This may not be untrue, but knowing that he earned money carrying luggage at the railway station and shoveling snow, a young man who in his adult life so far has set his sights exclusively on becoming an artist, but has failed and withdrawn from all human company, tormented and grossly humiliated, a loser in the eyes of all others, the comparison with the pioneers in America, who worked the soil and made fields and built houses, seems eccentric to say the least. But this is what Mein Kampf is like: Hitler construes his poverty in words that fall sorely short of its actual consequences, yet
...more
It’s not really clear why he’s harping on the theme of poverty so much. Usually you bring up destitute upbringing of an artist or whatever to show their struggle and how, despite hunger and living conditions, they persevered and made their art. I can’t think of another biographical spin you might give by emphasizing his poverty other than to try and justify something about him. Something about his anger was righteous? This paragraph falls short of calling him a liar, which bothers me. Karl just showed the the actual all reality was different than the anger presented in MK, and it was an opportunity to show how manic and delusional H was. Instead , his point his how H can spin reality into something “immensely powerful “. Why.?..
