Quote:
Originally Posted by noela
I agree. I've never believed in censoring books and, therefore, I don't think that reading them makes you a worse or a better individual. You have a mind to think, to interpret, to discard. If a book like that makes you hate Jews or blame Jews for the end of civilization, you probably already hated them in the first place and you were looking for some excuses and "moral support".
I read Mein Kampf a long time ago. I thought it was tedious, badly written, badly reasoned (some ideas are extremely hard, if not impossible, to rationalize, but make some genuine effort at least for God's sake) and, all in all, disappointing.
And no, it never succeeded in turning me into a Jew-hater. Obviously.
|
Like you I think MK is pretty unlikely to turn a tolerant reasonable person into an anti-Semitic monster. Anyone with the power of reasoning and common sense is never going to be swayed by a book no matter how well written and argued IMO ( which MK is most definitely not anyway).
As human beings we might seek the reinforcement and condoning of our most unpalatable views but the rot is already there. Hatred, fear or suspicion will have set in long before MK convinces you you are right...
If you are going to be the kind of person who has already made up their minds that Jewish people are an inferior race then MK is a perfect vehicle for your own diseased mind but I really cannot believe anyone would "turn" because of it.
Hitler IMO was far more likely to whip up millions into a frenzy of anti semitism with his fanatical oratory skills because there is far more life and venom in the spoken word to me than the written. Rallies are social gatherings playing on the mass hysteria which affects people in crowds, the follower's instinct in many people.
Books require YOU to do the work in many ways, the reader creates the poison from his own mind whereas in rallies you almost absorb it by osmosis. The human mind behaves differently in social environment, we are a pack animal and some of our darkest instincts are brought to the fore through communal experience . Riots are proof of how easy people simply turn.
To me a speech is far more inflammatory in many ways than a book because it does not require you to think at all , it is far more passive. Reading a book engages the mind, listening to a speech is often more than not as much about the experience as a social being . As humans we often take our cues from others and speeches elicit totally different reactions than a book would.
Hitler's power laid not in his ideology but the way he played the crowds, he had great charisma and understood that his strength was not convincing individuals of the greatness of his cause but in the social aspect of his ideology. Everything about Nazi Germany was in suppressing the individual and reinforcing the group thinking and acting. Because crowds are so much easier to manipulate and play. It becomes almost a sort of mass hypnosis.
It activates a different switch within us which renders us mindless and turns us into sheep. Some people were devout Nazis , body and soul but most Germans IMO allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing what was at the time more convenient to believe, and gave a little more body to their economic and social grievances. Hitler gave them what they craved, a reason for their woes and a solution. They heard only what they wanted to hear as masses usually do.
Nothing has changed since then, we are still sheep and following is still seen as much easier than thinking for ourselves.
Bosnia, Rwanda , Darfur, Cambodia all the product of group thinking. Old fears, hatreds and tribal differences coming to the fore in great swathes of socially motivated atrocities.
Books IMO need to speak an individual , one on one. So to turn into a rabid Nazi you already had to be one at the core of your being. You have to think with a book. To me a social movement is usually about exactly the opposite and you leave your mind at the door and your individuality. A book requires a degree of analysis and reflection whereas as a rallye relies on our innate desire to belong.
I cannot imagine this piece of racist grabage turning anyone who was otherwise a sentient individual into a pliable monster to the Nazi machine. Your mind already had to have been swayed by another kind of disease.
MK might reinforce and "justify" your views but the words on paper were nothing without your own mind to believe them. We believe what we want to at the end of the day. But the collective unconscious is a far more potent vehicle for mindless and moronic bigotry which is why I fear incitation to hatred by oration far more than by the written word.
We chose to be racist, we chose to be nasty, we chose to do evil. It is a choice.
Nobody in Germany woke up one morning perfectly at peace with Jewish people and Homosexuals and ended up a bigoted Nazi Homophobic by reading MK. That I refuse to believe.
What frightens me is that people with hateful ideologies simply use MK as a posing device to justify their evil intent. To use a book as evidence of the validity of your views is in essence missing the point of a book.
To be honest apart from the hateful and disgusting rhetoric I would find anyone who actually loved MK as a book and conveyer of data and saw it as anything but pulp fiction of the worst kind to be intellectually below par.
IMO you would have to be a first class moron never mind nazi apologist and fantasist to like this book .
It is good to find out what the fuss is all about though and I would be wary of banning any books no matter how despicable their content. It is a slippery slope and we then end up turning towards what we are trying so hard to avoid.
Hitler was also a great burner of books as most dictators are because they encourage people to think for themselves. The power of the book lies in the reader far more than in the writer when it comes to ideology in my opinion.
There is a reason why the Church tried so hard not to allow access to the Bible ( and even sermons) in the vulgar native language of whatever country. It knew it would open the floodgates of interpretation, intellectual challenges and a feeling of liberation from the masters who until then had been in charge of our thinking.
It would allow controversy and greater intellectual discourse. In essence the publication of the Bible in local languages led slowly to the enlightenment and a loosening of the grip of the Church. It led to reform and revolution and gave the power back to the people.
No wonder the Church was so opposed to loosening the ties which bound us to its apron strings. It lost control over our minds because slowly we were able to not only understand what we were reading but to allow our own thoughts and feelings to develop. Reading was the great liberator for the masses. Our modern world owes what it is from scientific enquiry to the modern liberties we so cherish mainly because a few hundred years ago printing gave us back the power of our minds to expand and be liberated. Knowledge gradually seeped into the masses, as well as a sense of enpowerment.
Books are are great liberators IMO, far more than enslavers. And a great equaliser. A book is only dangerous if our mind is already enslaved by irrational and groundless ideas.
Dicators always fear an educated populace which is why intellectuals and challengers of ideas are often the first to be victimised in many dictatorships. Nothing scares a fanatic as much as an enlightened audience. So much more difficult to manipulate and turn into a follower. Challengers of perceived notions are the most potent tool in a democracy. Which is why education is so very important IMO.
Our own mind is the best tool we possess to fight fanaticism and fundamentalism of all kinds. And the will to use it of course....
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, but you are forgetting that all opinions are not equal. It is the educated, informed opinion of literary critics, not a reactionary opinion, on how poorly written Mein Kampf is - I have read it in both German and in English translation and it doesn't improve in either language.
