I read the autobiographical part where he describes his radicalization. At some point it’s about politics and that’s where he lost me (I mean the beginning is also about politics but you know what I mean)
And honestly it’s just bad story telling. It’s the same plot over and over again. He’s sympathetic and interested towards a group, be it Jews, Bolsheviks, social democrats, I think unions as well but I’m unsure. Than he encounters them, talks to them, reads newspapers both from and against them, and after considering both sides comes to the conclusion we all know.
My personal impression is that he didn’t radicalize in the period he describes (after being rejected from art school and living more or less on the street) but while writing the book. The book reads like a reenforcement more than a report. Reusing the same trope isn’t plausible. This can’t be the whole story either because the wrote it in jail and he wasn’t there for nothing.
The thing is that the “do your own research” folks use the aesthetics of critical thinking to spread misinformation and thought terminating clichés to promote their view as unquestionable facts. I, on the other hand, gave my impression after being asked to and made it explicit that it doesn’t really add up. If you see other parallels, go ahead, share them. If it’s really only the aesthetics, maybe rethink what the problem is.
Oh no what I meant was how Hitler apparently looking at both sides and then came up with the horrific conclusions feel eerily similar to how people nowadays claim to have “done the research” and come up with some bullshit.
My comment was not intended to insult you in any way. Sorry if it came out that way. In fact, I think it’s impressive that you picked it up to study it because I certainly couldn’t handle it.
That’s an interesting point. As you said, that’s not all there is to it—after all, he was in prison for attempting a coup. However, your hypothesis that he got more radical over the duration of his sentence sounds plausible to me. If you’re stuck with your own thoughts and nothing to occupy your mind with, you create your own echo chamber in your mind. That’s part of the reason why I’m all for rehabilitation of prisoners.
I read the autobiographical part where he describes his radicalization. At some point it’s about politics and that’s where he lost me (I mean the beginning is also about politics but you know what I mean)
And honestly it’s just bad story telling. It’s the same plot over and over again. He’s sympathetic and interested towards a group, be it Jews, Bolsheviks, social democrats, I think unions as well but I’m unsure. Than he encounters them, talks to them, reads newspapers both from and against them, and after considering both sides comes to the conclusion we all know.
My personal impression is that he didn’t radicalize in the period he describes (after being rejected from art school and living more or less on the street) but while writing the book. The book reads like a reenforcement more than a report. Reusing the same trope isn’t plausible. This can’t be the whole story either because the wrote it in jail and he wasn’t there for nothing.
It sounds exactly like the current “do your own research” bullshit.
When your problem is how it looks, well…
The thing is that the “do your own research” folks use the aesthetics of critical thinking to spread misinformation and thought terminating clichés to promote their view as unquestionable facts. I, on the other hand, gave my impression after being asked to and made it explicit that it doesn’t really add up. If you see other parallels, go ahead, share them. If it’s really only the aesthetics, maybe rethink what the problem is.
Oh no what I meant was how Hitler apparently looking at both sides and then came up with the horrific conclusions feel eerily similar to how people nowadays claim to have “done the research” and come up with some bullshit.
My comment was not intended to insult you in any way. Sorry if it came out that way. In fact, I think it’s impressive that you picked it up to study it because I certainly couldn’t handle it.
Ah, now I get it. In that case thanks 😊
True, I think it’s no coincidence that these people most often end up on the same end of the political spectrum as he did.
That’s an interesting point. As you said, that’s not all there is to it—after all, he was in prison for attempting a coup. However, your hypothesis that he got more radical over the duration of his sentence sounds plausible to me. If you’re stuck with your own thoughts and nothing to occupy your mind with, you create your own echo chamber in your mind. That’s part of the reason why I’m all for rehabilitation of prisoners.