ITT we laugh at the intellectual dishonesty, utter stupidity, and moral bankruptcy of /pol/'s holy bible, Mein Kampf.
If one asks the naive question 'What was on Hitler's mind when he acted so cruelly against the Jews?', one can sort the answers into four levels which perfectly fit the four levels of allegorical reading already elaborated in medieval hermeneutics:
• First, there is the notion of pure, primitive hatred: Hitler hated the Jews in his guts, viscerally, and his 'theoretical' foundations were mere secondary rationalizations of this 'irrational' attitude, which dominated him beyond his conscious control.
• Then there is the notion of Hitler as a 'mountebank', a conscious manipulator who feigned his hatred for the Jews, and other political convictions, simply in order to attain power, his only true goal.
• Then there is the notion that Hitler and his inner circle of collaborators were 'sincerely' convinced that the Jews were evil, and that they were annihilating them for the good of the Aryan race and of humanity as such. Even the fact that some of the executioners were ashamed of their acts, and the need to conceal them from the public, can be reconciled with this 'sincerity': they believed that the majority of Germans werenot yet fully aware of the necessity of the harsh measures (extermination of the Jews) which would secure their future - this was the line adopted by Himmler in his infamous speech to the special SS troops in 1943. The myth of betrayal, Hitler's ultimate, founding lie, also fits into this frame: the notion that the German army was far from defeated in autumn 1918 - it was the 'November Criminals', the corrupted (mostly Jewish) politicians, who signed the surrender of November 1918. The truth, of course, was that in autumn 1918 the German armies were collapsing, Germany's borders were about to be overrun; the generals who later claimed to be on the verge of victory before being stabbed in the back were actually eager for the politicians to save them from the public humiliation of military defeat by making some deal that would permit the generals to march home at the head of their troops rather than fleeing ignominously. The generals forced the politicians to do the deal to save face for them, then stabbed the politicians in the back by claiming that they had been betrayed. It was this lie that created Hitler: at that moment, Hitler had a total physical and mental collapse, unable to accept the national catastrophe; he found a solution in a hallucinatory summons - a visionary voice told him that this defeat resulted from the politicians' stab in the back, and that his mission was to remedy this betrayal.
Hitler: >the English are retarded lmao Americans are fags American and British polacks: >Hitler loved me
Christian Parker
• Finally, there is the notion of Hitler as a demonic 'artist of evil', who pursued the annihilation of the Jews not in spite fits evil character (this brings us back to the second level), but because of its evil character. The fundamental argument against the 'sincerity' of the Nazi belief is their treatment of the Jews before their physical annihilation: in a torturous process of physical and mental humiliation, they first deprived them of their human dignity, reducing them to a subhuman level, and only then killed them. In this way, they implicitly acknowledged the humanity of the Jews: while they claimed that the Jews were in fdct like rats or vermin, they first had to reduce them brutally to that status. This cynicism is supremely expressed in a Nazi documentary about the Jews , which shows as the proof of their subhuman status shots of the way they lived in dirt and decay in the Warsaw ghetto - that is to say, in the very horror that the Nazis themselves had created. A further proof is provided by the multitude of practices which added the ironic insult to injury: the bands playing while the Jews marched to the gas chambers or to work, the notorious 'Arbeit macht frei!' inscription above the entrance to Auschwitz, and so on - unmistakable signs that the 'final solution' was carried out as a gigantic joke which submitted the victims to a supplementary act of gratuitous, cruel and ironic humiliation. The awareness of some executioners that they were doing something horrible and shameful, which should be kept out of the public eye, also fits this level: the very awareness that what they were doing was an act of transgression of the minimal standards of decency not only established between the perpetrators a secret bond of solidarity but provided the supplementary obscene jouissance - isn't it satisfying to do such horrible things under cover of sacrificing oneself for one's country?
The strange thing about these four answers is that although they are mutually exclusive, each of them is, in a way, utterly convincing. To resolve this deadlock, one should first qualify the second option: what if Hitler was a fake manipulator who none the less got caught up in his own game - who started to believe his own faked myth? Even a superficial reading of Mein Kampf leaves us perplexed when we try to answer a simple question: does Hitler believe himself or not? The only consistent answer is: both yes and no. On the one hand, it is clear that Hitler consciously 'manipulates': sometimes - say, when he emphasizes how, in order to dominate the crowds and arouse their passions, one should present them with a simplified image of the one great Enemy on whom all the blame is put - he even directly shows his cards. On the other hand, it is no less clear that he gets passionately immersed in his own deception.
Jace Evans
>reviewing books that might as well be subtitled "my art school years" somehow i think you're more optimistic about where this is going than when other anons do the same thing and pretend to take the fault in the stars seriously as a sociological and literary set of phenomena. your prose style suggests that hope to be unfounded.
Jaxson Wood
I haven't read it but I heard his prose is garbage
could you cite some really crappy parts?
Blake Roberts
Once we admit this paradox, we can combine it with the fourth option: Hitler as his own 'revisionist', that is, an ironist almost in the Rortyan sense, for whom the 'final solution' was a cruel aesthetic joke accomplished just for the sake of it, not for any external goal like power, and thus fittin g the Kantian notion of 'diabolical Evil'. The line that divides these two options is less clear than it may appear: the solution to this paradox is that while Hitler considered himself the ultimate ironist, he was unaware of how thoroughly he was caught up in his own game. The danger of playing such games of 'what was going on in Hitler's mind', however, is that they come dangerously close to what Lacan called the 'temptation of the sacrifice' - nowhere is it more urgent to resist this temptation than apropos of the Holocaust.
[from Zizek's Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?]
Leo Miller
>believing in the high-school meme of Hitler as cartoon villain read a book
Chase Ramirez
Please kill yourself.
Luke Fisher
dope hittler pictures is the name of my band
Bentley Martin
Why was this guy so spooked and buttmad all the time?
Huh, I'll check Zizek's book out later this week. Seems interesting.
Henry Hill
>focusing on the jew >ignoring the real threat Good Sassanach
Hudson Hall
your arguments completely blow us away
Gavin Cook
>people pretending to have read a YA book by a person they can't speak the same language as >none of them even bluff the bit with the dog disappoint
James James
finally everything became so clear
Caleb Reed
Zizek wrote this? Man, he fucking sucks.
Kevin Carter
nod an argoomant
Jordan Brown
Well, he doesn't seem to realize that not only jews were sent to the camps, and he does not seem to realize that the "extermination camp" narrative is grossly exaggerated for political purposes.
>o lawd the jews, and only jews *sniff* killed in the ultradeath camps *tugs shirt* and so on and so on
Anthony Hall
It seems you didn't understand the topic. Probably because you can't think outside your pol ideological framework.
Evan Harris
But its just satire man! What do you think all Jews are perfect? Jews don't do anything wrong? Jews are always victims? You fucking cuck!
Blake Johnson
Reminder
John Powell
>/pol/ boogeyman
Yeah, I understood what Zizek was trying to say, however the whole >hitler most evil man alive shtick is growing old.
>now let me tell you thish, *sniff* why was hitler the most evil man? from a hegelian perspective, he was total asshole you know? *sniff* first, was he jusht, how you say, a total asshole? *tugs shirt* *touches nose*
Tyler Wright
what a mundane cunt you must be irl
Nolan Parker
>the whole >hitler most evil man alive shtick is growing ol
I agree, he's been dead for over 70 years! Hahahahahha
Mason Robinson
I'm actually a vibrant personality, with many eccentricities, quirks, talents, hopes and dreams.
Owen Roberts
It is at this moment I realize I'm talking to an angsty 14 year old trying to be edgy
Luis Walker
>let's obviously brag about not reading books and discuss our hot opinions: the thread wew immense levels of teenage faggotry up in here. I think it's gone past that time I had to watch Clueless for a class on Austen, because most of the class did watch the movie iirc.
Wyatt Morgan
Fascism, especially fascism nowadays, is the casual filter for IQ. You just fucking KNOW that modern fascists have no grasp of philosophy, (how could they when most philosophical and academic currents since the 1600s have tended towards anti-establishment views?), almost always fucking hate books (justified with 'academia is joooooos'), etc. etc.
Hudson Morris
if they are using mitochondrial dna to link him to africa that is pretty disingenuous
and hitler was half jewish via the maternal line anyway right
idk that newspaper prtsc can't be trusted to give the facts
Tyler Perez
face it, hitler was a gay nigger jew
Dominic Evans
>implying i'm a fascist >implying zizek isn't garbage >implying implications
Colton Reyes
I'm not a fascist but
>You just fucking KNOW that modern fascists have no grasp of philosophy, Sweeping generalization >how could they when most philosophical and academic currents since the 1600s have tended towards anti-establishment views? Appeal to authority >almost always fucking hate books (justified with 'academia is joooooos'), Sweeping inaccurate generalization
It's easy to win fake arguments when you make strawmen big enough to stand in the upper stratosphere
Juan Hernandez
Hitler makes a lot more sense when you consider the possibility he was autistic, and the fact he was constsntly on meth. Both lend one towards uncompromising brutal social views.
if they don't have a critical response they eschew the argument for logic games
im not the user you responded to but his post was structured exactly like 99 percent of the garbage found on pol yet it still carried more insight into his stance than your 'i'm not a faggot but let me just defend faggotry' defense
if you had actual rebuttals say them. there's a difference between being logical and being sound. if you want to argue about ' ''''''winning''''' fake arguments ' using logic points go the whole fucking way and present to me why fascism is both logical and sound, otherwise stfu and stop acting like an effeminate bitch
>Mein Kampf gets released but comes heavily annotated by progressive scholars >Veeky Forums finally wants to start discussing the book but they only parrot those same exact criticisms
Interesting
Aiden Price
Liberalism is far from Marxism, "cultural" or otherwise - Marxism by definition is against capitalism, while mere liberalism sees no problem with it.
(Pictured: liberalism).
Cooper Gray
Zizek is not a progressive, but a communist, and did not write annotations to Mein Kampf.
Charles Anderson
Liberalism IS fundamental doctrine of capitalism.
Chase Robinson
>mixing liberalism with marxism somebody needs to hit the books
Nicholas James
Funfact: pic related is a purebred Anglo with no known Jewish ancestry
Gabriel Clark
Pic related: another Anglo
Josiah Turner
Hibernian.
John Perry
>Austrian corporal falls for Russian memes, kills millions
Mason Nguyen
more proof
Aiden Thomas
Nope, she's a Baguette-Bong.
Josiah Scott
keep telling that to yourself, sassenach
Benjamin Sanchez
>anglo-saxon purity >after 1066 sure
Chase Mitchell
nice self fellating image, perfectly suits the circlejerking echo chamber that is /leftypol/, where you should fuck off back to
William Cooper
Only 7% of English have Norman DNA nigger
Jaxon Myers
You clearly have not reaf mein kampf, he gives his actual reasons there.
Robert Johnson
You're on a literature board, brainlet.
Joseph Cruz
this is some spergy shit op
Gabriel Miller
There actually smart people on /pol/ though. It's the second biggest board, so it's bound to have a lot of retards.
Angel Turner
What's a leftypol?
Jacob Smith
Have you even read Mein Kampf, OP? Mein Kampf is far from /pol/'s bible, /pol/ is simply a cesspool of white supremacists, racists and sometimes relaxed social conservatives that got into politics because of Trump.
I won't even bother to read your blabber because it doesn't even make sense.
