Years of Suffering and Study in Vienna
Hitler is very inconsistent, and he leaves things out and then revisits them paragraphs later, in a random spot, he obviously has no notion of sticking on topic. But we are now, or so I believe, entering the famous entrance exam for a Vienna art school, which Hitler failed, because the board members were Jewish, and to some ‘that started it all’. Seriously he sounds like the biggest, most selfish, ass ever, ‘my ability had developed amazingly’. No one says that, when you have a ‘gift’ or are good at things, the last thing you should do is brag about it, you have to be humble, sure there is no reason to ‘deny’ your talent, but don’t get big headed about it. And now he is obsessed with architecture, I wonder if he ever thought about the countless buildings that were destroyed through his actions, did he think it a travesty that the amazing buildings were being destroyed, or did he give them no thought, like the lives of millions killed? When he was denied entry, he demanded an explanation, and the ‘gentleman’ said that his drawings were ‘proof that he was unfit to paint and should pursue architecture’. I don’t think he took that very well. But he, is just aggravating, I don’t think I need to say any more about it.But he now decided that he will become an architect.
But his lack of high school education, made this difficult. Because you do need to be good at mathematics (I think…) to be a good architect, or at least you need a good understanding of it. But he was determined, nothing would stop him. And it sounds as if again there is inconsistencies with nearly everything, biggest liar going around! And he actually thanks ‘fate’ for sending him into poverty, so ‘he knew the people he would later fight’, I don’t really understand that at this point, and it probably won’t be mentioned again.
It was in his time in Vienna that he came to loathe Marxism and Jewry. To be honest I have no knowledge of what Marxism is. I know it’s some sort of political ideology, but what exactly it involves, I do not know. Again more lies, he says he was a labourer, but this is not reflected in the records (true the records don’t always record everything, but they are pretty detail and accurate). He talks about hunger ‘being his constant bodyguard’ and then words later he mentions going to the opera and buying books. To be honest, if I were hungry, I would find food instead of a book or a trip to the Opera (and I do love buying books, but this confuses me). Hitler is very contradictory, because he says one thing and then says something else, and leaves problems unanswered, and then answers later or assumes that he has mentioned it before. I wasn’t expecting a literary genius, but I still will critique.
He sounds very ‘posh’ for someone who was poor, in the fact that he ‘bags out’ the manual workers, who to him were the lowest of the lows in terms of social order, when he didn’t have a home himself. I don’t actually see why manual workers were at the bottom of the list, I don’t really know what jobs these were, but they still were jobs, they weren’t unemployed. And I have to laugh at the mention that he learnt ‘to know humanity, learning to distinguish between empty appearances or brutal externals and the inner being.’ Which is confounding because of his views on race and religion, which isolated people for being different, because your race or religion doesn’t classify the person you are.
Was Berlin a capital of Germany (or one of the states) in this time, and if so did Hitler like the place (seeing it is now the capital)? Because there is no mention of the town and Hitler really seems to ‘hate’ Vienna, so why live there? I also get the feeling that Hitler doesn’t like the rich, or women. I swear he didn’t like anyone! Sometimes it sounds as if he is making a reasonable argument (something that I may even slightly agree with) but then he goes of in a tangent or says something rude and heinous that I cannot agree with it any longer. I also do not know if it was set out the way it is in this edition, or if this is the choices of the translator and publisher, but it is not set out very well and in a logical manner, because there are little ‘breaks’ every now and again, and they seem to be in random places, sometimes inappropriate (in my opinion). I certainly have very few words of praise for this book, but I didn’t expect otherwise.
Apparently he could find work easily because ‘he was not a skilled craftsman’ which is paradoxic because if you were good at what you do, you should find work easily, but nothing makes real sense with him. The story he tries to create about unemployment is mediocre at best and confuses me more than if it were left out entirely, it serves no real purpose. But it just sounds as if Hitler hates another thing, cities because it ‘crushes men’ who were ‘sucked in’. This could be argued the case, but nearly anything could be argued. But he has an interesting point that when people earn money they quickly forget the tough times, and ignore budgeting so they can enjoy immediate rewards, making their long term survival and situation perpetually worse. And this ‘cycle’ is passed on to future generations, who then do the same thing, it is something that (for the time being) is not nonsensical and can be applied to abuse and poverty cycles as well to some degree, which remain ingrained for generations.
He really has periods where he makes some sense, then little sense, and then makes no sense at all (possibly even ‘negative sense’ because his words seem too backwards). I think it would be such a strange experience to talk to the man, or to even experience one of his speeches in the flesh, I’d probably explode with anger at some point and try to murder him, but it would still be an experience. Technically he has a point that Nature ‘flushes out the weak and leaves the strong’ and that doesn’t quite happen with humans any-more (especially today) so the weak continue to survive. I don’t condone (I always thought this word to be the opposite because it sounds like condone is a negative word, so saying ‘don’t condone’ sounds like you agree with it, but this isn’t the case) ‘killing the weak’ because you just can’t do that, no one has the power or right to choose who lives and who dies, I just wonder what the world would be like if Nature had its way and those who ‘it’ saw fit survived and those that didn’t were wiped out, and what the human species would look like. But moving on, because what Hitler and Nature or indeed I see as ‘weak’ are all very different.
Hitler, I must really disagree, because where someone lives, means NOTHING, and being a German, or an Australian, or an American (or from any other country around the world) it means NOTHING, it is irrelevant! It is just a label and a coincidence that you were born in a particular place and some guy said that it was this country because he said so. National pride is another thing, which is hard for me to explain, but is something that is useless. Which probably angers a lot of people, but I don’t hate my country, I don’t want to be ‘invaded’ but to me I live on this planet, like everyone else, and lines on a map mean very little to me (especially with the advent of the internet, which destroys the limitations of such borders). If you are proud of your country, good on you, you are entitled to do that, but I am entitled to not agree.
We are again subjected to another ‘metaphor/story/work of imagery’ to try and instil an idea. He makes an obvious point that children are impressionable and what their parents do and say make an impact on their personality and attitude towards life. It is ironic that he talks about this, and how such a child brought up in a bad environment will hate the state and religion, etc. and will become adults that are immoral and insolent and are ‘incredibly stupid’ when I can easily say that he as a man, was immoral (or possibly amoral but there is a big difference) and ‘incredibly stupid’ (maybe not that bad, but you cannot say he was intelligent because he held his own view of intelligence and education). And the fact that he says that such a boy will disregard authority (which includes government) is odd because he himself at a young age was ‘revolutionary’ and hated the government.
He brings up an important issue; privilege. It is something that I haven’t really been aware of in the past, but has been made clearer recently (and is something that is brought up frequently at Mark Reads – link in the sidebar). It is a complex issue, and I have learnt that being ‘privileged’ makes it impossible to comment on what it is like to be ‘unprivileged’ and that if you are ‘privileged’ you should leave it to the ‘unprivileged’ to comment on their lives and situation. Because what we think will ‘help’ them could really be the last thing they want you to do, I guess it goes beyond taking a walk in someone else’s shoes because that still leaves you in your frame of mind, but you have to consider that a different person in that situation probably doesn’t like ‘privileged’ people talking about the issue like they know what is going on and what needs to be done.
He makes an interesting final point (for this ends with a break) that he can ‘fight only for something that he loves, love only what he respects, and respect only what he at least knows.’ Which is quite true, but with everything philosophical it doesn’t apply to everything. This chapter is a tad long, so the rest will be completed tomorrow!