the defense. Vanderveer closed his argument with an idea that has been revived recently. "What would Jesus have done?" was his question to the jury. Would Jesus have called these men traitors or men of peace?
Yes, the I.W.W. in some areas had gone out on strike after war was declared, but so had the A.F. L. and many, many others. These were not strikes in opposition to the war but legitimate labor disputes. They were in opposition to bed bugs and housing for workers built over pig pens, and women workers being forced to sleep in doorways in Mexico City and men being forced to sleep on floors in Rockefeller-owned coal camps. These strikes were about abusive child labor, and migrants sleeping in haystacks and vigilantes beating up workers, forcing them from their homes, if they had one, and dumping them out in the desert or elsewhere as happened in Brisbee.
Yes, there were strikes but they were sporadic and random. None was nation-wide or affecting any industry in particular. Witness after witness was brought to the stand proclaiming the uprightness of individual Wobblies and socially decent acts performed by the organization as a whole. The charges were ridiculous. There was no evidence. The defense had made their case so thoroughly that they actually decided that no closing statement to the jury was necessary. Vandeveer simply appealed to the jury to act as good Christians and to ask themselves ... what Jesus would have done ... if He were in their place.
The jury returned in less than an hour with over forty thousand pages of transcript to ponder, with over 400 cases against 101 men to consider. Their verdict was that all the men were guilty on all four charges made against them in the indictment - Jesus lost once again.
Judge Kenasw Mountain Landis stated. "When the country is at peace, it is the legal right of free speech to oppose going to war and to oppose even preparation for war. But once war is declared, this right ceases." The judge handed out the harshest sentences possible. Ninety-five men were given prison terms amounting to 807 years and fines of more than $2,400,000. Big Bill Haywood was given twenty years at Leavenworth.*


*"Roughneck" The Life and Times of Big Bill Haywood, by Peter Carlson.
*Works used in this essay include: "Roughneck", The Life and Time of Big Bill Haywood, by Peter Carlson; "Recent American History by Lester B. Shippee; "The American Pageant" by Thomas A. Bailey; "A History of American Labor" by Joseph G. Rayback; "Verdicts Out of Court" Clarence Darrow, edited by Arthur and Lila Weinberg; "The Annals of America vol. 14.; "Labor Problems in American Industry" by Carroll R. Daugherty; "Fighting Faiths" by Richard Polenberg; "The Americans" A social History of the United States 1587-1914 by J.C.Furnas.

Sink the Ship Theory

Commentary

By Richard E. Noble

It seems to be common knowledge that Ronald Reagan had a Sink the Ship economic philosophy. Many economists and left wing pundits and apologists galore explain, rather mater-of-factly, in book after book that it was the goal of the Reagan administration to bankrupt the federal treasury and to create an national debt so great that when and if a Democrat did get into office there would be no money left in the treasury or readily available for borrowing to invest in domestic spending. This is kind of like that movie "The War of the Roses".
In that movie two people who were once in love with one another and had married and were pursuing a common goal, were now at odds with one another. Their animosity towards each another becomes so great that eventually they each pursue a policy of total destruction of everything that they had built while together and in love. The movie ends in a scene of total destruction with both of them gasping their last breathes.
My first reaction to this type insanity with regards to our government is to say that this is absolutely ridiculous. But in light of the fact that Ronald Reagan did bankrupt the U.S. Treasury and create a national debt greater than the total combined efforts of all the presidents who had preceded him I have to consider the possibility that this type of treasonous insanity could be the fact.
And then when the next Republican George Herbert Walker Bush came along he did exactly the same thing - only double.
When Clinton came into office the treasury was in fact bankrupt and the national debt was beyond reclamation by many conservative estimates - where it remains to this day.
Now George W. is president and he seems to have performed the same unbelievable economic undermining of the American people that his father and their political hero Ronald Reagan had inspired.
One might be inclined to say that this has to be a first in all of American history - but it is not.
Herbert Hoover did basically the same thing in 1932.
When FDR came into office in 1932 the U.S. treasury had been vanquished - and primarily by tax giveaways and supposed incentives to the wealthy investment and business community. In Herbert's last days in office he had a going out of business sale - everything had to go. And it went!
The majority of these wealthy people took their tax breaks and incentives and turned them into gold bars and shipped them over to banks in Europe for safe keeping.
Before Hoover there was another famous Republican president, Benjamin Harrison, who did pretty much the same thing to Grover Cleveland. Grover Cleveland was forced to borrow money from the notorious J. P. Morgan to bail out the federal government when he took over for his second term.
So it does seem that bankrupting the federal government could be considered an old Republican tradition - but would any American do this consciously and not by accident? Could this be a serious Republican strategy?
If this is truly the case what could possibly be the Republican logic behind this strategy?
Well if we look at government, especially populist democratic government, as being in opposition to the wealthy and the power of the wealthy to control the system, I suppose a case could be made.
In other words, if I/we have all the money and the King/government is broke then could I not control the King or the government with my wealth? I suppose that I could.
But what about all of the other people in this democratic state? Would they not resist?
Well if we wealthy surround ourselves with a few others who we allow to be fairly wealthy and another even larger group that we allow to be moderately wealthy, and we buy up all the media and information sources could we not establish a ruling state behind the apparent popular state?
Well, of course we could. It has been done for century upon century. It is the history of the human race.
But could it be done here in the United States of America - the best informed and most educated country ever in the history of mankind - and a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people?
Certainly not?

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years. He has authored two books: "A Summer with Charlie" which is currently listed on Amazon.com and "Hobo-ing America" which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel "Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother" which will be published soon.

The Eastpointer

The Wefing's Man

Richard E. Noble

I bumped into The Wefing’s Man the other day at Burger King. I never knew his name, but every oysterman, shrimper, or seafood worker who worked this bay for any length of time in the last forty years in Franklin County will recognize this fellow as I speak about him here in this story. This gentleman worked at Wefing’s Marine Hardware in Apalachicola for 37 years. Today he is in his seventies and still looking good, I might add.
I have often wondered to myself if Mr. Wefing really appreciated this fellow. In hobo-ing around America we met a Wefing’s Man type guy here and there - but his type is rare.
The Wefing’s Man worked at this store for 37 years. He knew every part number of every bearing, seal, prop or carburetor on every outboard motor manufactured in the last one hundred years. I may be exaggerating slightly but his memory for all these numbers did amaze me.
My wife and I would walk into that store with a greasy outboard motor part in our hand and The Wefing’s Man would take one look at it and say; "Why that's the bottom bearing on a 1965 Johnson 25 Horse. The part number on that is 123-345-654-971-674327A. I'll go look in the back and see if we have one in stock."
He would return in a few minutes and if you were really lucky he would say; "Well, today is your day. Not only do we have that part but it was ordered in 1967 so you get the 1967 sale price."
"What?"
"Well we mark up the parts for sale in the store when they come in. This part came into this store in 1967 and that's the price that we sell it for today."
"Why do you do that?"
"Why not? We marked it up when it came in and we paid for it when it came in. So why shouldn't we sell it for what we thought it was worth then?"
"Ah, I don't know but it sounds good to me."
On one occasion my wife and I went into Wefing’s to buy a block and tackle so that we could hoist our oyster boat up off the ground. We were having trouble getting enough people together to come out to our place in the "boonies" and flip our boat over in our yard. We wanted the block and tackle so that we could hook it up to a tree and then stand our boat up on edge and scrape and paint the bottom. We bought this giant block and tackle that the store stocked in 1946 for $29.35. There were other block and tackles laying around next to the one we bought that were selling for three and four times the price. They had obviously been inventoried in 1956 or 1976. I could never believe this practice, especially when you would walk into the grocery store and every can of peas had six different price stickers on it.
On another occasion we trucked our 1965 Johnson over there in pieces. He took one look at the motor and said: "You got your bottom crankshaft seal on the top."
"How can you tell?" I asked.
"It's easy I can read the number on that seal right there on the top and its the number of the bottom seal." He then explained to us how to switch everything around. We had bought the motor secondhand. It had the seals on upside down. We followed his instructions and we were back to work the following day.
When I left the Burger King The Wefing’s Man remarked that I had made his day by remembering him. All the way home to Eastpoint I keep thinking how many times he made my day through the years. I was very happy to finally return the favor.
Yes sir, he made my day many, many times. He was always a smiley face, always had time to deal with our problem, he had tons of advice and free instructions - and all at no extra charge. I never left that Marine Hardware store and my friend The Wefing’s Man feeling that I had been over-charged. Money was always dear but I always got my money's worth at Wefing’s. And that Wefing’s Man was a big part of that feeling. That's a feeling I don't often get anymore.
If you have a Wefing’s Man type fellow in your employ, I hope that you recognize him or her and that you realize just how lucky you are. His kind is special. Whatever you're paying him, it's a bargain - believe me.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years. He has authored two books: "A Summer with Charlie" which is currently listed on Amazon.com and "Hobo-ing America" which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel "Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother" which will be published soon.

The Federal Reserve

Commentary/Humor

By Richard E. Noble

The Federal Reserve was started in 1913 during the Wilson administration, after the Panic of 1907. The Panic of 1907 was the most devastating money crisis up until that time in U.S. history. Congress created, The National Monetary Commission, under the chairmanship of Senator Nelson W. Aldrich to investigate this disaster. Senator Aldrich was a very wealthy and powerful man. His son-in-law was John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Aldrich was a business associate of J. P. Morgan. The Aldrich Commission supposedly investigated the causes of the Panic of 1907 and associated bank failures and made recommendations to President Wilson which were used as the basis for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
The Federal Reserve would be an independent, central, banking system with the financial backing of the Federal Government. The Federal Reserve System would serve to organize the banking industry and provide security to depositors. It would be the bank of “last resort”. It would initiate monetary policy by controlling interest rates and money supply. It would loan money to member banks and to the Federal Government. It would provide for itself by charging interest for monies loaned to the member banks and to the Federal Government.
One controversy over this institution is with where or how does it get the money it loans? One might think that the Federal Reserve gets its money from the Federal Government. In which case, the Federal Reserve would be borrowing from the Federal Government and the U.S. Government would then be charging them interest. That is not the case. Instead the Federal Government borrows from the Federal Reserve and the Government pays the Federal Reserve interest for that service.
Instead of borrowing money from strangers, why doesn’t the Federal Government just print up its own money when it needs it?
Well, it seems that this is supposedly against the Constitution. The Federal Government, under the Constitution, is not granted the right to print up “paper” money. The Federal Government is allowed to coin money out of metal but not to print it out of paper. It seems that our forefathers had a good deal of trouble with paper bank notes before the revolution and then there was the Continental during the Revolution. As a result they decided to withhold that privilege from the Federal Government. That did not mean that independent banks could not print up paper notes.
Originally, individuals put their gold coins in vaults/banks and received a receipt. These paper receipts were then used as money. Why not? They were as good as the gold and silver coins that backed them. So it thus came about that bankers could print notes and thus manufacture paper money. Now the forefathers, in all their wisdom, did not say in their Constitution that the Federal Government could not “borrow” paper money. They said that the Federal Government could not “print” it. So there you go. The Federal Government is not allowed to print paper money but it is allowed to borrow paper money.
So then, why in the world would the Federal Government want to borrow paper money? Well, let’s say an emergency pops up, like World War II, or some such thing as that. The Federal Government needs a bunch of money quick. They could just raise taxes, but that takes time and annoys people – especially taxpayers. Instead they just go to the Federal Reserve and borrow a bunch.
But where does the Federal Reserve get all of its money? One might think that a bunch of rich bankers got together and put all of their money into the Federal Reserve Banking System and then they loan this money to the Federal Government. Not so. It is true that a bunch of rich bankers did get together, but it is not their money that they are loaning out. It’s the Treasury department’s money. But, you ask, I thought the Federal Government couldn’t print up any paper money? Well, it’s printing up the paper money, not for itself, but for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has given the Federal Treasury a Federal Reserve Check. The Treasury is printing up the money for the Federal Reserve as specified by the Federal Reserve Check. So then, once again we would assume that the Federal Reserve owes the Federal Government for the amount of this Check and therefore must pay the Federal Government interest. Not so. The Federal Reserve Check has been written to the Treasury with a U.S. Treasury Bond as collateral. The Federal Reserve Check simply represents the U.S. Treasury Bond that the Federal Reserve has in its vault.
Where did the Federal Reserve get the U.S. Treasury Bond that it is using for security to write the Federal Reserve Check to the U. S. Treasury? It got it from the Treasury Department. But, you say, I thought that the Federal Government was not allowed to print up paper money? It didn’t print up any paper money. It printed up a paper Treasury Bond. The Treasury is now printing up money for the Federal Reserve not for the Federal Government.
Okay, so the Federal Reserve now has all of this money that it had the Federal Treasury print up based on the collateral of the Federal Treasury Bond that the Treasury printed up and gave to the Federal Reserve. How does the U. S. government now get this money so that it can pay for World War II?
It borrows this money that the Treasury has just printed up, from the Federal Reserve and pays the Federal Reserve interest for the privilege. The Federal Reserve sells these bonds at the government’s specified interest rate to rich Americans and now foreign countries like our once biggest enemies China and Russia. It is this borrowing plus the interest owed that amounts to what is called our National Debt. This National Debt is somewhere in the neighborhood of nine or ten trillion dollars.
Why don’t we just pay off the National Debt?
Well, in order to pay off or collect all of our Treasury Bonds from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Government would have to call in all of the Federal Reserve Notes that have been printed, turn the Federal Reserve Notes in to the Federal Reserve and get the Treasury Bonds back. But if the Federal Government did this today, there would be no Federal Reserve Notes left in circulation, and consequently nobody would have any money. The whole world would be bankrupt and besides the Federal Reserve has already sold the Treasury Bonds to individuals and other nations.
Well why doesn’t the Federal government just print up the money and skip the Treasury Bonds and the Federal Reserve thus avoiding any debt? Because it is against the Constitution and it would create inflation.
But doesn’t the National Debt and borrowing the money create the same inflation plus build an impossible debt? Yes it does. But the government can deal with that by juggling the Cost of Living Index and explaining to people that even though a gallon of milk now costs them ten dollars instead of one dollar there has really been no inflation when you consider hedonics and the cost of foreign oil along with the price of tea in China.
But doesn’t inflation bankrupt the middle class? Yes it does, but it doesn’t matter as long as the middle class thinks that it is still middle class even when it is bankrupt.
Well, what if these individuals or other nations who have bought all these Treasury Bonds bring all of these Treasury Bonds back and want to cash them in?
In that case, the Federal Government will write up some new Treasury Bonds, give them to the Federal Reserve Bank as security, collect a Federal Reserve Check, have the Check printed up into Federal Reserve Notes, borrow the Notes from the Federal Reserve Bank and pay off all of the nations and individuals who want to cash in all their old Treasury Bonds with these new Federal Reserve Notes.
But what if they don’t want more paper?
What the hell do they want?
They want gold or silver or land or free pizza.
Well, take the damn Federal Reserve Notes and go buy some of whatever it is that you want. What’s the problem?
Ahh...I...I don’t know.
And then I thought the government has the right to mint coins without borrowing from the Federal Reserve and creating debt. So why don't they just mint enough coins to buy back all the Treasury Bonds. But then it costs the Federal Government two cent to mint every penny and a dime to mint every nickel because of the market price of copper and zinc. Man a government just can't win here.

Big Government

Commentary

By Richard E. Noble

"You obviously believe in big government and bureaucratic rule. That is what is wrong with you Democrats. Governments are corrupt, the more government you have the less freedom you have. We Republicans believe in free enterprise. The government must be reduced and businesses should be allowed to operate without government intervention. Government regulations should be removed or at least held to a minimum and business should be allowed to compete and prosper. That is what America is all about - as businesses prosper so do all the people of America, rich and poor alike."
This argument seems to be the bottom line in most of debates by "regular" folks. The Republicans usually close off with a statement similar to the above while the Democrats stand there stammering.
So it would seem that the Democrats are for big government and the Republicans are for big business.
When Americans are asked in surveys which group they would rather see prevail most folks vote for business over government.
I find this truly strange. Both categories, business and government, have a horrible historical record. But it is quite clear that people recognize the inadequacies of their government while the inadequacies of the business world seem to pass them by unnoticed.
When we say for example that our government and our politicians are corrupt what does that mean? It usually means that the institution of government and its representatives are disproportionately influenced by the prejudiced or corrupt advances coming from the moneyed interest within the nation or the community - for the most part, business and big business in particular. We hear talk and read in books and newspapers about "K" street and other corrupt influences primarily from the business world.
If we look back into our historical record we see over and over the negative, corrupt influences of successful businessmen on government - John Jacob Astor, John D. Rockafeller, Commodore Vanderbilt, Jay Gould, J. Pierpoint Morgan, Henry Frisk, the Railroad barons, the steel titans, the textile magnates, the mining monopolies, the patroon and land barons and exploiters of pre-colonial days. If we jump forward today, and look at the Anderson accounting scandal, the Savings and Loan fiasco, Enron, our present Military Supply profiteering outrages, our most recent real-estate and banking debauchery, the bottom line should be that we should all understand that business can not be trusted and that when our government has been corrupted it is most often corrupted by business finagling and misbehavior.
So when Republicans say that we should abandon government because it is corrupt and embrace business, the government corruptors, isn't this rather peculiar? It seems similar to me as saying that we should abandon law and order because it fails to do the job so often and let crime prevail. Or because the referees are so often wrong we should eliminate them from the game and let the players engage unrestricted. This is truly a strange an illogical point of view.
It was not big business or the business community in general that made the work place safe. It was not businessmen who thought up pension funds and retirement benefits. It was not the business community that developed paid vacations or Christmas bonuses. No businessman ever suggested that he should be paying for his employee’s health care or assisting an employee in periods of unemployment. In fact, businesses were very reluctant to pay for health damages that were caused directly and negligently by them. Contrary to popular belief businessmen have never been in favor of fair and equal competition. The only time business has ever supported fair competition is when a more powerful company has cornered the market via its stronger influence (read money and corruption). No businessman ever championed shorter hours and higher pays for its workers. It was not the business community that promoted public education. There is nothing fair, charitable, humanitarian, or equal in the businessman's handbook.
For decades, even centuries, businessmen have fought against the rights of their workers. They have been responsible for inadequate housing, an unhealthy food supply, poor sanitary practices, substandard education, unsafe medicines, and unfair opportunity. Today huge conglomerates and businesses promote pollution and poverty and social injustice all over the world - all in the name of profits.
Today in our present worker/business society the right of workers to bargain collectively is still being challenged by powerful business interests along with workers rights in general.
We all know today that large insurance companies are allowing people to die by automatically denying them legitimate claims in order to improve their bottom line. Dead people don't cash claim checks.
Corporations have a legal obligation to make a profit - not to promote the general welfare. Businessmen are involved in a game that teaches them to make decisions based on profits and not on morality, justice, fair play or even patriotism. Businessmen throughout history have constantly traded to the disadvantage of their country (even in times of war), the disadvantage of their employees, the disadvantages of the environment, the disadvantage of the poor, sick and downtrodden. Any successful businessman will tell you that his first obligation is to the bottom line - not to morality, decency, or even the health and general welfare of the community or the nation. Businesses are supposed to make a profit. Making a profit is not the sole purpose of government or the highest calling of a government representative in a democratic government.
Businessmen are expected to be concerned with profits first and foremost. Governments are supposed to be concerned with the welfare, health and prosperity of all of their citizens.
It is difficult to criticize a businessman for making profits, just as it is difficult to criticize a soldier for killing people in a time of war. There is often no good way to do it. But it is always easy to criticize a politician for making decisions that do not benefit everyone equally. It is easy to criticize politicians because subconsciously we all hold our politicians to higher standards than we do our businessmen. To make business the business of our government is a big step in the wrong direction. Business should be one of the concerns of our government but certainly not the entire concern. The concern of the government is the overall well-being, health and security of all of it citizens.

James Madison

James Madison

(president from 1809-1817)

By Richard E. Noble

James Madison is known as the father of the Constitution. He is most noted for making that favored compromise that American Blacks are so proud of today. He is the guy who suggested that five black slaves should be counted as three real people. Actually this was a liberal step for the time. Prior to this and according to the "rule of law" of the day, slaves weren't really even people. They were furniture. They could be bought sold, used, abused, beaten, tortured and even killed. Why they should have been counted as a part of the population for the purpose of determining how many representative an area was entitled to is beyond me. Certainly they weren't going to be represented by anybody. What does furniture have to do with representation? Saying that five black slaves equaled three "human beings" must have made a lot of Southerners gulp and take a deep breath. Prior to this, one couldn't get them to acknowledge that a ton of Blacks could make a pound of human flesh.
To be noted as the father of the American Constitution for suggesting such a compromise is a dubious compliment indeed.
He is also responsible for the War of 1812. This was really a war that he inherited from his good buddy Thomas Jefferson. Tom had been side stepping a confrontation with either the British or the French during his entire administration. The British kept harassing our ships and taking our seamen. The French said that if we didn't fight the British when they boarded our ships, they would then sink our ships. Talk about being Malcolm in the middle.
Tommy's answer to all of this was an embargo on shipping and trading. The American Mercantile Association thought that this was just a super idea. Super, if you want to drive everybody into bankruptcy. So James finally decided to petition congress to declare war. He chose to side with England, as opposed to France.
This was an unpopular war and turned the Federalists against him. The Navy held its own against the British in the Great Lakes and elsewhere but the Army didn't do so well. When the British landed an army on the east coast and proceeded to attack Washington D.C., Jimmy skidattled. In his hast to vacate the area, it seems that he completely forgot about Dolly who was in the midst of throwing a dinner party for the victorious army of the Potomac while checking out the window of the White House through her spyglass for their arrival. Dolly, gutsy little lady that she was, was not about to leave D.C. without Jimmy, but little Jimmy, a hundred pounds soaking wet, had no such qualms with regards to Dolly. She was obviously a big girl who could take care of herself and should have known better. Finally Jimmy, safely back home on the plantation, got a note out to poor Dolly, and she was able to get her butt out of there just in time. Not only that, she took a load of candelabras and a portrait of George Washington with her.
Actually, maybe Dolly should have been president. She sounds like my kind of girl.
Jimmy was elected president twice. Obviously, the Federalists didn't have a serious candidate. It seems that his victory(? in the war of 1812 bolstered his prestige.
He also had a speech defect and spoke so quietly that nobody could hear him. This may be the real reason for his political success. Gosh, I hope saying all of this doesn't get Dolly mad at me.

Abelard (1079-1143 A.D.)

Philosopher

By Richard E. Noble

Wow!!! The actual story of Heloise and Abelard is one for the romantic novelist. Abelard and Heloise is adult material that dwarfs the story of Romeo and Juliet to a cutesy type children’s story.
Abelard is a famous philosopher and teacher. He was born in 1079 and died in 1143. He was a cleric and eventually became the Canon of Notre Dame. He was hired by a dude named Fulbert to teach his niece, Heloise, philosophy. Heloise was both pretty and smart. Though Abelard was concerned mostly with “universals” in his philosophy, he was very much concerned with Heloise and her various “particulars” in his everyday life. She readily took to philosophy ... and Abelard. It was only a matter of time before Abelard and Heloise were heavy-breathing in just about every unoccupied room in the castle.
Soon their sex-ploits were common talk all over Paris. Finally Uncle Fulbert became embarrassed and gave Abelard the boot from the castle. But old Abelard was still very much hot to trot. He tried to talk a maid at the Fulbert mansion into sneaking Heloise over to the rectory for a little romp behind the sacristy. But the poor brown skinned, shapely maid was having quite a time of it herself and she said that she would only be willing to produce Heloise for a little heaven if Abelard would park his truck in her garage for a little hell on a weekend or two.
Abelard felt that such a suggestion was “universally” unacceptable. I guess he was too “particular”.
In any case, Abelard dismissed the poor maid. She in turn went to Uncle Fulbert and told him all about Abelard’s proposition. Uncle Fulbert was, to say the least, totally incensed. He decided to nip this little romantic adventure in the bud. He then bribed a servant of Abelard to sneak into Abelard’s bedroom while Abelard was sleeping and cut his “universals” off with a razor. Which he did!
After that, Abelard’s life was religiously correct if not exactly personally “upright”. Abelard then went to an abbey and Heloise to a nunnery. From these outposts they communicated their passions to one another in a series of letters over the years until they died and were buried in a grave next to one another.
My God, what a story!!!
What is interesting to me is that most of my philosophy books give very slight mention to this story. Frederick Copleston S.J., for example, has this to say: “As a result of the episode with Heloise, Abelard had to withdraw to the Abbey at St. Denis.”
That’s it.
In the next paragraph, Copleston S.J. goes on to say, “Abelard was a man of combative disposition, and unsparing of his adversaries. He ridiculed his masters in philosophy and theology; he was difficult to get along with; and was unable to live in peace with the other monks.”
Well, golly gee S.J., do you think that his irritable disposition might have something to do with the fact that HE JUST HAD HIS “YOU KNOW WHATS” CUT OFF? No big thing to you, I suppose, S.J., but I could imagine myself being a little “out of sorts” for a week or two if I were in old Abelard’s shoes. This “episode” would be a little difficult for me to generalize, even if I was a philosopher, but I suppose that this “particular” opinion of mine might not be “universally” acceptable.

Alan Greenspan

The Eastpointer

Alan Greenspan Had My Job

By Richard E. Noble

My editor has advised me that my Eastpointer column should be concerned with local people and local problems or at least have some tie-in to the local community. Soo...
I once knew an oysterman who looked exactly like Alan Greenspan. And speaking of Alan Greenspan, I have several Eastpointer type observations to offer.
Being a student of economic thought and theory, I have been listening to Alan Greenspan give his lectures on TV for years and I even purchased two or three of his past publications. My analysis of Mr. Greenspan has always been: What in the world is that man talking about?
I would sit in front of the TV and make a call for silence in the room each and every time Mr. Greenspan would appear on the TV giving his economic address to the Congress. I would listen to every word assiduously, determined to get “The Message” from the Prophet.
After he would finish, my wife would ask, Richard what did he say? My usual answer went something like this: Well, he said that the economy is good and bad and that it has a tendency to go up and down; those who can afford to wait should and those who can’t shouldn’t; he said that we should all be concerned and worried but that we should retain our faith in the fundamentals of economic thought and not panic; he said that some people will probably benefit and that other people probably won’t.
“And what has all of that got to do with the price of tea in China?”
Well, actually he did mention the price of tea in China and he said that it may go up but that there were extraneous forces that indicated that the possibility of a downward trend due to tea coming from Nairobi could possibly be an influence giving some concern to Chinese tea exporters but Americans who drink primarily black tea which comes from the lower regions of Botswana really have no need to be overly concerned - but of course Britain is an entirely other story.
“So basically he said nothing?”
Exactly.
Now recently Mr. Greenspan has appeared on TV to tell the nation that for his entire stay at the Federal Reserve he has in effect said nothing. He admitted that over the years he has purposely said nothing because for him to say something would have put the onus of responsibility for the future world economy on his shoulders. He admitted that he said nothing for all of these years intentionally.
Now, in response to questions about his job at the Federal Reserve he explained that as head of the Federal Reserve he tried his best to do as little as possible since he is an avid believer in the Laissez Faire philosophy.
So basically as head of the Federal Reserve he did and said nothing and now he has just written a book that is selling by the millions explaining why he did nothing and how his doing and saying nothing has benefited the nation and the world.
I have come to the conclusion that this man had my job. I mean that is the job that I have always dreamed of. Alan Greenspan made big bucks for doing this job where he did and said nothing by his own admission. But he actually earned nothing when compared to what he would have made if he had remained in private enterprise where I imagine he would have had to do and possibly say something. But, of course, he can’t tell us what he would have said and done if he had remained in private enterprise because his revelation of such information would change the course of the economic world.
Where do I apply for that position? I can do that. And I could do it well. I am sure of it. Every place and position that I have ever held in my life others have accused me or said flat-out that I was doing nothing and that what I had to say about what I was doing amounted to nothing whatsoever.
I certainly have the resume’ to fulfill the position as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of America following the Alan Greenspan guidelines. I have no doubt about it. I can do and say nothing with the best of God’s creatures - just give me the chance and stand back and watch me not do anything. Actually, just keep reading this column and see if you can point out where anything that I have ever said has ever accomplished more than nothing whatsoever. Clearly the proof is in the pudding.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years now. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on Amazon.com and “Hobo-ing America” which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” which will be published soon.

Mein Kampf

Chapter 11 Part 2

By Richard E. Noble

Next Adolf gets into Architecture, and its History through public policy and public works.
“… The characteristic of the antique city was not found in the private buildings, but in the monuments of the community which seemed destined not for the moment but for eternity, for they were supposed to reflect not the riches of the individual owner but rather the greatness and the importance of the community...”
I can not verify the truth, historically of this statement, but regardless, we see once again Adolf’s split personality. He is now an advocate of what would have to be considered Socialism, as opposed to Capitalism and individual initiative. We also see his reverence for something above and beyond the individual ... the State.
“… The State; that means, of the entire people.”
It seems more and more that the God that Adolf worships comes in the form of his idealized concept of the State. To me the term State has no such glorified meaning. It is simply a collective term used to describe, basically, the political system of a nation of people, the ruling body, if you will. To say that the term State is representative of the entire will of any people or nation is to make a claim that is beyond any historical State that has ever existed as far as I can determine.
Clearly Adolf was impressed by Architecture. Architecture was the lasting legacy of an empire, not the number of dead bodies it left in its wake.
“… If Berlin were to meet the fate of Rome, then the coming generations could one day admire the department stores of some Jews, and the hotels of some corporations the most imposing works of our time, as the characteristic expression of the culture of our days…”
Well, if we leave out the vindictive towards Jews in this statement, I think this is exactly what we have today in our current Capitalistic society. I don’t know if I would call it good or bad. The sky line of New York, Chicago, San Francisco and hundreds of other places in this country and others about the world serve as monuments to a system. They represent the fulfillment of ideas. Ideas which have lead to the establishment of phenomenal wealth, and from what one would have to conclude historically, prosperity for this nation as a whole, and many others throughout the world.
For many Americans this is a source of great pride. I think most of us here in the United States take pride in exactly what Adolf is here criticizing and consider his notion of a Glorious State Parthenon, or whatever, to be the exact opposite of what we would want our society to aspire to.
To have great architectural structures and State capitals paid for by extracting large sums in the form of taxes from the people, is exactly the opposite of what most Americans deem pride worthy - though it seems to be happening nonetheless. My criticism would be not in the achievements that brought about all of these great structures but with the squalor and poverty in which they seem to be steeped, or mired. My criticism would be with the extravagant wealth existing impervious, and unawares of the poverty, squalor, destitution and heartbreak of so many right next door and at the very feet of its most outstanding temples - existing perhaps, like the temples of old, stained with the blood of human sacrifice, torture, and uninhibited cruelty.
Whatever praise we may have for these temples of old or cathedrals of today they must stand stoically with the stain of human blood and suffering marring their beauty and tarnishing their greatness. But, it must be admitted that the greatest ‘shrines, or temples’ standing as monuments to our culture and present society, are not structures built by ‘the State’, but by individuals. They stand as monuments to individual Capitalistic initiative, and everyone involved in the construction of these monuments received a payment, in terms of wages for their participation. The negotiations were not always congenial, but I would guess that most would consider everything a step up from the days of the pyramids. But, of course, this is just conjecture here. I have no consultations with any of those involved in pyramid construction. And the jury on truth in spending is still out - be it government and socialistic or individual and capitalistic. They can both be a benefit and they can both be a detriment.
“… Thus our cities of the present lack the outstanding symbol of national community…”
It is clear here that we are viewing Adolf’s architectural inclination. The Greek civilization left more than a few majestic ruins. I would think that most would claim their philosophers, their love of the arts in general, their politics, their play writers, their historians, their theoretical and physical scientist, their insights into the world of discovery and ideas, and their concepts of government and democracy.
I know little of the Roman Empire at present, but I am aware of their engineering, their roads, their aqueducts, their legal system, as well as their public baths. When you say Romans to me I don’t picture buildings.
The Egyptians certainly have their pyramids, but the greater wonder seems to be contained in the mystery of their mathematics and engineering. We are still trying to figure out their preservation techniques in the embalming process and the secrets of their medicine.
When I picture great historic societies I do not see ‘buildings’, I see ideas. So we all see the world in a different perspective, and our perspectives are limited by the scope of our interests. You know, I think my Americanism may be showing here. It is hard to be an American and a believer in Adolf’s type of nationalism or racism. Or even have an understanding of it. All of us as far as I know can trace our ancestry back to some foreign land or nation. The whole principle of our society is based on the amalgamation of nations. We have had some trouble when it comes to the total amalgamation of all races, but certainly we have quite a mixture of nations that are now called and think of themselves and are recognized by the rest of the world as Americans.
“… The great masses do not consist of philosophers, and it is just for them that faith is frequently the sole basis of a moral view of life. The various substitutes have not proved so useful in their success that one would be able to see in them a useful exchange for the former religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really meant to seize the great masses, then the absolute authority of the contents of this faith is the basis of all effectiveness…”
It is my conviction that everyone is a philosopher. If you talk with anyone whether they live in a castle or under a bridge, you will find that they have developed a personal philosophy that guides their life. How objective this philosophy may be or how steeped in logic and reasonableness it might be is another question. Right now we are studying the philosophy of Adolf.
All religious leaders have been philosophers of one type or another. Most religious leaders begin their philosophies on the acceptance of a God and from that point they go on to establish a foundation of beliefs based on some principle of logic and reasonable analysis and thinking - even if their reasoning is simply to accept the greater reasoning of those who came before them.
If you analyze the personal beliefs of any individual member of any religious sect, you will probably find that what he believes hardly conforms to the doctrine or dogma of the organization, but he thinks that it does. Most people rarely know the foundation principles of their own religions and very rarely do they adhere to them in any practical sense of the word. I think that this is probably the origin of the word hypocrite, but I would be more kind and simply call it individualism. Most members of religious groups not only have a personal savior, or personal god, but a personal interpretation of the so called dogma of their faith.
I have no idea what Adolf is talking about when he uses the phrase ‘substitutes’ for established religions. I think that all of the religions of our day and Adolf’s time could be considered substitutes for some previous faith or dogma.
Once again we must consider the fact that Adolf was raised a Roman Catholic. I was raised in the same faith, so I am aware of the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is considered by its members to be “the one true church”. All those religions existing prior to the Roman Catholic, are either pagan, or simply wrong or unfounded, and all of those established after the one true Roman Catholic Church, are basically Roman Catholic in origin, founded by disgruntled and confused ex-Roman Catholics. This may explain Adolf’s unproved substitutes. By this logic most of the faithful of the world should be considered Jews - Pagans.
But once again here we see Adolf’s elitism. The ‘humble masses’ are not great thinkers. They need ‘Religious Dogma’ and ‘Absolute Authority’ to tell them right from wrong. Well by now it should be no surprise and we should be expecting this line of thought from Adolf.
Adolf was not your conventional religious fanatic. He has made no claims as to being inspired by God. God as far as we know did not talk directly to Adolf as he has to so many others. So Adolf makes no claims to his absolute authority by way of revelation. He simply says that it is better for us stupid masses to be told what to do and what to think by somebody, than it is for us to all wander about trying to figure it out on our own. This only creates chaos, or hedonism.
This is once again pretty much the basic philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church as I was instructed through it as a child. Although receiving thirteen years of training at the hands of Sisters, Brothers, and Priests, I was never once instructed to read the Bible on my own, or investigate the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
I was instructed that the Bible was too complicated to be interpreted by the layman, and that one should learn about Christianity through the Catechism and the instruction and interpretation of the Church hierarchy, and its theologians.
Adolf, as we have seen in the past likes the idea of the ‘common people’ following the dogma or dictates of the ‘control-ees’, whoever they may be, but in particular himself. Then we have Emanuel Kant and his poor servant Emue or whatever. The simple man needs his Church and his ‘wise leaders’.
“… Laws are for the state, as dogma is for religion ... The attack upon Dogma in itself resembles ... the fight against the general legal fundamentals of the state ... and just as the latter would find its end in a complete anarchy of the state, thus the other in a worthless religious nihilism ... As long as there is no apparent substitute, that which is present can be demolished only by fools or by criminals…”
Well, this doesn’t leave much room for Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, George Washington, Martin Luther, even Jesus Christ for that matter. All these men and many, many others challenged established belief and were considered in their day as potential anarchists to the established ideas. Again we see Adolf primary concern is not with what is ‘true’, but only in what promotes general orderliness. Adolf would clearly be willing to execute one hundred innocent men, in an attempt to punish one guilty man, as opposed to the reverse notion of Victor Hugo, and others.
But, once again it seems, we are back to Karl Marx and the Bolshevists. Karl sounds like another hard headed German. But nevertheless, it seems clear that Adolf is directing his insight into Karl’s notion that Religion is ‘the opiate of the masses’, and the Bolshevik notion of stamping out religion. I will presume that he is not trying to stamp out revolution in government since this book and Adolf are in the midst of creating a revolutionary government themselves and because ‘as long as there is no present substitute that which is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals.’ Trying to stamp out religion on the one hand is trying to stamp out hope. Religion says that there is a happy ending to all of this existence and human beings are for the most part optimistic in this regard. Religion, though, centers on the egocentric. It involves you personally. YOU will survive. YOU will attain the ultimate happiness. YOU will live after death in a personal paradise. This notion of a personal survival, as opposed to the generic survival of the human species, or the general survival of a particular culture, or the reuniting of the personal spirit into the absorption of a universal soul. The personal survival of one’s individual soul, in an understandable eternal living circumstance, is much easier to comprehend. Most individuals choose to cherish something along these lines, rather than some vague non-generic eternity, or some sort of finitude. And in truth, if this was as far as religion extended itself, I really don’t see that it would present any problem. But when religion begins to define how this state of happiness will be achieved. When religion extends into morality, civil law, codes of behavior, the chosen and the unchosen, the ‘personality of God’, His familial relations, and His interest in you personally, the problem between religion and state begin.
Adolf had a simple answer, once again. Religion is fine, so long as it is not in conflict with the principles and goals of the state. When religious ideas conflict with state order, religion must give way, or be stamped out.
Just as Dogma must be accepted unconditionally in order for religion to survive so too, law must not be challenged in order for the State to survive. What Adolf’s Bible or theory is lacking here is a fundamental principle on which the State can claim its infallibility, or the infallibility of its rules and laws. The Roman Catholic Church said that the Pope gained his infallibility because the Pope was in effect a direct descendent of Christ, who was, of course, the son of the Almighty God Himself.
Edmond Burke had a slightly different twist, as I understand his theory in the Rights of kings. I have never read his defense of The Rights of Kings, but as I have come to believe through other reading, he claims that a King’s right to rule extends directly from God. I don’t know where Jesus Christ, or Mohammed, or the Buddha, or any other intermediates may come into this picture. So if we accept that the kings and the popes and whoever else get their right to rule and make laws directly from God, where does Adolf enter this picture?
Tom Paine, a Deist, said that God really took no interest in who ruled over whom, and that the right to rule over people was really a right that was derived from the people themselves. In other words you had the right to rule over people as long as people allowed you to rule, but the ‘people’ always maintained their claim to power by their right to revolution. Paine and other of our Forefathers believed that despite God’s Creation, man was ‘free’. God gave us this life and this world and it was all up to us to make whatever we chose of it. This was a rather down to earth and pragmatic interpretation of the notion of leadership or power of a man over other men or of a state over a populace. But where does Adolf fit into this evolution of the derivation of the right to power? Adolf makes no mention of God nor of the rights of Kings, nor of the people. He says that the right to rule is not granted but taken by the strongest hand. The right to power is established by the natural right to might. The ruler of the people will be the Man who through the strength of his personality is able to dominate those about him and then control, through force of strength if need be, the masses.
Tom Paine said that the masses controlled the leaders, and Adolf Hitler says that the leader will control the masses. I guess we are dealing with a little relativism here. Powerful people lead the masses as long as the masses follow. When powerful people loose the support of the mass of followers they usually end up dead by one means or another. So I guess we can wonder who is leading who.
When Galileo spoke, no one followed. When Einstein spoke, no one followed. When Hitler spoke much of the world followed. Why?
It can only be that much of the world found what they thought to be the truth in what Adolf was saying. Adolf was an elitist, an egoist. It seems that all people, even the most humble amongst us, want to believe that they are better than somebody else. Anyone who preaches that man is not the greatest of animals, or that Man is not the center of the universe, or that man does not ‘yet’ know all, see all, and control all, or will one day live in a paradise sitting at the right hand of God (That Creature who has created all things for the glory and pleasure of Man) seems to have a problem in communicating with Mankind.
Those that preach of Man’s greatness seem to always have the ear of Mankind. No one wants to hear that their existence is incidental, or even worse, accidental. Even if it is the truth, very few want any part of such a notion. Everyone wants to be ‘special’, the chosen people. God watches over them and their roast beef, or their shis-kabob, or their paella, hopefully with more sensitivity than what he offers to the cow, the lamb or the chicken.
Wasn’t Christianity an attempt to replace Judaism? Wasn’t the Muslim creed of Mohammed along with the revolution of Protestantism an attempt to replace Christianity? Isn’t existentialism the attempt to replace all religions and the conventional notions of God? And do not all those who have advocated whatever it is that they have advocated, think that they have a better idea than whatever is existing at the present? The Communists tried to replace religion with loyalty to the Cause. Adolf’s loyalty is to the State - his state.
“But worse than all are the devastations which are brought about by the abuse of religious convictions for political purposes.”
What is an ‘abuse’ of religious conviction?
Is it an abuse to have a religious conviction?
Is it an abuse not to have a religious conviction?
Is it an abuse to proselytize your religious conviction?
If you believe that God is on your side and speaking to you the truth, is it not your obligation to tell others what God has told you?
What is a political purpose, as opposed to a religious conviction?
If a religious conviction tells one how he, and those around him should live their lives. How does this differ from a political conviction?
It seems that Adolf believes that no one but he is in possession of ‘true’ convictions. Everyone else is involved in a conspiracy.
Or is he saying that those seeking political power are manipulating the religious convictions of the masses for their own personal political purposes. And if this be the case do we not have a situation in which we have the pot calling the kettle black. Isn’t this whole book that we are presently analyzing, a manual on how to control and manipulate the masses in order to obtain political superiority?
“... the German among nearly all European nations still tried most of all to preserve the national character of its economy, and that despite many evil premonitions, it was least of all subject to the international finance control. A dangerous advantage, however, which later on became the greatest instigator of the World War...”
So International finance control was the greatest instigator of the World War? I do not have enough information to comment, but this is an area that I should investigate. I have no doubt that Adolf will claim that it is the Jewish international financier, and the Jew controlled stock Market, and the Jewish international Capitalist in general that is to blame, but I would be interested to know what part international money had to play in promoting World War I. I know that the Communist and Socialist movements claimed that it was the nature of the international arms merchants that promoted, prolonged, and exploited for profit the war, even if they did not start it. But then we would have to ask was this an international conspiratorial effort or one of competing nationalistic gain?
“...That at Versailles the wrath of the international exploiters of the nation directed itself primarily against the old German army makes it all the more recognizable as the protection of the freedom of our people against the power of the stock exchange...”
So, the decisions and penalties imposed at Versailles prove that the international business community was involved all along in a conspiracy to bankrupt Germany; and if not to bankrupt Germany possibly to keep Germany from prospering? And couldn’t this be the complaint of every unsuccessful nation in a Capitalistic world? Could this not be the complaint of every struggling entrepreneur in every capitalistic society? Could it be true? And if true, what can be done about it? What could have been done about it then, and what can be done about it today?
“...What the German people owes to the Army may be simply summed up in one single word, namely: everything ... The Army trained for absolute responsibility at a time when this quality had become very rare and the shunning of responsibility had more and more become the order of the day; the Army further taught personal courage in a time when cowardice threatened to become a spreading disease and when the willingness to sacrifice, to stand up for the general welfare, was almost looked upon as stupidity, and when only he seemed to be cleaver who understood best how to spare himself and how to advance his own ego...”
I wonder, is this statement in reference to what was happening before the outbreak of World War I, or after? Certainly what happened after World War I couldn’t have been one of its causes. It doesn’t look like many German people were shunning their responsibility at the outbreak of World War I, nor does it seem that any other European country was lax in their recruitment for bodies for the fields of Flanders or the grave yards of Verdon.
“… The army further taught idealism and devotion to the fatherland and its greatness, while life had otherwise become the sole domain of greed and materialism...”
I don’t know about you, but hearing Adolf make statements like this makes me think that greed and materialism may be steps in the right direction. When we look at Adolf’s loyalty to fatherland and what and where it led, one can’t help but thinking Civil Disobedience to one of a nation’s greatest assets.
Adolf seems to have found salvation on the battlefield. He loved the army, its discipline and order. He loved War, it violence and its courageous brutality. He obviously loved the killing and the courageous self-sacrifice of his comrades, willing to leap head long into the bowels of death and destruction. And it may be that he even loved the thought of his own sacrificial death for the cause of God, Country, and Race. And he would eventually make his country a martyr to all of these values.
“...The deepest and ultimate cause for the ruin of the old Reich was found in the non-recognition of the race problem and its importance for the historical development of the people. For events in the lives of the nations are not expressions of chance, but, by the laws of nature, happenings of the urge of self-preservation and propagation of the species and race, even if the people are not conscious of the inner reasons for their activity...”
Interesting that Adolf would be using the subconscious theories of that ‘Jew’ Psychologist Freud to define the basis of the spirit of his Nazism. Adolf continues to advocate and incorporate into his plan all of his basic criticism of Judaism. Their notion of being the chosen people; the idea that they must be exclusionist in order to protect their kind, or breed, or nation; their loyalty to principle in the face of any odds; their honor in survival and their faith in it as a guiding principle for future generations. Even his notion of conquering and controlling the world, he steals from his interpretation of the Jew’s worldly success. Would it be over-simplifying to say that all of this hatred for the Jews is simply jealousy?
Adolf was possessed with the notion of destroying the Jew. It seems that even winning the war and conquering the world took a second place to the destruction of the Jewish people. Where did he get this notion? Who were his teachers? How prolific was this notion throughout the world at that time? What part did Jew haters in England, France, Italy, and America or the entire world have to play in contributing to this fanaticism?

The Eastpointer

No More TV!

By Richard E. Noble

I’ve seen the 45 vinyl records come and go, and then the LP. After that I watched the cassette tape flutter and die but I never thought that I’d live to see the TV set pass. But the TV is just about dead - at least in my house. That darn thing is shortly going into the junk pile or out the window. I’ve had it.
I remember going up to the new appliance store on a cobble stone street in my old neighborhood and helping my mother pick out our new 12 inch Zenith television. I had my Red Flyer Wagon we carted it home in. It cost 3 or 4 hundred dollars. I don’t know where my mother found the money, but we had to have that TV.
For weeks after I got it home, me and my sister jumped up every morning, ran into the parlor and watched the test pattern. Actually now that I think about it, the test pattern was about as good as many of the shows we have on the tube today.
In recent years they nicknamed it the “boob-tube” and it was certainly appropriate - even though there is no longer a ‘tube’ anywhere in the darn thing.
One of the biggest shows on today’s boob tube is called “Boobs with a View” I think. I can’t stand it! A bunch of women screaming and yelling at one another. But, if you change the channel you get a bunch of dopey men doing the same thing. It is beyond my capacity for tolerance. But that is not why the TV is coming to an end in my household. It is the cost of this foolishness.
I remember when I was a kid sitting up on the street corner, we used to talk about how one day they would trick us somehow into paying for this TV crap. We used to say; What are they going to do, put a coin collector on it like they have on the bus. We all laughed and concluded that it was impossible. BUT THEY HAVE DONE IT!
I can hardly believe it!
I think when it started out in this neighborhood it was about ten or twelve dollars a month for Cable TV. The picture was clearer than the old antennae and they were going to give us a bunch of new stations along with all the old stuff.
But gradually this Cable Company has gone the way of the automobile - if you want any “extras” it costs more. You know … did you want a bumper on that pickup truck? How about headlights?
What? What is this?
So now if I want sports, I pay extra; if I want local news, it’s extra, if I want movies, it’s extra. We don’t even get the Gillette Friday night fights anymore. What happened to boxing?
In any case, when the monthly charge got to 50 bucks, I told my wife, TV is over - find a new hobby. Learn to crotchet or make cute things out of plastic wrappers. I know that some of you people are paying a hundred dollars per month or more for TV. You people should be arrested and isolated somewhere on a farm in North Dakota. But my wife couldn’t do without the Boob Tube View. She begged and argued. We compromised. We canceled all the extras and went back to the basic. The basic was once again twelve dollars a month. Okay so what’s twelve dollars a month? I pay more than that for cat food. But as time slips by the “basic” keeps creeping up. I guess they think that I’m not going to notice - BUT I DO!
Last month I peeked at the bill and the basic was $27.68. This is ridiculous!
Do you know that Diane Sawyer makes something like 13 million dollars a year? Are you kidding me? And Katie what’s-her-name makes more than she does. And Barbara Wawa makes more than all of them in a bunch.
Man, I’ll bet I could get ten blonde Vassar graduates who could juggle in the nude and read the news at the same time for half that much money. And the men are just as bad. Bill O’Reilly makes a triple fortune. And all these Million Dollar Babies complain about the baseball players making too much money!
The weather guys are millionaires!
Do you remember when they first hired that big, chubby, white guy who made jokes and kept seeking out people who were older than dirt? The other network couldn’t be outdone so they hired a big, chubby, bald headed, BLACK guy who also told jokes. These guys are making millions.
I need million dollar entertainment with my weather? I don’t even need a weatherologist or whatever they call one of those guys. A simple “It’s going to rain or it will be warm today” is good enough for me. Find some unemployed teenager who doesn’t lisp and give him 500 bucks a week. He’ll never leave.
So okay you cable Mafiosi, when my bill for “basic” hits 30 bucks the TV is gone! And you TV people can take your new digital high definition and put it wherever you feel is appropriate. You say I will no longer know what is going on in the world today. I got news for you - I don’t know now what is going on in the world today even with all your help!
So Diane, you will have to take a two cent a year cut when I throw out my TV. I’m sorry; get a part time job. I hear Wal Mart is looking for cashiers.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years now. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on Amazon.com and “Hobo-ing America” which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” which will be published soon.

The Eastpointer

Florida Secedes - Again!

By Richard E. Noble

Well, here we are! The most important primary election in my lifetime - maybe in all of American history. There is a WAR to consider and universal health care. Believe it or not Universal Health Care for all American citizens has been a political issue since as far back as the Wilson administration. For the first time in American history we have a possible woman presidential candidate and a possible black presidential candidate. Of course we have all the usual and ordinary types too. We have one movie star, one semi-bald guy who lisps and spits when he speaks, a couple of guys who formally had their picture on a bottle of hair tonic or snake oil, one guy who looks like Gomer Pyle, one guy who looks like he could have been one of the Three Stooges, one guy who has been through the war, the “Mill” and to hell and back and a host of other interesting prospects.
But it seems that Florida has decided to secede from the Union once again. This time not with the rest of the South but with the state of Michigan of all places. Needless to say I’m confused.
It seems that our Florida legislature took a “bipartisan” vote and moved up our primary election date. Consequently Democrats have been thrown out of the National Democratic Party and Florida Republicans are half out - or something like that.
I have tried to read up on this to find out exactly what happened but that is not really what I want to know. What I really want to know is who actually did this to me and how do I get rid of them - forever. Is it the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, Governor Crist or the entire Florida legislature?
What the heck happened here?
Our state politicians voted to move up our primary elections but both of their political parties told them that they couldn’t do it. So naturally they did it anyway. And now all of us who belong to either party are out or semi-out. We have all somehow become independents. We can vote in the national election but we will not get to pick our candidates in any primary. We can go down and pick someone if we want to, but it isn’t going to matter because, as usual, nobody is counting Florida votes – at least not all of them. So what’s new? Nobody is campaigning here in Florida except the guy who spits along with a thirty second TV sound bite here and there by a few other hopeful losers. No one is calling me on the phone or asking my opinion, taking out an ad in our newspapers or spending any big political bucks here in our state. I am a nobody. I don’t count. I’m invisible. I feel like candidates Kucinich and Ron Paul.
My wife says that this must be against the Constitution. I have consulted my copy of the Constitution but I can’t find anything in there about primary elections or political parties. There is some stuff about electing presidents and senators and congressional Representatives but none of it has any relevance to today’s system. In fact, the Constitution seems to be about how they do it in some other country. I’m not going to get into it, but if you don’t believe me get a copy of the Constitution and read it for yourself. Who wrote that thing anyway? It seems like it is about time for the revised edition to come out. Believe it or not it says “revised edition” on the copy I’ve got. When the heck was it revised 1777? I don’t really want them to change anything but how about a couple of footnotes explaining what the heck happened and why what it says ain’t what we got; inquiring minds what to know.
My wife told me that she belongs to a political party. I asked her when she attended the last meeting and how much did it cost her to join. She said that you don’t have to go to meetings to belong to a particular political party and it doesn’t cost anything. She said that you just agree to be a member and you are automatically included in that party. It is kind of like a religion but they don’t have any churches, she said.
So I guess that is how it goes. Like religion if you have any complaints you pray to God and if He see fit, he changes it. Otherwise you end up you know where – and without a paddle.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on Amazon.com and “Hobo-ing America” which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” which will be published soon.

“Don ‘t Work for Stupid People”

Commentary/Humor

By Richard E. Noble

When I was young and starting out on my working career, I was interviewed by many people. And as they evaluated me, I also evaluated them. Right off I knew that I was smarter than most of the people who were interviewing me. I am sure that many of you have found yourselves in a similar position. I always felt my situation was somewhat comparable to women and dating. You girls know what I’m talking about.
There is a tendency when you find yourself in this situation to go to work for the dumb guy and avoid the smart guy. You feel that you are smarter than the dumb guy and therefore you will be able to manipulate him or her and that the smart guy will be able to trick and manipulate you.
This is wrong thinking. Dumb people are trickier than smart people. Smart people have big egos and they always think that because they are smarter than you, they will always come out on top - dumb people know better.
The thing with most dumb people is that although they do not necessarily recognize themselves as dumb, they also recognize a smart person when they meet one.
So, just as you realize that you are smarter than they are, they also know that you are smarter than they are. And that is basically how they became so tricky.
You can imagine being a naturally dominant human creature and finding yourself to be dumber than everybody else. You quickly realize that you must get tricky if you are ever to get your way - and that’s the name of the game, as we all know.
It is very hard for a smart person to figure out what a dumb person is going to do. The reason should be obvious. Smart people are too smart to think dumb. Consequently dumb people are always able to trick smarter people - i.e. ... parenthood. Dumb people are not only able to think dumb but they are more than capable of doing dumb things or choosing stupid alternatives.
This ability on the part of dumb people drives smart people out of their minds. Smart people always think that they have covered all the various alternatives - but invariably they eliminate all the stupid alternatives. They do this because they are smart - and that is there downfall. Stupid people rule - i.e. Government.
Stupid people never rule out doing something dumb. The reason for this should also be obvious. They are dumb and they do not realize that the alternative that they have chosen is stupid.
Smart people always bring stupid people onto their TV shows and say to them; What were you thinking? Or; Is this working for you? Or: Didn’t you realize that you would go to prison if you did that? Or; Don’t you know that sex leads to pregnancy?
Of course they didn’t - that’s why they did it. And they will continue to do it no matter how much you beat them up for it. Why? Because they are not smart; they are stupid. Stupid people do dumb things.
Can stupid people get smarter?
I don’t know, you tell me.
Dumb people don’t get the idea of “thinking” or “working for you”. They say; Did I get a jelly bean when I pressed this button or not. Yes ... do it again; no ... try an alternative. It is called making choices. Both dumb and smart people know how to make choices.
So, my advice to young people just starting out on their working careers is to take the job working for the smarter guy and avoid working for people who are obviously not as bright as you are.
But even this simple advice has its pitfalls. Like what if you find that you are smarter than everybody else - without exception? That is a very difficult problem let me assure you - and I speak with considerable authority on this point.
If you find that there is no one out there who is smarter than you are - life can become very difficult and very tricky. You will learn quickly that everyone is trying to trick you - and they are. People will tell you that you are paranoid - but you will know better because you are really smarter than they are - and you know it even if your psychiatrist doesn’t.
People will all be trying to trick you because they have to. They are not as smart as you are.
One popular way to try and deal with this problem is to try to learn to think stupid. The danger with this strategy is that if you become successful you may forget how to think intelligently and you will find that you have only ticked yourself into becoming stupid.
Of course, if this happens your day to day life will be easier to cope with - but you will then probably start to hear a voice. It will be your inner, brighter, now suppressed ego.
This is not unusual but if you tell anybody about it, your life will never be the same again.
But on a positive note if you are really smarter than everyone else you could end up like Albert Einstein. Of course that will mean never getting into Harvard and living in confinement at Princeton or some lesser institution for the rest of your natural life.

Richard E. Noble is a Freelance Writer and has been a resident of Eastpoint for around thirty years now. He has authored two books: “A Summer with Charlie” which is currently listed on Amazon.com and “Hobo-ing America” which should be listed on Amazon in the not too distant future. Most recently he completed his first novel “Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother” which will be published soon.

Silk Strike, Paterson New Jersey 1913

Striking America

By Richard E. Noble

It began on February 13 at the Henry Doherty Company in Paterson, New Jersey. The Paterson silk industry was having its problems. New competitors had opened up in the surrounding area. Paterson’s competitors had newer machinery, and a more desperate, immigrant workforce. The women running the competition’s machinery and looms were willing to work more hours, and tend more looms for less money. The Henry Doherty Company and others in Paterson decided that their workers would just have to do more for less also. Their first innovative step was categorized as a “speed up”. Women workers who were attending two looms would now have to attend four looms.
On Jan 27, 1913, eight hundred workers stormed out of the Henry Doherty Company and shortly thereafter 25,000 area mill workers joined them. In February the I.W.W., hot off its victory in Lawrence, Massachusetts, was more than happy to accept the call from the Paterson workers. The union demanded on behalf of the silk workers the resumption of the two loom system, an eight hour day for all workers, time and a half for overtime and a minimum wage of twelve dollars per week. The authorities in Paterson knew about Big Bill Haywood and his crowd of “Wobbly”, anarchist agitators. The police, under Chief John Bimson decided to nip this whole thing in the bud. They banned picketing. They banned outdoor public meetings. They even banned Big Bill Haywood the right to make any speeches in Paterson, New Jersey.
On March 7, 1913, Big Bill Haywood arrived at the Erie Depot. He was immediately arrested. His bail was posted and that night at the various union halls around Paterson, Big Bill told the crowds of his brush with the law. The authorities wondered if he carried a weapon, he told them. Then he reached into his vest pocket and pulled out his only weapon. The police had missed it in their search. It was his I.W.W. union card. The only weapon any worker would ever need.
In the midst of the Paterson uprising, trouble broke out in Akron, Ohio at the rubber plants. When Big Bill got off the train in Akron he was greeted by the mayor, Frank Rockwell, the chief of police, Robert Guillet and two or three hundred vigilantes from the Akron Citizen’s Welfare League. Captain Guillet informed Mister Haywood that he was on touchy ground and that he would be wise not to be making any speeches in Akron. Big Bill asked the sheriff if he had a warrant. When the sheriff replied in the negative, Big Bill told him to get out of his road. As Big Bill marched forward the Citizens Welfare Committee parted like the Red Sea and when Big Bill Haywood emerged from its ranks, he was immediately flanked by a crowd of union well wishers cheering and hooraying with delight. The Akron police and Citizen’s Welfare committee used all their powers and numbers to see that the union rubber workers would make no headway. Their beatings and illegal arrests were successful and the disturbance in Akron was over before it got started. Haywood returned to Paterson.
In Paterson, March 17 was declared American flag day. The I.W.W. were considered to be anarchists, radicals and revolutionaries. Haywood had mentioned that the Industrial Workers of the World marched under the red banner of revolution and reform. The authorities and business leaders thought this to be a good time to play the patriot card. The American flag was everywhere in Paterson. It was not only on the tops of all the public buildings but all the factory tops and businesses. Who but a traitor would not adorn an American flag?
At his next speech at a union rented park in Haledon, Haywood and union supporters marched through the streets under an American flag. Haywood could speak in Haledon. The Mayor of Haledon was sympathetic to workers and their causes. Haywood’s speech turned Paterson’s flag day upside-down. Haywood spoke out against the capitalist and the money-class. These people have no flag, he told his listeners. They have no country. They have no patriotism. They have no God. Their only loyalty is to gold and the almighty dollar. They have no nation. They are international in their outlook. Their only flag is the black flag of piracy, adorned with the skull and cross bones of the little children who they have ground up in their mills and factories.
The union then tried to challenge Paterson’s ban on outdoor meetings. They rented the Lafayette Oval battlefield in Paterson. They would march through the streets of Paterson to the battlefield, 20,000 strong.
The police blocked their arrival at the park. The 20,000 union members, who could have overpowered the small contingent of police, chose not to be violent. They would instead march to Haledon, where free speech and freedom of association were still honored. When they reached the city line, they were greeted by the police once again. The police then proceed in an attempt to agitate the crowd to violence, by arresting Big Bill Haywood and another union leader, Adolph Lessig. The crowd did not respond in the desired manner. Neither of the men arrested had broken any law. Nevertheless, they were convicted of disorderly conduct, sentenced to six months at hard labor, and their bail set at five thousand dollars each.
Haywood and the union took the case to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The court decided that it was not acting illegally to be at the lead of a crowd, nor to have a crowd of people follow behind in a peaceable manner. But they were making a lot of noise, the prosecutors countered. And do you arrest the Salvation Army when they make noise in the streets, or form lines or attract a crowd, the judges asked.
The case was dismissed.
The strike lingered on even though the workers were running out of money and food. The bosses were winning and they had a new advantage. The press which was anti-union simply stopped reporting the events going on in Paterson. When the workers took their children to the train station to be sent out of town so as not to be hurt by the police and vigilantes, the press did not attend the exodus. When the police refused to allow free citizens to meet together peacefully, the press did not show up. When women workers were beaten and clubbed, the press took no photos. When local newspapers who supported the strikers wrote positive articles, their newspapers were ransacked and their owners and editors were arrested and put in jail for disturbing the peace or inciting a riot. One man was even arrested for reading the New Jersey Constitution. Sumner Boyd was arrested for reading a freedom of speech clause in the New Jersey constitution to a crowd. Alexander Scott was arrested and sentenced to a term of one to fifteen years for exciting hostility against the government in his Weekly Issue Newspaper. And when thousands were arrested and held illegally in Paterson jails, for crimes like picketing or assembling, the rest of the America and the world were none the wiser.
Big Bill had been making friends with some of the better off and monied crowd across the Hudson in New York City’s Greenwich Village. People like Sinclair Lewis, Upton Sinclair, Lincoln Steffens, Mable Dodge, Emma Goldman, Margaret Sanger, Henrietta Redman, Max Eastman, and last but not least, the twenty-six year old writer, journalist, and Harvard graduate John Reed.
Big Bill was sick. He had developed ulcers from his worries and tensions. He had lost over one hundred pounds. He was losing strength. He went to his new found friends and commiserated about the big silence on the part of the press. He needed money to keep the strike going. If good people in America only knew what was happening to the poor and hard working in Paterson, New Jersey, they would send money in buckets. It had happened before. It happened in Lawrence, it happened in Colorado, it could happen in Paterson.
John Reed had an idea. The union would sponsor a pageant at Madison Square Garden. The pageant would tell the story of how Modestino Valentino, and innocent bystander was shot and killed by private detectives who were hired by the mill owners. The detectives had simply lost their cool and began shooting at strikers in front of a mill. The bullets went through the crowd and killed poor Modestino Valentino who lived across from the mill and was simply sitting out on his front porch. The union held a funeral for Modestino and thousands of Laborers followed his casket to the grave site. There, each mourner dropped a red rose petal onto the casket until the casket had disappeared beneath a mountain of blood red, rose petals.
The pageant would symbolize the strike and the unnecessary killing and the funeral with the rose petals. The pageant was an artistic success but a financial failure. The bosses had a propaganda scheme of their own. They encouraged their Citizen’s committees to violently suppress the strikers. They accused Big Bill and the other union leaders of greeting rich off the poor workers union dues. They said that Big Bill was a gourmand who ate nothing but the finest foods and drank only imported wine. He was immoral. He was a thief. He was a murderer.
He had been indicted for murder in Colorado. Martial and vigilante law took over in Paterson. Forty-eight hundred strikers were arrested. They were pulled out of peaceful picket lines by police and “citizens” wielding clubs and guns. Thirteen hundred were sentenced to jail terms. Patrick Quinlan, a union leader was arrested, convicted and sentenced to 2-7 years at hard labor. Haywood was charged with inciting assault on the Paterson Police department. They founded the charge on a speech he had made promoting the eventual victory of the union over the authorities in Paterson.
Finally the beatings, the illegal arrests, the lack of press and outside support led the Ribbon Weavers, a specialized craft group, to settle with the bosses on their own. The union was broken. The strike was dissipated. And eventually the charges against Hayward were dismissed as unfounded by the court. But unfounded, illegal, unauthorized, unconstitutional, immoral, dishonest, violent, un-American or whatever, the “good citizens” and the industrialists of Paterson beat the immigrant underdogs, took away their jobs and made the town of Paterson, once again “safe for Democracy

*Books used in this essay include: “Roughneck” The Life and Times of Big Bill Haywood, P. Carlson; “A History of American Labor” J. G. Rayback; “Labor Problems in American Industry”, C. R. Dougherty; “The Rise of Industrial America”, Page Smith.