Mein Kampf – Years of Suffering and Study in Vienna (cont.)

Years of Suffering and Study in Vienna (cont.)

In 1909 and 1910 Hitler worked as a ‘small draftsman and painter of watercolours’. With his new work he had more time to do things, like reading and studying. He was now interested with ‘everything to do with politics’, which to him was the ‘duty of every thinking man’ so it was not special. And somehow he thinks that people that read a lot, and that read every word and letter, can be ‘not well read’. Because they may know a lot, but they are ‘unable to organise and register the material they have taken in.’ What he thinks to be ‘good reading’ is to selectively choose out the ‘important’ bits and only remember those and nothing else (which removes all context) and I can easily see why he may have read a lot but he was quite ‘naive’ and ignorant about the world because he only took in what he thought was ‘relevant and important’ when this could have been quite different to the entire book. Because sometimes the book may start with one side of the argument and then change later on to discuss the other side, and he wouldn’t care about the other side (which the author may be supporting) and he loses all context, which is extremely important to understanding the view of the author and the content of the book. I do understand that books should be your opinion, but should help shape your world view, but these are two very different things.

If you are going to read, and then only remember things that support your current opinion and assist you in your side of the argument, you aren’t going to learn, you are going to continue to believe that you are right. If you just pick out certain ‘statistics’ or ‘ideas’ that support your argument, and you ignore the wider consensus and a larger number of ‘statistics’, ‘ideas’, and ‘arguments’ then you aren’t learning and improving. If I wanted to say that the sky was really green (an example, bear with it) and I found data to support my idea, even when there is many other pieces of data and evidence showing that it wasn’t, I would be wrong and ignoring the entire board of evidence, which is what selectively remembering ‘important’ sections of a book is all about.I don’t know if my rant made any sense, but hopefully you get the idea of the lunacy.

So even though Hitler despised democracy he praised it because it would ‘ultimately’ lead to the downfall of the Habsburg Empire, which is exactly what he wanted (It is strange and quite hard to believe that a young man, little more than a teenager, was having such political and philosophical thoughts and ideas, it is not impossible, but I really doubt that Hitler was thinking this much when he was just a young man despite what he claims). Hitler hates another group of people, Slavic people, is there a group of people Hitler doesn’t hate apart from his mystical, and far-fetched idea of Ayrans? He really thinks that he is an amazing specimen of a human, doesn’t he. Because now he suggests that he learnt things about philosophy and about the Social Democratic Party and their doctrine, in only a few months, which for others would take decades. He is literally delusional and deranged. He thinks that the Social Democratic Party (I cannot really comment on whether their ideas and beliefs were good or not because let’s be honest I don’t really care about a party and their beliefs 100 years ago) are a ‘pestilential whore, cloaking herself as social virtue and bortherly love, from which I hope humanity will rid this earth with the greatest dispatch, since otherwise the earth might well become rid of humanity’. A especially scathing review. Following by another lie about his first experience of the Social Democrats.

It is actually a strange thought to think of Hitler working as a painter or a labourer and actually sitting at a work site eating his lunch. But I wonder if the views of the ‘Social Democrats’ he portrays are what actually was thought at the time, some of it is difficult for me to understand in a modern era and some just sounds like utter garbage, but everyone is technically entitled to an opinion regardless of that opinion (whether people can or should act on that belief and opinion is another matter), so I think things have been ‘made up’ and exaggerated (not the first time, either). He then began to argue back to these people in a heated manner (which is probably not the best idea and won’t really change people’s mind if you yell at them and say that they are wrong) trying to ‘educate’ them. But these hardy men told him to leave or he would be thrown of the scaffolding (I wonder if he would have died if they did this, and what the bulk of the 20th century would have looked like without him). But being the obstinate man he was, he decided to take up the fight elsewhere and try again.

I must laugh at the irony that he thought the Social Democrats ‘lied with a virtuosity that would bend iron beams’ and ’employed every means of slander’ ‘in the name of this gospel for a new humanity’. Isn’t this exactly what he did? Is there not conclusive evidence in this very book, that he slandered nearly everyone and lied profusely because he wanted a ‘new humanity’. There is so much irony, it is doing my head it, did he not see how silly it was to actually put this in, because of exactly what he was doing. Or was it because he was ‘right’ that it was acceptable? He talks about the ‘insanity of the doctrine [of Social Democrats]’ but obviously does not realise that his doctrine is probably even more far-fetched and illogical and immoral. He really loves to use the word ‘bourgeois’, I wonder if people in those days actually used that word or whether he just used it to sound smart (and technically the translator ‘chose’ this word but it is Hitler’s book) the word simply means ‘the characteristic of the social middle class’. Sure it sounds more intellectual and sophisticated, but if no one knows what you are talking about it isn’t worth using.

Is he seriously suggesting that the Social Democrats blackmailed people to join their movement? It is quite shocking and appalling. But it is again ironic, that the Nazi Party are no better, and are in fact worse (I should said were worse, but you get the idea). If you weren’t a Nazi especially in WW2 you were ostracised and treated with suspicion, so you were often forced to join to save you and your family the trouble, even if you were against their ideas. But I guess it shows where Hitler got his ideas from (if this is true). It sounds as if from Hitler’s version of events that the Social Democrats rejected workplace reform on safety, child labour, pregnant women working and better workplace conditions, possibly because of some idea that ‘rich men’ were interfering and taking away their rights or something, but it is an odd ‘doctrine’ for a party and the public to endorse (that is if it is true). It sounds like they went from Social Democracy to Nazism, one evil to another.But the idea of trade unions, aren’t bad because these days (at least) they promote safe working environments and petition for the rights of their members on things like pay and conditions, sometimes they can be ruthless, annoying and cause a bit of chaos but they are fighting for the benefit of their members, so they aren’t ‘evil’.

I really wonder if the vocabulary that Hitler used in German was so ‘sophisticated and complex’ as it appears to be in English, or whether the translator has had to find words to suit German words which are common, but in English are advanced and frankly over-the-top. But maybe that was how people in the 1900’s really talked, and such words are just uncommon today. I am also confused by the random sections that are in italics I’m not actually sure why they are like that, or what they are representing, but maybe it is some sort of ‘key idea’. His sentences are REALLY long, and if I were to read them out aloud, I would run out of oxygen! I would like to see Hitler himself try and read his own sentences.

And this chapter is so long, I have to break it up into another section, it is over 40 pages long, and the pages have small margins, and because of the complexity of it, it takes a long time to dissect and understand the content. This might take longer than I intended.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s