Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

They are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before them, and as a result
their whole attitude toward all the problems of the day can be reduced almost exclusively to
the outside influence of others. This can be advantageous when their enlightenment is
provided by a serious and truth-loving party, but it is catastrophic when scoundrels and liars
provide it.
The second group is much smaller in number. It is partly composed of elements which
previously belonged to the first group, but after long and bitter disappointments shifted to
the opposite and no longer believe anything that comes before their eyes in print. They hate
every newspaper; either they don't read it at all, or without exception fly into a rage over the
contents, since in their opinion they consist only of lies and falsehoods. These people are very
hard to handle, since they are suspicious even in the face of the truth. Consequently, they
are lost for all positive, political work.
The third group, finally, is by far the smallest; it consists of the minds with real mental
subtlety, whom natural gifts and education have taught to think independently, who try to
form their own judgment on all things, and who subject everything they read to a thorough
examination and further development of their own. They will not look at a newspaper without
always collaborating in their minds, and the writer has no easy time of it. Journalists love
such readers with the greatest reserve.
For the members of this third group, it must be admitted, the nonsense that newspaper
scribblers can put down is not very dangerous or even very important. Most of them in the
course of their lives have learned to regard every journalist as a rascal on principle, who tells
the truth only once in a blue moon. Unfortunately, however, the importance of these splendid
people lies only in their intelligence and not in their number- a misfortune at a time when
wisdom is nothing and the majority is everything! Today, when the ballot of the masses
decides, the chief weight lies with the most numerous group, and this is the first: the mob of
the simple or credulous.
It is of paramount interest to the state and the nation to prevent these people from falling
into the hands of bad, ignorant, or even vicious educators. The state, therefore, has the duty
of watching over their education and preventing any mischief. It must particularly exercise
strict control over the press; for its influence on these people is by far the strongest and most
penetrating, since it is applied, not once in a while, but over and over again. In the uniformity
and constant repetition of this instruction lies its tremendous power. If anywhere, therefore,
it is here that the state must not forget that all means must serve an end; it must not let
itself be confused by the drivel about so-called 'freedom of the press' and let itself be talked
into neglecting its duty and denying the nation the food which it needs and which is good for
it; with ruthless determination it must make sure of this instrument of popular education,
and place it in the service of the state and the nation.
But what food did the German press of the pre-War period dish out to the people? Was it not
the worst poison that can even be imagined? Wasn't the worst kind of pacifism injected into
the heart of our people at a time when the rest of the world was preparing to throttle
Germany, slowly but surely? Even in peacetime didn't the press inspire the minds of the
people with doubt in the right of their own state, thus from the outset limiting them in the
choice of means for its defense? Was it not the German press which knew how to make the
absurdity of 'Western democracy' palatable to our people until finally, ensnared by all the
enthusiastic tirades, they thought they could entrust their future to a League of Nations? Did
it not help to teach our people a miserable immorality? Did it not ridicule morality and ethics
as backward and petty-bourgeois, until our people finally became 'modern'? Did it not with
its constant attacks undermine the foundations of the state's authority until a single thrust
sufficed to make the edifice collapse? Did it not fight with all possible means against every
effort to give unto the state that which is the state's? Did it not belittle the army with
constant criticism, sabotage universal conscription, demand the refusal of military credits,
etc., until the result became inevitable?