Pat Buchanan Defends Hitler

[FinnAgain]

When discussing what a word means I will indeed argue semantics… also known as the study of what words mean.
Nor have I said that there is only one way to use the word. I pointed out that both by connotation and by denotation it fails, and that some things are simply not in accord with reason (that is, rational) even if they’re put into logical proof form.

Then again, if you’d argue that I’m wrong, would you in fact describe Mr Pixy Dick’s investment strategy as reasonable? That’s at least in keeping with the definition that you put forward. If someone else was to tell you “Hey, I found a very reasonable investment strategy”, would you include Pixy Dickery in the list of guesses you might make as to what this reasonable strategy entailed?

[VarlosZ]

What I mean is that you’re arguing about the words to the exclusion of any of the ideas behind them. For instance, do you think that **Scylla **was actually saying that Mein Kampf was mostly true in its premises and sound in its reasoning? No, right? Then why jump up and down on him for using a certain word when it’s clear from context (and from his own detailed explanation after the fact) what he meant.

As for your investment fund manager example, no, “reasonable” is not the word I would use. To my mind, the word carries a necessary connotation of being sedate in expression and at least superficially plausible.

[FinnAgain]

@VarlosZ

For instance, do you think that **Scylla **was actually saying that Mein Kampf was mostly true in its premises and sound in its reasoning?

Mostly true? No… but that certain bits, like Hitler’s rantings on Marxism (if we ignore the whole Jewish thing)? Yes, I do think he was saying that Hitler’s argument was both valid and sound in that respect.

@VarlosZ

Then why jump up and down on him for using a certain word when it’s clear from context (and from his own detailed explanation after the fact) what he meant.

It was neither clear from context nor do I believe that he actually offered a detailed explenation of anything that was reasonable. The closest he came was to mention Marxism, the presentation of which in MK is anything but reasonable, as it’s based on the kind of nasty Conspiracy Theory that makes Loose Change look like mother’s milk.
I do believe that Scylla was attempting to point to at least one of of Hitler’s arguments as both valid and sound rather than backing down and admitting that MK, in substance, justificaiton, support and proposed solution is totally unreasonable and, in fact, kinda nutty. .

Even if he didn’t, the connotative difference is light years apart between a “convincing” Conspiracy Theory and a “reasonable” hypothesis about a conspiracy. . I’m sure that Scylla would be one of those who would (rightly) be up in arms if Dopers declared that “conservative policies are all evil and malicious because conservatives are all out to destroy the fabric of society” was a “reasonable” claim.

Further, when people did try to get him to calmly explain himself (before, yes, I lit into him) he avoided all attempts at clarification. With Jack he denied the content of his own words, while he’d clearly argued that uniting a nation and bringing it to military victory was part of a “reasonable” political philosophy. When Mycroft tried to get him to define how he was using the term, he called Mycroft an asshole and thereby, rather obviously, refused to elaborate on his idiosyncratic use of the word “reasonable”. He seemed to claim that Hitler’s appeal to the masses was what made MK “reasonable”, but although that was fairly sedate it was pointed out that it was also irrational and wrong in terms of historical context and proportion. I should also point out that Hitler also viewed the defeat in WWI and the results of post-war economic hardship as, yep, due to Jews and their weapon of Marxism and their attack on good Christian culture.

Our clever ‘statesmen’ were greatly amazed at this change of feeling. They never understood that as soon as man is called upon to struggle for purely material causes he will avoid death as best he can; for death and the enjoyment of the material fruits of a victory are quite incompatible concepts. The frailest woman will become a heroine when the life of her own child is at stake. And only the will to save the race and native land or the State, which offers protection to the race, has in all ages been the urge which has forced men to face the weapons of their enemies.

The following may be proclaimed as a truth that always holds good:

A State has never arisen from commercial causes for the purpose of peacefully serving commercial ends; but States have always arisen from the instinct to maintain the racial group, whether this instinct manifest itself in the heroic sphere or in the sphere of cunning and chicanery. In the first case we have the Aryan States, based on the principles of work and cultural development. In the second case we have the Jewish parasitic colonies. But as soon as economic interests begin to predominate over the racial and cultural instincts in a people or a State, these economic interests unloose the causes that lead to subjugation and oppression.

The belief, which prevailed in Germany before the War, that the world could be opened up and even conquered for Germany through a system of peaceful commercial penetration and a colonial policy was a typical symptom which indicated the decline of those real qualities whereby States are created and preserved, and indicated also the decline of that insight, will-power and practical determination which belong to those qualities. The World War with its consequences, was the natural
liquidation of that decline.

[…]

How then did it happen that the political instincts of this very same German people became so degenerate? For it was not merely one isolated phenomenon which pointed to this decadence, but morbid symptoms which appeared in alarming numbers, now all over the body politic, or eating into the body of the nation like a gangrenous ulcer. It seemed as if some all-pervading poisonous fluid had been injected by some mysterious hand into the bloodstream of this once heroic body, bringing about a creeping paralysis that affected the reason and the elementary instinct of self-preservation.

[…]

I considered the disastrous policy of the Triple Alliance as one of the consequences resulting from the disintegrating effects of the Marxist teaching; for the alarming feature was that this teaching was invisibly corrupting the foundations of a healthy political and economic outlook. Those who had been themselves contaminated frequently did not realise that their aims and actions sprang from this weltanschauung which they otherwise openly repudiated.

Long before then the spiritual and moral decline of the German people had set in, though those who were affected by the morbid decadence were frequently unaware–as often happens–of the forces which were breaking up their very existence. Sometimes they tried to cure the disease by doctoring the symptoms, which were taken as the cause. But since nobody recognized, or wanted to recognize, the real cause of the disease this way of combating Marxism was no more effective than the application of some quack’s ointment.

Just as in 1918 we had to pay with our blood for the failure to crush the Marxist serpent underfoot once and for all in 1914 and 1915, now we have to suffer retribution for the fact that in the spring of 1923 we did not seize the opportunity then offered us for finally wiping out the handiwork done by the Marxists who betrayed their country and were responsible for the murder of our people.

Any idea of opposing French aggression with an efficacious resistance was only pure folly as long as the fight had not been taken up against those forces which, five years previously, had broken the German resistance on the battlefields by the influences which they exercised at home. Only bourgeois minds could have arrived at the incredible belief that Marxism had probably become quite a different thing now and that the canaille of ringleaders in 1918, who callously used the bodies of our two million dead as stepping-stones on which they climbed into the various Government positions, would now, in the year 1923, suddenly show themselves ready to pay their tribute to the national conscience. It was veritably a piece of incredible folly to expect that those traitors would suddenly appear as the champions of German freedom. They had no intention of doing it. Just as a hyena will not leave its carrion, a Marxist will not give up indulging in the betrayal of his country. It is out of the question to put forward the stupid retort here, that so many of the workers gave their blood for Germany. German workers, yes, but no longer international Marxists. If the German working class, in 1914, consisted of real Marxists the War would have ended within three weeks. Germany would have collapsed before the first soldier had put a foot beyond the frontiers. No. The fact that the German people carried on the War proved that the Marxist folly had not yet been able to penetrate deeply. But as the War was prolonged German soldiers and workers gradually fell back into the hands of the Marxist leaders, and the number of those who thus relapsed became lost to their country. At the beginning of the War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas, just as hundreds of thousands of our best German workers from every social stratum and from every trade and calling had to face it in the field, then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: If twelve thousand of these malefactors had been eliminated in proper time probably the lives of a million decent men, who would be of value to Germany in the future, might have been saved. But it was in accordance with bourgeois ‘statesmanship’ to hand over, without the twitch of an eyelid, millions
of human being to be slaughtered on the battlefields, while they looked upon ten or twelve thousand public traitors, profiteers, usurers and swindlers, as the dearest and most sacred national treasure and proclaimed their persons to be inviolable. Indeed it would be hard to say what is the most outstanding feature of these bourgeois circles: mental debility, moral weakness and cowardice, or a mere down-at-heel mentality. It is a class that is certainly doomed to go under but, unhappily, it drags down the whole nation with it into the abyss.

The situation in 1923 was quite similar to that of 1918. No matter what form of resistance was decided upon, the first prerequisite for taking action was the elimination of the Marxist poison from the body of the nation. And I was convinced that the first task then of a really National Government was to seek and find those forces that were determined to wage a war of destruction against Marxism and to give these forces a free hand. It was their duty not to bow down before the fetish of ‘order and tranquillity’ at a moment when the enemy from outside was dealing the Fatherland a death-blow and when high treason was lurking behind every street corner at home. No. A really National Government ought then to have welcomed disorder and unrest if this turmoil would afford an opportunity of finally settling with the Marxists, who are the mortal enemies of our people. If this precaution were neglected, then it was sheer folly to think of resisting, no matter what form that resistance might take.

Of course, such a settlement of accounts with the Marxists as would be of real historical importance could not be effected along lines laid down by some secret council or according to some plan concocted by the shrivelled mind of some cabinet minister. It would have to be in accordance with the eternal laws of life on this Earth which are and will remain those of a ceaseless struggle for existence. It must always
be remembered that in many instances a hardy and healthy nation has emerged from the ordeal of the most bloody civil wars, while from peace conditions which had been artificially maintained there often resulted a state of national putrescence that reeked to the skies. The fate of a nation cannot be changed in kid gloves. And so in the year 1923 brutal action should have been taken to stamp out the vipers that battened on the body of the nation. If this were done, then the first prerequisite for an active opposition would have been fulfilled.

(P.S. the above is all in the public domain is it comes from the Nazis’ authorized translation and is past the point of copyright and Project Gutenberg hosts free ebooks.)

And of course there seemed to be the argument that Hitler’s critique of Marxism was reasonable, an argument which required Scylla to distort what that argument actually was.
I did not see anything at all that read like “These specific things that Hitler said were rational and stand up to scrutiny and are without any nuttery, so they are reasonable”

What’s more, I do not see anything in MK that can be defined as “reasonable”.

@VarlosZ

As for your investment fund manager example, no, “reasonable” is not the word I would use. To my mind, the word carries a necessary connotation of being sedate in expression and at least superficially plausible.

Okay, cool. I think we can agree on this. But that’s part of why even Hitler’s more prosaic arguments were still not reasonable, because all of them were inextricably linked with 'and this is how they fit in The Jew’s evil nature and scheming."

That was my point. “Marxism is a pretty horrible philosophy that can’t be implemented without massive misery and suffering, doesn’t yield a viable end product and is based on faulty assumptions” is just fine.
“Marxism is the natural outgrowth of corrosive Jewish thought that seeks, like the Jew, to degrade and destroy all that is good and Christian in the world. And the only way to save ourselves from The Jew and his Marxism is National Socialism.” is not reasonable.

[VarlosZ]

I disagree with a lot your interpretation about what **Scylla **said, and his explanation in post #76 was, to me, perfectly sufficient, and about what I had assumed from context. It seems to me that several people here just couldn’t get past the joining of the words “Hitler” and “reasonable” into the same sentence and, this being the Pit, things got heated instead of resolved.

Also, you seem to argue that, because the arguments in Mein Kampf are all (or almost all) tied in some way to Hitler’s Jewish/Marxist conspiracy theory, that even the parts of the book that *seem *rational cannot be considered reasonable (or “not unreasonable,” and there is an actual distinction there as the two phrases are commonly used). However, I think that this notion doesn’t let us use the word “reasonable” the way we want to use it. Was Thomas Aquinas “unreasonable” because everything he ever wrote was tied up in the idea that there’s an ethereal, omnipotent wizard who demands our worship and loyalty? From an objective standpoint that’s *much *less reasonable or plausible than Hitler’s conspiracy theory, yet want to be able to say that Aquinas – like any number of other theists throughout human history – was a reasonable man.

[FinnAgain]

@VarlosZ

and his explanation in post #76 was, to me, perfectly sufficient

Nowhere did it clarify what was reasonable about Mein Kampf. The closest it got was "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."

But this is not a valid metric of “reasonableness” any more than Loose Change is reasonable because it is very good at persuading certain people. Nor does it explain what he means by “reasonable”, because you’ll note that when Jack asked him if he really meant that the ability to infect people with his worldview and then get the nation to fight a war was part of how it was “reasonable”, Scylla called that a strawman.

@VarlosZ

Also, you seem to argue that, because the arguments in Mein Kampf are all (or almost all) tied in some way to Hitler’s Jewish/Marxist conspiracy theory, that even the parts of the book that *seem *rational cannot be considered reasonable (or “not unreasonable,” and there is an actual distinction there as the two phrases are commonly used).

Yep.
Although I feel compelled to note that Scylla used both “reasonable” and “not unreasonable” and then denied prevaricating… in the midst of taking exception to the fact that he’d used the term “reasonable”.

@VarlosZ

However, I think that this notion doesn’t let us use the word “reasonable” the way we want to use it. Was Thomas Aquinas “unreasonable” because everything he ever wrote was tied up in the idea that there’s an ethereal, omnipotent wizard who demands our worship and loyalty?

TBH I’m not familiar with the works of Aquinas, so I can’t say. I can say that, in general, the degree to which any religious thinker attempts to substitute faith for proof and valid epistemology is the degree to which their argument is not a reasonable argument. But I can’t comment on whatever Aquinas said because I really don’t know anything at all about him. Or at least, nothing that I haven’t forgotten since college.

I will say, though, that I can draw no valid and meaningful distinction between ‘Pixy Dickery’ and ‘National Socialism in order to repel the Jewish Cancer upon society and its manifestation in Marxism’. I believe that both are fundamentally not reasonable arguments to make for precisely the same reason, and I would no more describe the mental processes that is evident all through MK as “reasonable” than I would the Pixy Dickery investment plan.

[VarlosZ]

Ok, we’ve exhausted my interest in dissecting the minutia of this thread. Let’s just say you’re wrong and leave it at that.

[FinnAgain]

“You’re wrong, let’s leave it at that.”

[Captain_Amazing]

@FinnAgain

I will say, though, that I can draw no valid and meaningful distinction between ‘Pixy Dickery’ and ‘National Socialism in order to repel the Jewish Cancer upon society and its manifestation in Marxism’. I believe that both are fundamentally not reasonable arguments to make for precisely the same reason, and I would no more describe the mental processes that is evident all through MK as “reasonable” than I would the Pixy Dickery investment plan.

Just thinking about this, but isn’t the reasonableness of an argument different from its factual correctness? I mean, obviously, if you start with incorrect axioms, your results are going to be wrong, but that doesn’t mean that the way you get to those results in your argument is wrong.

So if you start with the beliefs that Germans are innately superior, and there’s an insidious Jewish cancer on mankind, even though those things are incorrect, you can still progress logically from that beginning. You start from an irrational belief and then you use reason to explore the consequences of that belief.

[FinnAgain]

@Captain_Amazing

Just thinking about this, but isn’t the reasonableness of an argument different from its factual correctness?

Sure. A reasonable argument can still be wrong. It is, for instance, reasonable to assume that fungus doesn’t hold amazing curative powers for diseases in humanity, but it’s wrong. It’s not reasonable to posit an innate wickedness and deviousness and opposition to all that is good and right on the part of an entire race of people.

@Captain_Amazing

you can still progress logically from that beginning.

You can reason from invalid postulates, yes. But if the postulates themselves are batshit nuts, then the argument itself, its substance and conclusions, will not be reasonable.

Let’s take, as an example, the racist beliefs that blacks are inevitably inferior and prone to crime and vice such that they are necessarily and unavoidably a drain on society. From that, racists figure that society would be better off without them. From that, racists reason that we should forcibly deport every black person back to Africa. I trust we’d all agree that this is not, in fact, a reasonable argument. Right?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

The conclusion of a chain of logic is just as important as the logic it’s self.

Protip: any logic that ends with murdering millions of innocent people isn’t reasonable. I can’t believe I have to spell that out.

[magellan01]

@FinnAgain

Hitler really was almost preternaturally able to whip up emotion, motivate and unify the country, get people to adhere to a central doctrine and a central leader, control the course and nature of the discussion, etc, etc, etc. In terms of national politics I believe he was a true political genius (in terms of international politics he was, however, not).

It’s a fascinating discussion over how and why Hitler proved to be exactly the right person to work such a change in Germany. We can, certainly, agree that his reasoning was specious and paranoid, his solutions deranged and evil and his plan and its effects both the depths of methodical villainy that modern society has ever seen.

I think you make good points here. The only question I have is: for all this to be true, wouldn’t the German people have to had found his arguments reasonable? I don’t think that a fullyun-reasonable philosophy as laid out in his writings and speeches could be near as effective as Hitler was.

Honestly, I think this whole discussion has gone too far. One can hold that Mein Kampf (which I haven’t read and have no opinion on) employs reason and not approve of the philosophy or its author one iota. Does anyone really think that Scylla actually is approving of Hitler in any way? Or any more than you are when you point out his incredible ability to motivate, rouse, and rally the masses?

It seems to me, that while he could have written incoherent babblings when he was Fuhrer and use the absolute power he had to shove it down people’s throats unquestioningly, a book written in the early/mid twenties would have had to put forth ideas and arguments that sounded quite reasonable—at least when you looked at them from a particular vantage point.

I actually think the reasoned arguments he employed is what made him so evil. it’s one thing to commit the atrocities he did being Charles Manson- or Son of Sam-fucking-nuts. It’s quite another to actually think them through and arrive at the conclusions Hitler arrived at.

No? If you disagree with any of that, which parts specifically?

[FinnAgain]

@magellan01

The only question I have is: for all this to be true, wouldn’t the German people have to had found his arguments reasonable?

Yeepers. But that doesn’t make it reasonable any more than, say, the beliefs that Klan members find persuasive.

@magellan01

Does anyone really think that Scylla actually is approving of Hitler in any way? Or any more than you are when you point out his incredible ability to motivate, rouse, and rally the masses?

I do think that Scylla was approving of, for instance, Hitler’s opposition to Marxism, yes. I do not believe that pointing out his ability to motivate, rouse and rally is the same as saying that the tools he used to do so were reasonable.
I also find Jack’s interpretation plausible and perhaps Scylla was simply serving as an apologist out of some contrarian instinct rather than a deeply held conviction.

@magellan01

It seems to me, that while he could have written incoherent babblings when he was Fuhrer and use the absolute power he had to shove it down people’s throats unquestioningly, a book written in the early/mid twenties would have had to put forth ideas and arguments that sounded quite reasonable—at least when you looked at them from a particular vantage point.

Sure, just like segregationists in the United States argued for the essential inferiority of blacks and persuaded many people who were open to such talk. That doesn’t make Klan doctrine reasonable, however.

Honestly, it annoyed me that when people tried to get Scylla to define his terms or justify what he was talking about, generally he evaded, or distorted, or prevaricated, or insulted people. So yeah, I came out swinging.

I think that this would’ve been much simpler if Scylla had simply said “Ya know what, my bad. Y’all are right. Hitler’s arguments in Mein Kampf aren’t at all reasonable. But they were very effective and they showed an adroit facility at exploiting and directing the mass psychology of the German people at that time.”

[kaylasdad99]

Soooo, should we ask a passing mod to change the title of the thread?

[Jackmannii]

There was an article today in my local paper about plans to stage air drops of thousands of packets of rabies vaccine (flavored with fish meal, yum) in Ohio to immunize raccoons and skunks (most of the packets will be dropped near the Pennsylvania border to prevent their beasts from infecting our healthy, upright pests).

This got me to wondering - couldn’t we drop rabies vaccine, maybe in the form of packets of chewing tobacco and little bottles of schnapps, over Pat Buchanan’s neighborhood and places like Stormfront headquarters and the interior Pacific Northwest? Over the long term the denizens might become surprisingly rational. To avoid charges of partisanship, there could also be drops of rabies vaccine-laced granola in the Seattle area to target ELF.

This scheme has limitless potential.

[Malthus]

I was okay with Hilter’s whole Marxist-Jew-conspiracy thing, and can sorta see his point about murdering millions of innocent people to improve the race, but personally Hitler lost me when he embraced Vegitarianism. There’s only so much lunacy one can take.

Plus he was a mediocre artist.

[Scylla]

@FinnAgain

…you are an apologist for Hitler which is why you’ve done your little song and dance on how “reasonable” his magnum opus was…

…One you’re either too drunk, or too vile, to acknowledge. I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you’re just fucking hammered…

… is there so you can avoid addressing the fact that you were lying about how MK talked about Marxism, Judaism, and why exactly you were lying about it in the first place. It’s now been several posts, and I’ve had to drag it out of you, while you’re kicking screaming and most unpleasantly, whining. After first claiming that they were totally different.

Now you’re at least admitting that Hitler saw the two as inextricably linked, but you’re still full of shit…

…Anyways, ext time, instead of being a whiny little bitch about being an apologist for Hitler’s politics, or I suppose a druken, contrarian asshole just posting to be a schmuck, why don’t you just launch into an impassioned, rather than cowardly and dishonest, screed about how very “reasonable” you believe Hitler’s politics in Mein Kampf are? Not this rankly cowardly display. If you’re going to be a motherfuck for Mein Kampf, fly your flag high.

I didn’t stop responding because you were making sense. I stopped because you were just spouting strings of incoherent bullshit.

Now though, we have some content:

[quotet was neither clear from context nor do I believe that he actually offered a detailed explenation of anything that was reasonable.[/quote]

Untrue. I provided you a “reasonable” quote from Mein Kampf in post # 133 concerning Hitler’s stance on trade unions. You conveniently ignored it and instead continued to insist I was not providing examples of reasonableness. In post #76 I paraphrased that Hitler professed religious tolerance during his Vienna period (chapter 2.) I found that reasonable. I also argued that his arguments concerning reparations were reasonable (and then debated this with others afterwards.)
So, for you to argue that I have not provided any examples of reasonableness is demonstrably untrue, and unreasonable of you. You going on and on claiming I haven’t provided any examples while ignoring the ones that I’ve offered.

From a quote of mine saying that Hitler spends a lot of time contrasting Marxism with National Fascism you have inferred that I think Hitler on marxism is accurate and true, and proceeded to attempt to slay a strawman.

You’ve ignored the examples given to you and instead made up ones of your own.

This is not reasonable.

I have clarified my argument several times. Polycarp, Varlosz, Frylock and several others have posted to attempt to clarify what they thought I meant. I endorsed their statements as correct.

Still, you insist that I have not clarified what I meant.

This is not reasonable, either.

You have plagiarized the work of a third party without giving credit and lied about it. You took quotes compiled and in sequence, and then later claimed you took them from Mein Kampf. In fact, you took them from the Jewish Virtual Library (who took them from Mein Kampf.) Cutting out the credit for somebody else’s work and trying to pass it off as your own is plagiarism.

I don’t mind a little venom or an insult or two, but if you’re going to do that, you actually have to provide some content to debate, otherwise it’s just empty, and incoherent and mostly unreasonable.

[Scylla]

@FinnAgain

I think that this would’ve been much simpler if Scylla had simply said “Ya know what, my bad. Y’all are right. Hitler’s arguments in Mein Kampf aren’t at all reasonable. But they were very effective and they showed an adroit facility at exploiting and directing the mass psychology of the German people at that time.”

Interesting. This is pretty close to what Frylock, and Varlosz and Polycarp and a couple of others have said they thought I meant with “not unreasonable.” I have endorsed that interpretation as my intent and claimed that others trying to impute some other meaning were just assholes playing semantic games.

You have just now shown that you fully understand what I meant, but decided to take issue with it anyway as if I meant something else.

Thank you for that admission of dishonesty.

All along I wondered “are they really this stupid that they could believe I mean that, or are they just a couple of assholes fucking around with semantics and being jerks for the entertainment value.”

It’s good to know my initial assessment was accurate. I feel vindicated.

[tomndebb]

FinnAgain, you appear to be using a definition of “reasonable” that is outside normal usage for this sort of discussion.

One might make the assertion, (supported by the biological evidence that there are no valid indications that humanity is divided into three or five “races”), that it is wrong to assign characteristics to those perceived races. However, without the support of chromosome level biology, it can still be reasonable to make assumptions about perceived races based on perceived comparisons. It would seem that you are using the word “reasonable” to indicate “there is fully supported evidence for” and that is not the actual meaning of the word.

[Captain_Amazing]

@FinnAgain

It’s not reasonable to posit an innate wickedness and deviousness and opposition to all that is good and right on the part of an entire race of people.

It’s not a reasonable premise, but that’s different from whether the argument is reasonable.

Let’s take, as an example, the racist beliefs that blacks are inevitably inferior and prone to crime and vice such that they are necessarily and unavoidably a drain on society. From that, racists figure that society would be better off without them. From that, racists reason that we should forcibly deport every black person back to Africa. I trust we’d all agree that this is not, in fact, a reasonable argument. Right?

I’d say that would be a reasonable conclusion. It follows logically from the premises. It would be a horribly immoral result, of course, but it’s the conclusion you’d expect somebody who had those beliefs to come to.

[Tenebras]

The thing is Scylla, that if Frylock’s gloss of your argument is correct, then you’re wrong. Hitler didn’t make “perfectly reasonable arguments for a perfectly terrible conclusion.” He made crazy conspiracy driven arguments for a perfectly terrible conclusion. And the conspiracy underlying it all was a centuries-long program by the Jews to subvert all those pure and noble Germans. Because he wrapped it up in nationalism, the German people went along with it.

As for your demonstrations that Hitler was reasonable, you claim that in post 76 you paraphrased Hitler’s stance of religious tolerance. Do you mean this paragraph?

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.)

That’s the only part of your post that comes even close to religious tolerance. Most of the post is devoted to picking a translation of Mein Kampf. Also, it’s impossible that you are referring to Hitler’s Vienna Period in that paragraph because Hitler wasn’t actually happy in Vienna.

@Hitler

For many people the name of Vienna signifies innocent jollity, a festive
place for happy mortals. For me, alas, it is a living memory of the
saddest period in my life. Even to-day the mention of that city arouses
only gloomy thoughts in my mind.

(See note for source.)

In post 133 you say that you find Hitler’s stance on trade unions reasonable, but the paragraph you quote is not actually Hitler’s position on trade unions. It’s like quoting one of Aquinas’ objections and implying that it is Aquinas’ position.

Concerning trade unions, you quote Hitler as saying that trade unions are necessary “unless measures are undertaken by the State” and conclude that Hitler is in favor of trade unions. However, you don’t follow up and explain what the measures Hitler intends to take are. Namely, that the trade unions should be subsumed into the State and dismantled, to be replaced by a ministry of workers-and-employers-getting-along.

@Hitler

For the
National Socialist Trades Union, therefore, the strike is a means that
may, and indeed must, be resorted to as long as there is not a National
Socialist State yet. But when that State is established it will, as a
matter of course, abolish the mass struggle between the two great groups
made up of employers and employees respectively, a struggle which has
always resulted in lessening the national production and injuring the
national community. In place of this struggle, the National Socialist
State will take over the task of caring for and defending the rights of
all parties concerned. It will be the duty of the Economic Chamber
itself to keep the national economic system in smooth working order and
to remove whatever defects or errors it may suffer from.

How does Hitler intend to create this National Socialist Trade Union, given that there are already Marxist trade unions filling up the union market? Well, the existing trade unions must be destroyed first, so there isn’t any competition for the Nazi unions.

@Hitler

There were two ways which might lead to such a development:

(1) We could establish our Trades Union and then gradually take up the
fight against the Marxist International Trades Union.

(2) Or we could enter the Marxist Trades Union and inculcate a new
spirit in it, with the idea of transforming it into an instrument in the
service of the new ideal.

The first method is a bit of a bother because the Nazis didn’t have any money. (Because of inflation, of course.) The second method isn’t perfect, either, because it involves getting good Germans to enroll in morally corrupt and ineffectual Marxist Unions. Still, you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do

@Hitler

Therefore there remained only two possible ways. Either to recommend our
own party members to leave the trades unions in which they were enrolled
or **to remain in them for the moment, with the idea of causing as much
destruction in them as possible.

In general, I recommended the latter alternative.**

To sum up: Hitler was not actually in favor of trade unions, except for those which are run as an arm of the government to ensure that the people work productively. (“Here again, as everywhere else, the inflexible principle must be observed, that the interests of the country must come before party interests.”) It is necessary that there be an intermediary between the workers and the employers, because disagreements are inevitable and lead to lost production. There are currently trade unions which are run by Marxists, and while those unions exist the Nazi union will not be able to flourish. (Too much competition.) Therefore the Marxist unions must be infiltrated and destroyed so the Nazi union can be established. Oh, and by “National Socialist Trade Union” he means “Economic Chamber”–a government office which will tell the workers what’s best for them.

To claim that Hitler was in favor of trade unions based on the paragraph that you quoted is somewhat ridiculous. The text immediately following the paragraph describes how to take the unions down.

All quotes from Mein Kampf are taken from the James Murphy translation as provided by Project Gutenberg Australia. The text may be found here.