mein kampf was a best seller in the middle east. I can't imagine the similarities that would explain why. Was also wildly popular in Turkey for some reason. Again, I can't imagine why.
For those who have a slightly higher IQ... http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ You can save yourself a few bucks and just read it on-line. It's a stupid book written by a stupid man. If one could possibly read all things of value in their lifetime, at the very bottom of the list of things to read after all things of value have been read and barring having anything better to do with your time (such as having drying paint to watch) Mein Kampf may be worth reading. John Lennon "imagined" his scapegoat to be all religion. Hitler, Stalin, Mao all agreed but started with specific sects in their quest to purge the world of religion. It's very simplistic to say Hitler hated the Jews.
I actually wish more had read it, and taken it seriously, when it was written. While it was a bestseller in Germany (and made the Little Corporal a wealthy man), given that it was a blueprint in so many ways for what he would later pursue, from lebensraum to the end of European jewry, it would have been better for the world had it been seen for what it was. Afterthought: I also wish religion would go the way of the dodobird, and do not believe the earth will find its way out of its troubled times without such abandonment. And by that, I mean, all religion, to include the cult of personality (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, to repeat Kalvin's examples). Anytime anyone believes they have the one and only answer to human truth, I run for the hills.
The pursuit to remove religion has killed far more than any attempt to establish a religion. Hitler, Stalin and Mao's end goals were the eradication of all religion. Along the way they used the mainstream religion to try to justify what they were doing but in the end, that religion was to be destroyed as well. Socialism and Communism cannot coexist with religion. The first right in the bill of rights is not freedom of speech. It is freedom of religion. For good reason. The summary of Mein Kampf should have been good enough to make people realize that Hitler was an evil person. But, too many people can be swayed by pretty music that tells them that religion (or jews or black people or gypsies, etc) is the source of the world's problems. You say that we would have been better off if more people read it. Since it was a best seller obviously people were reading and the problem was that they were agreeing with it. People actually think "Imagine" is a good song but it's just a pretty sounding version of Mein Kampf. It's an attractive idea to fools. Fortunatly our founding fathers were not so foolish. They understood that religion (which is nothing more than morality) is not the problem but the suppression of religion that causes problems. There's a reason the US has never had a war over religion despite having the widest variety of religious beliefs. Only an idiot would think that religion is the root cause of all the world's problems. If that were actually true, the US would be in constant war with itself. You can mix Islam with any religion in any country that does not have freedom of religion and you will have bloodshed. Not in the US.
1. Kalvin, you've (typically, alas) mischaracterized what I said. I indicated that it would have been better had more people read it and taken Mein Kampf seriously. I am referring to Chamberlain, Roosevelt, et al. Of course, the world was weary of war and no one, except Hitler (who traded on such war weariness) was ready to go to war over these early words, however prophetic. If the book had been taken seriously, perhaps Hitler's re-occupation of the Ruhr, his re-arming industry, and all that followed in those first fateful months may have brought on more than a "pfft" from western powers. 2. As to your other argument re the value of religion, you are of course entitled to your beliefs, as you are entitled to call everyone who disagrees with you, including me, an idiot, fool, and all the other typical aspersions you reach when threatened from your ossified position. Here, too, though, you mischaracterized me - As I said, I have a problem with any religion, in whatever guise, that purports to have an absolute answer for Man. I included Hitler's fascism, as well as Stalin's or Mao's totalarianism, in this fold. The cult of personality is as much a religion as any cult. That said, I have an even bigger problem with any state intervention to suppress or eradicate the private practice of it. My view is simply that the world would be a better place if none of us believe we have the one and only way. Or, using your line: The problem is that throughout most of religious history, the two have gone hand in hand. Only: whose religion removed? whose religion established? has been at question. 3. Socialism is simply an economic system whereby workers themselves have control over the means of production. Religion has nothing to do with such structure, and there is no relation, much less an antithetical relation, between socialism and religion. 4. As to the U.S. never having a war over religion, I would respond with two things: - Don't ask the American Indian to back you on this one - land, yes, but the imposition of culture (inextricably intertwined with prevailing religious views) was part and parcel of the destructive path we wrought. - The Founding fathers came from a Europe with religion and the state in heavy, historically-grounded collusion. They saw what this wrought. America was specifically founded, and its constitution specifically structured, to ensure religion has no official place in public life; seeing it as a private choice, as I do. 5. As to "Imagine" being a British-hippie version of that freelovin' Dolph's Mein Kampf, I, uh, well, don't quite know how to respond. Good luck with all that. I would close with this. Your posts (such as the above post) seem to me to act in contradiction to the dictum to simply live your life as a Christian and let that speak as exemplar for the Truth. Have you ever thought of it? Or do you feel referring to us poor unfortunates as "idiots," "fools," or, in my case some time ago, "asshole" something you get from a direct line to Yahweh?
I cant imagine why it is a bestseller in Poland as well or why the US and UK haven't banned it while Germany has....Did these slip nations slip your mind GTech or did you just want to make your prejudice to Islam and all Muslims more obvious for everyone to see?
As the founding fathers were smart enough to realize, that is completely irrelavent. That's why is the first freedom we have. It doesn't matter if person A thinks they have the only way as long as they don't impose it on person B who also thinks they have the only way. It is a foolish idea to think that religion should be abolished because you're offended that someone thinks you're wrong. It's a downright stupid and dangerous idea that has gotten millions of people killed. More people have been murdered over that idea than the idea that person B should believe person A's religion. As any rational person can realize, the US is not contantly at war with itself precisly because we have freedom of religion and if my religion offends you, too bad. Go cry to China. There is no difference between politics and religion. So if you want to pander to the hippies with your anti-religion stance then you have to get rid of politics as well. Skin color causes wars too so what skin color would you like the world to be to avoid problems? And yet for some odd reason, despite having the most diverse political views on the planet, the US is not constantly at war with itself. Yet, in Iraq, three's a crowd and who knows when that war will be over. Why is it that religion and politics don't cause constant internal bloodshed in the US but nearly everywhere else in the world, they do? Because, as the founding fathers were smart enough to realize, it is the suppression of political and religious views that get people killed. Not the free expression of them. As anyone who's had any customer experience knows, people just want to be heard. If you ignore someone who is angry or cut them off, they get even more furious. If you listen to them, even if you can't help them, they are far more happy. You want religion removed. You don't want people to make that "private" choice because you think it's "bad." That is intolerant. And that's what gets people killed. You want to whine about labels and yet treat all religious people as though they're the bane of humanity. Here's another label: hypocricy.
Well, I don't know what else to do, but repeat: I think religion is bad. You are free to practice it. I would not support any state power to remove your right to practice it. In fact, I'd fight alongside you to ensure you have the right to your practice of it. That you have posted I wrote the opposite of what I wrote only attests to stubbornness, disingenousness, or worse, I suppose. Also interesting to me, now, is this: you said, in one breath, Yet, in virtually the same breath, you indicated: Hmm. America is built on the presumption that we all have a right to our religious beliefs. Unless, of course, I believe religion is bad, in which case, I need to leave my country, and go to China. An interesting view, if directly in contradiction to your own stated views as to what America was all about. This same view was once written by an AP columnist, around Christmastime some years ago. My response, printed in our local paper was: Hoisted on your own petard, Mr. Reese, is your name KalvinB? Now, Kalvin, I asked you a question, but you avoided it: do you think Christ's message is best served by example, or not?
There's nothing more absurd than intolerance pretending to be tolerant. Ignorance breeds intolerance. That has nothing to do with you. You are intolerant of religion. Therefore, you don't belong in a country that is tolerant of religion. It's not your cup of tea here. I can see why you hate religion so much. You want to judge everyone by their religion. If you were to have a religion you'd face the same judgment you put on others. Why do you think it is that I don't care if other people think they have the only way to heaven and yet you, a religion hater, do? Why are religious people so much more tolerant of the beliefs of others while you parade yourself as the beacon of tolerance? What makes you so incapable of keeping an impersonal thread impersonal?
Kalvin, I'm sorry I once gave you more credit than you deserve. What part of saying I would fight for your right to practice your religion do you consider the mark of "intolerance"? Here, I'll bring it down a bit for you: I also believe Reality TV is bad. But, if you want to watch it, knock yourself out. In fact, if any old meanie comes along and tells you you can't watch it, you come to old Unca North and I'll beat his ass, picking on little Kalvie like that. Clear? Or still a bit confusing? ps: Ah, I see that you edited your above post to tone it down a bit, Kalvin, after seeing my post. It doesn't change the fact that while I have simply stated my beliefs about religion, and defended your right to practice yours, you have advocated that I should leave America. Please provide your definition of intolerance, as I, for one, am confused. No, that religion is not my cup of tea means I won't practice it, thanks. But as America isn't a theocracy, I'll stay and smell the roses, provided that's OK with you?
Oh, and, sorry, forgot to answer: -and it would be something on the order of: -and though you removed it, I believe you referred to my views (and myself, therefore), as "idiotic." Tolerance personified, once again, suppose.
Exactly. And you're whining about it despite calling billions of people's beliefs "bad." I don't take it personal when you bash religion. Stop whining when someone puts "bad" on your views. You call religion bad and yet the first right in the bill of rights is the freedom of religion. You blame religion for the problems in the world despite the fact that the US has never seen an internal religious war. Your views are dangerous and they have killed millions of people. It's the idea that religion is bad for the planet that has lead to the slaughter of 10's of millions of people. It is the "radical" view that religion is the number 1 freedom that has lead to a peaceful nation for over 200 years. What you don't seem to realize is that religion is the basis for philosophy and politics. You can't get rid of religion without getting rid of philosophy or politics. Morality is religion. Philosophy is religion. Politics is religion. That's why calling religion "bad" is stupid and ignorant. Religion is benign at worst and the driving force of a prosperous nation when allowed to be freely expressed. Religion is only dangerous when you oppress the people because of their religion.
Edited to remove anything that continues this. The world is a sad place. I do believe Paul was right, and the greatest thing we can harbor in our breast, is also the simplest: Love. And it begins with our neighbor's hand. Kalvin, I sincerely wish you well. I hope whatever path you're on brings you peace and wisdom. Paul
I've read large parts of Mein Kamp. Hitler said what he wanted to do - i.e. invade Russia, etc long before he had the power to do so - As for founding the NAZI party - he didn't, he became its leader later on mainly through being its propaganda minister then by his powerful public speaking. Some of the things he said were insightful - e.g. the British first world war propaganda was superior to the Germany's - the Germans focus on the Brit's being pathetic - when the German soldiers experience that the Brit's were hard core it sort of burst the bubble, British propaganda on other hand painted the German as the scary and dangerous HUN - hence the average soldier wasn't surprised as much by the 'horrors' of war - i.e. its created a tougher mindset. Hitler and much of his high party friends were occultists through and through - the party sort to lessen and eventually destroy Christianity and return Germany to its 'pagan' roots - throw in a bit of human evolution theory and you create a political theory that has no boundaries, or morals other than proving Aryans to be the superior race to all others - only problem is evolution is crap and there is no Aryan race. Hitler lost the war because he believed his own propaganda and because he failed to convince the Japanese to invade Russia - they attack the U.S. instead. However he accomplished many of his goals - he destroyed the Jews in Europe, Destroyed the British Empire, Germany no longer need living space - thanks to Hitler destroying Germany. In other ways he would be shocked at the number of immigrants in Europe and the lost of European dominance in the world. I.E. Colonialism was destroyed thanks to the second world war. So the war had both good and bad outcomes - admittedly the huge lost of life was not good, but it did bring massive change, economically, scientifically and socially. Despite all this I'm sure there are many who study his rise to power in the dream of repeating the same themselves. Hitler shows evil genius at work. Democracy is a flawed concept anyhow - at least in its current form - as Churchill said - it is the worst of governments - but its is the best we've yet come up with - do you really think you have any control over your politicians? Democracy works best in a small city state like Athens where every citizen could get up and have their say. Perhaps we should return to the city state rather than the nation state? If you want a greater say. Others would argue politics is a side show - those who control the money control the agenda - always have - always will.
I must agree with northpointaiki here. From what i understood from your little debate, you both are ENTITLED to your own personal opinions. If one person dislikes the idea of religion, yet knows it is anyone's right to be entitled to his own personal opinion aswell, which means he TOLERATES the idea that other people believe in whatever they believe and want to believe. However, you attack north because he said religion is "bad" and you call him intolerant and ignorant. Does that sound right to you ? Don't you have any thoughts about something being "bad" ? Does that make you intolerant and ignorant of the other side ? What you say is absurd. And you know why ? Because of religious 'tolerant and not ignorant' people such as yourself, who killed, murdered and executed those who dared to question religion. And that sentence makes you a hypocrite, since you imply that saying religion is bad - is bad by itself. Do you not tolerate those who think contrary to your opinions and beliefs ?