Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler
Chapter 2 - Part 3
by Richard E. Noble
“…The leader who has to give up the platform of his general view of life because he has found that it is wrong... must for all future times renounce at least all public political activity…”
This is another big part of the Adolf philosophy. He leaves very little room for error. The problem here is not that one should or would resign when he is found in error, but that he would simply deny being in error in the first place. Adolf may have inherited some of this attitude from his Catholic upbringing. Later on, in this book, he admits to admiring the principle of the Pope’s infallibility.
I think here again it is not so important to Adolf to be right as it is to be adamant and decisive. Later on in his description of a good military commander he expresses the opinion that a good commander should never be afraid to give his commands decisively and firmly, and should never, ever waver in giving a command for fear that it may be wrong. Right or wrong, it is only, or most important, that a leader be decisive. Right or wrong, be bold, firm, and authoritative. This is a virtue understood only by the militarily inclined as far as I can see; and it does seem to be a tenant of all military principles of leadership. It is also another one of those animalistic impulses ... as the predator can smell fear, the masses will instinctively interpret indecisiveness as a lack of conviction, and an inability to lead. Adolf is very, very concerned with the principles of leadership.
“Apart from the trash of the modern development of art, which might just as well have been produced by a Negro race, the German was the sole owner and propagator of a truly artistic mind.”
Again, another one of those blanket statements where he slurs one category of people while bestowing undefendable attributes upon what he considers his own kind. This is almost too narrow and bigoted a statement to discuss but be it suffice to say that in the world of arts, entertainment, and music the black community has without doubt struck a chord that rings loud and true throughout the entire culture of our present world.
“I had always hated the parliament, yet not at all as an institution in itself. On the contrary, as a liberal thinking man I could not imagine any other possible form of government, for my attitude against the house of Hapsburg being what it was, I would have considered any kind of dictatorship a crime against all liberty and reason...”
This is beginning to appear as a technique to me. First state how you had always been a loyal supporter of something and then go on to give your case for defecting. At first I supported so-and-so or such-and-such until then I found out that he or they beat their wives, and molested their own children. I suppose that this is a standard technique used by all of us. It also could be that Adolf did not consider Monarchy as a form of dictatorship. Nevertheless, he explains to us that he is a loyal patriot in his heart. We could assume that he became “an accidental dictator” – he would much rather have become Germany’s King.
“… Parliament makes a decision the consequences of which may be ever so devastating --- nobody is responsible for it, nobody can ever be called to account ... Is it at all possible to make a wavering majority of people ever responsible?… Is not the very idea of responsibility closely connected with the individual? Is it practically possible to make the leading person of a government liable for actions, the development and execution of which are to be laid exclusively to the account of the will and the inclination of a large number of men? Or must not the task of the leading statesman be seen in the birth of a creative idea or plan in itself, rather than in the ability to make the ingenuity of his plans understandable to a flock of sheep and empty-heads for the purpose of begging for their gracious consent? ...”
And if after World War II, we were able to capture Adolf Hitler, how do we meet the demands of justice or proper responsible leadership and make him accountable for the horrors that he was directly or indirectly responsible? How do we make any government accountable and responsible for its devastating policies? Even if we stand him and all his supporters up against a wall and shoot them, how does this satisfy for the millions that were slaughtered because of Adolf’s mistaken ideas? Adolf seems to be saying that one head is better than two. Again, this may appeal to the emotional and those impatient to get things done their way, but that it is the best method for the governance of a people goes exactly contrary to the evolution of Western Civilization, and possibly all civilizations and governments as we know them.
Adolf s evaluation of the survival of the fittest does not apply to humans and individuals as far as I can see. One strong man is burnt at the stake by fifty weaklings. Ten strong men can be overpowered by one wise man and two hundred children. The strongest, acting as an individual, does not survive in human evolution. The group survives. Looking at the history of the human race, it does seem that it is not really the survival of the fittest but the survival of the most vicious, most dominant, the most determined to have their way at whatever the cost to the race as a whole. It certainly isn’t the survival of the smartest, or the kindest or the most loving. One might make a case for the survival of the mightiest, but this would be the mightiest in terms of power and number, certainly not the strongest individual.
When we look at governments and political systems what has survived is cooperative efforts of numbers, not individuals. Every government of every type that we have today is a conglomerate of individuals working together in some fashion. I don’t think that we have even one government that is a one man show today. All governments are interspersed with some form of democratic participation. Not that this participation is universal or representative of all of the people of any nation. Even Adolf didn’t rule his nation by himself. Without the support of millions of his countrymen he would have gone nowhere. So Adolf’s one strong man theory is a pure fantasy as far as I can see. It may sound good to those who have a problem with confusion or dissension, or who think that it is better to have the whole world march off in the wrong direction, than in no direction. But without any doubt it is often better to take no action, than act incorrectly. On the battlefield it may often be better to take any action as opposed to no action for the safety and preservation of ones individual life, but even this will not hold up for the army as a whole.
The world that we have today may in fact be due to the survival of the meanest and the ugliest; a world of Cane as opposed to the world of Able. A stronger dumb ape can kill the most brilliant man in the world (Archimedes). The most belligerent, hostile societies may have been destroying the most loving and gentile societies for centuries. How would we ever know? We being the products of the victors and not the prodigy of the annihilated?