Bob Schwartz

Maybe you think you have too much stuff, too little stuff, or just the right amount of stuff.

I’ve acquired stuff, moved stuff, disposed of stuff, acquired more stuff.

It is not that I have too much, too little, or just the right amount. It is that each thing is supposed to be doing something, or maybe has done something, or has the potential to do something in the future.

Books on the shelf are there to be read or referred to, to serve as colorful display, and to show visitors how well-read (or at least literarily acquisitive) I am. As for the books behind cabinet doors and in the closet, well, not as much showing off. In either place, am I actually reading and referring to most of them?

Everything here is like that—useful, decorative, both. Useful for practical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual purposes. Aesthetic and eye-pleasing, or not so much. Everything.

I’ve been considering talking to each of these things individually and asking: What exactly are you doing here? I would make it clear that they are not having to plead for their life (a little disingenuous, since disposal might be in their future). I just genuinely want to know what purpose they serve.

I’m looking at the floor lamp in the corner of my office. If asked, it would be a pretty simple conversation. It is the entire light in the room when the sun is down. It is not the only light I might have here, but here it is, so when it comes to purpose, the case is made.

Not as simple with many other things, the hundreds of things, big and small, that are everywhere here. Some of them are like the lamp, obviously useful. Others, either because there are too many of them (certain pieces of unworn/unwearable clothing) or of questionable/non-existent utility (dozens of pieces of old-school electronic equipment) would have a harder time explaining themselves.

But explain themselves they should. What will each of them say? What will each of your things say? Maybe we should ask.

© 2025 Bob Schwartz

Polls matter little in non-democratic countries. The vast majority of citizens might vehemently disapprove of national leadership, but how does that matter? The only way forward is for opponents to band together, even in the face of jailing or disappearance, and do whatever is possible to change leadership and restore democracy.

I had a related question which I asked my occasional thought partner Claude:

Q: If there had been public opinion polling in Nazi Germany, can we speculate about how the German people would have answered the question of whether they approved or disapproved of the job Hitler was doing?

In part, here is what Claude answered:

Based on what we know from various sources – SD (security service) reports, private diaries, emigrant accounts, and postwar testimonies – we can make some educated speculations:

Early-to-mid 1930s (1933-1937): Approval likely would have been quite high, possibly 60-80%. Hitler achieved what many Germans saw as remarkable successes:

• Dramatic reduction in unemployment (from 6 million to under 1 million)
• Restoration of national pride after Versailles humiliation
• Bloodless territorial gains (Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland)
• Economic recovery and stability

Late 1930s through early war (1938-1941): Still likely majority approval, though perhaps more mixed. Military victories came quickly with relatively light casualties, and life for “Aryan” Germans improved materially.

Mid-to-late war (1942-1945): This would have become increasingly complicated. Approval likely declined as:

• Casualties mounted
• Cities were bombed
• Food shortages worsened
• Defeat became inevitable

I draw a couple of conclusions from this.

Approval ratings only matter if they can practically lead to change. Had there been polls in Nazi Germany, even as approval declined, the only way to topple a powerful absolute ruler is to have internal comrades or external forces successfully make the change. Even so, if Hitler’s commanders had managed to get away with overthrowing him, democracy would not have been restored.

The early years of Nazi Germany had a lot of approving citizens, except of course those who were threatened, injured, jailed or killed. These citizens had a lot of complaints and held a lot of grudges, and they had a leader who seemed to be taking care of all that—or at least he claimed to be. If there was a price to pay for improving conditions, national pride, and elimination of the wrong people, those approving citizens were not (yet) paying it. Until they did.

There are two ways to look at the extraordinary claim that you are responsible for everybody’s suffering—including your own:

It is actually true.

It is virtually true.

Actually, in this life, you have caused others to suffer and caused yourself to suffer. This is something to address, though in your mind it falls far short of everybody.

Virtually, with a different concept, you have been around before this life, as have all others. These others have been friends, enemies, or strangers to you in those lives. And now those others are back as friends, enemies, or strangers to you. Did you cause any of them suffering before this? Did you cause all of them suffering before this? Are you causing any or all of them suffering now?

Call it a trick of the mind. No matter your metaphysical beliefs, if you consider it a possibility that you owe everybody your compassion—as if that is so—what have you lost? Is there some fine point of moral philosophy or justice that you are stubbornly determined to prove by making distinctions—and continuing to cause suffering?

Once you have opened up to that, it is not even a step to include yourself in that company. Yes, you are one of the everybody that you have made suffer. So yes, you are just as deserving of the compassion you are extending to everybody.

Quite a trick.