My reply was to IV's first post in this page, where she demanded my favorite history of holocaust.
I said something comparable. Mongolian massacres don't cut it or count as true genocide, considering their interest was not in racial cleansing; they chose a motivational force of conquest, and money. Racially, they're nothing special, except they reproduce like bunnies and stick within the same bloodline out of happenstance. Probably because their countries are not worth living in and their people don't really get a chance to leave...
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Jester > This is stupid. He was antisemitic, that's basically the biggest truth, that he hated jews.
Satyr > These pagan attitudes go back millenniums and they cross geographic obstacles. You do not hate your adversary particularly not if you re a masculine entity, because emotion is feminine and because his existence defines you and his challenge entertains and directs and occupies you.
@Satyr, yes! In any case, anti-semitism is logically jewish self-hatred. To be anti-semitic against the Jews is an oxymoron.
@Jester, your first reaction just confirms what a big myth this is! This is the one that is most taken for granted about him. Hitler's earliest letter from 1919,
"Dear Herr Gemlich, The danger posed by Jewry for our people today finds expression in the undeniable aversion of wide sections of our people. The cause of this aversion is not to be found in a clear recognition of the consciously or unconsciously systematic and pernicious effect of the Jews as a totality upon our nation. Rather, it arises mostly from personal contact and from the personal impression which the individual Jew leaves--almost always an unfavorable one. For this reason, antisemitism is too easily characterized as a mere emotional phenomenon. And yet this is incorrect. Antisemitism as a political movement may not and cannot be defined by emotional impulses, but by recognition of the facts. The facts are these: First, Jewry is absolutely a race and not a religious association. ...If the ethos of the Jews is revealed in the purely material realm, it is even clearer in their thinking and striving. ...The value of the individual is no longer decided by his character or by the significance of his achievements for the totality but exclusively by the size of his fortune, by his money. The loftiness of a nation is no longer to be measured by the sum of its moral and spiritual powers, but rather by the wealth of its material possessions.
The deduction from all this is the following: an antisemitism based on purely emotional grounds will find its ultimate expression in the form of the pogrom. An antisemitism based on reason, however, must lead to systematic legal combatting and elimination of the privileges of the Jews, that which distinguishes the Jews from the other aliens who live among us (an Aliens Law). The ultimate objective [of such legislation] must, however, be the irrevocable removal of the Jews in general. For both these ends a government of national strength, not of national weakness, is necessary." [Source: Eberhard Jäckel (ed.), Hitler. Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen 1905-1924 (Stuttgart, 1980), pp. 88-90. Translated by Richard S. Levy.]
If that's not enough to understand; consider p.253 in his MK; he is contesting against the Jews for Not having a Jewish State! for securing the vitality of their culture. This makes even a pro-Jewish site confirm why 'antisemites' lent support to Zionism in the early days: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Poison > There is a lot of fear for the Germans ruminating because of this historical event. Even though it gets people to disrespect them, it's done out of fear. Unlike the arabic terrorist card, they have something to show for their beliefs. German contributions to philosophy, science, & technology are proof of this elitist attitude they carried and still do.
Yes, this defamation is almost now a global school curriculum. What's sickening is even this "victimization" is exploited as a form of Capital and Germany still has to pay 'holocaust' "recompense" in terms of money. The Midas touch leaves nothing.
You can have your antisemitism by all means but do not pollute my topic with this shit. One of the most important truth about Hitler and the german public was antisemitism, that was basically his trademark. Hitler had no special attribute he could flaunt to the electorate except his antisemitism, he wasn't a conservative, he wasn't a leftist. His and his party's ideas were borrowed from the left, added some populism, etc.
What I've tried to show by pointing out Taylor's facts is that there was no "great man' Hitler, was basically an ordinary politician who tried to adapt to situations.
I have a book about Stalin; one has to say: That is an enormous personality, a real ascetic, who has brought the huge empire together with an iron first [...] At the head a man who said: Do you think the loss of 13 million people is too much for a great idea?
-Zitelmann, Hitler, pp. 430
Antisemitism.....Beyond that, how about the Treaty of Versailles humiliation, or loss of the Rhineland, or the economic crisis, or the basic collapse of the democratic system? Do you know Volksgemeinschaft? Führerprinzip? Do you know what Lebensraum was for?
Hitler was talking about these things in the 1920's! AJP Taylor was a stupid Englishman and he didn't understand anything.
Jester has a visceral reaction to the mere mention of anti-Semitism. Does he wish to know about the "myths' concerning Hitler without delving into the ideals and ideas?
What shall we discuss, so that Jester doesn't feel like his topic is being polluted? perhaps a myth concerning his homosexuality or some titillating girlish bit to mull over and giggle in the night. Maybe a myth about his underpants or what cologne he wore.
Satyr, my visceral reaction is not to the antisemitism itself, to that i am neutral.
My reaction is to the denial of the fact that Hitler or the german public was antisemite. Which is plainly visible in his actions. I am all for historical revisionism, if there is proof that his antisemitism was a fabrication, I am willing to see it.
Antisemitism.....Beyond that, how about the Treaty of Versailles humiliation, or loss of the Rhineland, or the economic crisis, or the basic collapse of the democratic system? Do you know Volksgemeinschaft? Führerprinzip? Do you know what Lebensraum was for?
Yes he did talk about that. Did he have a master plan to take germany out of the economic recession? No
Did he have a plan to create Lebensraum ? No
He did talk about them but he lacked a strategy.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Jester > Yes he did talk about that. Did he have a master plan to take germany out of the economic recession? No Did he have a plan to create Lebensraum ? No He did talk about them but he lacked a strategy. My reaction is to the denial of the fact that Hitler or the german public was antisemite. Which is plainly visible in his actions. I am all for historical revisionism, if there is proof that his antisemitism was a fabrication, I am willing to see it.
What Fabrication?! Hitler's 'anti-semitism' is usually explained as a product of his 'Xt.' and Xt.-hatred for the Jews; this is another myth despite how he manipulated the masses in the name of the Church and Christ. The foll. quote suffices to show the direction of his 'ethical strategy' and the nature of his 'anti-semitism';
“I shall open such a campaign against them [the Catholic clergy] in press, radio and cinema so that they won’t know what hit them …. Let us have no martyrs among the Catholic priests, it is more practical to show they are criminals.” [Frank Coppa, The papacy, the jews, and the holocaust]
And yes, Hitler had no strategy for a German recovery, he was silly, and that is why it took such giant nations at once to declare war against him. What an inconvenient detail in history. Maybe, just maybe the biggest myth is 'Jester's sincerely analyzing' myths about Hitler. I have indeed spoiled 'the level' of his thread and cast a sore eye,, its time to own up; I leave a sight for sore eyes, to atleast enjoy nature and the spring flowers as we go along... I'm done here. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Yes he did talk about that. Did he have a master plan to take germany out of the economic recession? No Did he have a plan to create Lebensraum ? No He did talk about them but he lacked a strategy.
You really have the whole thing upside down!
It wasn't merely that "he talked about thems". They were him, so to say. The Weltanschauung was the masterplan
Your other statements blend together here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
At least it seems that Hitler/Schacht was/were not simple opportunists.
Then, in 1937, Hitler replaced Schacht for Goering, because Goering was to begin the rearmament.
Start to connect the dots here: armaments, volksgemeinschaft, lebensraum, autarky....
And I was reading A.J.P Taylor (page numbers are from that crappy 1991 Penguin Edition)
A small highlight concerning Czechoslovakia:
"The Sudeten Nazis, like the Austrians before them, built up the tension gradually without guidance from Hitler" (pp. 302)
"On 28th March he [Hitler] received the Sudeten representatives [...] They were to negotiate with the Czechoslovak government; and, in Henlein's (viceroy of Sudeten Nazis) words: 'We must always demand so much that we can never be satisfied." [...] He [Hitler] hoped that something would give somewhere," (pp. 192)
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Satyr, my visceral reaction is not to the antisemitism itself, to that i am neutral.
My reaction is to the denial of the fact that Hitler or the german public was antisemite. Which is plainly visible in his actions. I am all for historical revisionism, if there is proof that his antisemitism was a fabrication, I am willing to see it.
I didn't deny that he hated Jews...but being a Jew is not so much a national type or a racial type, although it begins in this organic past, but a mental type.
You also must revise what you mean by "anti-Semite". I can fight off the flu and be called anti-bacterial and a virus hater...then if I kill it off successfully I might be accused of genocide.
Like I said, to be an anti-Semite in the most common definition of the term is to play into the Semite mindset. Being a victim is what makes them the "chosen" ones. Their "suffering", in the name of God, is their salvation.
6 million Jews is a myth (probably more like 60000). The gas chambers, like the ovens, and the soap made from Jew fat, is a myth. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were kept in concentration camps, some were worked to death, some died of disease, malnutrition, some were executed and experimented on. I doubt Hitler and his reich had a plan to eradicate all the Jews in Germany/the world, but he certainly planned to enslave some of them, punish them (torture them, humiliate them, massacre some of them), purify his culture and his bloodline. There were certainly no gas chambers.
Nazism, to me, is a philosophy and political ideology that emphasises racial struggle and competition as opposed to Communism which emphasises class struggle. Hitler, like Mussolini, believe in class collaboration, he believed in maintaining hierarchies (based on wealther), as they were, as opposed to levelling them/tearing them down, or increasing the divide between rich and poor, or creating a new rich and poor based on merit, or something. He believed the poor should sometime sacrifice for the good of the state, and rich should sometimes sacrifice for the good of the state, the whole. So he was an economic conservative, in my opinion. Capitalism isn't a form of economic conservatism, or liberalism, it is a form of economic anarchy, the government does not intervene, to change, or to preserve. In terms of race, he was a liberal, in that he sough to change things, to throw the Jews, who were at the top of Germany's economic machine, to the bottom, and reestablish the German races dominance in Germany.
I'm not an expert on the subject, this is just my half assed take, based on my interpretation of books and articles I've read on him, I've never actually read his works, I shall have to some day.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Maybe, just maybe, this was the last battle began when Judaism infected the Roman Empire and degrade the Hellenic culture. Maybe a new battle is not being wages using economic means.
Maybe Hitler wanted to re-estalbih the old pagan empire with tis old pagan values, but this time with a barbarian, Germanic slant.
Maybe Marxism and Christianity are not so far apart.
Everyone, has their take on Nazism, Fascism and what they represent.I don't really care about Hitler, the man, I'm more interested in Hitler, the idea, what he and his Reich stood for. In the main, I would say econmic conservatism, among other things. Conservatism, as I define it, is government intervening in the economy, or elsewhere (culture, religion, race, etc) in society, in order to keep thing as they are, conserve/preserve, or in order to restore things to their former glory, regress. Now, this conservative attitude would mean diferent things to different peoples, what's conservative or regressive (I mean this in a value free sense) for Germany, may be radical for America or Thailand. Progressive means just the opposite, government intervening in order to change things according to some new, abstract ideal, one alien to the society. Liberalism, then, in its classical sense, would mean hands off, to let things change or stagnate according to the whims of individuals, absence of government intervention.
Anyway, in the economy, Hitler was trying to maintain the status quo, the divide between rich and poor, employer and employee, he wasn't trying to decrease, nor increase the gap, he attempted to accomplish this with government intervention and without. He was a conservative. Regarding race, he was regressive, in that he attempted to purge Germany of what he saw as subversive, alien blood (Jewish, Gypsy), to restore Germany to its racially pure past. In terms of religion, he was a regressive, though he pragmatically allied himself with the catholic church, he was in fact a pagan mystic, he sought to return Germany to its pagan roots, in time. We can see this conservative and regressive attitude and philosophy underlying his every thought word in deed. This is not to say his attitude and ideology were wholly devoid of liberalism and progressivism. His religion was very earthy, in contrast to the transcendental idealism of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism.
All throughout, Hitler was trying to preserve or restore Germany, its race, its ethnicity, its culture, not change it, war for him was inevitable and welcome, as conflict is natural, identities are forged in interaction and opposition, in the heat of battle, confrontation, kill or be killed, but despite all the rhetoric, this is precisely what his enemies, chief among them the Jews, were doing to his country, devouring it. The biggest myth about him, is that he was the instigator. See Benjamin Freedman's speech on youtube for further information.
Governement can be compared with the central nervous system of an animal. A brain at war with its body (citizens), cannot survive, for it is dependent on its body for sustenance, nor can it act self sacrificially for long, it must primary look out for its own interests, whilst taking care of that which it is dependent on.
It could also be compared to a memetic code, or the keepers of the memetic code, a code it can add memes to, subtract memes from, conserve/preserve memes, it can do all of/none of the above. In this government can be likened with God.
Philosophers and Priests are primarily the keepers of memes, Governements are primarily the enforcers, though to extent, the citizenry, can keep and/or enforce memes themselves.
Memes that will tend to survive and thrive, are ones that both serve individuals, and that which individuals are most dependent on for their survival.
Looking at things from this perspective, a ultraconservative government like Hitler's, is a government attempting to hold onto
itself, both its memes (class, culture, ethnicity, religion) and even its genes (nationality, race). A Governemen like the united states, is letting shit slide, or at least was/is pretending to let memes and genes come and go on a whim, and a profressive government is trying to radically altering memes and genes in accordance with an ideal yet to be realised.
Philosophers are the keepers of social memes, and understanding, Scientists with physical memes, and knowledge, on a sidenote.
From an evolutionary perspective, changes to dna happen by chance, and are usually negative, so microorganisms attempt to preserve dna as best they can, from their (the scientists) understanding, they do not alter it. Once in a while, a change will occur that is beneficial to an animal, and thus change the species, but this is rare.
Should government follow natures's example, and attempt to preserve memes and genes as they are, rather than tinker and toy with then?
My feeling is that they should not only preserve, and remember, but also create, there is a time to look back and a time to look forward, a need for a right and a left wing. There is also a time for planning and intervention and a time for no planning and intervention.
Sometimes a being must adapt, evolve and change in order to survive, sometimes it must stay put.
There is also this tendency for the left, the progressives, to incorporate more and more things into them, this inclusivity, this lack of discrimination.
eyesinthedark, when you say a need for "a right and a left wing", you should pay attention to the name National Socialism. (See also: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
As a general commentary on NS, we should be wary of what was specifically Hitler's vision and other groups in the party. For instance, there is a big difference between people like Darré, Himmler, Rosenberg, and Hitler. Hitler's statements show that he was definitely opposed to their pagan-style mysticism, blood and soil, etc. For Hitler, NS was a rational, scientifically-based worldview.
Socio-economically, Hitler hated the "bourgeois" (for weakness) and was generally pro-worker. In social policy, Hitler was basically a leftist (geniune socialist). (See Volksgemeinschaft and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]). But he was also an elitist - leftist policies of equal opportunity, social mobility, etc, were supported by him as a precondition for developing a new elite based on merit rather than social class.
Last edited by Advocatus Diaboli on Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Yes he did talk about that. Did he have a master plan to take germany out of the economic recession? No Did he have a plan to create Lebensraum ? No He did talk about them but he lacked a strategy.
You really have the whole thing upside down!
It wasn't merely that "he talked about thems". They were him, so to say. The Weltanschauung was the masterplan
Your other statements blend together here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
At least it seems that Hitler/Schacht was/were not simple opportunists.
Then, in 1937, Hitler replaced Schacht for Goering, because Goering was to begin the rearmament.
Start to connect the dots here: armaments, volksgemeinschaft, lebensraum, autarky....
Oh, a masterplan? DId he also have a fuckin masterplan when his putsch FAILED? Was it part of his "Weltanschauung" because long german words who can easily be translated in english sound so much cooler. Or when he was so naive as to think England would join him into an alliance?
Did Hitler have masterplan to get power? Or was he just put as Chancellor by Papen, who thought he could of been used? There is a such a big myth about the 'great man' in history.
Or could it be a sign of social indoctrination where the mere mention of a name raises certain emotional factors accompanied by the usual educated argumentation?
I would say that most of these "free-thinkers" are suffering from Pavlovian training. They don't know how or why but the mere mention of certain words, particular names, makes them feel a certain ways, thinking certain words.
The phenomenon is fascinating...indoctrination on display.
Or could it be a sign of social indoctrination where the mere mention of a name raises certain emotional factors accompanied by the usual educated argumentation?
I would say that most of these "free-thinkers" are suffering from Pavlovian training. They don't know how or why but the mere mention of certain words, particular names, makes them feel a certain ways, thinking certain words.
The phenomenon is fascinating...indoctrination on display.
Truism, my dear Satyr. Is there someone who lacks emotional response to some names? The 'educated argumentation' that's part of some cliches we all have and use.
But it's not just Pavlovian training it's also operant conditioning.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Truism, my dear Satyr. Is there someone who lacks emotional response to some names?
Truism, dearest Jester, emotion is an automatic response which reason must overcome or deal with so as to reach a more lucid understanding. You appear to be stuck on the emotional part...as is the case for all effete minds. if you do not learn to control, to dominate, these feminine aspects in yourself you shall remain, I fear, a girl.
Jester wrote:
The 'educated argumentation' that's part of some cliches we all have and use.
I'm sure your uneducated emotive non-cliches can teach us what wew need to know about remaining beastly and never becoming human. But you should not be upset, dear girl, for you are not only part of a growing majority but you are certain to enjoy the superficial pleasures all animals do.
Jester wrote:
But it's not just Pavlovian training it's also operant conditioning.
Hmmmmmmm....
You should remain proud of your conditioning, girl; the meek shall inherit the earth, or so the dogma tells us.
And have an emotional response makes on unable to analyze things clearly? You make a false dichotomy.
When you think of your kid, you get an emotional response, but that doesn't mean you can't also analyze him as something other than your son and your conditioning from your interactions with him. Like, for example, analyzing him as a human, an organism, etc.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37245 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
And have an emotional response makes on unable to analyze things clearly? You make a false dichotomy.
When you think of your kid, you get an emotional response, but that doesn't mean you can't also analyze him as something other than your son and your conditioning from your interactions with him. Like, for example, analyzing him as a human, an organism, etc.
