I once found a specimen on the bulky waste, cut it properly.I think people’s curiosity is understandable, because the book offers a lot of insight into the thinking of the Antichrist in persona.
My conclusion: Unbearable Schmonzes.
This is such a confused chatter.Of course, one should not expect scientific work, but it should have its hands and feet. Instead, one gets an in-itself illogical sequence of unfounded opinions. And this is not only due to the language (if one reads texts from the time, one knows that the statements that are irrational with imprecise terms and from today’s point of view are only so swarming), but also because of the “logic” of his thoughts and haunting assertions, which even then are not up to date. which he does not derive anywhere.
“Each crossing of two not quite the same high beings gives as a product a middle thing between the height of the two parents.This means that the boy will be higher than the racially lower half of the parent couple, not as high as the higher one on their own. Consequently, it will be subject to higher ones in the fight against this higher one. Such mating, however, contradicts nature’s will to breed life in general. The prerequisite for this is not the connection of the higher and the inferior, but the complete victory of the former. The stronger must rule and not merge with the weaker in order to sacrifice one’s own greatness. Only the born weakling can find this cruel, but he is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of all organic living beings would be unthinkable.”
This is probably called squadroning.
Basically, the regular table speeches of a semi-educated person, who consists of semi-understood scientific (or pseudo-scientific – the reference to social Darwinism is unmistakable) theories, are a world view that corresponds to what the Hysterical.All references are very much on the surface, so I doubt that Hitler actually read texts on evolution, for example. The flattening has something of hearsay or regular table philosophizing.
He forges an ideology that purports to be based on biological facts; However, this has nothing to do with scientifically comprehensible concepts of evolution, hence the rapid recourse to “nature” and its “will”.Here we are in the religious rather than the scientific field, but the language gesture proclaims empirically giving truths: the world is bent in such a way that it corresponds to the emotional life of the author.
Basically, the book is a psychogram of Hitler.
The dangerous thing about the book, I see, is that it appeals to the reader on a preconscious level.If one does not feel directly repulsed by the language, the text develops its own logic, as long as one does not take it apart sentence by sentence. Then there is not much left – but who is doing it? I fear that someone who thinks just as irrationally as Hitler feels well addressed by the text. And that a rational picking of the text does not reach this reader at all.
As long as people think that one thing is ethically justified just because they feel good about it, in all their dark desires, I see in this text (and other similar) a danger.This is like direct democracy, which could be a great thing if people have the necessary non-tendentious information and discuss the subject objectively in a symmetrical communication until the best solution is to be resolved. Emerged. If this is not the case, the result may be that women do not have the right to vote and Jews are locked up in ghettos.