Reading Mein Kampf for the first time.

[bl4k]

I'm 32 and have come across a great struggle with the state of affairs in the Western world. It seems that the pipe dream of a decade old South Park episode is coming into reality at a more than steady pace.

That said, after hearing about the bombings on the children at the Ariana Grande concert tonight, I felt myself compelled to look at the other side of the coin, that is, the "nazi" side. What could the national socialists have possibly thought in order to motivate them to the point of war-inflicted suicide? Are any of these thoughts compelling, or is it simply straw man rhetoric that they had used in order to amass an army for their own selfish cause?

I decided I would indulge in some literature on the subject, and what better than "My Struggle" by Adolf Hitler. Having never actually read the book, I had become overwhelmed with positive reviews from Amazon.

Positive reviews? From a book written by possibly the most hated man in recent history? I succumb to my curiosity and find a free English translation online.

After skimming through the first few chapters, a sudden snare of interest had captured my mind; almost as if stepping on a bear trap of intellectual altruism. This book does not appear to be written by a man who would simply wish to sacrifice any soul he could in order to gain the most from a financial or narcissistic standpoint. From what I've gathered thus far, these are the words of an individual who was trapped in an isolation cell of worry for his own species.

Despite the fact that this literature was written nearly a century ago, as I read along, the points made seem to speak to even the nearest moment of our own reality.

In closing, I'd like to share a quote from the chapter I am currently working through, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about. This quote directly reflects upon some of the philosophy which Stefan articulates, and I find extremely important.

Quote

When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man. And this attack I must lead to his own doom.

 

 

[Eudaimonic]

Well, you can't feel too much sympathy for the mustached maniac and you know he was a psychopath even based just on his childhood experience.

White nationalist do have a lot of interesting things to say though, if you look at it in a voluntary light. However, if we were going to 'separate' people by any standard, IQ would make more sense to me than skin color.

Murdoch Murdoch is a pretty funny pro-white nationalist cartoon YouTube channel that can get damn inspiring at some points but also makes the case pretty well in my eyes if you're interested in learning about it while being entertained. It's a lot less dry than Main Kampf and more relevant. 

I'll also just state here that I'm not a white nationalist, these are just my thoughts on the movement.

[RichardY]

"Rascals, would you live forever?"

Doom, that's a video game isn't it? Was thinking about ways of increasing consciousness. Though perhaps there is only one. "The way of Pain!!!!!!"

Psychopath, I guess it depends what you mean by that. I'm guessing it has something to do with someones consciousness and personality being "fragmented" possibly... like the Hitchcock film Psycho. As opposed to being impulsive.

Personally I think the UK is screwed, would be good if some of the larger German states broke away, they had Merkel on video binning the German flag. If the larger superstates and organisations are kept together it's just going to whipsaw a bloody scythe through Europe again. The reason being that if the general consciousness is kept low, people with high conscience but total disregard for the human species are going to takeover the large unconscious movements/Ideologies.

 

[PureSodiumDiet]

Quote

look at the other side of the coin,

The other side of what coin?

Quote

motivate them to the point of war-inflicted suicide?

This is so grossly inaccurate I don't even know where to begin.

Quote

possibly the most hated man in recent history?

They hate him for his ideas.

Quote

find a free English translation online.

Make sure that it is the Stalag translation, the only official English translation ever published.

Quote

the words of an individual who was trapped in an isolation cell of worry for his own species.

Worry for his own Volk, not his own species. Just wait until you get to the chapter about Nation and Race. You're in for a bumpy ride.

 

 

[Tyler H]

I thought of this picture I saw recently as I read this.  Seems relevant.

[coarse language]

 

When dealing with statistics it's easy to forget that what they really are are the summation of individual decisions made by individual people for reasons that are not always easy to discern. Hitler could have never brought to bear the atrocities that took place without a mass of traumatized people either acting in concert or refraining from action altogether.  

[jimofflorida]

While I am certainly on board with the idea that "Hitler was wayyy past the deep end of the crazy pool"; by himself, he was "just one person"...

Hitler did not kill 6 million people, shocking thing to say!! 

he, somehow, created a social engineering program that successfully convinced 80 million Germans to either actively, or passively, kill those people. Even scarier in at least around 500,000+ cases these were German citizens...their friends and neighbors. 

So when reading documents from a volatile period in history, the most difficult challenge is trying to understand all that was going on around the author at the time. Using a modern perspective just does not work to understand the power of "faith", whether it is in a religion, or a government leader. The closest modern day equivalent to "faith" based government to what Hitler started doing is, sadly, the democratic party. How they manipulated people over the decades to where they are now, well, that is some trick and most of America completely missed the sleight of hand.

 

 

[Dad]

I listened to 10 minutes of the mein kampf audiobook on youtube one time but it was pretty boring for me. Gonna need that one broken down into a summary of a summary if I'm ever to revisit it. 

[bl4k]

On 5/23/2017 at 1:52 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Well, you can't feel too much sympathy for the mustached maniac and you know he was a psychopath even based just on his childhood experience.

White nationalist do have a lot of interesting things to say though, if you look at it in a voluntary light. However, if we were going to 'separate' people by any standard, IQ would make more sense to me than skin color.

Murdoch Murdoch is a pretty funny pro-white nationalist cartoon YouTube channel that can get damn inspiring at some points but also makes the case pretty well in my eyes if you're interested in learning about it while being entertained. It's a lot less dry than Main Kampf and more relevant. 

I'll also just state here that I'm not a white nationalist, these are just my thoughts on the movement.

I don't feel sympathy for him. I feel drawn towards his ideas in regards to recognizing and acting upon a threat which was devastating to his country. I recently watched a documentary titled "The Greatest Story Never Told" and while remaining skeptical, some of the points stated seem fairly logically consistent. For example, the treaties France had imposed on Germany were put in place to destroy their economy and put them back into a deep depression. This is historically accurate, and makes me wonder about other points made in the documentary.

On 5/25/2017 at 6:32 PM, PureSodiumDiet said:

The other side of what coin?

This is so grossly inaccurate I don't even know where to begin.

They hate him for his ideas.

Make sure that it is the Stalag translation, the only official English translation ever published.

Worry for his own Volk, not his own species. Just wait until you get to the chapter about Nation and Race. You're in for a bumpy ride.

 

 

I explained - the "Nazi" side.

Simply stating something is inaccurate does not make it inaccurate.

I think that "They hate him for his ideas." is a gross oversimplification. The media has portrayed Hitler as a Jew hating warmonger while leaving out critical elements which would explain his actions. Again, as mentioned above, I'd recommend checking out "The Greatest Story Never Told".

I find it fairly hypocritical that the only nations who are ostracized for looking out for their own "Volk" are those of pasty-complexion origin.

On 5/26/2017 at 11:44 PM, jimofflorida said:

While I am certainly on board with the idea that "Hitler was wayyy past the deep end of the crazy pool"; by himself, he was "just one person"...

Hitler did not kill 6 million people, shocking thing to say!! 

he, somehow, created a social engineering program that successfully convinced 80 million Germans to either actively, or passively, kill those people. Even scarier in at least around 500,000+ cases these were German citizens...their friends and neighbors. 

So when reading documents from a volatile period in history, the most difficult challenge is trying to understand all that was going on around the author at the time. Using a modern perspective just does not work to understand the power of "faith", whether it is in a religion, or a government leader. The closest modern day equivalent to "faith" based government to what Hitler started doing is, sadly, the democratic party. How they manipulated people over the decades to where they are now, well, that is some trick and most of America completely missed the sleight of hand.

 

 

The numbers of the holocaust have been proven to be largely inflated, even by those who came up with the original number. Also, in terms of raw mathematics, the logistics of murdering and cremating the number of people implied is physically impossible. I'm not going to go into some holocaust denial rant in this reply, though. I probably already look like a big enough Nazi sympathizer.

[Wuzzums]

I don't think Hitler even targeted the jews directly. I saw this speech where he was clearly talking about jews but never once used the word. He just paused as if to leave a blank space in which the audience could put their own prejudices. Great manipulation technique. The way you start a forest fire is not by lighting a match but by pouring gasoline on some embers.

[Eudaimonic]

On 5/31/2017 at 10:25 AM, bl4k said:

I don't feel sympathy for him. I feel drawn towards his ideas in regards to recognizing and acting upon a threat which was devastating to his country. I recently watched a documentary titled "The Greatest Story Never Told" and while remaining skeptical, some of the points stated seem fairly logically consistent. For example, the treaties France had imposed on Germany were put in place to destroy their economy and put them back into a deep depression. This is historically accurate, and makes me wonder about other points made in the documentary.

I don't understand the furious hatred of the guy, compared to other countries and their "great leaders" he's just about the same. Lebensraum is essentially manifest destiny, the genocide against the Jewish people is no different from the one against Native Americans...it's evil of course but everyone gets hung up on Hitler for some reason, I think it has to do with the anti-communist vein National Socialism was running. As well, your history teacher probably never mentioned the polish aggression against German minorities or the blocking of the East Prussian port, nevermind the seemingly looming Russian-Communist threat at their doorstep. The guy was about as justified in invading Poland as anyone else has been.

I also think the Jewish Question is interesting. If Jews tend to be in positions of power and culturally they trend towards the left, doesn't that pose a danger for Western Civilization similar to the low IQ dangers of Muslims and African Americans? I'm not saying that justifies genocide, but if it's true it's something that people should be aware of.

[Caley McKibbin]

18 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

I don't think Hitler even targeted the jews directly.

He did target them very precisely.  He copied Karl Marx from "On The Jewish Question" in some obvious ways.  It was all about crushing free exchange, which the jew allegedly represented.  https://carolynyeager.net/why-we-are-antisemites-text-adolf-hitlers-1920-speech-hofbräuhaus

Quote

Thus we can see the two great differences between races: Aryanism means ethical perception of work and that which we today so often hear – socialism, community spirit, common good before own good. Jewry means egoistic attitude to work and thereby mammonism and materialism, the opposite of socialism. (Hear, hear) And due to these traits, which he cannot ‘overstep’ as they are in his blood and, as he himself admits, in these traits alone lays the necessity for the Jew to behave unconditionally as a destroyer of states. He cannot do otherwise, whether he wants to or not. And thereby he is unable to create his own state because it requires a lot of social sense. He is only able to live as a parasite in the states of others. He lives as a race amongst other races, in a state within others states. And we can see very precisely that when a race does not possess certain traits which must be hereditary, it not only cannot create a state but must act as a destroyer, no matter if a given individual is good or evil.

 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Just because he was evil doesn't mean he wasn't smart.

[PureSodiumDiet]

18 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Just because he was evil doesn't mean he wasn't smart.

Yeah takes a total idiot to create a new political ideology, persuade millions of voters, and then end up running Germany the way he dreamt of running it.

I should just become an unthinking automaton and not worry about my aspirations.

[regevdl]

On 26.5.2017 at 11:15 PM, Tyler H said:

I thought of this picture I saw recently as I read this.  Seems relevant.

[coarse language]

He was a human being.. He was a biproduct of horrific abuse as a child that was unresolved.  That does not excuse him or the people around.  They know killing is wrong, they got caught up in hate and fake fantasies.  he if TRULY felt what he was doing was great and noble and moral, he wouldn't have been so sneaky and secretive  and intimidate in how they carried eveything out, including the Holocaust.   It's like if I steal something and I really think that it's a moral, I don't try to hide it.  But when someone tries to hide their acts or circumvent or create 'escape hatches' for themselves it shows they ARE aware that they are acting immorally which means he had a fucked up childhood that gave him sociopathic tendecieis but he was 'sane ' enough to hold public office and be aware he was committing atrocities.  NO SYMPATHY DESERVED 

On 26.5.2017 at 11:15 PM, Tyler H said:

When dealing with statistics it's easy to forget that what they really are are the summation of individual decisions made by individual people for reasons that are not always easy to discern. Hitler could have never brought to bear the atrocities that took place without a mass of traumatized people either acting in concert or refraining from action altogether.  

 

[Erwin]

On 5/23/2017 at 1:52 PM, Eudaimonic said:

Well, you can't feel too much sympathy for the mustached maniac and you know he was a psychopath even based just on his childhood experience.

That's only if you accept the ((( mainstream ))) narrative. Also, childhood experience may increase the likelihood of psychopathy but is not in itself a diagnostic criteria.

On 5/23/2017 at 1:52 PM, Eudaimonic said:

if we were going to 'separate' people by any standard, IQ would make more sense to me than skin color.

LOL. This idea that race-conscious people separate themselves based on skin color is a purely ((( MSM ))) invention.

We use skin color as a quick and dirty way to identify race. But race itself has very little to do with skin color by itself. Your race gives information about what environment you have been adapted for, and what genetic characteristics you have. Off the top of my head:

- IQ

- Ability to delay gratification

- Aggression

- Drive 

- Libido

- Selection Strategy

- Parental investment

- Empathy

- Creativity

- Immune System

- Inheritance rate

- temperament

- ability to recognize risk

- ability to recognize cost

- ability to discriminate

[PureSodiumDiet]

33 minutes ago, regevdl said:

He was a human being.. He was a biproduct of horrific abuse as a child that was unresolved.

My memory might be failing me but I don't remember Hitler's childhood being described as particularly violent. His mother worried about him and his father (before his death) would abuse Hitler, the extent of which has slipped my mind.

 

However I would posit that Hitler wasn't a cold hearted tyrant, but instead a benevolent dictator to those whom he viewed favorably in his Germany. What sets him apart from other dictators is that he actually had in his mind an audience great enough to encompass the majority of the German population, a majority so large that it extended across the political borders to all other ethnic Germans in Europe. If we compare him to Stalin, all we see is greed and lust for power, his "audience" being the triple digit number of commissars and various bureaucrats that lived in luxury thanks to theft. Under Stalin you were a subject of no importance, under Hitler (and assuming you were German) you were a component to the community, firstly the one you grew up in and secondly to your entire race. Hitlerite socialism was designed to create tightly knit communities that worked as units, rather than trying to amalgamate an entire country's population into "one big family", as Marxian socialism does. The core difference again being that in Stalin's wake you can't really see a clear pattern of victims (perhaps they were Slavs more than anything else, and christians), whereas Hitler approached the matter with extreme precision.

 

I don't really know about "hiding things from yourself to justify them". People who do this with themselves generally don't end up with the mental stature necessary to become great politicians, at the very least not without heavy drug abuse.

[Tyler H]

2 hours ago, regevdl said:

he if TRULY felt what he was doing was great and noble and moral, he wouldn't have been so sneaky and secretive  and intimidate in how they carried eveything out, including the Holocaust

There is definitely some truth to this, however here is a counterpoint.  If you know what you are doing is moral and noble, and yet the world is not and will also persecute you for your convictions, then I don't think being secretive is a confession of your own disbelief in the morality of your position.  It shows that you believe that others  believe that what you define as moral is the not.  I don't think anyone is suggesting sympathy for the man.  Perhaps for the child who once was, but not for the man.  I think the point of the post was not to view him as some monstrous aberration of the human condition, but as a possible trait in human nature that watered with the right poison can rear its murderous face again.  Vigilance over demonization.  I would modify the last bit to say that it is not human nature but an effect of child abuse, as you mentioned. Sadly, I think there is quite a bit of time between now and when that fact is recognized by society.

[Tyler H]

2 hours ago, PureSodiumDiet said:

My memory might be failing me but I don't remember Hitler's childhood being described as particularly violent. His mother worried about him and his father (before his death) would abuse Hitler, the extent of which has slipped my mind.

I don't remember the specifics, but Alice Miller's book For Your Own Good goes into detail regarding the abuse Hitler received as a child.  The common practice for treating infants at the time was pretty medieval as well.  I'll flip through it and see if I can't pull out some facts that point to this; unless you plan on reading it yourself, I would suggest you do so if interested it is quite a good book.

I also want to add, in my complete amateur-know-nothing-opinion, that I think the pernicious effects mental and verbal abuse have on children is often overshadowed by the obvious and abhorrent effects of physical abuse, but can be in the long run far more deleterious to the psyche of the person.  The emotional abuse is internalized to the point where the victim can, and most likely will, continue the abuse inflicted on them by their caregivers and act it out subconsciously to the detriment of themselves and people around them.  So even if someone had a seemingly peaceful childhood they could have experienced trauma in infancy and early childhood that seriously impacts their adolescent and adult life.  An issue made more challenging due to the lack of recognition from society because the scars are not as palpable.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

Well, I remember a few years back in early High School when I started reading Mein Kampf. At first I had a hard time reading it since the language was a bit dated and I wasn't immediately pulled in, however I was curious as to what was in it because a part of me wanted to know if he really was a "bad guy" or actually a "good guy" being demonized by a society that simply won against him.

I didn't go much further than 50 pages, but once I got access to a free audio book version in late High School I started listening to it as I played games or did "homework".  Unlike reading it, listening felt much more organic since Hitler technically dictated to a writer rather than wrote it himself, and I came to enjoy it and be very intrigued by what he said, the way he said it, and the challenges it presented to what I considered right and true, as well as confirmed (i.e. confirmation bias) some of my suspicions on race and behavior, as well as the incompetency of republicanism. 

I eventually finished Mein Kampf and became a NatSoc, and over time discovered Stefan and became a NatCap, then an AnCap. While I no longer adhere to the whole Jewish conspiracy theory (at least in the sense that all Jews are planning White genocide. I fully admit and realize, plain as day, that they're  powerful lobbying group and very self-serving politically, etc. etc.) and have "lost faith" as it were with the Nazis once I learned about its internal corruptions as well as its inability to last, and its fundamental similarities with Communism, which I used to be back in late middle school when my teacher indoctrinated me with the ideology.

The book had a lasting impact on me personally, as I found it very inspiring and thought provoking, and while I no longer agree with much of it I still find the parallels between Weimar and pre-WWI Germany and modern America painfully similar, and have become much more open minded and sympathetic towards those whose natural instincts for ethnic preservation, even though too often those instincts are manipulated and abused. 

Perhaps if Hitler had a good childhood he would have been a better leader, and perhaps he would have been more like Stef and maybe even built a NatCap or even AnCap Germany...after all, the man was insanely competent in getting skilled people on his side.  Albert Speer easily being one of he most competent men of his time and the epitome of good choosing on Hitler's part. 

 

[Tyler H]

10 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Perhaps if Hitler had a good childhood he would have been a better leader, and perhaps he would have been more like Stef and maybe even built a NatCap or even AnCap Germany...after all, the man was insanely competent in getting skilled people on his side.  Albert Speer easily being one of he most competent men of his time and the epitome of good choosing on Hitler's part. 

I'm not sure it would have. How much of Hitler's influence can be attributed to his rhetoric and how much can be attributed to the resonance he invoked in a nation that experienced similar childhood traumas?  I think if Hitler was raised peacefully and lovingly he would have had very little effect on the German people. I think he was able to have the effect that he did because he gave the Germans a scapegoat they could sacrifice instead of justly targeting their rage at the real perpetrators, their parents. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

20 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

I'm not sure it would have. How much of Hitler's influence can be attributed to his rhetoric and how much can be attributed to the resonance he invoked in a nation that experienced similar childhood traumas?  I think if Hitler was raised peacefully and lovingly he would have had very little effect on the German people. I think he was able to have the effect that he did because he gave the Germans a scapegoat they could sacrifice instead of justly targeting their rage at the real perpetrators, their parents. 

You know, I think if Hitler actually did give big speeches about the abuse of parents and the elderly, combined with his natural charisma, he could have actually started a revolution of the young versus the old. Of course chances are it would have just been a big slaughter of the old, but he would have been able to seize power and rectify the extreme reactions of his embittered followers. Perhaps if he had the good, loving, peaceful, and negotiation-based childhood he simply would have been even more talented and even more passionate about saving children even if the elderly get heavily shafted, literally or metaphorically. 

I don't think you should underestimate the power of a public speaker to change heads, Stef being a great example. How many FDR regulars came on board already a peaceful-parent-wannabe, NAP guy, AnCap,  Classical Liberal, etc? He convinced me, a guy who used to advocate for the epitome of statism, a guy who largely ignored his own upbringing and suppressed his bad memories. I don't know if it actually is easier to convince a group than an individual, but Hitler even mentions in the book when the best time of day is for speeches (the evening, when the listeners are tired and less able to mentally criticize) and the effectiveness and the seeming-hopelessness it all arised from. He started with a dozen guys, then he moved to a few dozen, then a hundred, then a thousand, etc. It took him nearly a decade to rise from "guy with opinions and rhetoric"" to "messiah for the nation" , a track few politicians and rabble rousers can claim to have.

If he had been an AnCap or NatCap, he'd have been unstoppable. Heck Germany probably would have won WWII (if WWII were to even happen at all) and all modern problems would be inconceivable in that alternate outcome. 

[Soldado De Aztlan]

I totally agree with this following quote. 

 

"The highest aim of human existence is not preservation of a state, let alone a government, but the preservation of the race.”--Mein Kampf

[mgggb]

On 5/23/2017 at 3:05 AM, bl4k said:

I'm 32 and have come across a great struggle with the state of affairs in the Western world. It seems that the pipe dream of a decade old South Park episode is coming into reality at a more than steady pace.

That said, after hearing about the bombings on the children at the Ariana Grande concert tonight, I felt myself compelled to look at the other side of the coin, that is, the "nazi" side. What could the national socialists have possibly thought in order to motivate them to the point of war-inflicted suicide? Are any of these thoughts compelling, or is it simply straw man rhetoric that they had used in order to amass an army for their own selfish cause?

I decided I would indulge in some literature on the subject, and what better than "My Struggle" by Adolf Hitler. Having never actually read the book, I had become overwhelmed with positive reviews from Amazon.

Positive reviews? From a book written by possibly the most hated man in recent history? I succumb to my curiosity and find a free English translation online.

After skimming through the first few chapters, a sudden snare of interest had captured my mind; almost as if stepping on a bear trap of intellectual altruism. This book does not appear to be written by a man who would simply wish to sacrifice any soul he could in order to gain the most from a financial or narcissistic standpoint. From what I've gathered thus far, these are the words of an individual who was trapped in an isolation cell of worry for his own species.

Despite the fact that this literature was written nearly a century ago, as I read along, the points made seem to speak to even the nearest moment of our own reality.

In closing, I'd like to share a quote from the chapter I am currently working through, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about. This quote directly reflects upon some of the philosophy which Stefan articulates, and I find extremely important.

 

 

I was a 4chan nazi larper for a while and I decided to read mein kampf so I could make my larping even more edgy. The second chapter really blew me away because for the life of me I couldn't tell if it was written about 1930s Germany or modern day USA. So I was unironically a nazi for a while until I started reading about economics, then anarchism, then philosophy to get to my current form. 

National Socialism is more or less authoritarian centrism. Basically imagine if John McCain and Hillary Clinton gained dictatorial powers. Economically it is backwards, and statism is immoral in all forms, but it's also a reactionary movement. You only get this type of movement in response to a much worse movement. Then it was anti communism, now it is anti globalism/Islam.

Compared to libertopia it is hell on earth, but I'll take it gladly as an alternative to communism every time. 

[ofd]

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/10/26/weimerica-weekly-episode-44-three-comrades/

There is a gradual difference, because there were few blacks or Latinx in the Weimar republic. The rest is more or less the same.

[Soldado De Aztlan]

7 hours ago, mgggb said:

I was a 4chan nazi larper for a while and I decided to read mein kampf so I could make my larping even more edgy. The second chapter really blew me away because for the life of me I couldn't tell if it was written about 1930s Germany or modern day USA. So I was unironically a nazi for a while until I started reading about economics, then anarchism, then philosophy to get to my current form. 

National Socialism is more or less authoritarian centrism. Basically imagine if John McCain and Hillary Clinton gained dictatorial powers. Economically it is backwards, and statism is immoral in all forms, but it's also a reactionary movement. You only get this type of movement in response to a much worse movement. Then it was anti communism, now it is anti globalism/Islam.

Compared to libertopia it is hell on earth, but I'll take it gladly as an alternative to communism every time. 

John McCain has many of the same doners as Hillary Clinton. I don't know when people are going to realize the two party system is mostly a smoke screen to achieve the ultimate objective. 

[lorry]

Listening on and off now on audio-book.

Wanna know something weird? Heard Adolf describe Austrian politicians as "zeros and ones", like, in the Randian sense of a zero and a one. I've never heard anyone else ever use this phrase before, but perhaps it is common among German 20th century literature? I know Rand read German, so she could of picked it up from somewhere else, hard to tell because she doesn't reference her works.