Wednesday, 22 July 2009

My Struggle

This week I completed my epic journey through Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, which is perhaps the hardest book I've ever had to read.

Not for the reasons you'd think, indeed it is not a grim read and you get strangely used to everything being the Jew's fault and if it's not the Jews it's the Marxists (who are all Jews anyway) and if it's not either of those two's faults then it might possible be a German's fault but not a real German, a German who is a Jew loving Marxist.

This will all sound oddly familiar do anyone who has had to "debate" daft racists on the Internet.

Anywho, the reason the book is difficult to read is that it is, as Winston Churchill said: "a turgid, verbose and shapeless affair" that runs to some 600+ pages and aside from the opening chapters that are an autobiography of sorts (and are actually quite humorous in parts, although I'm not sure if Hitler was trying to funny...probably not knowing him), the rest is a bombastic call to arms for anti-Semites across the globe.

The level of puffed-up self-importance is staggering and although it is clearly justified, the man built up a new political party from eight people (himself included) to over a million strong force of Germans through sheer force of will, I don't think we need five pages of flowery, earnest verbiage as to the thought process behind designing the Nazi flag and how long it took him to get the white circle that surrounds the swastika the right bloody size.

What was most interesting for me was reading about how Christian he was, I knew Hitler was a Catholic but religious types always bring up Hitler and Stalin as examples of atheism going terrible wrong. Which makes me laugh, as if Hitler or Stalin are epitomes of atheism when they invest so much in building up a God head via the cult of personality...I digress...

Hitler was a Catholic and a big fan of Christianity, he saw Jesus as an Aryan slaying the Jews, forgetting that Jesus was a Jew (many Christians seem to do this) in the process; in fact much of Hitler's religious views are selective and self-serving but let it not be said the man was an atheist.

Anyway, what caught my eye in Mein Kampf regarding religion was that Christianity was a template for Hitler's beliefs, in the way that it crushed all opposition to it with ruthless force and power and that intolerance is a good thing in order to create stability. Hitler's reference point was paganism and witch hunts but it made me think that organised Christian faith provided Hitler with his final solution ideology.

Also, Hitler talks about how the Catholic churches' then blind faith and utter adherence to its teaching and principles, meant a total denial of any and all scientific and rational evidence that contradicted it (please see the United States and for it's current incarnation). Thus, in such dogma and immovable attitude Hitler sees, rightly so, that all strength is bound and that as soon as you tolerate or compromise by fitting in other's ideas, in the churches' case science and the advancement of human knowledge, you weaken and fall away.

I'll leave you with this comedy video of Hitler.


  1. Shitler...

    That's the funniest thing I can come up with today. Sorry.

  2. Why would you have to read Mein Kampf? What's next, Ann Coulter? I read a book called "The Nazi Doctors" in college, and it contained just about everything I needed to know about Nazis. Boiled down, Nazis = Evil (my analysis, not the book's). I'm sure, individually, there were Nazis who were not, but as organizations go, you cant get much worse than that one.

  3. Mein Kampf, is not a bad book really. It is one of those books that gets you to see an alternative world view. But Hitler forgets that he himself was financed by Jewish money, and the record on the other side of the atlantic shows that wallstreet was the finance instrument that armed Hitler in the first place.

    My conspiratorial mind always tells me WWII was an American initiative in the first place. That was the only way possible to bring down the british empire. America was seeking its place in a new world order of sorts. So finance hitler, arm him, let him loose on europe, drain the brits, screw the french, and come to the rescue because it was clear America could pull it together being home out of range and having extreme abundance at the time. Add to that, America buys itself out of recessions by war, and at the time it was the great depression, and a new war seemed lucrative and desired.

    Having put forward my conspiracy theory, it is time you wear your tin foil hat.

  4. Darren:

    Pretty good.


    I read it because my own family history is enmeshed with Nazi Germany and it felt the right thing to do. Ann Coulter is a step too far for me.


    Hitler himself speaks of the need for alliances and the financial games in Europe and what the UK desired to maintain power. Interesting stuff.

  5. Interesting how Fascism emerged from the political left. Something many of us more conservative types are mindful of.

  6. Oh good grief Jeff, not that old chestnut, fascism did not emerge from the left, it was anti-left and in its modern neo-versions it is on the far, far-right.

    To be clear, Hitler invented his own brand of fascism that was extremely right but many features of either Fascsim or National Socialism are not on either flank of politics and are more in their own area of stupid bloody ideas.

    What is more worrying is the need for the right to push it onto the left, very odd indeed.

  7. Oh no my friend. Fascism most definitely orginated out of the left. That is pretty well established now. You have given me a idea for a blog post. When I get the chance I'll speak to this issue on my blog. Give me a few days or so. Good talking to you.

  8. No Jeff, it is not pretty well established, that is a made up non-fact perpetuated by the Right.

    Fascism did not come from the Left, it repressed the Left just as it repressed anyone that stood up to it and the main features of fascism have nothing at all to do with the any ideas of the left.

    Again, it sets alarm bells ringing when people on the right try and pass off certain ideas to the Left, smearing at its very worse.

  9. I'll admit I have a tough time accepting certain things that go against my preconceptions. But eventually facts, and a fair and honest reading of them, get in the way. My friend, a close read of fascist history does not support your position. I can say with some confidence because I'd spent some time on this very topic a while back. I was suprised as much as you. I'm just not going to be in denial. Hitler, in short, rose to power out of the populace workers movements. Bennito was a journalist for left wing socialist newpapers before rising to power. Many promonient socialist here and in the UK sympathized with AH and BM. It's all in the record now. Anyway, like I said, maybe I can hash my position out in a blog post soon. Always a pleasure. And I saw your comment at Baudrille's Bastard. Take care.

  10. Jeff, I'm afraid is has no basis in fact, show me where anyone has marked out fascism as left in origin?

    First off, Hitler despised leftist thinking, his feelings about trade unions were that he needed them on side to win power but once in power he would take them apart as they are a threat.

    That isn't anywhere near left in thought or action.

    As for Mussolini's career as a journalist, that has no bearing on what fascism is, Hitler was a Catholic, does that make the Catholic faith fascist? Of course not.

    Many prominent non-socialists and those on the right supported Hitler and Fascist italy. So?

    What is alarming is your efforts to pass this off as reasoned thought and what the motive is to pass this off onto the left.

    Very odd.

    I have no time for people trying to pass off fascism and national socialism as off shoots of the left when both movements massacred and destroyed Leftists and also utilised no coherent elements of the left.

    You sound like the racist apologists that try and make out that the British National Party is left-wing when in reality it is just merely disgusting.

    This discussion is closed.

    Fascism is not left in its origins.

  11. To quote Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism":

    Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)


    Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism. (p. 30)

  12. Scholars don’t agree on a definition of Fascism. But it has a family resemblance to progressive socialism. The Nazi's recognized this and called their brand National Socialism. It might be fairer to call it a form of secular religion I think. Viewing Hitler’s rallies gives you a feel for that. Before WWII Fascism was viewed as a progressive social movement by some prominent liberals. It was H.G.Wells, in fact, who once called for a "Liberal Fascism." Many social progressives (especially the American left) praised Benito and Hitler. It was only after WWII and the discovery of the Holocaust that leftist intellectuals began trying to redefine Fascism as a right wing thing. But clearly the support for fascism was not amongst conservatives, but by liberal progressives prior to WWII. Of course social progressives just changed teams and went Red. Socialism turned out to be an utter catastrophe. The current system is far from perfect but beats any of the alternatives.

    Off topic. I wanted to know if any of your plays or writings are on the net? (other than the blog of course). I’d like to see or read them.

  13. Scholars do agree on the key elements of it and in both cases of large scale organised fascism we have the doctrines laid out by the key exponents of it.

    One of the things it has in common is a deep set hatred of Marxists and Socialists, also the idea that fascim resembles progressive socialism is yours and yours alone and one that I cannot agree with, it would be just as easy to assert that it resembles authoritarian conservative government but the point is that fascism is not some child of the left, it was a response to the left and its aim was to destroy it.

    Also, you make the text book error of confusing the word socialist in the title of the national socialist party as meaning socialist in the political sense, which it does not.

    The key elements of fascism are that it is a political philosophy that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

    Other key features are: corporatist economic ideology, opposition to class struggle in all forms and opposition to individualism, rationalism, liberalism, conservatism and communism.

    Fascism is an ideology of againsts, through againsts it develops itself. By generating an external opponent it becomes defined.

    As for it being a secular religion, I make that point above in the post, I don't need pointing to Hitler's speeches, I know my fascism inside out.

    And once again, you repeat the point that smacks of reading Goldberg's books and taking it seriously, about people on the left supporting fascism, the fact is many people on the right did exactly the same, it mnatters little. many conservatives across the world praised Hitler and so on, so what?

    And then you go on a revisionist and slightly offensive Gioldberg inspired vomit about the left backtracking based on the Holocaust.

    This is deeply flawed and wrong-headed thinking, desperate to pin something on a sweeping generalised term of left that never happened.

    Fascism had support in the right, many of its key features are of the right and in describing it, it is best to use far-right as a term.

    And to repeat, socialism is not connected to fascism, fascim was created to destroy socialism.

    I've said it above and I'll say it again, it is now getting circular, you are repeating arguments from previous comments and providing no evidence, whereas I am and you seem to not rebutt at all; also I have a real problem with giving comment space creedance to such concepts and grow tired of the right trying to pin various global ailments onto the left, as if by doing so the state by which they have left the world in through their economic policies will be forgotten or forgiven.

    The discussion is closed, no more revionsionist nonsense here.