They're probably not a Libertarian. I realize you grew up impoverished but that's no excuse to allow your education to languish. If you're actually interested in learning something then I'm more than happy to spend almost any reasonable amount of time assisting you while learn what a Libertarian is, what we believe, why we believe it, and how we'd go about implementing change. They are probably an anarcho-capitalist, Republican, neo-Conservative, or a Laissez Faire Capitalist with any one of a number of political ideologies.
I'll give you a couple of hints:
Ayn Rand was not very bright. Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.
I understand that you're angry and probably haven't met any/many Libertarians. This is your chance to overcome that and to be less angry. You'd probably dismiss this but, I'm a Libertarian and have been involved with the party for about 40 years. I firmly believe that I could stand to pay more in taxes. I have no problem with a social safety net. I don't care who you sleep with. I believe in protecting both the commons and the populace against abusive business practices. I like the environment and think we should take reasonable precautions to avoid causing problems. I'm a "Secular Buddhist" who doesn't care what gods you believe in or not and have no right to make you believe or profess to believe anything. I dislike abuse, from any person or group of persons (not just those who have power). My ideal is you being able to make use of your freedoms to best take advantage of your liberties by securing the rights to do so and enabling people to attain those ends in a safe, logical, and beneficial manner.
If you need help or need clarification, I will absolutely certainly do everything in my power - including taking my most precious asset, which is time, and give it to you to help you understand that which you profess to hate. There's an extremely high likelihood, and I've had this conversation a hundred times, that you're of a very similar mind to my own. Hating me is probably much like hating yourself. I am a Libertarian because I have everything I need and I want you to enjoy the same. Not only that, I'm willing to help you get it and have made quite a bit of inroads in those areas.
The choice is, of course, your's to make. I'm getting old and my time is getting shorter. I'll give you some of what I have left if it helps you learn. Feel free to ask, literally, anything. Or, if you prefer, feel free to ask nothing at all. At one point in time, Libertarians were considered the "loony left." People have been pretty willing to accept propaganda (for lack of a better term) from both ends of the spectrum as they vie to maintain the status quo that is the two party system.
I am a fairly well known Libertarian. There's another who identified themselves as such in this thread. Those are the only two that I know of - though two others have posted, I'll let them name themselves or not, who identify as having a semi-Libertarian bent. All of us have clearly indicated a support for access to education by means of taxation. Two of us have questioned the validity of turning the education system into an exclusively for-profit endeavor. None of us have suggested removing access. None of us have used a derogatory (pejorative, really) acronym.
I can not speak for the gamergate people - I'm not entirely familiar with them nor do I pay attention to who sides on which side and who believes what or professes to believe what. It is of no concern to me and I'm too busy recollecting past statements from other users that are of more significance. Yes, i actually *do* look at the username of the poster and that sometimes sticks with me - especially if it is of things that interest me.
As the other identifies themselves as such, you can CTRL + F and search for "firethorn" and that's the other who identifies themselves. The others have either disclosed it in private or have opted to not mention it here. Some research will reveal them, if you wish.
Perhaps you should meet a Libertarian instead of believing the caricature is true? Instead of allowing someone else to paint you a picture, perhaps you can look yourself? Granted, we do have our share of lunatics in the party, the same can be said for most any group of people and, I admit, our lunatics are a special sort of stupid. The are not in the majority, they're just noisy and usually get the most attention because of this.
People see them as bad because it's costing them money *now* and they're incapable (or unwilling) to see that it will cost them less *later.* These are the same people who have no savings, live on credit, and don't want things like health insurance. At least I suspect there's a strong overlap. This ties in with an earlier comment that I made to you - the question is, where are the lines drawn and how do we do that fairly and honestly - honesty with ourselves about benefits and risks.
This is probably going to offend someone but I think we really do need to have this conversation as a society...
Do we really need to put some of the special needs students into classes and warehouse them in schools when, realistically speaking, they're never going to be able to benefit from that time? There are kids who are never, ever, going to have any hope at making use of their time spent in a school. They are physically and mentally handicapped. They require things like one-on-one attention and can't go to the bathroom, never mind feed themselves or even form a coherent sentence. They are, and this isn't very nice to say but is the truth, very expensive to maintain.
It's not politically correct to acknowledge this but we need to have this conversation. Those resources could be much better applied and we have a finite number of resources. (I'd agree that we should provide greater resources but I'd still argue that we should consider using those new resources wisely.)
When the kid is, literally, unable to function and unable to learn (through no fault of their own - I'm certainly not blaming the kids) then why are we not just spending money trying to educate them but throwing a whole ton of money at that process when the chances of success are nearly nil? To what end are we throwing those resources at this problem? Is there a better way?
I ask you because I've seen enough of your comments to know that you might actually have some insight that I'm missing. I am not a heartless bastard, it'd be less expensive to send them to an amusement park all day and they'd probably enjoy it more. It'd also be a great deal less distracting to the other students. What other options do we have, is anyone considering them, and have we collected any data to support this idea that everyone has a right to education - regardless of the cost and benefits? There surely, absolutely, must be a line - somewhere - that we can draw and say, "This far and no further." Where that line is, is not up to me. But I think we might want to consider it and consider its placement regardless of how many it might offend.
Actually... Sort of... There was a study that recently announced their findings which indicated that poverty (and thus hunger) correlated overwhelmingly to poor scholastic results and, oddly, that this was most drastically seen in the US. More study needs to be done but, for some reason, yup. In fact, it was on Slashdot, like two weeks ago. I confess, I only read the summary and the thread but it's rather interesting and, frankly, we've no idea why there is such a drastic disparity.
I attended a private school, not because my family had great wealth but because a friend and I had torched his father's garage and the car inside it. It turned out quite well. You can Google Kents Hill for more information. We didn't just have a ski slope and ice arena, we had an observatory, main frame, and things like the HP 9100. Alas, I was not into computers at the time - I thought they were a waste of time and effort. I hated learning to do the punch cards for the 9100 and kept losing the magnetic strip cards. The plotter was kind of neat.
At any rate, not everyone can get that sort of access and I was very fortunate. Some anonymous person has enabled a scholarship trust for students who have a technological bent. That anonymous person would probably be quite honored if some Slashdotter's kids were able to attend because of that. Hell, I'll take the first step and get this link for you:
Alas, they no longer have a rifle and pistol club. However, the scholarships mentioned include a stipend to ensure the student is able to "fit in" with their peers who are often from quite wealthy backgrounds. That enables a full participation.
Somewhere, in the dark recesses of the Pentagon, lies a filing cabinet. Inside that filing cabinet are plans, updated from time to time, about how to attack or what to do in the event of an attack. In there, are things like assessments of power and capacity to wage war.
That said, we have plans to invade Canada and counter-plans with responses of what to do when Canadians zerg-rush the border of Maine to steal their maple syrup, foliage, and blueberries.
I presume that AC is unfamiliar with your posting history and style. Very few of your comments are opinions that don't seem grounded on a whole bunch of numbers, history, and logic. In other words, you're generally able and willing to support anything you've said with actual data as opposed to "generally accepted wisdom" or the likes. If they're unwilling to bring a bunch of data to the debate, I'm unsure why they'd bother.
Thanks. I only know of three versions. The original that's supposed to have some of her sexual thoughts, the one I read in school, and the one that a history student was reading that had been annotated by someone - I've only read the one.
I am the opposite and seldom post as AC (unless I ran out of posts). Why? Because I want to be held accountable for what I said. I said it, I own it. Do I make mistakes? Absolutely. I learn from them. I try to not make them a second time.
I appreciate that I can post as AC and I opt not to. I'd never want to stop others from being allowed to do so. I just like to learn from my mistakes and find that being accountable for them is the best way for me to do that. So, I post signed in which leaves a record of my mundane gibberish posting history.
About a week ago, on this site, I managed to be accused of being an SJW and a right-winger in different replies to the same comment that I'd made. Oh - and I guess I'm gay - that's what they tell me at any rate. So, I'm a gay, SJW, right-winger. Me...
I must admit, I was kind of proud to get all those labels in one go.
I think you'll find the paratroopers were Belgium and that the Maginot Line was kinda defeated mostly by Germany coming in from the opposite direction - they went up and around, through the low countries, and stomped south in to France. It was the other line, the Belgian fort things whose name I've forgotten, that they landed the paratroopers and gliders on - if I'm recalling the many documentaries properly. They were strange looking things and some of them landed, literally, atop them. I'm pretty sure that's Belgium.
I'm not sure if that's what you're saying and you're just saying it oddly or not. You precede it with, specifically, referencing the Maginot Line so I'm not entirely sure if you're saying what I am saying and just saying it poorly (or my comprehension is poor) or if you're conflating the two.
Bigoted they may be and I'm inclined to agree with you but they did mention "radical." In those regards, they may well be right. You'll notice, they did not say "Muslims." They did not say, "Arabs." They didn't even say "people from the Middle East" or "those people." They did call them "loony liberals" which is a bit silly.
Interestingly enough, a number of historians speculate that if the Allies had acted when Germany first attacked Poland that the war could have been ended right there (assuming Stalin didn't get involved - he wanted his half of Poland, after all). France had better tanks and, properly managed, they could have stomped up through and taken care of Germany pretty handily with the aid of the RAF.
Now, that's both speculation and hindsight - take it with a grain of salt. Consider also that I can't actually find any specific criteria to self-identify as a historian, though publishing a book does seem to be a mainstay. Again, a grain of salt is needed. I have published two books and have a passing interest in history. I suppose it's time to call myself a historian and speculate that if Hitler had the power of aliens he'd have ruled the planet inside of three months.
But, in all seriousness, there are a few who seem to believe that the war could have been all but negated at a very early stage. Another point where they seem inclined to think a difference would have been made is if France had kept its armored divisions together instead of dispersed like traditional cavalry. France had better tanks than Germany and an adequate air force but they'd have also had the aid of the RAF and whatever light armor the Brits could have moved across the channel (which was quite a bit - they lost it all at Dunkirk).
Sweet - thanks. I've favorited this so I can take a look later. I did just order two of those Up Boards. They look really nice. They're a little pricey for what they are but I don't mind. They have a lot of the work done for me for a different project that I have in mind. Meh, something to keep me busy. I'm probably going to winter here in Florida though we may head off to Henderson, NV after a little while. It depends on if we get bored or restless. I've a small ranch out there that I've not been to in almost three years. I also like some table games - I never play the house.
There's a small, but reasonable, argument to be made specifically in regards to this book. Hitler authored (perhaps - there's some credence to the theory that he was not exclusively the author) this book whilst he sat in prison. Well, it was sort of a prison. He had things like guests and quite a bit of freedom but we'll ignore that for now.
Here's the important part:
This book sold like hotcakes. In fact, it made him (and thus the Party) quite a bit of money. This money enabled him to do many things, during his ascent to power. This book also gave him additional fame - fame he might not have had without this book. This book was a significant part of his rise to power, as a contributing factor.
Two reasonable conclusions to make:
This does not, by any means, suggest that I'm advocating censorship of this material - surely you would not think so poorly of me, I hope. There's some chance, however small, that things might not have gone quite the same way had Hitler never published this book.
Those are the only conclusions that I'm willing to draw. Anything else is speculation and I am not a qualified historian. It is true, however, that the party was kind of well funded prior to this book's publication but Hitler, himself, was not - he also really wasn't that famous outside of his circle until after this book's publication. The book was quit a hit and generated a lot of money for both the publishing house(s) and Hitler.
It's not entirely erroneous to speculate that things may have been different without the *publication* of Mein Kampf. As I think you were saying, it is entirely incorrect to speculate that the *material* in the book was even a major contributing factor to the war. On that we agree. in fact, we mostly agree already - I am pretty sure I'm mostly just adding to what you said.
Where do you live that the book is not published? I have an English translation and a copy in its original plastic shrinkwrap from some Soviet Union print shop. I have skimmed parts of the former and, obviously, never opened the latter. I bought it from a collector friend and got a copy of Anna Karenina in the same style of wrapping from him at the same time - though, oddly, I think that one is in German - it's two books and both are wrapped in much the same as the first and in very good condition though the plastic is aged and a bit worn.
Oh, I live in the US. I can get books like that if I want. It's not actually an issue with the government or anything. I don't even imagine that my owning it has put me on any watch lists or anything. Hell, I've even had security clearance with that same government. Whilst there were a bunch of invasive questions on that form, I don't recall them asking if I'd read or owned a copy of the book. At the time, however, I'd have been able to truthfully answer in the negative.
Meh... I'm mixed racially, certainly not a skinhead or a Nazi, and I've read it. I even read it while I was still a teen. I did a report on it for a history class. The teacher was, shall we say, right pissed but she was unbiased in her grading. We had a *discussion* about what was and what was not appropriate material to present for in-class reports. That would be the same year I did an entire oral biology report on a sperm whale's penis. It was a rebellious year. It was the early 1970s, it's what we did.
Nah, once you get past the title (and cover) of Bernie's book (something about the decline of the middle class - I don't have a copy here) it's not bad. Back home, I have a signed copy and a copy that I've actually read. Err... Actually? Someone may have borrowed the latter - I'm not sure. If so then I guess I still own it and it will probably find its way home eventually. Chances are, the damned thing will return with friends.
Somehow, I get almost all the loaned books back and they often come back in a bag with a few tag-a-longs that seem to think I run a home for wayward books. There's probably some sort of law of attraction not entirely dissimilar to gravity.
How did she do "her own later edit?" That dirty Australian who wrote the book about His Comfy Chair had her killed!
No, seriously, how did she do a later edit? I read the book a long, long time ago and I'm pretty sure (spoiler alert!) she doesn't survive. I, obviously, know nothing about this later version (I read it in the 1960s) but I understand it has some juicy bits. It seems even a night of broken glass can not take away a young girl's libido. Well, so I'm told - I never actually read that part. I seem to recall she was killed by kangaroos or something. Everything in Australia's deadly!
There are all sorts of books that are, for better or worse, copyrighted because they've been translated, annotated, or significantly edited in some fashion. This does not, of course, justify copyright lasting this long but there is precedent.
of course nobody starts with an infinite sequence of words
I know you're not new here but I must ask... Have you not seen my posts when I am bored or have a Grandpa Tale to tell? Pfft... Infinite sentences, indeed!
Slashdot Mirror
They're probably not a Libertarian. I realize you grew up impoverished but that's no excuse to allow your education to languish. If you're actually interested in learning something then I'm more than happy to spend almost any reasonable amount of time assisting you while learn what a Libertarian is, what we believe, why we believe it, and how we'd go about implementing change. They are probably an anarcho-capitalist, Republican, neo-Conservative, or a Laissez Faire Capitalist with any one of a number of political ideologies.
I'll give you a couple of hints:
Ayn Rand was not very bright.
Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.
I understand that you're angry and probably haven't met any/many Libertarians. This is your chance to overcome that and to be less angry. You'd probably dismiss this but, I'm a Libertarian and have been involved with the party for about 40 years. I firmly believe that I could stand to pay more in taxes. I have no problem with a social safety net. I don't care who you sleep with. I believe in protecting both the commons and the populace against abusive business practices. I like the environment and think we should take reasonable precautions to avoid causing problems. I'm a "Secular Buddhist" who doesn't care what gods you believe in or not and have no right to make you believe or profess to believe anything. I dislike abuse, from any person or group of persons (not just those who have power). My ideal is you being able to make use of your freedoms to best take advantage of your liberties by securing the rights to do so and enabling people to attain those ends in a safe, logical, and beneficial manner.
If you need help or need clarification, I will absolutely certainly do everything in my power - including taking my most precious asset, which is time, and give it to you to help you understand that which you profess to hate. There's an extremely high likelihood, and I've had this conversation a hundred times, that you're of a very similar mind to my own. Hating me is probably much like hating yourself. I am a Libertarian because I have everything I need and I want you to enjoy the same. Not only that, I'm willing to help you get it and have made quite a bit of inroads in those areas.
The choice is, of course, your's to make. I'm getting old and my time is getting shorter. I'll give you some of what I have left if it helps you learn. Feel free to ask, literally, anything. Or, if you prefer, feel free to ask nothing at all. At one point in time, Libertarians were considered the "loony left." People have been pretty willing to accept propaganda (for lack of a better term) from both ends of the spectrum as they vie to maintain the status quo that is the two party system.
I am a fairly well known Libertarian. There's another who identified themselves as such in this thread. Those are the only two that I know of - though two others have posted, I'll let them name themselves or not, who identify as having a semi-Libertarian bent. All of us have clearly indicated a support for access to education by means of taxation. Two of us have questioned the validity of turning the education system into an exclusively for-profit endeavor. None of us have suggested removing access. None of us have used a derogatory (pejorative, really) acronym.
I can not speak for the gamergate people - I'm not entirely familiar with them nor do I pay attention to who sides on which side and who believes what or professes to believe what. It is of no concern to me and I'm too busy recollecting past statements from other users that are of more significance. Yes, i actually *do* look at the username of the poster and that sometimes sticks with me - especially if it is of things that interest me.
As the other identifies themselves as such, you can CTRL + F and search for "firethorn" and that's the other who identifies themselves. The others have either disclosed it in private or have opted to not mention it here. Some research will reveal them, if you wish.
Perhaps you should meet a Libertarian instead of believing the caricature is true? Instead of allowing someone else to paint you a picture, perhaps you can look yourself? Granted, we do have our share of lunatics in the party, the same can be said for most any group of people and, I admit, our lunatics are a special sort of stupid. The are not in the majority, they're just noisy and usually get the most attention because of this.
People see them as bad because it's costing them money *now* and they're incapable (or unwilling) to see that it will cost them less *later.* These are the same people who have no savings, live on credit, and don't want things like health insurance. At least I suspect there's a strong overlap. This ties in with an earlier comment that I made to you - the question is, where are the lines drawn and how do we do that fairly and honestly - honesty with ourselves about benefits and risks.
This is probably going to offend someone but I think we really do need to have this conversation as a society...
Do we really need to put some of the special needs students into classes and warehouse them in schools when, realistically speaking, they're never going to be able to benefit from that time? There are kids who are never, ever, going to have any hope at making use of their time spent in a school. They are physically and mentally handicapped. They require things like one-on-one attention and can't go to the bathroom, never mind feed themselves or even form a coherent sentence. They are, and this isn't very nice to say but is the truth, very expensive to maintain.
It's not politically correct to acknowledge this but we need to have this conversation. Those resources could be much better applied and we have a finite number of resources. (I'd agree that we should provide greater resources but I'd still argue that we should consider using those new resources wisely.)
When the kid is, literally, unable to function and unable to learn (through no fault of their own - I'm certainly not blaming the kids) then why are we not just spending money trying to educate them but throwing a whole ton of money at that process when the chances of success are nearly nil? To what end are we throwing those resources at this problem? Is there a better way?
I ask you because I've seen enough of your comments to know that you might actually have some insight that I'm missing. I am not a heartless bastard, it'd be less expensive to send them to an amusement park all day and they'd probably enjoy it more. It'd also be a great deal less distracting to the other students. What other options do we have, is anyone considering them, and have we collected any data to support this idea that everyone has a right to education - regardless of the cost and benefits? There surely, absolutely, must be a line - somewhere - that we can draw and say, "This far and no further." Where that line is, is not up to me. But I think we might want to consider it and consider its placement regardless of how many it might offend.
Actually... Sort of... There was a study that recently announced their findings which indicated that poverty (and thus hunger) correlated overwhelmingly to poor scholastic results and, oddly, that this was most drastically seen in the US. More study needs to be done but, for some reason, yup. In fact, it was on Slashdot, like two weeks ago. I confess, I only read the summary and the thread but it's rather interesting and, frankly, we've no idea why there is such a drastic disparity.
I attended a private school, not because my family had great wealth but because a friend and I had torched his father's garage and the car inside it. It turned out quite well. You can Google Kents Hill for more information. We didn't just have a ski slope and ice arena, we had an observatory, main frame, and things like the HP 9100. Alas, I was not into computers at the time - I thought they were a waste of time and effort. I hated learning to do the punch cards for the 9100 and kept losing the magnetic strip cards. The plotter was kind of neat.
At any rate, not everyone can get that sort of access and I was very fortunate. Some anonymous person has enabled a scholarship trust for students who have a technological bent. That anonymous person would probably be quite honored if some Slashdotter's kids were able to attend because of that. Hell, I'll take the first step and get this link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Alas, they no longer have a rifle and pistol club. However, the scholarships mentioned include a stipend to ensure the student is able to "fit in" with their peers who are often from quite wealthy backgrounds. That enables a full participation.
What's more amazing is that it was asleep. :/
Sadly, English is my native language.
Somewhere, in the dark recesses of the Pentagon, lies a filing cabinet. Inside that filing cabinet are plans, updated from time to time, about how to attack or what to do in the event of an attack. In there, are things like assessments of power and capacity to wage war.
That said, we have plans to invade Canada and counter-plans with responses of what to do when Canadians zerg-rush the border of Maine to steal their maple syrup, foliage, and blueberries.
I presume that AC is unfamiliar with your posting history and style. Very few of your comments are opinions that don't seem grounded on a whole bunch of numbers, history, and logic. In other words, you're generally able and willing to support anything you've said with actual data as opposed to "generally accepted wisdom" or the likes. If they're unwilling to bring a bunch of data to the debate, I'm unsure why they'd bother.
Thanks. I only know of three versions. The original that's supposed to have some of her sexual thoughts, the one I read in school, and the one that a history student was reading that had been annotated by someone - I've only read the one.
I am the opposite and seldom post as AC (unless I ran out of posts). Why? Because I want to be held accountable for what I said. I said it, I own it. Do I make mistakes? Absolutely. I learn from them. I try to not make them a second time.
I appreciate that I can post as AC and I opt not to. I'd never want to stop others from being allowed to do so. I just like to learn from my mistakes and find that being accountable for them is the best way for me to do that. So, I post signed in which leaves a record of my mundane gibberish posting history.
About a week ago, on this site, I managed to be accused of being an SJW and a right-winger in different replies to the same comment that I'd made. Oh - and I guess I'm gay - that's what they tell me at any rate. So, I'm a gay, SJW, right-winger. Me...
I must admit, I was kind of proud to get all those labels in one go.
I think you'll find the paratroopers were Belgium and that the Maginot Line was kinda defeated mostly by Germany coming in from the opposite direction - they went up and around, through the low countries, and stomped south in to France. It was the other line, the Belgian fort things whose name I've forgotten, that they landed the paratroopers and gliders on - if I'm recalling the many documentaries properly. They were strange looking things and some of them landed, literally, atop them. I'm pretty sure that's Belgium.
I'm not sure if that's what you're saying and you're just saying it oddly or not. You precede it with, specifically, referencing the Maginot Line so I'm not entirely sure if you're saying what I am saying and just saying it poorly (or my comprehension is poor) or if you're conflating the two.
Bigoted they may be and I'm inclined to agree with you but they did mention "radical." In those regards, they may well be right. You'll notice, they did not say "Muslims." They did not say, "Arabs." They didn't even say "people from the Middle East" or "those people." They did call them "loony liberals" which is a bit silly.
Interestingly enough, a number of historians speculate that if the Allies had acted when Germany first attacked Poland that the war could have been ended right there (assuming Stalin didn't get involved - he wanted his half of Poland, after all). France had better tanks and, properly managed, they could have stomped up through and taken care of Germany pretty handily with the aid of the RAF.
Now, that's both speculation and hindsight - take it with a grain of salt. Consider also that I can't actually find any specific criteria to self-identify as a historian, though publishing a book does seem to be a mainstay. Again, a grain of salt is needed. I have published two books and have a passing interest in history. I suppose it's time to call myself a historian and speculate that if Hitler had the power of aliens he'd have ruled the planet inside of three months.
But, in all seriousness, there are a few who seem to believe that the war could have been all but negated at a very early stage. Another point where they seem inclined to think a difference would have been made is if France had kept its armored divisions together instead of dispersed like traditional cavalry. France had better tanks than Germany and an adequate air force but they'd have also had the aid of the RAF and whatever light armor the Brits could have moved across the channel (which was quite a bit - they lost it all at Dunkirk).
Sweet - thanks. I've favorited this so I can take a look later. I did just order two of those Up Boards. They look really nice. They're a little pricey for what they are but I don't mind. They have a lot of the work done for me for a different project that I have in mind. Meh, something to keep me busy. I'm probably going to winter here in Florida though we may head off to Henderson, NV after a little while. It depends on if we get bored or restless. I've a small ranch out there that I've not been to in almost three years. I also like some table games - I never play the house.
For amusement, you should read "Another Roadside Attraction" by Tom Robbins.
You want to outlaw books of a certain nature? While I don't normally entirely agree with you - I don't normally completely disagree with you.
This is a first. I'm sure I needn't write a novella as to why. If I have to then, well, that's a second time. Go home unixisc, you're drunk.
There's a small, but reasonable, argument to be made specifically in regards to this book. Hitler authored (perhaps - there's some credence to the theory that he was not exclusively the author) this book whilst he sat in prison. Well, it was sort of a prison. He had things like guests and quite a bit of freedom but we'll ignore that for now.
Here's the important part:
This book sold like hotcakes. In fact, it made him (and thus the Party) quite a bit of money. This money enabled him to do many things, during his ascent to power. This book also gave him additional fame - fame he might not have had without this book. This book was a significant part of his rise to power, as a contributing factor.
Two reasonable conclusions to make:
This does not, by any means, suggest that I'm advocating censorship of this material - surely you would not think so poorly of me, I hope.
There's some chance, however small, that things might not have gone quite the same way had Hitler never published this book.
Those are the only conclusions that I'm willing to draw. Anything else is speculation and I am not a qualified historian. It is true, however, that the party was kind of well funded prior to this book's publication but Hitler, himself, was not - he also really wasn't that famous outside of his circle until after this book's publication. The book was quit a hit and generated a lot of money for both the publishing house(s) and Hitler.
It's not entirely erroneous to speculate that things may have been different without the *publication* of Mein Kampf. As I think you were saying, it is entirely incorrect to speculate that the *material* in the book was even a major contributing factor to the war. On that we agree. in fact, we mostly agree already - I am pretty sure I'm mostly just adding to what you said.
Where do you live that the book is not published? I have an English translation and a copy in its original plastic shrinkwrap from some Soviet Union print shop. I have skimmed parts of the former and, obviously, never opened the latter. I bought it from a collector friend and got a copy of Anna Karenina in the same style of wrapping from him at the same time - though, oddly, I think that one is in German - it's two books and both are wrapped in much the same as the first and in very good condition though the plastic is aged and a bit worn.
Oh, I live in the US. I can get books like that if I want. It's not actually an issue with the government or anything. I don't even imagine that my owning it has put me on any watch lists or anything. Hell, I've even had security clearance with that same government. Whilst there were a bunch of invasive questions on that form, I don't recall them asking if I'd read or owned a copy of the book. At the time, however, I'd have been able to truthfully answer in the negative.
Meh... I'm mixed racially, certainly not a skinhead or a Nazi, and I've read it. I even read it while I was still a teen. I did a report on it for a history class. The teacher was, shall we say, right pissed but she was unbiased in her grading. We had a *discussion* about what was and what was not appropriate material to present for in-class reports. That would be the same year I did an entire oral biology report on a sperm whale's penis. It was a rebellious year. It was the early 1970s, it's what we did.
Nah, once you get past the title (and cover) of Bernie's book (something about the decline of the middle class - I don't have a copy here) it's not bad. Back home, I have a signed copy and a copy that I've actually read. Err... Actually? Someone may have borrowed the latter - I'm not sure. If so then I guess I still own it and it will probably find its way home eventually. Chances are, the damned thing will return with friends.
Somehow, I get almost all the loaned books back and they often come back in a bag with a few tag-a-longs that seem to think I run a home for wayward books. There's probably some sort of law of attraction not entirely dissimilar to gravity.
How did she do "her own later edit?" That dirty Australian who wrote the book about His Comfy Chair had her killed!
No, seriously, how did she do a later edit? I read the book a long, long time ago and I'm pretty sure (spoiler alert!) she doesn't survive. I, obviously, know nothing about this later version (I read it in the 1960s) but I understand it has some juicy bits. It seems even a night of broken glass can not take away a young girl's libido. Well, so I'm told - I never actually read that part. I seem to recall she was killed by kangaroos or something. Everything in Australia's deadly!
There are all sorts of books that are, for better or worse, copyrighted because they've been translated, annotated, or significantly edited in some fashion. This does not, of course, justify copyright lasting this long but there is precedent.
of course nobody starts with an infinite sequence of words
I know you're not new here but I must ask... Have you not seen my posts when I am bored or have a Grandpa Tale to tell? Pfft... Infinite sentences, indeed!