John Glenn Said

“John Glenn Said”

A response

By Richard E. Noble

With regards to your right wing propaganda message.
To the defense of soldiering by John Glenn: John Glenn did give the defense of soldering as stated in your memo.
It was not given on the Senate floor recently nor in defense of any Republican policy, but in a campaign for a Senate seat against his Democratic opponent Howard Metzenbaum in 1974.
Metzembaum made the charge to challenge Glenn - assuming Glenn's inexperience in the business world. He made it during a very heated and vitriolic campaign. He never brought it up again.

Metzenbaum did not defend Communists during WWII - at least there is no evidence of any such activity.

But, in my personal opinion, if he did he should be commended. After all the Communists were our number one ally during WWII. The author of your memo may not be aware of this but we were fighting Fascism and Nazism during WWII - not communism.
Soviet Russia and Britain were our two main allies. Both countries suffered far more causalities than the U.S. who really didn't have any troop strength in Europe until 1943. In fact the U.S. had the fewest number of causalities of all the allied countries.
The Communist Soviet Union had more causalities than all the other allies combined. Communist China also supported the Allies in World War II. If any allied country can make claim to being the chief victor and warrior combating fascist world domination during WWII, it would be the Communist Soviet Union.
Far and away the greatest opponents of Fascism here and around the world were the communists.
 
The American Communist Party was key and in many instances heroic in battling for free speech, equal rights for blacks, woman and children, woman suffrage, fair and decent housing, prison reform, a living wage, family planning and birth control and the Bill of Rights in general. They also battled the American Fascists and Nazi Party here at home. As an interesting aside on this subject insert the name Prescott Bush into your favorite search engine.  
 
John Glenn is a Democrat not a Republican. John Glenn supported John Kerry against George Bush.
John Glenn has been a supporter of protecting the environment and a staunch opponent of Bush and Republicanism. He supports soldiering but does not necessarily support war under all circumstances and for any reason.
 
In reference to part one of your Republican propaganda message:
It would take too much space to clear up all the historical inaccuracies of this memo but let me make just a few clarifying remarks.
 
On December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor was attacked pre-emptively by the Japanese; an act which was condemned by all the non-fascist world and Republicans and Democrats alike. Shortly thereafter Germany declared war on the United States aligning itself with the Japanese. We did not pre-emptively attack Germany; nor has any Democratic or Republican president ever pre-emtively attacked another country on information known to be false at the time. Even Adolf Hitler made attempts at justifiable excuses for his multiple aggressive adventures in Europe. What has happened under the current administration (known falsified intelligence), if found under future investigations to be true, is a first in America history.
 
The major contention of this memo is that the United States whether under the leadership of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party has been more than willing to engage in wars of unjustified aggression against foreign countries.

This has been the argument of the Communist World since they first got a foothold in Russia in 1917. These "war mongering" charges are the basis of all anti-Americanism in general. Ones first impression from this memo would be that its author is a Communist.
Pacifist and anti-war proponents have been arguing this point of view for decades.
But then the author goes on to criticize Communist at the end of his memo? Go figure.
 
This author's argument seems to be on a partisan basis. In other words, because Democrats have engaged in unjust wars of aggression, then what is wrong with Republicans doing the same?
 
Nothing ... so long as you believe that war is a "good thing".
 
The author even goes so far as to say why should we be feeling sorry for a few dead and maimed soldiers when just as many are murdered by individual criminals (terrorist) in Chicago each year.

True. And why should we oppose any war when more people have been killed in traffic accidents in the United States alone since the invention of the automobile, than in all the wars of Civilization since the beginning of recorded history?
 
The author may consider this answer rather shallow - but the reason traffic accidents and crime are not put in the category of war is because they are - as with death, flood, famine and disease -considered to be uncontrollable acts of God ... or Mother Nature ... or fate or chance - or whatever it is that you believe is the power above that of human control.
 
War is considered under the category of "managed" killing. It is therefore considered to be a matter of human "choice" ... or governmental choice - not a matter of circumstance or happenstance ... fate or destiny.  
 
If you think that war is a good thing and in general serves to benefit mankind (population control, increased dividends, more jobs and less job competition, stable economy etc.) then you have no problem in defending any war. Adolf Hitler defends this position in his autobiography "Mein Kampf". He also thought, like so many Americans today, that war builds character - if you live through it, of course.
 
Third argument:
The author also makes the point that a few "soldiers" loosing their lives is really of no consequences when one considers the "greater good" of any war effort.
 
Although it may be true as the author of this memo claims that we do not have to feel pity or sorrow at the loss of soldiers or willing combatants in any war - especially those who make the choice to participate - those of us (Democrats and Republicans) who are of a compassionate nature hate to see anyone die - even if they freely make the choice, perform the act by their own hand; succumb to natural causes - or die in a war. They feel that any death is a sad tragedy.
 
Anti-war advocates oppose war in general most often on the behalf of those who did not chose to be involved but find themselves suffering the consequences nevertheless - the civilian and non-combatant populations of the country under attack or those countries so involved. The death of civilians in Iraq is now into the hundreds of thousands. If we consider the first Bush war, and the second Bush war, and the instigation and support of the Iran/Iraq war by the Reagan administration the deaths are into the several millions.
 
The death of the soldiers is often brought to the foreground because unlike the author of this e-mail memo some feel that the life of the soldiers involved in a war - on either side - are important. They are also brought forward because unfortunately most people seem to be unable to feel compassion for non-combatants in any war torn areas. As a result of this immunity to the pain of strangers, the death of a country's soldiers and loved ones are used in an attempt to stop the madness of the war.
 
I could go on but I think this is sufficient. If you would like to find left wing answers to all this right wing slanting you can go to Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky's web site; Zinn for overall history and Chomsky for politics and foreign policy. 
 
PS I have tried not to sink to the level of partisanship in this response because I do not consider myself to be either a Democrat or a Republican; but if one would like to search the historical record, almost every terrorist organization existing in today's world whether in South America, Asia, or the Middle East - can be found to have received funds, weapons, training, and often its original start-up money from the Reagan administration in particular or the CIA in general; this includes: Sadaam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

HOBO

HOBO

[poem]

By Richard E. Noble

Hey Hobo
I didn’t get to say good-bye.
I miss you real bad already, buddy.
This place feels like an empty hole
without you here each morning to say hello.

Why didn’t you stay off the darn road?
You never go out on the road.
You’ve been here so long.
You knew better than that.

I guess that you just got distracted,
didn’t you, buddy.
Yeah, I know.
But now what am I going to do without you?
I’ve got a real pain for you my friend.

I know I told you that I loved ya.
I know I did.
I always stopped to pet you, didn’t I?
I even came back from the truck some nights.

You were always yelling at me.
But I liked it.
Everybody yells at me.

Now you can’t say that I didn’t do my best.
I know that you were mad at me at first.
But you were a stray.
I already had seven cats at home.
You remember … you met them.

What was I supposed to do?
I can’t take care of every cat in the world.

But when you got sick,
I got you fixed up … didn’t I?
I got you all your shots too.
I don’t even get myself shots, man.
But I got them for you.

I even took you home once.
But you were too tough for them guys.
You had old Bogie cowering behind the couch.
He’s too old for that, Hobo.

You had a pretty good time down here at the
Ice Cream Parlor, didn’t you, buddy.
You met lots of people down here at Hobo’s.
They are all going to be asking about you.

I couldn’t believe that you let them kids pull on your tail.
You were a real, real good buddy.

Will you wait for me Hobo?
I don’t know where I’m going either.
But wherever, I know that you’ll help me to handle it.

I’m going to miss you buddy.
I keep seeing you everywhere.
If I could just see you sneak in that door at closing time
one more time.

Yell at me Hobo!
Come on … yell at me!

I deserve it.
I should have done something.
What was it?

Yell at me buddy!
Tell me about it.
I can take it.

Hey … bye-bye.
Keep an eye out for me.
I’m going to be looking for you.

Just yell.
Just yell at me my friend.

Just yell.
I’ll recognize your voice.

Just yell.
Bye- bye … you sweet thing …

Bye-bye.

Roosevelt 1932-1936

Roosevelt, 1932-1936

By Richard E. Noble

Roosevelt comes in with a bang. He wins the popular vote by over seven million and the electoral vote 472 to 59 - not only that, but the Democrats sweep the house and the Senate. They now control two thirds of the Senate and three quarters of the house. Why?
The U.S. government, the capitalist system, and all of its institutions are in the state of collapse. The American monetary system has failed, the banking system has failed, the Stock Market has failed, agriculture has failed, industry has failed, the educational system has failed, labor and management are at war, housing has failed, and medical and hospitalization has failed. No matter where one looks out upon the horizon, one sees chaos, collapse and corruption.
Whether this is all a part of a super-wealth conspiracy to bankrupt the middle class and thus control them, the poor, and the rebellious working class; or the built-in inevitability of an unrestricted competitive system; or just the workings of fate, the people of the United States were desperate.
Since Hoover took over the reigns of state everything had degenerated and the Republicans seemed to have no answer.
They weren’t in favor of reform, relief, or revolution. Their only answers were poverty, police and Providence. The Republican Party had been in a state of known and visible corruption since the days of Ulysses S. Grant.
Roosevelt not only had the hearts and minds of the people but the Congress and Senate also. He was given the powers of a president at war and for the first four years they passed just about everything that he proposed.
Roosevelt had promised to try anything and if it didn’t work, try something else.
Hoover didn’t leave the vault as low as Benjamin Harrison had left it for Grover Cleveland, but he did his best to leave Roosevelt with as little as possible. In the four months between Hoover’s loss at the polls and Roosevelt’s inauguration, it seems that Hoover and his buddies did their best to leave Roosevelt with out a dime to work with.
The first thing Roosevelt did was to take hold of the money supply. He took the nation off the gold standard which even had Europe screaming foul. He stopped all gold from leaving the country, and pulled all gold certificates from circulation. He made owning gold illegal. He reduced the gold reserve backing on the American paper by nearly fifty percent, thus enabling him to double the amount of paper money in circulation.
The rich were now taking all of their money out of circulation and hiding it, or investing it in more prosperous foreign countries. If that Communist, Socialist, Dictator Roosevelt was going to take up the side of those lazy, poor, good for nothings who were trying to ruin this country, he wasn’t going to do it with their money.
Roosevelt did everything he knew to increase the revenue of the Federal Government, even cutting government salaries and wages, and then spent it as fast as he could on programs to put people to work or relieve those without work opportunities. By 1938 he had put all of the 15 million unemployed to work temporarily and half of them permanently.
He set up federal mortgage and loan companies that basically bought up mortgages and loans from the banks and returned them to the borrowers at rates of payment that they could afford. He did the same for small businessmen and farmers, plus guaranteed the sale prices of farm commodities. The government even bought the farmer’s surplus and gave the excess pork, butter, and bread etc., to the unemployed.
He got the banks straight and guaranteed deposits up to five thousand dollars. He subsidized medical care and tried to establish federal health care insurance. He plugged the holes in the Stock Market with a Securities and Exchange Commission that guaranteed a stock’s legitimacy. He put Joe Kennedy in charge of the operation. When critics asked him why he put the biggest thief the business world and the Stock Market ever knew in charge of the whole deal; the big bad wolf right inside the chicken coop ... he laughed and told them that it takes a thief to catch a thief.
He passes a National Industrial Recovery Act which set up public works projects, fair trade practices among business, and gave workers the right to strike and demand that bosses arbitrate grievances. Prior to this, strikes by workers were considered illegal and troops were sent in to break strikes and punish workers.
He opened up trade relations with Russia by recognizing the Soviet Union, the existence of which had been denied by the U.S. since 1917. This puts fire to the notion that America really had a communist in the White House.
He set up an emergency housing division that cleared slums and built public and private homes.
He tried to build up the Navy and the Air Force by proposing the Vinson Naval Parity Act but congress refuses to appropriate the money. The country is so much against war or our entry into a war that in 1938 they try to pass the Ludlow Resolution. This resolution would not only deny the executive, but the congress the right to declare war without a national referendum except in case of invasion.
He passed a graduated income tax - charging millionaires up to 75% on every million after their first.
He starts a Federal Arts Project, a Federal Theater Project, a national Youth Employment project, he even commissions history and science research and a writers project. He regulates the health and sanitation of food and meats, and drugs.
He starts building dam and river projects in Tennessee, Colorado and in Michigan, the Saint Lawrence Seaway; and in 1936 even the beleaguered Bonus Army that Hoover had beat-up on gets the adjusted Compensation Act passed over F.D.R.’s veto, and over 1,500,000,000 in benefits are paid out to over three million veterans.
It seems that up until this period in time the country was allowed to progress without rhyme or reason or rule and regulation. There had been no referee, no judge of fair play, and nobody who cared or who could do anything about it. Roosevelt came and America had its Moses, the law giver. He had a law, a plan or a program for everything.
In his first eight years his only opposition seemed to be the Supreme Court. They had been placed in their positions before he got control. They tried their best to declare unconstitutional everything that he attempted. But as fast as they declared it unconstitutional, the legislature passed a different but similar law to replace it.
By 1938, the Right wing Republicans had finally gotten together with the Klu Klux Klan Democrats from Dixie and the tide began to turn. In the 1936 presidential election Roosevelt won by the largest electoral victory in a contested race in history ... 503 to 8. And even though 80% of the nation’s newspapers came out for and supported Governor Landon, Roosevelt won the popular vote by over eleven million. But with the mid-term elections of 1938 the Republicans recovered 81 seats in the house and 8 in the Senate.
War was coming.

Secrets of the Templ

Secrets of the Temple

William Greider

By Richard E. Noble

“Secrets of the Temple” is a book that discusses the interaction of the Federal Reserve and Government economic policy. This book is basically a detailed analysis of the Reagan administration and the Volcker chairmanship of the Reserve.
Once again Mr. Greider teaches us how the “clock” works by taking us on an intimate tour through the internal mechanisms of the “clock”. This is the hands on approach to learning. I like it. Actually it is the only way that I have ever learned to do anything. One can read history and theory until he is blue in the face but until you actually go there and do it - you don’t really get the whole story. So this is the next best thing. Mr. Greider takes us on a tour of the factory - from assembly to design and through sales and advertising.
This book is nearly 800 pages long. It’s a bargain. If I had any negative criticism it would be that it contains too much information. But that seems to be Mr. Greider’s style - no one is going to accuse him of not “doing his homework”. I guess he gets that from his journalist background.
I have now read four of Mr. Greider’s books and I have been thinking of going through them one by one and comprising a book of facts and figures. If I actually did that I think that I would have an encyclopedia of economic knowledge.
I really can’t imagine how long it took Mr. Greider to put together this volume. I should think that one such effort would be the achievement of a life-time.
Writing a book like this is not like writing a novel - this takes brains as well as creative imagination. Once again this book is not a “read”; it is a “study”.
I read all of Mr. Greider’s books with a highlighter in hand. Even Time Magazine and the Wall Street Journal give praise to this book on the back cover.
I am not going to try to give any detailed analysis of what is in this book - you have to read it for yourself - but if you are interested in “money” and how it works in our system this is a good place to start.
On first glance one might think that there was a battle going on between the Reagan administration and the Volcker Federal Reserve. But it seems to me if there was a fight going on, it was to see who could make the rich richer.
The more Reagan spent and created deficits, the higher Voicker raised the interest rates. Now if Reagan was a Democrat and creating these huge deficits on social spending, Volcker’s high interest rates might have had some sort of leveling effect. But when Reagan was cutting taxes to the super wealthy and spending on military while closing down any social spending, building unemployment and chasing businesses overseas, Volcker high interest rates just seemed to be adding insult to injury. The small investment class - the top 10 to 24 percent gained on every account. There is no doubt - the rich truly got richer and the poor got poorer. And since the Reagan administration this trend has continued.
This book not only tells you what was supposed to happen, but what actually happened. And it seems that what was supposed to be and what was, were for the most part two different things.
I don’t know if I am ever gong to understand economics. I’m beginning to think that an economics text book is more like a program at the race tract. The book tells you what happened in the past and gives you the present status of the principals. Then the race starts. After the race is over you review the program. “Oh Yeah,” you say that is why I should have bet the 4 instead of the 2 - but it is too late. It was all right there in black and white ... but not quite.
After reading Mr. Greider’s books I feel much like Mr. Chaim Weizmann who went on a cruise with Albert Einstein. After the cruise was over Mr. Weisman is quoted as saying; “Einstein explained his theory to me every day and soon I was fully convinced - that he understood it.”
Ah yes, I am thoroughly convinced that Mr. Greider knows what he is talking about - I only wish I did.

Bank of International Settlements

BIS

Bank of International Settlements

by Richard E. Noble

BIS - Bank of International Settlements - Founded in May of 1930, as a part of the Young Plan. Owen D. Young was a J. P. Morgan banker and Political advisor who devised a plan which supposedly would enable the allies to collect reparation payments from defeated Germany after World War I. The BIS would be an international bank that would be immune from the perils of seizure, confiscation and the general perils of War. It seems that the Banking community was having problems conducting business as usual while their chief depositors were conducting international havoc on the battlefields of Europe. They wanted a bank that could function independent of War that could conduct transactions with both sides or all sides before, during and after War. It was founded on the principle that money is thicker than nationalism.

The history of this bank is enough to unsettle the most patriotic heart. Whatever its initial purpose it turned out to be the financial tool for the American and British pre-war financing of Adolf Hitler and German Nazism, and the in-war money laundering apparatus for the Nazis government. Money was shuffled through this bank from primarily British and American sources to rebuild Germany and its industrial might after World War I.

On its board of directors were such people as Walter Funk (convicted war criminal), Emil Puhl (convicted war criminal) and both Hitler appointees, Paul Hechler (German Nazi party member), Kurt von Schroder officer and financier of the Gestapo and head of J.H.Stein Bank of Cologne, Herman Schmitz (head of I.G.Farben), Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, Hitler’s banking and financial wizard, tried at Nuremberg but released.
The BIS was associated in the U.S. with the First National Bank of New York, a J. P. Morgan organization with directors Harold S. Vanderbilt and Wendell Willkie. Its second president a Leon Fraser, was a hustler and a performer in drag stage comedies, and had no experience whatsoever in banking.

In 1938 The Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Normand, a well known Nazi sympathizer, shipped 48 million in Gold sent to the bank of England by the invaded Czech government, back to the BIS who immediately sent it to Berlin and to Adolf Hitler.

During the War the BIS president was a Harvard graduate by the name of Thomas McKittrick. He was a personal friend of Emil Puhl and “Despite the fact that the evidence of the Puhl-Mckittrick conspiracy was overwhelming, McKittrick was given an important post by the Rockefeffers and Winthrop Aldrich; Vice president of the Chase National Bank . ..“
(Trading with the Enemy-Charles Higham).

The BIS under McKlttrick and others is accused of trading with the enemy during a time of war. This is treason as defined by our own constitution but no one in the BIS has ever been brought to justice or even brought up on charges. The BIS is still in operation today. Henry Morganthau, F.D.R.’s secretary of the treasury, had this bank and numerous other American businesses under investigation after the War, but McCarthyism and its subsequent hype got these super wealthy American Nazi traders off the hook. It’s time for someone to go through these files of Morganthau that are at the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial Library at Hyde Park, and bring these people to public disgrace.

Night

Night

Elie Wiesel

By Richard E. Noble

Elie Wiesel was a victim of the attempted extermination of the “Jewish Race” by the Nazi German State under the leadership of Adolf Hitler.
Adolf Hitler actually had a bigger plan than the extinction of the “Jewish Race”. His larger goal was to eventually rid the world of all inferior breeds and types of people - weather they were members of races or not. He was going to purify humankind of all of its miscreants. The Jews were simply first. He explains these goals in his book Mein Kampf.
It always amazes me that here in the United States there has only been one political party that has ever been outlawed - the Communist Party. As far as I know even today, you can be a member of the Nazi Party but not a member of a Communist Party.
In principle and theory the Nazi Party advocates the extermination of all inferior peoples for the eventual goal of the purification of the species.
The Communist Party in principle and theory (despite the leadership of many misguided brutes and dictators and murderers) has advocated fair treatment for the poor and working class.
In the United States we have outlawed the Communist Party but not the Nazi Party.
Harry Truman in one of his memoirs states that in his opinion Communism was a worse philosophy than Nazism.
To say the least I’m confused.
But “Night” by Elie Wiesel is not a book about Nazism or Communism. It is a book about people and the human race.
The copy of “Night” that I have was previously owned. And the original owner has written several of his comments or questions in the margins.
On page four he writes; Why would you allow yourself to be shipped off? On page seven he writes: Total denial of worsening conditions by the Jews. On page 27 he writes; So many Jews and so few SS. Why don’t the Jews just take over? On page 37 he writes: A psychological feeling of depression controlled the Jews. He has other comments but they get fewer and fewer as the book goes on.
What do you think about these questions?
I wonder why this last reader is questioning the behavior of the Jews and not the behavior of the Germans.
There is not one question written in the margins of this little book asking how the German people could do such a thing to any group of people.
Like the battered housewife, everyone asks; Why did you stay with him? Why did you allow him to treat you so?
No one asks: What was wrong with this man?
Is it because we as human beings are so conditioned to abuse and torture and mistreatment in this life that we see nothing unusual about the abuser?
And this brings us to Mr. Elie Wiesel’s constant refrain throughout this book; ‘Where is God? Where is He? Where can He be now?
As a philosophical student of the classical problem of the existence or non-existence of God, I find this argument basic. This is the moral argument against the existence of God - How can a moral God create an immoral world?
Liebnitz said that because God is good and moral - this is the best of all possible worlds. It must be. God can not make mistakes.
Voltaire wrote Candide as the disbelievers’ response to Liebnitz.
The believer will say that the evil of the Holocaust was not God’s evil but the evil of man - it was created by the German people. This was human evil not Divine evil - as if human nature could somehow be separated from a Divine creation.
Once again we see the victim getting the blame while the abuser is exonerated.
This seems to be the human condition.
To continue with this philosophy of “beating up on the victim”, I suppose that the non-believer could say to the believer: Why my friend do you chose to believe in an abusive God?

Time and Ice Cream

Time and Ice Cream

Memories from My Ice Cream Parlor

By Richard E. Noble

What is time?
A second, a minute, an hour, a day, a month, a year? Is this time?
No. These are all manmade measurements of the phenomena we call time. Time is that unexplainable lapse that occurs between two events. The pause that we experience between seeing a bolt of lightening in the sky and the thunder we hear later.
We measure time by an ancient method that all started by the notion of light and dark and day and night. The Indians had Moons; “It will be four moons before we meet again.”
A day depends upon the rotation of the earth on it axis, and a year is recorded as one complete flight of the planet earth around the sun. Is it the Earth rotating on it axis and its habit of traveling about the sun, that makes us grow older? If we could stop the earth in its tracks, and yet keep the Universe and the planet and our lives functioning, would the stopping of the movement of the planet stop our growth? Would we stop aging?
If we could counter the rotation of the earth and the speed of its orbit around the sun in some sort of simulator, could we then counter the process of aging? If not, what is aging?
If aging really has nothing to do with the motion of the planets or the stars, then what is it? Is it a metabolic thing? Is it a gravitational thing? Is it internal? Is it individual? Can it be controlled? Is it a dietary thing?
Is NOT growing old a possibility?
Can science one day discover what it is that deteriorates our organs and causes us to grow old? Could it one day be possible that Man would live a thousand of our years by taking some kind of pill or injecting some stimulant into a gland that would slow down the aging process and that a man of two hundred would only have the bodily wear and tare of a man of twenty?
If this science did become available would we all benefit from it, or only those who could afford it?
Is this science already available?
And keeping all of this in mind, could you tell me, did you ask for chocolate, or vanilla? And was that one scoop or two? You said a waffle cone didn’t you? Was that a twenty, or a ten?

Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn

“A People’s History of the United States”

By Richard E. Noble

What is “A People’s History” you might be asking yourself. Mr. Zinn explains it as a history written from the point of view and in sympathy with the minorities involved as opposed to the traditional elitist style histories. Most histories are written from the established order downward. A People’s History is written more from the masses upwards. It certainly provides a different perspective. For example we see Christopher Columbus arriving in 1492 from the eyes of the Indian tribes waiting along the shoreline rather than from onboard Chris’s ship. I must say I knew that Christopher Columbus wasn’t all that he had been cracked up to be over the centuries - but I never saw him portrayed quite so horrendous. I felt much the same when reading about Ferdinand Magellan in William Manchester’s “A World Lit only by Fire”.
Mr. Zinn is what most analyst would call a “radical”. He does not provide the established approved interpretation of historical events. One might be inclined to call this book a “negative” history of the USA. I’m sure that some would find it very depressing.
I have done considerable radical reading, so I was not shocked by Mr. Zinn approach to history.
I have been reading now, for several years, Mr. Page Smith’s a “Peoples History of America”. It contains eight or nine volumes, each volume being approximately the size of Mr. Zinn’s work. Most of what Mr. Zinn had to say I had already been exposed to in one of Mr. Smith’s volumes or elsewhere and in greater detail. But yet I have no doubt that most Americans would be quite shocked at much of what Mr. Zinn has to say in His People’s History.
Mr. Zinn’s book, though it is over 700 pages is a good brief synopsis of American history - comparable, say to Bertrand Russell’s single volume of “A History of Western Philosophy”.
It is claimed that Mr. Zinn’s book has now sold over one million copies. I am surprised, but I consider that fact a very good sign. Anyone interested in American history should read Mr. Zinn’s book - or one like it.
After finishing Mr. Howard Zinn’s a People’s History of the United States, I wanted more background on the author himself
Howard Zinn is an historian and college professor. He is also a social activist. Being a social activist is a nice way of saying that he probably gets washed down with a fire hose quite often; is more than likely familiar with the effects of tear gas; and has spent several nights or weekends in various jail cells about the United States.
He served in the military in World War II and participated in the act of dropping bombs on people and things. The experience left him with a very sensitive conscience, and not much in favor of the concept of war. I have never understood why more veterans don’t feel similarly.
Believe it or not, dropping bombs on civilian populations was once considered morally and ethically inhumane. Since World War II the argument rarely surfaces anymore.
I would say that he is a very outspoken individual. And when one is saying the types of things that he is saying, this takes a great deal of courage. Most people do not want to hear the negative tales of their nation’s history or read about the history of their country from a critical perspective. Most people will admit that their country has made mistakes but they would like to think that nevertheless their leaders and their ancestors did the best that they could under the circumstances. Nobody really wants to hear that their country not only made mistakes but that maybe many of the mistakes weren’t mistakes at all - but were contrived and done with positive intent; nor do they want to hear that many of their ancestors weren’t really all that great - in some cases maybe even criminal.
There is no doubt in my mind that reading Mr. Zinn’s book will make any reader think about things. The reader may rethink many of his positions, or he may think that books like this should not be allowed to be published - but one way or another he will think.
Mr. Zinn would be considered Left in our current political spectrum - but from where we are today everything is Left. I think that we are about as far Right as this country has ever been at any time in its history – maybe the Wilson Administration could compare. But, nevertheless, Mr. Zinn I am sure would be considered very Left.
For my part, I find Left and Right very confusing. Neither Left nor Right is what they used to be. I like Mr. Winston Churchill’s remark on this issue; A conservative is a person who today adamantly defends the liberal policies of the past (paraphrase). We don’t live in a Conservative world - if we did we would all be wearing powdered wigs and practicing feudalism.
I enjoyed reading Mr. Zinn’s History even though I felt that he injected considerably more personal opinions and views than I have found in most history books. I am not saying that he tried to pass off his personal opinions as history - he didn’t. But he does
become much more familiar and personal than most historians whom I have read. I found myself on a few occasions questioning some of the author’s positions and interpretations but I must admit that I really don’t have enough information to actually deny any of the author’s viewpoints. And the more I investigate our “true” history, I’m afraid Mr. Zinn’s point of view will appear more and more accurate.
In a way his personal touch is refreshing. It certainly makes reading a history book more entertaining and enjoyable. When you are finished reading Mr. Zinn, you feel you know the man - heart and soul. What you read is what you get - he is certainly not holding anything back.
I intend to read more by Mr. Zinn - but not right away. I’ve got to let this book sit in my mind for awhile; or maybe in my gut, where it can be digested more thoroughly.

The Molly Maguires

The Molly Maguires 1875-1876

By Richard E. Noble

In 1873 there was another financial crisis. Ninety thousand laborers, in New York City alone, lost their homes. The crisis stretched through the year 1877. The union movement was once again staggered. Craft unions alone were reduced from forty-one to eight. Overall union membership went from 300,000 in 1873 to 50,000 in 1878. Union disintegration seemed to go hand in hand with panics, financial crisis and depressions. If you didn’t have a job, you didn’t need a union.
From January of 1875 to June of 1875 in the Pennsylvania anthracite coal regions the “Long Strike” erupted. Franklin B. Gowen, president of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad announced a 20% cut in wages to the workers. The strike culminated in or was followed by a series of violent activities. There was an outbreak of murders, robberies, assaults and arsons in the area. A group called the Molly Maguires was singled out as the culprits. Late in 1875 twenty-four miners and laborers were arrested. They were all members of the United Mine Workers Benevolent Society and supposedly members of a secret organization known as the Molly Maguires.
The Molly Maguires originated in Ireland, it was claimed, and had over six thousand lodges around the U.S. The Molly Maguires was a secret inner ring of the Ancient Order of the Hibernians. The Molly Maguires was to Ireland as the Mafia was to Italy. The only problem was that no one could ever find any of these other 6,000 lodges. Nor could they find any other members, other than those accused of membership in the Pennsylvania or Philadelphia area. It also seemed very suspicious that the only victims of the Molly Maguires were union leaders, officials, organizers or members of the union. Interestingly enough it also happens that there was no violence in the area until the Pinkerton organization was hired by management. It was claimed that the inner turmoil and basic violent nature of unions, in general, was responsible for this strange circumstance of self abuse. The “animals” within the unions were killing one another in their battles for personal power and wealth. Of course, the wealthy business and railroad millionaires would never engage in such power battles, murder or violence.
A man by the name of James McPartland had infiltrated the Ancient Order of the Hibernians under the alias of James McKenna. McPartland was the manager of the Denver area Pinkerton office. McParland testified that he had been present
at meetings of the Irish terrorist and anarchist Molly Maguires when they planned their various murders and killings. When asked why he didn’t stop any of the killings or even notify the proper authorities, he had no answer. It also seemed interesting that all of those who testified against the alleged Molly Maguires were Pinkerton agents, ex-cons, or known criminals hired by the Pinkerton agency. Nevertheless, all twenty-four of the union members arrested were convicted, and ten were actually executed.
Mister McPartland has even greater accomplishments in the years to come. We will see him in the future with Harry Orchard and the killing of the ex-governor of Idaho, Frank Steunenberg. Only, in this case, his antics are discovered and he is not successful in getting the state to murder any new victims. He was also involved in the Cripple Creek and Coeur d’Alene uprisings.
In any case, after this horrible incident with the “terrible” Molly Maguires, the Molly Maguires never appeared again. Nevertheless, they became a permanent part of the anti-union folklore. Their name was brought up over and over whenever an example of union violence and senseless killing seemed advantageous. If it is true that the Molly Maguires were, in fact, a fictitious group, manufactured by management for the purposes of discrediting the union movement, and murdering, beating and assaulting its leadership, it turned out to be a very innovative and successful strategy. Fear, terror and suspicion of unions was implanted in the hearts of the general public in that particular area and over the United States for a long time to come.*

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

BARROOM BUDDIES

BARROOM BUDDIES

By Richard E. Noble

“Jerry ... ah ... I don’t say things like this too often ...
... Hey Ernie?! Another round over here ... Now, where was I?”

“You don’t say things like this too often ...”

“Oh yeah … well I’m not the kind of guy who forgets things.
I appreciate you, my friend.
Put ‘er there. I mean it, Buddy.
I wanna shake your hand.
A guy don’t have too many real friends in this life,
and you are one, pal. I mean it...
Hey, talk about real friends!
Look across the bar over there.
You see that guy all dressed up in that fancy suit.
That man and I have really been through some times together.
I mean, I grew up with that guy.
We lived on the same street.
I’ve known that guy since we were this high.
I mean, I knew him when he didn’t have a nickel.
And look at him now! Dressed to kill.
He must of hit the jack pot.
And I’ll bet he don’t even recognize me.
I mean, I haven’t seen him since we got out of the Service together.
HEY, you old rascal! Where the hell you been?
Look at you! You look like a million bucks.”

“Hey, don’t I wish. Don’t let these duds fool you.
I’m about as flat as a pancake.
Lost every damn cent I ever had.
I’m wearin’ this suit because it’s all I got left.
I mean things have gone really sour for me, Bob.
I’ll tell you how bad it really is.
I don’t even have enough money to buy another drink.
You wouldn’t buy an old fightin’ buddy a drink, would ya Bob?
I’d really appreciate it.
You just don’t know how thirsty a guy can get, old friend.
It’s like a desert out here.”

“Ah, gee Georgie, I really wish I could, but I’m flat broke ...
[Bob leaned forward, and with his elbows,
covered the bills and change lying in front of him on the bar.]

“Oh come on, Bob ... for old time sake?
We were two of a kind, we two.
Just one for old time sake?
And I swear to god, I won’t bother you again.”

“I really wish I could, Pal, but I’m out ... flat out, Buddy.
[Bob’s well dressed friend across the bar,
raises from his stool, shakes his head in anguish at the floor,
then heads for the barroom door.]

“I thought he was you’re old time friend?
Your bosom Buddy?
Your best pal? You went through thick and thin together?
Old Army Buddies ... Lived on the same street? ...
Never forget the time you and he did so and so??”

“That’s true.”

“And you wouldn’t even buy the poor slob a drink?”

“Hey, he’ll find another sucker ... besides,
once a drunk, always a drunk ...
you know what I mean?

Carol

A Christmas Carol

By Richard E. Noble

Carol is a pleasant rhyme,
enjoying, laughing, Christmas time,
snow filled streets and trees alike,
bows and tinsel, a shinny red bike.

Those crisp, clean, nights
the stars, what a sight,
sleigh bells ringing, a child’s delight,
it brings one’s heart to a new found height.

Carol is a pleasant rhyme,
enjoying, laughing, Christmas time,
the smell of outdoors, a pine tree bristles,
puppy dogs, bright red berries, boughs and thistles.

Hands in mittens, a pretty white kitten,
Cupid abounds with hearts all smitten,
a poppin’ fire, a reindeer for hire,
a mysterious box full of switches and brier.

Carol is a pleasant rhyme,
singing, laughing, Christmas time,
boys in love, and girls all aglow,
silent whispers and stolen kisses beneath a mistletoe.

Bonnets and babies, sweet memories so old,
hopes for the future and good things to hold,
keepsakes, and sonnets, a locket of gold,
those times of youth, so daring and bold.

Carol is a pleasant rhyme,
enjoying laughing Christmas time,
cherries and chocolate and ice cream balls,
dancing and singing and decking the halls.

Carol is a pleasant rhyme.
Carol is for Christmas time.
Carol is all things in time.
Carol is a love of mine.

Mein Kampf

Mein Kampf

Chapter 4

By Richard E. Noble

Chapter six of Mein Kampf is entitled, War Propaganda. This is classic Adolf .This chapter is only ten to fifteen pages. This is a chapter that is very interesting.
I think, like everything else in this book, some of what Adolf says is true, some of it can not be substantiated.
Adolf became successful at his chosen career partially because of his intelligence and cleverness, and like every other successful person, mostly because of the circumstances existing about him. But as with many successful people, they rarely give credit to the circumstances about them and almost without question write a book about how their attitudes, outlook and insights had made them what they are today. Adolf is certainly no different in this regard. In this chapter he gives us his insights into advertising, and the marketing of an idea.
“… At the time of my attentive following of all political events, the activities of propaganda had always been of extremely great interest to me. In it I saw an instrument which just the Socialist-Marxist organizations mastered and knew how to apply with expert skill. I learned very soon that the right use of propaganda represents an art which was and remained almost entirely unknown to the bourgeois parties. Only the Christian Socialist movement, especially during Lueger’s time, acquired a certain virtuosity with this instrument and it owed much of its success to it ... Unfortunately everything has to be studied on the other side; for the activity on our side was more than modest in this respect...”
The first thing that strikes me here, is that Adolf considers ‘propaganda’ an art form. I think that the artistically inclined look at almost everything in life as an art form, or at least containing art overtones. I consider myself as artistically inclined, or one who at least appreciates the form, movement and rhythm of things. I have always seen art in just about everything. I remember working as a butcher and making the observation that there were those of my co-workers who exhibited such a smooth flow and rhythm to their movements that it seemed to me like poetry. People who aren’t artistically inclined, I imagine would think this ludicrous, but yet those that have the art spirit would probably know exactly what I mean.
I can still see some of the butchers and the way that they moved their bodies about the piece of meat; the way that they held their knives, and moved them in an action of rhythm and style. It almost looked like a dance that was being performed by an artist! A cruel brutal dance, maybe to some, a dance of hatred and war, but nevertheless a folk type dance - the more skillful the butcher the greater his style. The more flow to his movements.
The left handed butchers painted a completely different picture.They all presented a blurred picture of athletic motion and style. I looked at this quality as the artist’s ability to extract ‘beauty’ from even the ugly and cruel. Beauty has no political perspective. It exists everywhere; in a flame, in the ripping and tearing of a butchers knife, in soldiers falling to the fire of a machine gun on a battlefield, in clouds floating across the sky. Beauty has no morality. It is just there. You see it or you don’t.
Myself, as a percussionist, and observing other drummers play the instrument, I am not as fascinated by the ‘licks’ or number of hits they make at the surface of the drums as I am by the rhythm and smooth flow of their drumming style. The way they move. Many drummers have a great technique, but the great ones that I have observed have an art about them. They flow and move in a consistent predictable motion. The movement of their bodies flows with the rhythm of the song that they are playing. It is clear that they have a feel for the music.
It is also clear that Adolf had a feel for the movement of the bodies about him. He was a painter at heart. He saw the beauty of things. He eventually saw beauty in the ugly, and the cruel, and even the horrid - an artistically inclined individual feeling and clawing his way through the dark sides of life.
I don’t know who this Lueger is. My guess is that he is a pre-war anti-Jew propagandist, or something of that like.
Adolf obviously felt that the enemy had a better grasp on this medium of ‘propaganda’ than his side in the dispute. But this seems to be typical of Adolf. He is obviously more of a counter puncher. As they say today, he is a ‘spin’ master. He learns from his enemies and turns their own arguments against them.
He took the Marxist argument against the rich industrialists, and turned it against the Jews. He took the evolutionary notion of democracy, and countered it with the natural evolution of the historically great leader. He took the Christian appeal of ‘love thy neighbor’ and countered it with God’s brutal but practical process of natural selection. God eventually kills everyone and every living thing therefore killing is a positive emulation of the Divine.
Adolf was obviously a good debater. He could take his opponents very words and turn them against them. He took every contemporary argument and turned it upside down, or, as they say today, put his own ‘spin’ on it. But, this is nothing new. Politicians re-write history on a daily basis. But don’t we all? Aren’t I making just such an attempt right now? Am I seeking the truth, or ‘spinning’ the writings of Adolf to my liking or dislike? I feel that I am being honest and objective, but how much of my honesty is being driven from my personal prejudices, lack of information, and personal disposition? I do my best, but in the final analysis you will have to be the judge.
Part of this skill in writing that I have been pursuing for most of my life is truly the art of propaganda. A writer writes to influence the reader, to sway his opinions, to move him emotionally. Any writer who does not have this ability, won’t be read - at least not widely read.
“... I learned infinitely more from the enemy’s war propaganda ... Was there any propaganda at all on our side? To my regret, I can only answer no...”
I constantly hear people say, or credit Adolf with the statement that if you take a lie repeat it often enough and loud enough it will be believed. I haven’t found this statement yet in this book, but I am sure that if he did say it, he stated it in reference to Marxism and not as a technique of his own philosophy. I have no doubt that Adolf was an honest sincere individual. I think that he believed every word that he spoke. If he lied knowingly, I am sure that he would defend any lie by stating that the end justifies the means. He believed that his end was to make his nation and his race rule the world, and any method was justified in achieving this end.
They also accuse Adolf of being a manipulator, and of course he was, but certainly no more than Winston Churchill or Franklin Deleno Roosevelt or Joseph Stalin.
Adolf was successful because he preached a doctrine that appealed to many in his world of that day, and many of the richest and most powerful in that world. His doctrine was that of the successful, of the powerful, of the egotist, of the individual, of the capitalist. This is still the prevailing philosophy in America today. It is taught in colleges and universities through the writings of Ayn Rand, and Brandon, and others. It prevails as the primary notion and platform of our current day Republican philosophy.
He was the antithesis of the Marxist doctrine that preached the eventual overthrow of the individual by the masses, or the proletariat. Marx followed the historical rise of the slave, through the feudal serf to the ranks of the ‘wage slave’, and present salaried employee. He preached and defended his notions with what appeared to him as the inevitable trend of human history. Rule of the masses, by the masses, and for the masses ... the natural evolution of a humanitarian democratic socialist state - Socialist being interpreted as a government that acted democratically on behalf of the majority, and not in the favor of the individual or a minority of rich and powerful.
Marx’s writings had set the world on fire. I don’t know Karl Marx very well, and I have only perused his writings, but his idea precipitated a violent uproar among the poor and hard working throughout the world. Adolf mentions sixty years of fighting and debate prior to World War One in his own country. Marxist communism is without any doubt in my mind the ‘story’ of the last hundred years. To my way of thinking as Marxism is the key to the last hundred years, so is ‘the Jew’ the story of the history of the western world.
William Manchester makes a point of the post World War One pacifist, and the philosophy of the pacifist as giving rise to Adolf’s power. I don’t know if I can buy this point of view. I have also read that John F. Kennedy made some sort of a similar claim in his college thesis on the subject entitled “While Briton Slept” or something of the like. It might better have been entitled “While the World Slept” but that aside, I have my doubts that anyone was sleeping. I am more inclined to believe that the world was far from sleeping. All the knowledgeable and powerful were actively participating. I feel that though there certainly may well have been a sincere pacifist movement, as there always is and hopefully always will be there was much, much more of a pro-Nazi movement.
I will guess and intend to investigate the notion that of those who claimed to be pacifists, the powerful majority were much more pro-Adolf and his philosophy, than they were terribly distraught over the perils of war.
Why would anyone in their right mind be pro-Nazi? Because, to be pro-Nazi was to be anti-Marxist. You must remember Marx’s philosophy made the rich and powerful, the conspiring enemy of the people. It was the Rich and Powerful that promoted war. They did this for profit. It was the Rich and Powerful (the Capitalist), who enslaved the poor and hard working. It was the Rich and Powerful who indulged their own, and let the less substantial linger and die in their slave pits that they called factories.
Marx had promulgated ‘the Conspiracy of the Capitalist’ - an international group who had no national character and ruled the world by their cooperative cunning and like-mindedness. Adolf took Marx’s theory almost word for word and turned it back onto them. He simply replaced the internationally minded exploiting ‘Capitalist’, or rich industrialist and turned him into the no-country, parasitic, international, bank controlling, stock market manipulating, immoral interest bearing JEW!
Where did he get this idea? He didn’t think it up, it was already centuries old. The Jew had had this reputation long before Adolf came along.
Again, we know Henry Ford was very active in this area. But it seems that this notion was being written about all over the Western world. Adolf had been getting this information in the streets as a homeless teenager. Again we are brought back not to Adolf but to the history and legacy of the ‘International Jewish Conspiracy’. I think, by the way, that this is the title of Henry Ford’s book. A book that he self-published and disseminated about the world.
So here we have Adolf once again simply tapping into a prevailing philosophy and ‘spinning’ it to his own advantage. He was, as they say, a natural politician.
For my personal reading, I want to know more about this international Jewish conspiracy idea, about Henry Ford, about the Jew in general, about the Nazi movement and its popularity throughout the twenties and thirties worldwide, about Karl Marx and his influences, along with the causes and influences of the outbreak of World War One.
As for the part of his country in World War One, Adolf is clear.
“…The aim for which the war was fought was the most sublime and the most overpowering which man is able to imagine: it was the freedom and independence of our nation, the assurance of subsistence for the future, and - the honor of the nation ... It was for the struggle of its human existence that the German people fought...”
Adolf is convinced in his country’s righteousness in World War One. So, from the point of view of any soldier who is convinced that his cause is or was righteous, all reports negative to his point of view are not ‘truth’ but clever manipulations of a conniving enemy. And for Adolf the ‘enemy’ was not only the Allies, but the internal traitors, Marxist and others, who agreed with the Allies, and thus undermined Germany’s war efforts, even if this group were his own countrymen.
For my personal reading and research, I must find out more about the causes of World War One, and if anyone in particular was to blame. I know that Winston Churchill accuses the Germans of posturing and pushing for a fight. But by the same token Winston obviously doesn’t see his nation’s dominance of the seas, it colonization of less powerful nations, and its fear of any threat to its economic and military supremacy in European affairs, as a sign of belligerency on the part of his nation, or any threat to the autonomy or independence of other nations. But it is clear from history that many other nations of the world considered the British a threat; China, and India to name just two.
But Adolf’s conclusion is that news or ‘propaganda’ is a tool and its main concern is not with truth or righteousness but its ability to sway the masses to a point of view. I think, and it appears to be true, that every soldier who has ever, for whatever reasons, committed himself to a fight feels this exact same way. The press is not reporting but propagandizing, and all those who disagree with his fight are cowards and traitors, and it matters little to them that these opponents are also willing to die for their point of view.
“…To whom has propaganda to appeal? It has to appeal forever and for only to the masses! Propaganda is not for the intelligentsia...”
It is interesting, Adolf obviously does not consider himself one of the ‘masses’, and clearly not of the ‘intelligentsia’, but whatever he is, he exists apart and above both of these groups.
“…But propaganda is in its contents as far from being science as perhaps a poster is art in its presentation as such. A poster’s art lies in its designer’s ability to catch the masses’ attention by outline and color. The poster for an art exhibition has to point only to the art of the exhibition; the more it succeeds in this, the greater therefore is the art of the poster itself ... He who wants to occupy himself with art itself has really to study more than the poster ... The task of propaganda lies not in a scientific training of the individual, but rather in directing the masses towards certain facts, events, necessities, etc., the purpose being to move their importance into the masses’ field of vision. But as it is not and can not be science in itself, as its task consists of catching the Masses’ attention, just like that of the poster, and not in teaching one who is already scientifically experienced or is striving towards education and knowledge, its effect has always to be directed more and more towards the feeling, and only to a certain extent to the so called reason ... All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself. Therefore its spiritual level has to be screwed the lower, the greater the mass of people which one wants to attract...”
Well, we have no doubt that this philosophy worked for Adolf, but, of course, it is a statement of an elitist, and not that of a populist. It is the philosophy of one who intends to manipulate people, or try to manipulate people. The idea of appealing to the lowest level of intelligence we still hear today with regards to advertising, TV, movies etc. This philosophy has never appealed to me. I consider myself to be one of the ‘masses’, and I resent being tricked, duped, and manipulated. I believe that the ‘masses’ are also made up of individuals, some more intelligent than others, but all intelligent in their own way. I realize that the masses can be duped, tricked and manipulated by lies and misrepresentation, but I also believe that if given all of the facts, and both points of view on a subject, equally defended with intelligence and reason, the masses will invariably pick the right alternative. The problem is that the masses do not get the whole story, or that the truth of the matter, or the opposing point of view is not simply denied but suppressed. Again, we never want to suppress or deny the free exchange of ideas in an open society. This is always one of the first steps to the loss of liberty. But, it is certainly clear that political parties today emphasize Adolf’s propaganda principles: appeal to the lowest intellectual level; make it simple, stupid; repeat it loud and often.
As far as Adolf’s technique for manipulating the masses, I really do not think that there is any conspiracy, or mystery here. Even in our simplest of human relationships we all use these techniques.
If we want to attract someone to us, the first thing that we do is to present ourselves in a noticeable way. We fix ourselves up to look pretty or handsome ... attractive, and then we try to get noticed. This is an attempt to appeal to our subject emotionally. We may continue to make further emotional appeal by fluttering our eyelashes, or flexing our muscles, or something of this nature. Once we have established contact in this manner, we proceed to establish a more lasting bond. We speak, and try to convince the interested party that we are not only ‘attractive’ but stimulating and engaging in other ways. After we have been successful in this, we go on in an attempt to intensify this relationship, and further convince the individual to whom we are attracted that we are not only interesting and attractive, but worthy of being loved by he or she.
This is not a dirty, underhanded conspiracy. These things only become dirty and underhanded if they are being mimicked for purposes other than to win the other person’s love and affection - sincerely.
As a writer I think I try to use all of these techniques. I write poetry. For the most part the poems are short and to the point, and appeal directly to the emotions. I hope that the simple, understandable notion in the poem attracts you to more of my writing, possibly my short stories and humor or satire, or essays. These I hope will then lure you into my more serious writing. Eventually I am attempting to build a bond. A bond that will attract you to all that I have to say, and will give you the confidence that I am a sincere individual deserving of your support and affection.
This is not a trick. This is an understanding of basic human nature. But to Adolf everything and everyone is involved in a conspiracy. They are not people who are in honest opposition to what he believes. They are a group involved in a deceptive conspiracy. I think that this feeling is also common to the human experience. I have a very strong inclination to lump people into conspiracies myself. I try to guard against this, but I constantly fall into this trap of thinking, and especially when I am angry. I have to keep reminding myself that people can have a point of view contrary to mine and not be totally insane, stupid, and involved in a conspiracy to take over the world. It is obvious from the fact of war that people are capable of holding confirmed but yet contrary beliefs.
“…The great masses’ receptive ability is only very limited, their understanding is small, but their forgetfulness is great...”
This is certainly another common fact of life, and if it weren’t so, I doubt that many of us would be able to bear life at all. We have to be able not only to forget, but to forgive or none of our relationships will survive.
“. ..As a consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda has to limit itself only to a very few points and to use them like slogans until even the very last man is able to imagine what is intended by such a word. As soon as one sacrifices this basic principle and tries to become versatile, the effect will fritter away, as the masses are neither able to digest the material offered nor to retain it. Thus the result is weakened and finally eliminated...”
This is more elitism. I believe in making your point, and repeating your point, but his constant referrals to the masses as stupid, and incapable seems rather overbearing to me. I am amazed that this man could be so insulting to the masses and still maintain such a strong public support. Obviously, everybody didn’t read this book. But his simple slogans certainly mimic our present day one minute sound bites.
But is any of this new political thinking? Maybe it was to Adolf but certainly was not to the political world of the American, or the British. These are common techniques of persuasion necessary in any democratic society. New deceptive ground in a Totalitarian German world? I think not.
“… It was completely wrong to ridicule the adversary as was done in Austrian and German propaganda in comic papers. It was basically wrong for the reason that when a man met the adversary in reality he was bound to receive an entirely different impression
the German soldier ... felt himself deceived by those who so far were responsible for his enlightenment, and instead of strengthening his fighting spirit or even his firmness, quite the contrary occurred. The man despaired.
Compared with this the war propaganda of the British and the Americans was psychologically right. By introducing the German as a barbarian and a Hun to his own people, it thus prepared the individual soldier for the terrors of war and helped guard him against disappointment ... Thus the English soldier could not even for a moment have the impression that his country had taught him the wrong facts, something which was unfortunately the case to such an extent with the German soldier that he finally rejected everything that came from his side as ‘swindle and ‘bunk’ …”
This seems to be a good point, and this tale always seems to appeal to defeated soldiers of any modern war, but the facts from what I can see and have read are to the contrary.
In 1917 the Russian Czarist propaganda had failed totally. So much so that the entire army dropped their guns at the front and returned home to start a revolution against their own government. The French were almost in the same condition. There was desertion and severe rebellion in the rank and file. The British were having riots in the streets. The war had lingered on and was more brutal and devastating than any of the nations involved had ever thought that it could be. Every type of horrible weapon had been used. Stupid and adamant Generals on all sides had sent their soldiers to their deaths in wave after wave of senseless confrontation. The people at home in all of the nations were fed up with the whole ordeal.
Finally Wilson came to the rescue, but not without riots and severe resistance on his home front. As far as I know more Americans refused to go to World War One than any other war in American history. Our prisons were filled with war resisters of one type or another. Thousands more opted for alternative service, but refused direct combat. Adolf is looking here for an excuse for his people. He was a fighting soldier - fighting on the front for his life. It was difficult for him to believe that his countrymen back home were giving up on him. But the fact of the matter seems to be that all of the countries back home were giving up on the senseless slaughter of the war.
America came in, and turned the tide of war in the favor of the British and the French, but again I have to ask myself what stirred Wilson to action? The real battle on every home front and the philosophical battle that had been raging for years in all of the countries of Europe and in the United States was the battle between labor and the rich industrialists.
In the United States federal troops were being used and had been used on several occasions to put down union movements and rioters in the mines in the west, and in the factories both north and south. The battle of the workingman was underway all over the world. When the Russians turned and actually walked off the battlefields, and capitulated with the Germans to end their part in the war, you can bet that Wilson and all of the rich and wealthy in the world shivered in their boots.
Rich Russians were undoubtedly being slaughtered, their homes ransacked, and their possessions pilfered by the poor and disorderly; by the peasants; by the proletariat. The class war had overpowered the cash war, and things were looking bad for the prosperous and better off. If Wilson hadn’t entered the war at that point, all of Europe might have fallen to the followers of the workingman’s rebellion ... the Marxist.
Wilson came to the aide of the rich and famous and saved Europe from the largest peasant’s revolt in history.
But as far as I can see propaganda was coming out strong on every side. Truthfully, I think that the strongest advantage of the ‘established’ in this World War struggle was the basic instinct towards loyalty.
Once war is declared in any nation, the truth is stifled, the debate grows dim, and anyone who criticizes the present government becomes an instant traitor, and no one protests this treatment, especially if they have a son at the front, or one who has just received his draft notice. Wilson entered the war, imprisoned the ‘conspirator’ at home and saved his class from a purge that, if we can use Russia as a guide, would have become very, very bitter, and most likely would have toppled the Union, or the established government of the United States.
As for the notion that the Western propaganda made the German’s into barbarians and the German propaganda made the Tommies into harmless clowns and cowards, I think that is another of Adolf s imaginings. The Germans as barbaric and warlike WAS the German image to the world around them. No one had to make up the notion of a German Barbarian. The British being prone to absurdity and elitist verbosity, and more talk than action WAS the image of the British. The ‘Propaganda’ wasn’t a trick on either side. It was stereotypical but not necessarily deceptive. And probably the only one misled by it was Adolf himself - he being, most likely, brash and over confident. But all of Europe’s young World War One warriors all seemed to be of the same brash, over confident nature and opinion. The war was going to end in weeks they all thought, and each side thought that it would be victorious.
“...It was fundamentally wrong to discuss the war guilt from the point of view that not Germany alone could be made responsible for the outbreak of this catastrophe, but it would have been far better to burden the enemy entirely with this guilt, even if
this had not been in accordance with the real facts, as was indeed the case ... As soon as by one’s own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one’s own right is laid ... the mania of objectivity ... for now they will take pains not to do an injustice to the enemy, even at the risk of the severest strain on, or destruction of, his own nation and state...”
Adolf again shows that he is a loyalist, and a true believer in the philosophy - my country right or wrong. - Adolf is never concerned about the truth of any situation. The truth or righteousness of his cause is never the issue. Being on the side of one’s country or ‘State’ is always righteous. Once in battle truth is not to be considered. Truth is the first victim in any conflict. His is straight military thinking. But in the long run, or even the short run, I think that History has proved Adolf’s theory wrong. The truth and the opposition to whatever cause, will not be stifled. Stopping its publication will only force it underground, or to be spread by word of mouth, or revolution. Arguments and philosophic theories can only be countered by more substantial theories or their disproof by rational and reasonable means. Violence leads to more violence but invariably leaves the roots of the violence untouched. Adolf did say earlier that an idea could only be stopped by a better idea, but again, he is never concerned by the ‘truth’ of any idea. Of course, he said that not only a better idea would be necessary but it must also be promoted with the sword and indisputable conquering. Again, I think History has proved this theory wrong.
“…persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success...”
Well, I don’t think that anyone can fault that statement.
“…The purpose of propaganda is not continually to produce interesting changes for a few blasé’ little masters, but to convince, that means to convince the masses. The masses however, with their inertia, always need a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and they will lend their memories only to the thousand-fold repetition of the most simple ideas...”
Repetition is a principle of learning. This notion is nothing new. Slogans are nothing new, and certainly weren’t thought up by Adolf. Drawing attention to your cause, product, or self, are well known techniques in establishing and idea or cause, and even personal success. All of this is like saying what makes a great painting is color, style and flare. Adolf isn’t telling us here anything that everybody doesn’t already know. And I don’t think that anything that he has said so far would give a guide to anyone else’s success. These are all fundamental notions.
Adolf was somehow able to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor that had been exaggerated by the Marxists. I can see how what he has said so far brought the rich and powerful to his side, but I am yet to understand his hold on the poor. His words and philosophy were certainly directed to gain the support of the moneyed classes. Maybe his signs, posters and spoken words were more for the common man. I have never heard or read any of his speeches to the public, nor have I seen any of his posters. Maybe this should be next on my list of investigations. Even though Mein Kampf sold in Germany by the millions, maybe its message only reached the better off. He then was able to garner the support of the better off, possibly, by showing his ability to manipulate the masses of unread and uninformed. I really cannot understand constant reference to the basically ‘stupid’ masses as being of any appeal to the ‘stupid’ masses in general. Unless, of course, there was no one in Germany at the time who considered himself or herself to be a member of the stupid masses.
In America today, if you talk about the ‘lower class’, I wonder how many will admit to being a part of that class? Unless it is defined for them by income, my guess is that we have no lower class in America. Or at least no one who will admit to being a member of it. Everyone in America, no matter what degree their poverty, are, I would suspect, middle class at worst. Maybe this was Adolf’ s appeal to the poor huddled masses. He talked to them all as if they were simple unemployed ‘elitist’, and then united them against the poor, stupid, and uniformed ... whoever they were. My guess is that only the German intelligentsia read his book, and the common people were lured by other means -  possibly his speeches, and street tactics - means that will probably have to be discovered elsewhere.

[This is a part of a continuing series appearing on this blog. This is my 10th entry. Click on Search This Blog to find other entries on the same subject - Mein Kampf.]

Tom Paine

Tom Paine

The Age of Reason

Thomas Paine
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

By Richard E. Noble
With the current controversies with regards to religion, the Bible and Christianity, I am at a loss to understand why “The Age Of Reason” by Tom Paine is not a million seller. I have found that although many people, famous and otherwise, often quote or paraphrase Tom Paine, few have actually taken the time to read what he had to say.
Whether you are a defender of established religion or a detractor, you should read “The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine. If you are a defender of the Bible or any religion other than Deism then you are going to have a challenge defending your views against the logic contained in this book. If you think that you know the “truth” then you should not fear such a challenge.
What this book has to say is as valid and logical as the day it was written.
I do not understand why the religious apologists of today have not taken this book and debated it line for line. Instead, no one even mentions it. It is as though this book were never written. Instead they continue to promote the same old defeated arguments with a modern day spin. It does make any honest man question their sincerity.
The first section of the book challenges the Old Testament and the second part the New Testament. Since first reading this book, I have read more detailed, more philosophical and more historical criticisms of the Bible and Christianity. But in this volume Tom Paine does a very good job of stepping on the basic bases for argument with regards to the Bible and its authenticity. The book is very easy to read even though it was written in the 1790s. Tom Paine writes in much the style of today - which seems rather amazing when you look up many other of the writers of the period. In those days the established writers criticized Tom Paine’s writing as being common and untrained. Well, for better or worse, it seems that the common and the untrained has become the language of today.
This book deserves to be read, of course, as a history book but it also merits a place as a philosophy book - certainly an exercise in logic and critical thinking.
Tom Paine is so sensible he is shocking. He is still shocking today. I remember as a teenager when I first read the introductory pages in chapter II discussing the Virgin Birth. To say that I was shocked would be an understatement.
But this is just vintage Tom Paine. If you sit down and start reading the Crisis Papers you will be equally shocked. You will wonder where this man got the audacity, the confidence; the courage; the balls! This man’s whole career is one of a fearless disregard for consequences and an all out embrace of what he understood to be the truth. Tom just said it like he saw it. Most of us, even today, learn not to do that - it can be very troublesome; and so it was for Tom.
The Crisis Papers made Tom famous and a hero. The Rights of Man only served to enhance this heroic reputation. The Age of Reason, though no different in style, character, straightforwardness, and courage, destroyed him.
He wrote this book while sitting in a prison cell in France during the French Revolution – waiting to have his head chopped off. He had no reference material and wrote the book entirely from memory. This seems impossible to me.
In the introduction he tells the reader that his intention was to publish this book posthumously, but since he was about to die – this appeared a good a time as any.
Fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, Tom lived – to be chided, derided and harassed for the remainder of his life. After all his great and patriotic achievements the people could not forgive him his trespasses when it came to honestly expressing his thoughts on religion. It does seem strange that everyone could respect his honesty in all else he did and said; but when it came to religion – he was suddenly a liar, a hypocrite and an infidel. You can tell the people anything that you want – but don’t tell them that you don’t believe in their God; whatever God that may be.
The people of the time could respect courage and truth in War, and respect truth and courage in politics but when it came to religion and the Bible - their ears were closed and their fists were clenched.
Unfortunately we seem to be returning to those days of yesteryear and today we have no Lone Ranger to protect us - we don’t even have a Tonto.
I put this book on my blog several months ago as one of my favorite books and since then I have checked it for links to other blogs and individuals in the infinite blogosphere. So far there is not one other blogger who has listed “The Age of Reason” as one of their favorite books. (I just checked to be sure - there are now three others.)

Making Love

MAKING LOVE
[Poetry]
By Richard E. Noble

Let’s go for a ride on top of the tide.
The darkness is daring and sweet to the touch.
Her fingers ... his stare,
Let’s make love ... if we dare.

Let’s lay on our backs, naked as the stars up above.
Let’s fill this night with the romance of our need for love.
With the help from the smell of the salt from the sea,
We’ll make love to an ocean’s rolling rhapsody.

A moment like this may never exist.
So grab on, let’s reminisce
On the lips of this kiss.

We’ll keep ourselves warm
With the breath from our storm.
We’ll hold on tight,
Until the world’s out of our sight.

Let’s make our love
On the crest of an in-coming wave,
Then splash in the sparks
Our fingertips made.

We’ll ride this tide with our eyes open wide,
No need to dream or make it seem.
First up with a groan, then down with a moan,
We’ll ride this wave’s crest, then roll in its foam.
You’ll look in his eyes,
Feel the caress of her thighs,
Then swoon in a moon of yearning.

You’ll love him again,
And her ‘till the end,
In a moment of love ever burning.

You’ll touch with your toes;
He’ll kiss the red rose,
Of passion’s torchless turning.

And she will wreathe with a sigh,
And heave her breasts high,
Then roll in the dream of love’s tender churning.

To remember the meaning of a carnal bleeding,
To know an evening of lust,
To touch that passion, forever in fashion,
To reel, to feel to be human,
… or bust.

[I love poetry. Click on Search This Blog for other entries labeled – Poetry. Some selections are: A Child of Night; If I were a Butterfly;Edith; After We’ve gone our Separate Ways; I’m a Stubborn Old Mule; But Do You Love Me; Call of the Dead; Have You Come to take me Home; And the River Flows; Hangin’ Out; It’s so regrettable; Over and Over … and there’s more.]

Carl Bernstein

Carl Bernstein

“Loyalties, a Son’s Memoir”

Executive Order No. 9835

By Richard E. Noble
I’ve just finished reading a book entitled “Loyalties, a Son’s Memoir” by Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post reporter of Watergate fame.
Carl Bernstein’s dad was a lawyer. He was interested in politics. He got involved in the Roosevelt administration and served on several prominent committees. He joined the military in World War II and went over to Europe to fight against Fascism and Nazism. When he returned to his home, it seems to me, he found more of the same waiting for him right here.
On March 21, 1947 Harry Truman passed executive order 9835. This order was to trigger the American Inquisition of the late 40’s and early 50’s - the McCarthy Era.
This law basically stated that anyone suspected of disloyalty could be summarily dismissed from their government job. You could be called before a commission on information provided anonymously. You had no right to a lawyer, no jury, no trial. You weren’t allowed to confront your accusers, or to even know who they were. No proof or specific evidence was required, but yet if the board found that you were suspect, you would be fired from your job, and labeled as a subversive. You might never find another job. You might have to move from your neighborhood, change your name, lie, hide and keep the knowledge of your appearance before this inquisition committee a secret for the rest of your life. And this all could happen to you because you were a member of some labor union, or an associate of a member of a labor union. Or you were a member of a club that petitioned for the rights of blacks or minorities in America; or you wrote something positive about the Soviet Union, or you associated with someone who did. You could lose your job, your career and the potential for your whole life’s efforts on the false accusation of an anonymous, jealous fellow worker; someone who may have had a cousin in line for your job.
Carl Bernstein’s dad was one of these people. He was bigger than an unjustly accused victim though. He was an outright champion of the victimized. As a lawyer, he took it upon himself to defend over five hundred of these people brought before Mister McCarthy and his team of government investigators until finally like, Clarence Darrow before him, he was brought to the firing line by his political rivals and enemies. He lost his status and position. He lost his Washington career. He lost his ability to practice law. He ended up opening up a Bendix coin-operated Laundromat in a black neighborhood, and that is how he earned his living from that time on.
This is quite a story, in itself, but there is more.
Carl Bernstein’s dad, a defender of the liberal left was confronted by the McCarthy champions of the right. Two of McCarthy’s prominent Knights were the infamous Roy Cohn, and Richard M. Nixon.
Richard M. Nixon, the man who was forced to resign from the highest government job in the land, who had his whole career ruined; who lived the rest of his life fending off accusations and denying his being labeled a crook, and a criminal - this man’s life, very much in the pattern of his late rival, Alfred Bernstein, was brought to this disgraceful position, at least in part, by the son of his victim, Carl Bernstein. The man whose life and career Richard M. Nixon had once helped to destroy.