Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf

He sure loved his mom

 

share the wealth of knowledge...whatd u learn?

 

My 7th grade history teacher suggested that my class read it...in retrospect, probably not the best thing on Earth to do, but I don't think many people listened to that advice anyway.

I checked it out, but never read it before returning it to the library.

 

Mein Kampf for 7th graders? All I can say is : wow! What a great idea!
I'd say right after that, 7th graders should read "Psychologie der Massen" by Gustave Le Bon, then "Das Kapital" by Marx and then "Also sprach Zarathustra" by Nietzsche.
Oh, and to bring back some sanity while perfectionizing confusion, 7th grade should continue with Kant's "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" and end with "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung" by Schopenhauer.
Of course, all books must be read in German, otherwise they won't understand the culture and the context completely.
If some of those 7th graders prefer Italian authors, "Il principe" by Macchiavelli should be a good, easy read as well. It will help them develop moral standards, too. And never, ever say those pupils aren't able to understand that stuff and put it into context...

As for the original post : I'd really like to know those interesting things you learned from that piece of propaganda crap.

 

Soybean Fanatic - thanks for the laugh. Always useful late on a Wednesday night.

It really wouldn't shock me if Mein Kampf was mainly propaganda, and definately not reading material for middle schoolers.

At least the science teacher wasn't having everyone read Einstein's Theory of Relativity papers, or the math teacher having everyone read Newton and Leibniz's works on the beginning of Calculus, or the shop teacher having everyone pour over da Vinci's diagrams and blueprints.

Then again...considering the current state of education in America, none of that probably even appears until college, if ever, while it may be discussed in detail in other nations. Oh well.

 

I read it about 17 years ago admist a decade of intense reading searching for the proverbial "meaning of life". So I can't quote it, but I can tell you my feelings I had while reading it: Interesting and different. I always, and still do, think it's very cool to understand what's on the other side of the coin.

RR

 

I read it for the same reason that I sometimes listen to Rush Limbaugh.

It's always good to know what the other side is thinking.

 

I think that's an extremely unfair comparison, even if you didn't mean to equate the two. The implication is that Limbaugh and Hitler both represent the "other side" of the beliefs you hold.

Limbaugh is much more strongly in favor of individual freedom than his counterparts on the left. Totalitarianism in any form-- yes, including fascism, despite what you have been taught-- is a manifestation of leftist political thought. The subjugation of the individual for the good of the whole is the antithesis of conservative thought.

Fascism is completely inconsistent with conservative ideology. I think the confusion is between fascism and nationalism, which is part of the more rightward modern conservative ideology. However, fascism and nationalism are not the same thing. The mistake-- I will grant the benefit of the doubt that it's not intentional-- is the assumption that because Fascist Germany was nationalist, therefore nationalism and fascism are the same thing, and therefore any political belief in nationalism is the same as fascism.

Conservatism at its extreme is libertarianism. Liberalism at its extreme is totalitarianism. Limbaugh at his extreme is overbearing, but not Hitler. You have to remember that above all else, Limbaugh is a) an entertainer, b) a Republican, and c) a conservative, in that order. He is partisan before ideologue, which makes him a bad spokesman for a consistent conservative political ideology.

 

There you go again, Kagy. You have made quite a few silly comments in recent months.

Extreme leftism, or "liberalism" as you might want to call it is the original libertarianism - libertarian socialism. Additionally, you are a little off, because mosern libertarianism is only the extreme of fiscal conservativism - not social conservativism. Libertarian socialism, though, is the extreme of fiscal and social.

 

How nice that you're able to read my post and respond to it without belittling it as "silly" and condescending to me.

Wait, I'm thinking of RM95.

What does that have to do with modern liberal ideology? I know very well that within the context of the 18th century, the Bill of Rights would be considered "liberal". It has nothing to do with the left's current relationship with individual rights, however. IN other words, you're trying to credit "liberalism" in its current form with the revolutionary turn towards the protection of individual rights when in fact it has far more in common with the autocracy and centralized control that the American Revolution sought to overturn.

It's like claiming the GOP should be the part for black voters since the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by a Republican president.

"Libertarian socialism"-- are you trying to be ironic? Libertarianism and socialism are very nearly mutually exclusive. The huge, intrusive government that socialism requires (and in almost every issue, liberalism supports) by its very nature infringes on the freedom of the individual.

This is wishful thinking on your part.

Incorrect. You are confusing partisan Republican politics-- specifically religious conservative politics-- with conservative political theory. I touched on that in my last post. It was right after the silly part. There is a difference between political theory and partisan follow-through. Since there isn't a Fascist Party on the ballot in America, no matter how much you'd like to paint the GOP as such, I'm speaking in terms of theory.

I'm not saying we see much, if any, consistent pure conservative ideology. Limbaugh is an excellent example of that. What I'm saying is that if you follow conservative ideology to its extreme, its emphasis on the rights of the individual leads to libertarianism. Liberal ideology leads the opposite way-- totalitarianism.

I am well aware you don't like or agree with that, and I know you've been taught differently as well. I am saying flat-out that the premise of traditional categorization of political ideologies is incorrect. Fascism has been wrongly and unfairly categorized as "conservative" when in fact it has nothing in common with the natural extension of conservatism other than a very few coincidental issues.

You can dismiss that as "silly" if it makes you feel better. However, it also makes you look unwilling or incapable of the consideration of different views-- heavens, intolerance!-- so if you're going to try it again, don't bother posting.

 

You know, we could really have a lot-- well, some-- fun with this topic. Even if we disagree with each other. Maybe, if you can leave out calling my statements "silly", or condescending to me as though I lacked your intelligence and erudition, we could have a discussion on this topic.

If you're interested.

It is possible for people to disagree with you-- even about fundamental issues-- without being stupid.

 

In an introduction to the edition of Road to Serfdom I read, Milton Friedman talks about how Americans have batardized the word, "liberal." He says that liberal means more of what we call conservative today...that liberal meant, for generations, less government, and that conservative, for generations, meant more government. The edition is from the 60's I think...he indicates that back then, those across the pond in Europe were still using the traditional meanings for these words, rather than the ones we use here in the States.

like Kagy, I do not understand the concept of libertarian socialism...I'm gonna need help on that one! Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

agreed with Kagy...ultimately the extremes of communism and fascism take you the same place...tyranny.

 

Disagreeing with you, and with the traditional interpretation of political ideology, does not make it "silly".

Disagree. Not dismiss. Disagree. I know very well the traditional assignment of political ideologies to modern political movements and I disagree with them completely. Why is that hard for you to understand? I've studied them and decided I don't agree with them. You've studied them, apparently, and think they sound hunky-dory. I doubt you'd feel the same way if fascism was consistently and incorrectly described as compatible with your political beliefs.

Seriously, you see me say that anywhere? I find that phrase, within the modern context of political ideology, to be ironic for the reasons I laid out in the previous post. Those two terms as they are used in any arena outside that of discussions of arcane, obsolete poltical ideologies of the 19th century are mutually exclusive.

So you want to argue semantics, now? I know where "Libertarian" came from. As it's widely used now, it has nothing to do with an antiquated and naive ideology that believes property is theft and that anarchy is preferable to capitalism.

You didn't, in this thread. That was a pre-emptive joke.

And my point has been that conservatism followed to its extreme is libertarianism. The contravening examples-- which are inconsistent with pure conservative thought and which run counter to libertarianism-- are demonstrated by examples of partisan politics. That's why I brought them up, to illustrate that in practice, a lot of conservatism ends up in a far different place than libertarianism would prescribe.

 

PS: Can you make one post-- one-- where you don't refer to me as "ignorant", "silly", etc?

For the life of me, I wish I could figure out where you get the nerve to condescend to me so consistently and thoroughly. We disagree, and for some reason, you think that gives you the right to imply that I'm less educated and less intelligent than you.

Please explain.

 

Brian...by using "the other side" in my post, I was referring to people with whom I disagree.

I didn't mean to equate Rush with Hitler, and I apologize if my post made it seem that I did or offended you in any way.

 

Tex, I'm not sure-- maybe rimbaud will explain it to us-- but I think maybe you were actually right to do so. I don't know. My opinion was that you were wrong, but apparently, I'm wrong most of the time so take it with a grain of salt.

It's this damned public-university education I done got.

 

BK, I can't decide if that was a compliment or a slam.

I'll protect myself and politely ask you to bite me.

 

But, Brian, I thought you wanted to go beyond general political bipartisan stuff and only discuss theory?

Also, you really are trying to make me have a fascism argument. Why? I, personally, think that fascism can be an extreme from either "side." You seem to think that I am arguing that republicans (and I guess you) are fascists. I was not in this to debate conservativism, just point out more examples of extreme left-wingers.

Here is where the confusion sets in:

Seriously, you see me say that anywhere? I find that phrase, within the modern context of political ideology, to be ironic for the reasons I laid out in the previous post. Those two terms as they are used in any arena outside that of discussions of arcane, obsolete poltical ideologies of the 19th century are mutually exclusive.

I guess I misunderstood you when you said, "Libertarian socialism"-- are you trying to be ironic? Libertarianism and socialism are very nearly mutually exclusive....This is wishful thinking on your part. "

All I was pointing out was that there are still groups who are basically following the movement that started a while ago. Just because words have been re-coined means that their political beliefs are now nonexistant? I am just confused by that, not with any of your disagreeing with "traditional assignment of political ideologies."

And my point has been that conservatism followed to its extreme is libertarianism. The contravening examples-- which are inconsistent with pure conservative thought and which run counter to libertarianism-- are demonstrated by examples of partisan politics. That's why I brought them up, to illustrate that in practice, a lot of conservatism ends up in a far different place than libertarianism would prescribe.

Yeah, so...uh...we are basically saying the same thing, lol.

I disagree with them completely. Why is that hard for you to understand? I've studied them and decided I don't agree with them. You've studied them, apparently, and think they sound hunky-dory. I doubt you'd feel the same way if fascism was consistently and incorrectly described as compatible with your political beliefs.

I don't understand that at all...what are you talking about? What have you studied and disagreed with and what do I find hunky-dory?

Can you make one post-- one-- where you don't refer to me as "ignorant", "silly", etc?

For the life of me, I wish I could figure out where you get the nerve to condescend to me so consistently and thoroughly. We disagree, and for some reason, you think that gives you the right to imply that I'm less educated and less intelligent than you.

Please explain.

OK, I obviously do need to explain myself. I did not call you ignorant. I apologize if you thought I did. I said "your apparent ignorance" because it seemed as if you did not know about certain extreme political ideologies that exist today. I in no way meant that in a rude, condescending manner. I am ignorant of anything about which I do not know as well. You just took it the wrong way. I tried to steer you away from that interpretation by using "your apparent." But, again, it is my fault.

I also apologize about the silly part. I was not calling you silly, just some comments. It is not a matter of disagreeing if political groups exist. there are modern offshoots of libertarian socialists running around out there who represent extreme leftism - and they cannot be considered totalitarianism. So, I thought it was "silly" to act as if there was only one conclusion to extremism. I guess you just don't think they are viable so discount them? I am still unsure.

I never said you were uneducated or made any comment about you being a product of a state funded school, that your opinion was wrong about limbaugh being a Nazi, etc...so I will not apologize for that.

Yawn, I am so boring.