Chapter 02: Mein Kampf Some thoughts.

PLEASE NOTE: I wrote these observations while I read, so there is no logical order except as it follows his writings.

As I continue to read the second chapter of Mein Kampf I am struck by the incredible arrogance and self-centeredness of this man. Everything seems to be for him and about him.
At this point in his writing, Hitler's written beliefs and observations are indistinguishable from those of Marx.

During my struggle for existence in Vienna, it had become clear to me that Social activity must never and on no account be directed toward philanthropic flim-flam, but rather toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life that must-or at all events can-lead to the degeneration of the individual .

Yet the difference is as glaring as the similarities. When Marx wrote he spoke of world-wide working class that did not respect nations or borders while Hitler was obssesed with the idea of nations in general and Germany in particular. He was particularly upset when circumstances forced an inherently superior German man into destitution. He rejected Marxism, not for economic reasons but for national and "moral" reasons.

Yet something does frighten me; much of what he writes portrays a great wisdom and insight. How could such wisdom have gone so badly astray and turned this man into the monster he had already become when he wrote this book?

He said this about the Marxists:

For what a difference between the glittering phrases about freedom, beauty, and dignity in the theoretical literature, the delusive welter of words seemingly expressing the most profound and laborious wisdom, the loathsome humanitarian morality- all this written with the incredible gall that comes with prophetic certainty-and the brutal daily press, shunning no villainy, employing every means of slander, lying with a virtuosity that would bend iron beams, all in the name of this gospel of a new humanity. The one is addressed to the simpletons of the middle, not to mention the upper, educated, 'classes,' the other to the masses.

I wonder if he was writing them or about himself and his book. He created a nearly-exact image of the monster he hated. As he studied the Social Democrats, he learned and later copied their methods of winning minds and influence. Sadly these same techniques are being practiced today by extremists of every polical stripe.

As I read I begin to understand why so many people listened to him. No lie is as effective as the lie that is wrapped in some truth. Hitler said much that was true, but so did Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tong and others. If something is a lie through and through then no one who has any understanding at all will listen to it.

Then I come to this and wonder what modern day union people would say about this.

By my twentieth year I had learned to distinguish between a union as a means of defending the general social rights of the wage-earner, and obtaining better living conditions for him as an individual, and the trade union as an instrument of the party in the political class struggle.

The fact that Social Democracy understood the enormous importance of the trade-union movement assured it of this instrument and hence of success; the fact that the bourgeoisie were not aware of this cost them their political position. They thought they could stop a logical development by means of an impertinent 'rejection,' but in reality they only forced it into illogical channels. For to call the trade-union movement in itself unpatriotic is nonsense and untrue to boot. Rather the contrary is true. If trade-union activity strives and succeeds in bettering the lot of a class which is one of the basic supports of the nation, its work is not only not anti-patriotic or seditious, but 'national' in the truest sense of the word. For in this way it helps to create the social premises without which a general national education is unthinkable. It wins the highest merit by eliminating social cankers, attacking intellectual as well as physical infections, and thus helping to contribute to the general health of the body politic.

Consequently, the question of their necessity is really superfluous.

As long as there are employers with little social understanding or a deficient sense of justice and propriety, it is not only the right but the duty of their employees, who certainly constitute a part of our nationality, to protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of the individual; for the preservation of loyalty and faith in z social group is just as much to the interest of a nation as the preservation of the people's health.

So Hitler embraced the trade-unions while rejecting "Social Democracy"? (This may be unfair as he did embrace many things that were good or neutral; he had to to gain a power base.)
As I read his observations on the trade unions, I begin to be troubled because many of his observations match mine; that they have abandoned the purpose of their existence for a more political cause. I begin to wonder: Had I lived 70 years ago in Germany would I have been seduced by this man as so many others were? I have the advantage of the perspective of history and can see the poison fruit of his actions. I take some comfort that this is the truth that he used to wrap his lies in.

Toward the end of the 2nd chapter he makes his first hints of the evil that is at the heart of all of this: Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy. It is at this point that the man's evil begins to become manifest as I read on. By the end of the second chapter most of Germany's problems could be traced to the Jews. And Hitler's flaws become obvious. The desire wealth and power over others is not merely a Jewish thing but a human thing, and many humans will do anything to expand their power and wealth, including exploiting their fellow man by direct or indircet means