Glenn Beck?
Sorry this has already been clarified and argued at length. I view with suspicion the idea that you don’t get it, and if you don’t, it’s your problem at this point.
I’m not going to argue Glenn Beck in the context of Hitler’s reasonableness in Mein Kampf.
Doubtless if I told you yonder horse was not filthy you’d argue I’d asserted it antisepticly clean. Move on.
Sieg BAM!!!
You claimed something, or some part of something, or some facet of something, was reasonable. People have tried to get you to define what you mean by reasonable, what part exactly is reasonable, and how you justify such a claim.
You have responded, for instance, that a valid excerpt which shows the thought process at work in the piece under discussion was ‘out of context’ (as if there was some sort of context which would help), and that it was only “apparently unreasonable”. You have responded to someone asking you to define your own terms as “an asshole playing semantic games.”
Now you are pretending that while you’ve spent the entire thread avoiding the necessity of clarifying your own comments, that they’ve been “clarified and argued at length”. And that anybody who claims that you’ve done no such thing should be viewed with “suspicion”, evidently because they’re most likely trolling since it beggars the imagination that they don’t “get it”, at this point.
Well played.
If Buchanan ever comes over to visit his German relatives, stuff like that could get him jailed. Maybe that would help?
Another dipshit. Yeah. I’ve been avoiding clarification :rolleyes:
Post 76, this thread, by me:
"Me neither. I said Mein Kamp was reasonable. I did not say that a paragraph selected for its apparent unreasonableness, lifted out of context and presented by itself would look reasonable.
Your argument is faulty. I point to a vehicle and say "This is a car. You take the hubcap by itself and show it to me and say “How can you call this is a car?”
You are not considering the whole.
Perhaps this needs its own thread, but let’s see if I can’t clear this up in one post.
I think Hitler was an evil vicious fuck. I have no sympathy for him, his cause, or those who would support or apologize for him now. Talking about Hitler intelligently and honestly is dangerous. There are plenty of nutjobs out there like Stormfront happy to hijack anything they can use, and you have to be careful lest you be denounced as a Nazi sympathizer or apologist.
I like to look at contrary positions:
Brainglutton says:
“Just what is reasonable about it? Hitler’s whole race-based worldview is fundamentally unsound. His entire theory of history and culture is wrong. Every characteristic he imputes to the Jews, or rather, to “the Jew,”* is nonsense. All of this must have been painfully obvious to all reasonable persons even in 1926.”
That is a safe viewpoint, but it’s clearly not true. The simple fact is that Hitler had millions of followers, convinced millions. He took a wreck of of a country and within a few years made a pretty good run at conquering a good part of the world.
I think it is dangerous and foolhardy to simply dismiss him or his arguments as being stupid, or easily recognizable as false by “all reasonable persons.” To think that is to miss something.
So, I read it to understand, and to see what it was that captured a nation. If you decide you are going to read Mein Kampf, you will find that it’s actually pretty difficult. There were at least four different versions published during Hitler’s life. Two of them are quite different from the other two. Which do you choose? The one for married couples? the one for the political elite? The abridged version for soldiers?
The next question becomes the translation. There are multiple English versions. Again, they are quite different from each other. Recently there was an “Unexpurgated version” published by some white supremacists that is rather more extreme than Hitler’s original versions. There are several other versions used by neo-nazis that are actually toned down to make Hitler seem more mainstream. There is at least one translation which attempts to make Hitler seem even more monstrous than he was (as if this was needed,) and goes out of its way to use more offensive language and imagery.
These different versions and translations vary widely in their content. The problem is we have a piece of writing which started off as propaganda which was then propagandized multiple times by whoever wanted to show their point of view with it.
I chose the Ford translation, as it is pretty generally accepted as being pretty faithful to the original first published version.
In this, Hitler tells the tale of growing up under poor but somewhat idyllic circumstances. There is a bit of a shadow of repression over his household, but it is hidden from young Hitler to a degree by his parents. He talks about germanic culture the beauty of his village, cultural values. He encounters strong anti-semitism and he dismisses it as incredibly stupid and ignorant. He shows himself to be open-minded and tolerant (this is the picture that he paints, and again, if you didn’t know what came afterwards, at this point you would probably buy into this self-characterization he makes.)
During his Vienna period he is gradually convinced or has demonstrated to him that he was wrong. He sees that Germany was being saddled with unfair war reparations that kept its native populace in something like slavery level poverty, exploited for profit by corrupt foreign powers. He rails at the injustice of it.
I hope nobody will take me wrong when I say that I think he had a point here, a germ of truth that he could exploit that would seem very reasonable and appealing to the germanic populace. His tone is earthy and basic. He gives the impression of being very intelligent but not particularly well educated. This tone would be appealing to a German on hard times. He would like to hear that his situation is not his fault that foreign powers are to blame and that he is being treated unfairly by a corrupt foreign government that his denying him his rights and heritage. He would like to hear that he is better than his circumstances dictate. He would like to hear that there is a scapegoat and someone to blame, and Hitler gives it to him. The Jew.
Hitler just doesn’t start with the anti-semitism. He makes arguments, and he gives reasons, and he gives the appearance of a skeptic being convinced of the evil of the jew gradually and against his will.
I’m not going to go into Hitler’s anti-semitic arguments. I really don’t want to voice them. I don’t think it serves a purpose, and it would sicken me to attempt to represent them well or sympathetically. They are wrong and they are evil. I also think that they were calculated to be appealing and reasonable to his target audience, and I think unfortunately that they worked very well.
In this sense Mein Kampf is not unreasonable. It is evil and wrong but scarily intelligent and reasonable within its own context as a piece of propaganda with a targetted audience."
Asshole.
Good catch. The fault is mine. Hitler’s anti-semitism got it’s start during the Vienna period which proceeded WWI.
In condensing, I put two of his arguments together, and out sequence.
If Prof. Goldberg hadn’t told him that his watercolors sucked, we might all have been saved a lot of trouble.
If I recall correctly, it was suggested that Hitler try architecture instead, as though he was no good at drawing life, he was very good at drawing buildings. Architecture turned out to be something in which he did express great interest in later life. The redesign of Berlin and Linz, for instance.
If only he’d listened.
You’ve offered a half baked idea and been a total schmuck to everybody who’s politely asked you to clarify what you, yourself, said. People who’ve tried to get you to clarify are “strawmanning” or “assholes” or “dipshits”. Because you wrote something that you refuse to clarify, and only to obfuscate.
Have you been drinking?
Correct.
Complaining about how representative paragraphs aren’t representative is not clarification. Claiming that they’re only “apparently” unreasonable is further strange behavior, especially since Hitler based much of his thesis on this “apparently” unreasonable Conspiracy Theory about Jewish actions.
Trying to claim that the fallacy of division was committed is not clarification. In point of fact, you have not clarified your meaning, although you have been a raging asshole whenever anybody has, in the least little bit, attempted to get you to define your terms and justify your claims. You then, later, tried to claim that because it was effective it was “reasonable”… after calling just such a comment by Jack a “strawman”.
Truly you are most unjustly put upon.
People have asked you to define what you meant and justify it.
You and Galileo, man. You and Galileo.
None of this answers what is reasonable in the text under discussion. In fact, when it was pointed out that your argument boiled down to a statement that military success via motivating a country to war equaled reasonableness, you again refused to clarify or retract, and instead claimed that Jack had used a strawman. Of course, you went on to voice exactly that argument.
Of course, your pablum about “what it was that captured a nation” also do not address what is “reasonable” in it, or why.
This is very basic logic and you missing it makes me wonder if you’ve been drinking or are simply looking for a fight.
Then you go and commit the same fallacy that you were whining about just earlier, and claim that one of Hitler’s points about war reparations (which is, in fact, not reasonable in any case) makes your case for why the book is reasonable. While you pitch a hissy fit because someone points out a representative quote about Hitler’s judeopathy, evidently it’s okay to point to the book itself as “reasonable” if there is
“a germ of truth” in it. So Hitler’s pathological view about the Jews? Totally out of context and only “apparently” unreasonable. Hitler’s self-serving concept about the German war debt? Why, that’s what makes the whole thang reasonable! :smack:
Sauce that’s good for the goose is, evidently, not good for the gander.
You use several other dodges, like claiming that the tone he struck would resonate (which has nothing to do with being reasonable), that his scapegoating of powers both foreign and domestic would go over well (which has nothing to do with being reasonable), etc…
You also engage in some nice double speak:
Yet again you want to pretend that something is “reasonable” (and no, it’s either reasonable or it isn’t, although you do appear to be employing a doctrine of selective reasonableness), and yet you don’t even want to discuss it to say why that is. And of course you claim that they are not just wrong but evil… and also reasonable. But you’ll claim it’s reasonable, and you don’t want to discuss it, since it’s so evil. You’ll just state that it’s “reasonable” and then violently shit at people when they ask you why.
One gets the idea that you don’t exactly have a firm grasp on what words mean. Either that or you’ve been hitting the sauce pretty heavy.
Again, you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of what words mean. There are many effective 9/11 Troofer videos, including Loose Change. This does not make Loose Change “reasonable”. No, not even if you weasel like a motherfuck and call it “reasonable within its own context”.
You are confusing “effective” with “reasonable”.
And acting like whiny little bitch when people try to point that out to you.
Glad I could help.
Yes, it is. The problem I’ve read the book, and I’m pretty sure you haven’t. If you did, you would probably be disapointed in your expectations. It’s pretty dull and ordinary for the most part. You have autobiography, political philosophy, the kind of stuff that will put you to sleep. He spends a huge amount of time on subjects like trade unions, wherein he says nothing particularly noteworthy. He spends a lot of time talking about broken homes and the character defects a broken home produces. Marxism, not jews are what appears to Hitler to be the most serious threat, and he spends a lot of the book talking about the evils of marxism and contrasting National Socialism with marxism. He spends vast amounts of paper talking about propaganda and its proper use as a political tool.
He doesn’t spend that much time on Jews, and so no, the quote is not representative of the book.
Yes. I have. Again, you’re just fucking around.
Ok. Hitler argues that unless the worker has some form of representation he is vulnerable to exploitation in the workplace, and therefore he is in favor of trade unions.
“I have already expressed my views on the nature and purpose and necessity of trade unions. There I took up the standpoint that unless measures are undertaken by the State (usually futile in such cases) or a new ideal is introduced in our education, which would change the attitude of the employer towards the worker, no other course would be open to the latter except to defend his own interests himself by appealing to his equal rights as a contracting party within the economic sphere of the nation’s existence. I stated further that this would conform to the interests of the national community if thereby social injustices could be redressed which otherwise would cause serious damage to the whole social structure. I stated, moreover, that the worker would always find it necessary to undertake this protective action as long as there were men among the employers who had no sense of their social obligations nor even of the most elementary human rights. And I concluded by saying that if such self-defence be considered necessary its form ought to be that of an association made up of the workers themselves on the basis of trades unions.”
(above is from Mein Kampf)
I think that’s reasonable.
Uh-oh, **Scylla’**s in a scrap with Finn. You can hear the hamsters sobbing…
One doesn’t have to have read the book to notice that you still haven’t explained why the book as a whole is “reasonable”. You’ve also yet again shown that you’re quite Janus faced, as you’ve provided an (ahem) “apparently” reasonable quote totally out of context, and claimed that it represents the book in some way.
Of course, on a totally different note I have read the book, which is how I know that you’re pretty much full of shit on that count, too. Your delineation between Marxism and ‘the Jew’ is fabricated.
Of course, what Mein Kampf actually said about Marxism and Jews:
Etc, etc, etc.
But never mind.
Keep drinkin’ buddy.
I said “not unreasonable.” Try this:
If a geometry proof is a 1 and random incoherent jibberish typed by a monkey on acid is a 10 on the reasonableness scale, than I give Mein Kamp a 4. For perspective, I’ll give the Unabombers manifesto a 6.5.
I agree that it’s stupid. You were arguing that a single quote represents the book, so I gave you another. I’m glad to see you’ve realized you were an idiot and that argument is wrong.
Heh. Well. If you’re going to plagiarize your content you should at least give credit to your source; The Jewish Virtual Library, from where it appears you’ve lifted your quotes, in order.
Anyhow, your quotes don’t contradict my two points which were:
-
“Marxism, not jews are what appears to Hitler to be the most serious threat.”
-
“he spends a lot of the book talking about the evils of marxism and contrasting National Socialism with marxism”
[/QUOTE]
Culture Warrior, Chickenhawk, Occasional Commenter on Foreign Policy
…as well as Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” – Buchanan was one of the architects of the GOP’s abandonment of support for civil rights.
The cold war ended in 1991. In 1992 he ran in the Republican Primary and gave a stemwinder of a speech at the Republican Convention, declaring that a culture war was on in the US. In 1996 he ran for the Republican nomination for President again. His campaign was taken a little off course after it surfaced that his co-chairman had attended 2 white supremacist meetings. When he suspended his campaign in March 1996, he had garnered over 20% of the Republican vote.
It was clear that he had hit some sort of ceiling of support though. So he left the Republicans and tried to get the Reform party nomination in 2000. But this was a career move. It certainly had nothing to do with the end of the cold war or even the beginning of the Gulf War. And by 2004 Buchanan had veered back somewhat, endorsing GWBush in his newly found magazine, American Conservative.
It’s true that Buchanan’s isolationism sits uneasy with Republican neoconservatism. But that’s just saying that Buchanan represents a smaller fraction of the Republican Party on foreign policy. On the rather more volatile matter of race, I see few full throated condemnations of his views among elected Republicans.
Ahhh Scylla, I see. You put forward an argument that you don’t really believe in, because you think someone else used it incorrectly and you want to show how much of an “idiot” they are.
Of course, no, my argument isn’t wrong and yours (if you’ve actually read the book which I doubt. Or you have and you’re bullshitting about its actual contents) is full of shit. Blaming the Jews for the evils he saw in the world is, indeed, the core tenet of Hitler’s argument in Mein Kampf.
Free clue, though, when citing a book by name, it’s not “plagiarism”.
It’s called “quoting”.
No wonder you’re unable to tell the difference between “effective at persuading a group” and “reasonable.”
And instead of this braindead gotchaya, and instead of pointing out that I quoted refutations of your idiocy (gasp!) in the same order as they were quoted on another site, you might wait until you sober up enough to stop spouting bullshit and realize that, yah, the actual text of the book does put paid to your dancing ape routine here.
Hitler made it quite clear that he blamed the Jews for Marxism, considered Marxism to be a Jewish creation and a Jewish plot, and clearly claimed that it was part of the Jews’ attempt to dominate the otherwise ‘decent’ people of the world.
And yet you repeat your absurd schtick about how all Hitler talked about was the evil Jewish plot to dominate the rest of the world with Marxism, so he really wasn’t talking about Jews much at all.
Good prevarication though. “I didn’t say it was reasonable, I said it was not unreasonable! And besides, if it is or isn’t unreasonable has to do with how you define what is, is.”
How drunk are you, exactly?
We talking a few glasses of wine, or are you into shots of 151 by now?
We going to get a “woooooooooooo, tequila!” post any time soon?
FWIW David Duke has Pat as his lead story, “great” minds think alike.
No. Not really. Hitler’s core tenet is that Nationalism is the key to rebuilding a great Germany.
It’s plagiarism when you steal somebody else’s work without giving them credit. In this case the work you stole was somebody else’ compiling of those quotes, which begin and end in the same place as on the cite I’ve listed and are in the same order.
Yes, that’s correct.
Though it’s true Hitler claimed Marxism was a jewish creation, he considered them as separate problems and says as much in the second chapter when he talks about having his eyes opened to the twin threats of Marxism and “Jewry.”
In my original post on the subject (post 24) I said Mein Kampf was “not unreasonable,” which seems to be what started this brouhaha. Seeing as the evidence is right there that shows proof of what I said, I don’t see how you can intelligently say I’m prevaricating when I claim that’s what I said.
Interestingly, I wish I had such an excuse for showing the poor judgement of engaging with you.