My three main takeaways (though there are plenty of other worthy points):
History is key to understanding the world.
The pen is mightier than the sword, but the spoken word is mightier than the pen; it can move men to action like no other.
The weak perish, the strong survive, violence is foundational (whether you like it or not).
Thoughts Table of Contents
"One learns history in order to be able to apply its lessons to the present time and whoever fails to do this cannot pretend to be a political leader." -Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf
History teaches you, not the other way. It should be taught not as a collection of dates, but as an outline used to discover the forces that shaped the events we call history. One need only remember what is essential, discard what is not. What is essential is of course subjective, but the overall idea that history is something that teaches is echoed even in Hitler's opponent, Churchill, with "the father back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see." This is as applicable today as it was in the early 20th century, or any other time for that matter. This theme, of what was valid then is still valid now, is a recurring theme in this book.
Early education is seen as key, from both Hitler's view and his opponents, the Marxists. If you can win over the children while they are young, you win over the future in which they are the adults. This battle for the children is fought, at least in large part, through language. The way words are twisted, lose meaning, gain meaning, and generally decline in their ability to communicate through time the farther you move from their origin is the cornerstone to changing a society. This change in the meaning of language has its seeds in the children because, whatever definitions they grow up with will be maintained as 'truth', at least until the next generation modifies the definitions once again.
We, again, see this theme, the control, manipulation, and outright destruction of language still to this day. Slang words like "bad" for a generation were meant to mean "good". "Bad" was then replaced by "cool" which itself was replaced with "fresh". There are countless examples of language changing, quite rapidly, in modern times. I don't mean to sound like a stick-in-the-mud, any one of these changes in languages is not damning, but many words are changed and changed again generation after generation, the distortions accumulating. The result: decreased communication capacity, both in the present and through time via books written with the 'old' meanings.
Those who claim language, specifically definition, is not static should remember that the change in language brings about a change in children and later culture by reducing each generations ability to pass on knowledge. How difficult is it to read Shakespeare today? The more rapidly our language is allowed to shift, the less ability to communicate between generations. As we see in Mein Kampf, or the world of today, there are forces at work that benefit from this age old tactic: divide and conquer. In this case the division is temporal in nature.
If there is one main point, struck over and over again, in Mein Kampf it is that of economics, with particular criticism levied at international capital, joint stock, and the concept of money in general. The schism between rich and poor was already apparent in the early 20th century (and likely for most of history), the juxtaposition between luxury and poverty living in such close quarters was bound to give rise to "deplorable" consequences. I wonder how it compared to the inequity of today? Record homeless roaming the streets of NYC below multi-million dollar penthouses. RV-lined, poop-filled San Francisco streets blocks away from the techno-mecca, Silicon Valley and its ridiculous concentration of billionaires.
Hitler criticizes the love of material wealth and the worship of money in general quite openly, something that does not seem out of place today as with, in somewhat recent times, Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party movements. Both which also focused on the corporate influence of money, what Hitler calls international capital. I shall let him speak for himself with a small sampling of what is to be found in these oft condemned pages.
"Our era is entirely preoccupied with petty materialistic considerations, or rather it is entirely preoccupied with the question of money."
"And we reply, “With you indeed it [equitable change] cannot be done, for your world is incapable of such an idea. You know only one anxiety and that is for your own personal existence. You have but one God, and that is your money."
"In proportion to the extent that commerce assumed definite control of the State, money became more and more of a god whom all had to serve and before whom all had to bow."
"the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against an alien enemy, but against international capital."
Contrary to a common mode of protest during the time, strikes, Hitler urges that refusing to work is not a path to obtain freedom. It may get you a short term victory, but a victory over your neighbor is not a victory for the nation.
"Nations do not obtain their freedom by refusing to work, but by making sacrifices."
He further enumerates some such sacrifices: budgeting, down to the tiniest housekeeping budget, living within your means, responsibility, and most important discipline.
"The material interests of mankind can prosper only in the shade of the heroic virtues; the moment they become the primary considerations of life they wreck the basis of their own existence."
This rings true to this day. How many people and nations alike are in economic turmoil because they have buried themselves in debt. International capital controlled debt. If you can't keep to a household budget how will the nation keep to a national budget? Looking at it from the other angle, why would a household maintain a budget, make sacrifices, and live within their means when the nation they live in does not?
Employers and employees are urged to see eye-to-eye, that they are not set against one another, ala Marxism's class struggle, but that both groups work with one another towards a common, national, goal. The welfare of each lies in the hands of the other, national prosperity is their common goal. All men, worker and employee alike are at once "representatives and administrators of the whole national community."
International capital, joint stock, and the depersonalized ownership they bring is at the core of national economic disintegration, says Hitler and Feder, pointing out that:
"...international stock-exchange capital was not only the chief instigating factor in bringing about the war, but that, now the war is over, it serves to turn the peace into a hell."
How many nations have been "helped" by the IMF and World Bank only to succumb to dubious terms and exasperating interest rates? Forced foreclosure on their very on national resources followed. Bechtel, BP, and like ilk swoop in like vultures. The debtor nation now bound in economic shackles from which it shall never escape.
The key, described by Feder, is that the true power lies in the fact that capital is always dependent on the payment of interest, but, of course, how can interest be paid when the totality of what is "owed" is greater than the currency in existence? The answer of course is to print more money, fiat, and so cause inflation and a slow, steady, and silent transfer of wealth from those who labor in exchange for currency to those who will said currency into existence with their voodoo economics.
The transference of personal control to joint-stock ownership has led to labor being a mere object of speculation, human resources. This trend continued to increase until it reached such a vast scale that the whole of national life was subsumed by the financial exchange circles. It should be remembered we are talking about the early 20th century, not the early 21st, where things are much worse.
The occasional outcries against this international capital were handily redirected by the savvy financier employed propagandists and their slogans, and turned against the national economic structure.
"The idea is to demolish this [national] structure and on its ruins triumphantly erect the structure of the International Stock Exchange."
Today we have rampant globalization. People in the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements cry out, and what is the result? More globalization, more money thrown into politics, more divisiveness within the nation and between nations. Bitcoin and other e-currency, somehow lauded by so-called crypto-anarchists and libertarians alike are nothing more than global currency. The IMF, BIS, and World Bank, among others, already have enormous control global control, what is stopping them from co-opting bitcoin (if it isn't their brainchild to begin with)? It isn't only finance, OPEC controls the energy, the U.N. and E.U. control, with varying degrees of success, their respective regions. The Eastern nations have the same organizations, the same structures, the same plans with different names: the AIB (Asian Infrastructure Bank), or China's One Belt, One Road initiative. All of these are examples not of encroaching globalization, but of globalization that is here and now, already well established, so much so that many can't even imagine a world without it, a world where there isn't a McDonald's and Starbucks present in the most remote places one might travel.
Whereas Hitler proclaimed that "The struggle against international finance capital and loan capital has become one of the most important points in the programme on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence", today we find that every nation is in a similar grasp. Supply chains span continents, just-in-time inventory leaves everyone at the mercy of single points of failure, a select few man the fiat spigot.
Hitler's solution, in a nutshell was as follows:
"The absolute separation of stock-exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business, without at the same time attacking capital as such, for to do this would jeopardize the foundations of our national independence."
Today this might sound like heresy, you would definitely be attacked for holding the view that a nation should consider itself first. You'd be called a supremacist, a racist, a xenophobe; you name it, you'll be called it. What you won't be called is prudent, for understanding that the outsourcing of business and industry leaves the nation which outsourced its ability dependent. Beyond the dependence, it also breeds discontent among a population that can no longer find respectable work contributing to the nations' well-being. This leads, sooner or later, to a death spiral where business leave, employee income decreases, nation expenditures decline, and the whole process repeats, feeding on itself in a race to the bottom.
Hitler was completely correct in focusing so heavily on the economy and the ill effects internationalization brings. Bill Clinton, scoundrel that he may be, ran his presidential campaign on a simple slogan, "It's the Economy Stupid", and won, because it is the economy. Ross Perot had much more illustrative things to say about the economy, too bad he never had the chance to right the ship.
To accomplish cultural changes certain ideals need to be adopted, others dismissed. What I call attack vectors are covered extensively by Hitler. The first, and foremost in my mind, is the bringing about of the destruction of the family, the most fundamental social component that which larger societies are built from. In modern times people are left unable to put down roots because they must always be on the lookout for a better paying job, even if it is on the other side of the country, maybe even world. Hitler points out a similar, although less extreme example from his day:
"In our great modem cities the proletariat does not show much attachment to the place where it lives. This feeling results from the fact that their dwelling-place is nothing but an accidental abode, and is also partly due to the frequent change of residence which is forced upon them by social conditions."
It reminds me of the saying, "a house is not a home."
More directly, when it comes to establishing families, we see a reduction in birthrates and an almost outright hostility to children. A meme on the Internet asks, "would you rather have a baby or a BMW", conflating the idea of children and economic burden. This is nothing new, Hitler is very clear that a similar vileness was present in his day:
"Instead of strong, healthy children, the product of natural feelings, we shall see miserable specimens of humanity resulting from economic calculation, for economic considerations are becoming more and more the foundation and the sole preliminary condition of marriage while love looks for an outlet elsewhere."
Majorities and minorities alike today are noted for their influence, whereas the individual is for all intents and purposes excluded from all spheres of life. Committees, votes, democratic means, and the like have usurped the individual that once led; you can not steer a ship by committee and you can not run an insane asylum by majority votes. Yet this is how our business and political worlds function, at least on the surface. Hitler aptly points out that: "the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice." While the second part might be a little harsh, that doesn't mean it is wrong. Look no farther than modern universities the world over to see how social justice warriors have made higher education into a veritable joke. They have only been successful because of their numbers, and their Marxist tactics, which we will get to shortly. There might be, in fact I am sure there are, many individuals who recognize the damage being done with all of the racism, equality, affirmative action, etc, being promoted in colleges these days, but the individual is powerless against the majority, or well organized vocal minority.
Following the social justice warrior example, we see that progress, tolerance, and diversity are to be the chief slogans of the ignorant masses. In reality those social justice warriors don't practice what they preach. They condemn speech they don't agree with as hateful, and censor it. What tolerance? The only progress is their progress, and different ideas are at once dismissed as oppressive. And diversity is confused with homogeneity. All races, cultures, and even sexes are now amalgamated, melted down into uniformity. As Hitler says, and is 100% applicable today, "He [the Marxist Jew] lauded every phase of progress, particularly those phases which led to the ruin of others,"
The main tool used to disseminate this lauding was the newspapers, which "...above all, which carries on a fanatical campaign of calumny, strives to tear down everything that might be considered mainstay of national independence, cultural standing and economic self-sufficiency." To continue beating a dead horse, we see these exact tactics to this day. The press, and media in general which we will see shortly, promotes a Frankfurt school derived critical theory in which everything is criticized unless it suits the Marxist view.
One of the main tenets of today is the upholding of an international order and the condemnation of nationalism. Hitler correctly identifies a nation will only flourish when nationalism is allowed to flourish:
"One cannot imagine the revival of a nation unless that revival be preceded by a process of nationalization"
"a nation without honor will sooner or later lose its freedom and independence."
For the first time in the book, some 72 pages in, roughly 10%, Hitler makes his first real mention of Jews:
"I now realized that the Jews were the leaders of Social Democracy. In the face of that revelation the scales fell from my eyes. My long inner struggle was at an end."
You can see, and it is clearly stated that he had no disdain for Jews, talking more than tolerantly of a Jew he had gone to school with. There was no hatred, if his own words are to believed. On the other hand, you can see that he was intensely angered by Social Democracy and Marxism, which he concluded, after years of reading, where being controlled by Jews.
Seeing these organizations as tools that supplanting the once proud people of Germany, reducing them to a slavish bunch led to and fro by the press and their promotion of international values, he begins:
"Democracy, as practiced in Western Europe to-day, is the forerunner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world-pest can grow and spread."
To bring about democracy, a cosmopolitan attitude was cultivated. Organizations, like the aforementioned Marxists and Social Democrats and more clandestine ones as well, were used to usher in a new kind of value system.
"With characteristic tenacity he championed the cause of religious tolerance for this purpose, and in the Freemason organization, which had fallen completely into his hands, he found a magnificent weapon which helped him to achieve his ends."
He further speaks of secret organizations very negatively. This gives one pause; how are we to reconcile the stated dislike for secret organizations with the Hollywood history of the supposed Nazi Secret Police?
"Secret organizations are established only for purposes that are illegal, and the purpose of such an organization is limited by its very nature."
"The prohibition of freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression of the international press and the definite abolition of Marxism, together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist concept of the State—all this will enable the Italian Government, in the course of years, to advance more and more the interests of the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the Jewish world-hydra."
Another way the Marxist/Jew attacked the state was by economic undermining.
"Economically, he brings about the destruction of the State by a systematic method of sabotaging social enterprises until these become so costly that they are taken out of the hands of the State and submitted to the control of Jewish finance."
Many people today have even speculated that the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) was implemented specifically to fail, this will lead to a single payer, socialized medical practice. I won't argue either way, but it is concerning to consider in the midst of the last quote.
By steps is the usurping done. Moving too quickly, calling for too much change will upset the people and align them against the Marxists. In this way a slow boil, over decades, over generations, will bring about the revised culture.
"A shrewd conqueror will always enforce his demands on the conquered only by stages, as far as that is possible."
All of these slow changes are kept hidden by both the daily grind and endless entertainments. The former occupying so much of our time, that the latter feels our only reprieve.
"A man who fights only for his own existence has not much interest left for the service of the community." In modern terms, you work all day, exhausted you collapse for a few hours of television, your only respite.
How does the proverbial poison, that erodes our communities, divides our families, and has us adopt the idea that everything has a price, get delivered?
As mentioned in the last section, these cultural shifts are usually transmitted, slowly but surely, through various media sources. In Hitler's time, the newspapers were the most prolific source of propaganda:
"By means of the press he began gradually to control public life in its entirety. He began to drive it along the road which he had chosen for the purpose of reaching his own ends, for he was now in a position to create and direct that force which, under the press_control_public of ‘public opinion’ is better known today than it was some decades ago."
This power, of shaping the public mind, is recognized by those in that milieu. The newspapers are compared to education that continues into adulthood. This should remind you of the section titled History and Education. If school is to shape the child's mind, and newspapers are to shape the adult's mind, does it not follow that if one wanted to change a culture they would do it through these two avenues?
"In journalistic circles it is a pleasing custom to speak of the press as a ‘Great Power’ within the State. As a matter of fact its importance is immense. One cannot easily over-estimate it, for the press continues the work of education even in adult life."
The customs of a society are mirrored in their press, in the media. It would seem that life imitates art is more apt than art imitating life. If you read about it or see it on television, the acts, the manners, the culture, is normalized.
"Was not this press instrumental in bringing about a state of moral degradation among our people? Were not morals and public decency made to look ridiculous and classed as out-of-date and banal, until finally our people also became ‘modern’?"
The way this is done is not through logic, by extolling the actual virtues of this or that, it is done through the deceitful twisting of language. Again we come back to children's education, where they are taught the 'new' meanings of words.
"For him [the Jew] language is not an instrument for the expression of his inner thoughts, but rather a means of cloaking them."
Though the media in the 20th century had not yet penetrated as deeply as it does today, Hitler could identify that it was wholly, completely, poisonous.
"...poison is spread among the people through the medium of the theatre, the cinema, gutter journalism and obscene books, ..."
", the plays produced on the stage were of such a nature that people would have benefited by not visiting them at all."
The same can be said about the hyper-sexualized, hyper-violent, hyper-'diverse' media today.
Who today controls Hollywood? Jews. They are proud of their control, even if I will be cast as an anti-Semite for stating a plain fact. This was as plain a fact then as it is now, according to Hitler.
"The fact that nine-tenths of all the ‘smutty’ literature, artistic ‘tripe’ and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of a people [Jews] who formed scarcely one percent of the nation could not be gainsaid. It was there and had to be admitted."
Propaganda is a most important weapon, on both sides of the isle. Hitler discusses not only the negative effects that the media had on Germany society, but how a similar tack could be taken to win back the hearts and minds of Germans. Gas chambers, mass executions and all that nonsense would have run contrary to what Hitler had wished to accomplish; what surer way to set the masses against you than genocide.
In modern times we see a similar smear campaign going on against Assad in Syria, in regards to gassing his own people. How ridiculous can the propaganda get? Assad has maintained his position for several years, repelled the invaders, gained the support of the majority, and then, all at once he begins gassing people? Even if they are his opposition, how would this benefit him? By giving the USA-led Western/United nations a reason to invade? It is the same tripe, smear Hitler play-book, and it is worn threadbare.
Hitler accounts specifically for the fickle masses, showing how the tactics of a hundred years ago could still be as effective today as they are:
"The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their power of understanding is slight. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials, and these must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward."
"... slogans should be persistently repeated."
Gas chambers! Chemical attacks! And don't forget the classic: babies taken from incubators!
Another key component of Hitler's philosophy in regards to propaganda, that seems to differ from modern propaganda, is that it should try to win over the recipient to its side:
"Propaganda is not meant to serve as an entertainment for those people who already have a nationalist outlook; its purpose is to win the adhesion of those who have hitherto been hostile to the nation, but who are, nevertheless, of our own blood and race."
In modern times the propaganda does seem to be entertainment, not meant to win anyone over, but instead to shore up an already held belief.
The modern belief, that Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews, to ethnically cleanse German, etcetera are not mentioned a single time. The only mention of any kind of cleansing is the cleansing of the media:
"This process of cleansing our Kultur will have to be applied in practically all spheres. The stage, art, literature, the cinema, the press and advertisement posters, all must have the stains of pollution removed and be used in the service of a national and cultural ideal."
What we see in the movies has essentially no connection to what actually happened. Those films and the idea most people hold about WW2/Nazis/Hitler is nothing more than propaganda itself! As Hitler and any propagandist knows, you keep your message simple and repeat it over and over again. Is this not exactly what is going on with the WW2 movies being released every year? Even 80 years after the fact. Hitler was the bad guy, the worst guy, a monster, skin lampshades, human soap, holocaust, bad, bad, bad. Over and over and over.
The book includes an enormous amount of theoretical and practical advice on organizing a movement or party as well as real world examples of what obstacles the Nazi party had to overcome and how they overcame it.
Initially a program must me laid down, often by a single man, often of great genius. This program must concern only absolute truth, only the final goal, disregarding what is expedient or practical at the time. Later, the practicalities can be dealt with.
"The man who lays down the programme of a movement must consider only the goal. It is for the political leader to point out the way in which that goal may be reached. The thought of the former will, therefore, be determined by those truths that are everlasting, whereas the activity of the latter must always be guided by taking practical account of the circumstances in which those truths have to be carried into effect."
"When a man, whose task it is to lay down the principles of a programme or policy, begins to busy himself with the question as to whether it is expedient and practical, instead of confining himself to a statement of the absolute truth, his work will cease to be a guiding star to those who are looking, for light and guidance, and will become merely a recipe for everyday life."
It must be understood that the goal, whatever it may be, will likely not require a total demolition of the current system. Instead that which is rotten should be removed, that which is solid should be retained.
"The meaning and purpose of revolutions cannot be to tear down the whole building, but to take away what has not been well fitted into it or is unsuitable, and to fill in the gap thus caused, after which the main construction of the building will be carried on."
"Prejudices and egotistic interests join together in forming a common front against the new idea and in trying by every means to prevent its triumph, because it is disagreeable to them or threatens their existence. That is why the protagonist of the new idea is, unfortunately, in spite of his desire for constructive work, compelled to wage a destructive battle first, in order to abolish the existing state of affairs."
Committees and parliaments are useless bureaucracies. A single leader, not necessarily, not even likely to be the man who writes the doctrine, should hold power, for leading and establishing principles are two different tasks. The leader should bear total responsibility for his final decisions. Sub leaders can be established in their particular area of expertise. Those below these leaders are subordinate to them and within their wheelhouse they reign, but, at the end of the day, they answer to the top brass.
When it comes time to recruit members to your organization, it must not be forgotten, can not be overstated, how powerful the spoken word is. A logical and well presented pamphlet or book is one thing, but to hear the passion in the voice of a fellow man stirs something in the heart that the written word will never accomplish.
"The force which has always set in motion the great historical avalanches of religious and political movements is the magic power of the spoken word."
This does not mean the spoken word should be the only avenue for recruitment, there are not enough gifted speakers and not enough time to speak directly or through groups to everyone. For the rest there is the all important propaganda, which should serve to lay the groundwork for new recruits. If the propaganda itself is insufficient to sway their mind, it may be enough to get them to listen to a speech, which should be more convincing if spoken from the heart.
"Propaganda should go well ahead of organisation and gather together the human material for the latter to work up. I have never been in favour of hasty and pedantic methods of organisation, because, in most cases, the result is merely a piece of dead mechanism and rarely a living organisation."
"Propaganda is not meant to serve as an entertainment for those people who already have a nationalist outlook; its purpose is to win the adhesion of those who have hitherto been hostile to the nation, but who are, nevertheless, of our own blood and race."
This all leads to the conclusion that:
"...the organiser must be first and foremost a psychologist."
This ties perfectly into how modern society is being manipulated via psychologists from the likes of Stanford pulling strings behind the scenes in the social media and video game circles; two prominent manipulation avenues too extensive to be examined here.
Here is a Medium story detailing some of the effects of what they themselves call 'psychological war.'
In the beginning the struggle will seem great. It is great. The temptation for your organization to "soften up" or "tone it down" to garner recruits should be resisted. By maintaining your position, by not wavering, you will attract only the strong willed, those that are willing and able to see past the monumental task ahead.
"They must not try to avoid being hated by those who are the enemies of our people and our Weltanschauung, but must welcome such hatred."
"In the apparent hopelessness of our great struggle lie the magnitude of our task and the possibilities of success. A battle-cry, which from the very start will scare off all the petty spirits, or at least discourage them, will become a rallying signal for all those that are of the real fighting mettle."
"A movement which has this for its aim must try to recruit its followers mainly from the ranks of the working class. It must include members of the intellectual classes only in so far as such members have rightly understood, and accepted without reserve, the ideal towards which the movement is striving. This process of transformation and reunion cannot be completed within ten or twenty years; it will take several generations, as the history of such movements has shown."
The members of your organization should be the best of the best, you do not want wishy-washy or spineless members. The members will be the face of your organization, next to propaganda. They must put their best foot forward, not only speak the party message, but live it.
"The thing that matters here is not the vision of the man of genius who created the great ideal, but rather what his apostles tell the broad masses, how they do this and with what degree of success."
Grow your ranks slowly, never rush in like fools. Slow and steady wins the race. Eventually, with much effort and a little luck, your movement will begin to sustain itself.
"The masses are first set in motion, in a definite direction, by men of superior talents; but then these masses, once in motion, are like a flywheel inasmuch as they sustain the momentum and steady balance of the offensive."
There should be one organization, one unified front, any similar movements should be subsumed:
"...it is not expedient to place two or more adversaries before the masses—since that leads to a complete splitting up of their fighting strength..."
This singular organization must be structured with one and only one leader. There can be, of course, delegated powers, but these are only an extension of the sole power. The responsibility will be in one man's hands, succeed or fail, he bears the consequences.
"There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by responsible persons, and the word ‘council’ is once more restored to its original meaning."
This unified front is critical in countering the plethora of opponents that might divide, and conquer, the movement. If there are multiple organizations effectively working towards the same goals, each will be diluted and the would-be recruit will be confused as to which to join, possibly throwing up his arms in surrender to the confusion, joining neither.
"Against us we have the innumerable army of all those who are lazy-minded and indifferent rather than evil, and those whose self-interest leads them to uphold the present state of affairs."
The case-in-point is seen in the Marxist tactics of disruption, their modern day counterpart being known as 'shouting down' those you disagree with. To counter this, and other divisive/disruptive tactics a militant structure should be employed. A unified front is much more difficult to silence, whereas smaller individual groups might lack the will, and the confidence numbers give, to keep talking in the face of adversity.
Once you have a single group, it should be structured militantly:
"The international ideology achieved success because it was championed by a militantly organised party."
"Secondly, we had at our disposal a well-trained and organised body of men for maintaining order at our meetings."
The shouting down tactics should not be tolerated. Rabble rousers should be ejected immediately. Dissenting opinions are welcome, but not at group meetings nor presentations. If a debate is desired, a debate should be scheduled and moderated.
"We curtly gave everyone to understand that we were masters of the meeting and that we could, therefore, do as we pleased and that everyone who dared to interrupt would be unceremoniously thrown out."
This might seem like the same non-tolerating of differing opinions, but it is not. A public forum should permitted all opinions, this, on the other hand, is a private meeting. The Marxists, or anyone else, should have their private goings-on allowed to proceed as they wish, "masters of the meeting" as it were. When outsiders try to disrupt your meeting, and will not abide by the rules or leave, they should be removed.
"An attempt to disturb the proceedings was immediately frustrated by my comrades. The would-be disturbers were thrown down the stairs, with bruised heads."
This brings me to a point that, however unpleasant, does seem to be a truth of this world. The leadership, of whatever type, will emerge from a common world view, but this world view can only stand on a foundation of violence.
Without violence or force a group can not defend itself and no matter how cultured it may be, it will fall in the face of violence. Hitler knew this as well as Machiavelli.
"How often did the eyes of my young men light up with enthusiasm when I explained to them the vital functions connected with their task. I assured them time and again that all earthly wisdom is useless unless it be supported and protected by force; that the gentle goddess of Peace can only walk in company with the god of War; and that every great measure performed in the wisdom_bows_to_force of Peace must be protected and furthered by means of force."
"The fundamental question will always be, what are we to do if passive resistance reaches a point where it really gets on the nerves of our opponents and they proceed to suppress it with force and bloodshed?"
The state, which, in the case of Nazi Germany, we are told was totalitarian, all encompassing, seems to be at odds with what is presented herein.
"...the State is nothing but a vessel and its contents (that is to say, the nation, the people) the essential factor, it is clear that every other interest must be subordinated to the supreme interests of the nation."
"Naturally, it is easier, as I have said, to consider the authority of the State as nothing but the formal mechanism of an organisation, rather than as the sovereign incarnation of a people’s instinct for self-preservation on this earth."
The individuals, the people, are "the essential factor". While it is clear that individuals are to be part of the whole of society, not the rugged individualists of today, the state is simply "a vessel" acting for the whole of the people. Again, this stands in stark contrast to what we see in the movies and read in history books these days.
Further, there is to be no superior class. There are laborers and there are administrators, and everyone in between, but each are an important part of the whole. Without all operating harmoniously, there will be more work to be done.
"We may disapprove of every attempt to achieve uniformity, but not as regards the Army."
"One can be proud of one's people only if there is no class left of which one need be ashamed."
First of all it can not be stressed enough that there can be no improving the existing generation, the best option is to pave the road for the next generation. This hearkens back to what has been repeated, and bears repeating still, education and history are paramount to building a better, whatever form better might take, future.
This fight will be long and hard, the members of an organization or movement bent on changing the status quo will need to make great sacrifices.
"It must be made clear to all that a serious fight against this scourge calls for vast sacrifices and an enormous amount of work."
Maybe 'great' sacrifices is a bit too much.
"It is the lack of will-power, and not the lack of arms, which renders us incapable of offering any serious resistance today."
Today the 'sacrifice' that must be made is the abandonment of mindless entertainment, ten dollar cups of coffee, and endless other distracting pursuits of pleasure for strict budgets, frugality, and lifelong education and engagement.
The most important battles are not fought with guns, though some may be fought in such a manner, the most fruitful battlefields exist only in the hearts and minds of men.
"Ideals and ideologies, as well as movements grounded on a definite spiritual foundation, whether true or false, can never be broken by the use of force after a certain stage, except on one condition, ideals_winly, that this use of force is wielded in the service of a new ideal or Weltanschauung which burns with a new flame."
"Every Weltanschauung, whether religious or political (and it is sometimes difficult to say where the one ends and the other begins) fights not so much for the negative destruction of the opposing ideology, as for the positive realisation of its own ideology."
"I can fight only for something that I love. I can love only what I respect, and in order to respect a thing I must at least have some knowledge of it."
Once a love of your nation, your community, your people has gripped you, you are finally in a position to fight. At first with words and deeds, but in the end a willingness to defend, not promote, your ideology with violence will be required.
Today we see Europe and the United States of America being diluted through immigration. The whole fabric of European culture is being eroded. This same tactic was employed a century ago:
"In order to strengthen his [Jewish] political position, he directed his efforts towards removing the barrier of racial and civic discrimination which had hitherto hindered his advance at every turn."
The solution is quite simple:
"By refusing to allow immigrants to enter the country if they are in a bad state of health, and by excluding certain races from the right to become naturalised as citizens,..."
While the modern bleeding heart will cry racism, it is merely preservation. Why would you admit unhealthy people? To burden the healthy ones? Why would you admit those unwilling to assimilate? All this does is instigate internal contention. Divide and conquer at its most basic level. Do all those people promoting asylum for foreign aliens want them in their own community? In their own house? There are serious drug and homeless epidemics in the United States today, yet these people are left out in the cold while immigrants are given every opportunity. Why the excessive care for the foreign and none for the domestic?
Then as well as today, many small distraction are at hand. We hear of small-fry criminals, street thugs, corner drug dealers, and are led to believe that these people are the cause of decay in our society. We roll out a war on drugs, that proves not only impotent, but in the final analysis leads to more drugs on the streets. These small criminals are simply a symptom of larger criminality present in the higher echelons of society. A mugger goes to jail for stealing someone's wallet while Bernie Madoff and John Corzine, who have defrauded countless more people in their white collar crimes, breath freely. No name military personnel rot in cells because of innocuous selfies they snapped in secure facilities, while the Hilary Clinton makes jokes about classified information held on her personal server: "wiped, like with a cloth?"
"It would be absurd to do away with small traitors in a State whose government absolves traitors on a large scale from all punishment."
"Here, too, there is a mission for National Socialism to fulfil. It must teach our people not to fix their attention on the little things, but rather on major issues, not to exhaust their energies on questions of secondary importance..."
Those that champion every little victory, that shout the praises of their country from the mountaintops, that cheer as fighter jets fly over their football stadiums in militarized half-time shows, are the most diluted of nationalists. This masquerading nationalism has been another distraction, one that Hitler is clear on:
"Hurrahing proves nothing and does not confer the right to call oneself national if behind that shout there is no sincere preoccupation for the conservation of the nation's well-being."
Lastly we have America, world cop (which ties directly to the immigrant problems, creating hellish conditions anyone would attempt to flee). Apparently this was being attempted last century just the same, albeit in German:
"Above all, we must not form a police guard for the famous ‘small oppressed nations,’ but we must be the soldiers of the German nation."
After reading this book, I find the official narrative absurd. The entire book mentions Jews only 501 times (in 777 pages). While they, the Jews, are not presented in the most appealing light, and Hitler is open in his hostility toward them, it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity or superiority of the Aryan people. At its core this book strikes at the economic system used to tear down individual nations and usher in a cultural Marxism.
It bears repeating, God only know how many times the official narrative has been repeated: although Hitler was upset with Jews, this book doesn't give the feeling he hated them simply for being Jews, as is so often stated. His hatred stems from the excessive control that Jews had (and have) regarding international finance and what we today would call media.
I can not see how anyone could contort this work into one of hatred. It is much more focused on his love of his nation and countrymen and almost all of it is couched in self-defense.
I have essentially the same feelings expressed in this book towards international finance and media, which are still controlled primarily by Jews, but this doesn't mean Hitler or I want to exterminate the Jews, we both seem to want the same thing: national control of banking and media. To promote national values in an ever more cosmopolitan world.
Given how accurate this book is, I can now understand why Hitler has been held up as the ultimate evil. The same people have been manipulating nations for at least a hundred years with the exact same tactics - control of finance and media. Even the Marxists of today that populate our universities employ the same tactic of shouting down anyone that opposes them and, if that fails, they become violent. See: anti-fa.
There are countless parallels between what is presented in these pages and what can be see going on around us today. Mein Kampf is quite focused on corrupt and self serving politicians. Today, in the USA and many other nations, politicians have the lowest approval ratings since records have been kept.
You see groups and movements springing up to carry the torch or Marxism. Some, like Anti-fa are quite blatant about their support for communism. Others, what we might call useful idiots, indoctrinated though a corrupt education system and a debased media, carry water for the Marxists by promoting LGBT, diversity (which is really homogeneity), and the politically correct safe spaces required by these thin-skinned snowflake social justice warriors. All of them, well meaning or not, are simply tools, battering rams, in the hands of the Marxist.
While Hitler's own words might not be the be-all end-all to counter this modern nonsense, one has to wonder why the stigma against reading this book. I have heard Mein Kampf called 'the most influential book no one reads'.
Doesn't it make sense to learn from the past, a recurring theme in both the book and my analysis? Why don't high schools require reading this? Critically. Maybe I am way off base and others might draw wholly different conclusions. So be it. Let everyone read it and make up their own mind. The same can be said about the Communist Manifesto. Let the works speak for themselves.
Shouldn't we want to learn from history? See it from both sides? And even if Hitler was the horrible guy he is made out to be, isn't the logical question "why?" And isn't the only way that can be known is by studying his own words?
Finally, this work is infinitely approachable by a layman, but a solid foundation of history, WW1 particularly, finance, and propaganda are useful to fully understand what is covered. This background is not completely required and serves simply to elucidate the ideas present. If Brave New World and 1984 are required reading, so to should this be similarly required in ever high school (alongside the Communist Manifesto, which would spoil all the lies surrounding both works in the matter of a single generation...).
Jew counter: 501
(How many times Jew/Jewish/etc was mentioned over almost 800 pages)