|
|
|
Thoughts on the Hitler film, “The Downfall” From Luis Afonso Assumpcao. With stylistic revisions by John Ray The great revelation of this film for me was the perception that all socialist-communist-facist-totalitarian regimes are in some degree a substitution of a “state religion” for a natural religion. And Nazism was a substitute for Judaism—a sort of “state Judaism”. But this “state Judaism” has in common with the original one as much as a black mass has with a Catholic mass: equal values but with a minus sign. A satanic counterfeit of the former, in fact. This imitation – as “ersatz” as the robotic Maria from “Metropolis” - wanted to take over the cultural and religious identity of the original model, even if the complete destruction of its model was necessary. Germany after WWI was in need of the same strength that made Israel stand tall before her captors in Egypt and Babylon, that defeated Hittites and other ancient nations in the middle East. It needed the same kind of power source that made Israel, her people, culture and tradition last for centuries. That was the objective Nazism was trying to achieve, with a capital difference: while Israel had Yaweh´s favor, the god of the Third Reich was national-socialism. But this god was also was a monotheistic god, therefore it would permit no belief or faith other than itself. This is the key to understanding Nazism. Another parallel between Nazism and Judaism was on the subject of “race”: Jews are usually known by the gentiles as a breed apart, another kind of race. If Jews had God´s favor, then only to another “race” would be given a similar favor. That´s why the concept of an Aryan race was so important under Nazism. Also the fact Hitler finished his days in a bunker, underneath the surface of the earth, far from the light of the sun was a sign too. The truth is national-socialism always lived inside a bunker, isolated from the light and fresh air: The perfect (and the only) culture from which Nazism could be bred. There were times that this ideological “bunker” was the size of Europe, but it was still just an isolated culture. As his empire decayed, Hitler asked , facing the alternative of leaving Berlin, “what would the Fuehrer do hidden in a village?”. He knew the answer: a “Fuehrer” could not exist in a natural environment, without all the imperial apparatus that surrounded him. The ideological bunker had become real. And there was no escape from it . This can be seen in the most significant scene from the film - and the one that has more resemblances with the Judaic universe. It was the scene about the fate of Goebbels´ family. In the book of Genesis, God ordered Abraham to not make Isaac a sacrifice at the very last moment, but from the National-Socialist god, there was no mercy. There was no way out but the “final solution”. But all the tragedy didn´t serve to root out national-socialism from the surface of the earth: it still grows, deeper and deeper, and the tree is ready to give “new” fruits. As Norman Mailer said (An American Dream, 1965): “I decided the only explanation is that God and the Devil are very attentive to people at the summit. I don’t know if they stir much in the average man’s daily stew, no great sport for spooks, I would suppose, in a ranch house, but do you expect God or the Devil left Lenin and Hitler and Churchill alone? No. They bid for favors and exact revenge. That’s why men with power sometimes act so silly.”’ Comments:2
Posted by jonjayray on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:30 | # The reason for Hitler’s popularity is perfectly simple. See here: 3
Posted by Londinium on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:45 | # You have very strange concept (“hypercapitalist”) of the Right. What have to do the Right with capitalism? 4
Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:17 | # Recently I finished David Irving’s <u>Hitler’s War</u>. I recommend it highly. I don’t trust anything written or filmed about Adolph Hitler. It is not that I admire him or his Nazi state, it is because there is so much crap, fake mythology, and lies heaped upon him and his regime. BTW, <U>Hitler’s War</u>, is FREE for download at David Irving’s site: http://www.fpp.co.uk/ Be sure to look at his Action Report Newsletter: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html 5
Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:46 | # Oh, and let me say this, the Jews own all the big news and media outlets in the USA and they will not let any revision to the “official” history happen. Write that down and remember it always! 6
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:17 | # You have very strange concept (“hypercapitalist”) of the Right. What have to do the Right with capitalism? Nothing. 7
Posted by luis afonso on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:54 | # What is racial consciousness?? So am I a kind of Jackyll and Hyde in racial terms… Ps.: About the photos: if you exchange Hitler for Mussolini, Hiroito and even Stalin you could have the same effect… 8
Posted by Tournament of Champions on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:56 | # If those recent findings that Jews were heavily involved with worsening WWII are true then the Germans may have been defeated by a superior race, abeit through the manipulation of their puppets. Irving’s book on Goebbels quotes the French foreign minister as stating that Jews forced France into the war. Other sources suggest Jews got the US into the war, kept Britain from making a reasonable peace, who knows what the disproportionately Jewish Bolsheviks were up to. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:10 | # What is racial consciousness?? It is the natural condition of Man in every place and at every age that distinctive peoples have emerged. It is a sad loss to those who cannot possess it, and a very grave one to those who could but for confusions engendered in their minds from without. It is, nonetheless, a reality which cannot be swept away with airy questions or by association with bogey-men like Uncles Joe and Adolf. There are, incidentally, no Jeckylls or Hydes to racially conscious, thinking people. But there is kindness and there is interest in other points of view. 10
Posted by luis afonso on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:42 | # “Natural condition”. What is it? Concepts a little too much Hegelian, isn´t they?
11
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:07 | # Luis, It is not becoming to mock the possession of wealth denied you. Be generous and grant that people might be right about what is obvious to them. Anyway, the issue here is not that those aware of the meaning and responsibilities attached to their racial distinctiveness must defend themselves to you, but that you must answer why it is you cannot take them at their word. 12
Posted by JW Holliday on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:17 | # GW:It is not becoming to mock the possession of wealth denied you. Be generous and grant that people might be right about what is obvious to them. Jean Raspail’s “Camp of the Saints” is an interesting psychological study as well as a warning. I have in mind the mulatto North African Clement Dio character, as well as his Eurasian wife, who are clearly motivated, at least in part, by the hybrid’s animus toward the more racially distinct, more ‘recessive’ parental population (eg, whites). Ward Kendal’s “Hold Back This Day” gives another fictional example of this. And I wonder if guys like Zakaria fit in here as well. In the case of the fictional characters, it is definitely a “sour grapes” attitude. As regards the real-life examples it may well be also motivated by animus, or perhaps a bit of self-deception (eg, certain Newsweek editorialists, as well as certain bloggers, may say - “hey, I’m brown and admixed and I’m OK, so it’s OK for everyone else to become brown and admixed”). Regardless of whatever any person’s sense of self requires for their self esteem, no racial group should be required to undergo hybridization just to make the hybrids feel more comfortable about themselves. Nor should people engage in self-deception by questioning what can be discerned by genetic testing. Or by questioning the rights of those not so hybridized to maintain that state in their posterity. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:21 | # ”[...] no racial group should be required to undergo hybridization just to make the hybrids feel more comfortable about themselves. [It is not legitimate to question] the rights of those not so hybridized to maintain that state in their posterity.” (—JW Holliday) The way I look at it, a race—or a tribe in the racial sense of the word tribe—is a definite, real entity of priceless value and incalculable meaning, which it is unacceptable to try to extinguish, especially when it is done against the wishes of the majority of the race’s or tribe’s members. Whether that extinguishing be attempted slowly through forcing racial/tribal/national communities to undergo race-replacement immigration against their will or fast through forcing them against their will into gas chambers or into concentration camps where they are done to death through a combination of mal-nourishment, overwork, and disease doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the act: it is genocide. At present many forces in the West are exerting pressure in favor of genocidal race-replacement immigration. Most of them consist of white Christians. The part consisting of a segment of the Jews is one of the most aggressive, persistent, and effective, both openly and behind the scenes. These Jews apparently favor genocide against white-Christian communities/societies because they’d feel more comfortable and less threatened in a world where there were fewer white Christians, or none. How ironic for Jews to favor genocide! All of them who do—all U.S. Jewish neocons who hysterically insist on race-replacement immigration for the traditional white-Christian U.S. population, to cite one example—lose their right to condemn the Nazi holocaust against the Jews. They no longer have such a right. They have to take a stance of neutrality in regard to the Nazi holocaust—either that, or they have to view it as legitimate. Only righteous Jews, ones who question race-replacement immigration aimed at extinguishing traditional white-Christian national populations, retain the right to condemn the Nazi holocaust. The others—Abe Foxman, for example—have forfeited that right, because they want to do the same thing to white-Christian communities, only slower. 14
Posted by friedrich braun on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:00 | # No objective assessment of the National Socialist regime will ever come out of the anti-German Bastardstate. The system won’t let it happen. The mere fact that the movie received awards and favourable reviews in the “German” media tells me that it’s not worth a bucket of warm spit. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:26 | # So much for the Jewish advocates of genocide against white-Christian communities/societies. Here are the rich white Protestants up to exactly the same crime: Look what former Massachusetts governor, failed presidential primary-election candidate (I think—didn’t he run in a presidential primary?), ambassador to Mexico for the Clinton administration, and very wealthy patrician William Weld is up to lately: promoting the dissolution of the U.S.‘s borders and, ultimately, race-replacement for the nation ... what’s left of it, that is ... Hey with white Christians friends like Bush, Rove, and Weld who needs back-stabbing enemies? .... 16
Posted by friedrich braun on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:33 | # An example of how the movie lies and distorts history: I HAVE seen “Der Untergang” in Germany and noticed that Adolf Hitler shortly before his end blamed the German people for the downfall of the Third Reich 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:35 | # I neglected to underline that Weld link, above—it’s <u>here</u> (for those who can stomach it ...). (Howard Dean, by the way, for any who didn’t know, is another rich WASP America-backstabber. Clinton’s a WASP but he’s white trash—can that sort be expected to behave with integrity? Questionable. But these rich WASP bastards stabbing this country right in the back are just unbelievable! Without them, needless to say, organised Jewry wouldn’t be able to exert a dime’s worth of influence on anything to do with immigration or open borders.) 18
Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 04:31 | # Just out of curiosity are there any scholarly blogs debating the JQ? I dont mean like Stormfront where any sort of libel or disinformation may be posted, but rather a disspationate examination from an evolutionary perspective, with citations. If there arent any would anyone like to cooperate on starting one? 19
Posted by Rational Islamophobe on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 04:41 | # Guessedworker, those pictures are enough to bring a tear to the eye, realizing what we had and what was lost. Thank you! Nazism is certainly linked to Judaism, with its parallel with Israel. Why should a strong, pro-German state be denied to the German people? We need a base somewhere in the world to kickstart our own propagation. The Jews have Israel, the Arabs have Saudi Arabia, Japanese have Japan, Chinese have China, and the Blacks have a third world hell-hole otherwise known as Africa. Why should this be denied us? It shouldn’t, and we shall achieve it. Its time is drawing near. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 05:07 | # Rational, Yes, those photos are testaments to love, that’s the thing. A proper assessment of Nazi Germany must bridge the starkest of extremes: the height of love of kind set in contrast to absolute contempt for the right to life and home of all others. The inner question, then, which such a post should answer is whether - or perhaps how - the first of these two extraordinary human conditions can exist in isolation of the second. TC, I think KMD has cornered the market in JQ scholarship. How would a blog expand on his contribution? Impossible, I would think. 21
Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 05:34 | # David is right about the love between Hitler and his people. Below is what I said on that in my Hitler article: And Hitler’s nationalism did have the very great appeal of being at least apparently heartfelt. Right from the earliest chapters of Mein Kampf Hitler’s love of his German nation (Volk) stands out. And that his constantly expressed love of his people and belief in their greatness should have earned him their love and belief in return is supremely unsurprising. A book recently released in Germany does make some allusion to that. Excerpt from a review of it:
22
Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 05:36 | # More from the same source: Although he was, like most German second-rate thinkers of his time, much influenced by the ideas of Marx and Engels, Hitler despised the destructive and divisive “class war” aspect of Marx’s thinking and when he found that practically every preacher of Marxist class-war that he encountered in Vienna was a Jew, he began to see Jews as bent on the destruction of the German people he loved. So the great divisions that he saw among Germans in the anarchic conditions immediately after World War I could now be explained satisfactorily: They were the work of non-Germans—Jews. It was Jews who were creating divisions among Germans by their preaching of class war. Germans were only divided because they were being deceived by outsiders. Jews were the scapegoat for German disunity just as they have been the scapegoat for many other problems throughout history. And it may be noted that Hitler describes his conversion to antisemitism as “a great spiritual upheaval”—i.e. he abandoned his previous “cosmopolitan” (tolerant) views only with great reluctance. It was only his romantic love of his semi-imaginary German people (Volk) that brought about the big shift in his views. In a speech delivered at the Berlin Sportpalast shortly after being appointed Chancellor on February, 1st, 1933, Hitler summed up his thinking about his German Volk with his characteristic passion as follows:
His love of his German people and his belief that they had been misled are certainly eloquently proclaimed there —and by that stage no-one doubted whom he saw as the “decadent elements”. 23
Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 06:34 | # GW: KMD is excellent, but his work is far from comprehensive. I see the following possibilities: 1) Additional application of theory. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:23 | # TC, There are grave difficulties in pursuing the JQ, not least that defensive Jews and aggressive WN’s, both of whom are motivated by animus, will pile in. That, of course, doesn’t imply that the profound and substantially negative impact of Jewry upon Western Man shouldn’t go investigated. Of course it should. But the guiding spirit of that investigation must, in a sense, be pure. It must be dedicated to truth, not to sectional interest. This shift from a simple white racialist standpoint is the price to be paid for the worldy power than Jews exercise. You won’t convince anyone of anything unless you are demonstrably right. If you can rise to that very demanding challenge I wish you all the luck in the world. 25
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 09:28 | # Hitler is hardly a terrific examplar of “white racial consciousness”. Ask the Poles & Russians. Ask the inhabitants of Rotterdam. Nor is he a good examplar of German nationalism. In Table Talk he seems more infatuated with Italy than Germany. His architectural models seem to be more of a classical Imperial style than a German gothic. He thought more in terms of empires than nations. He led Germany into a war which killed millions of his countrymen, he preferred to see Germany razed at the end of the war and he complained amid the destruction that it was he who had been let down by Germans who had proven themselves inadequate. In the pictures posted by Guessedworker, the Germans are not just showing affection for a leader, but have descended into a kind of hero worship - in the bottom photo grown men are either hanging on every word or looking giddy with admiration - it is all too zealous to be motivated by a stable patriotism. The Nazis seem to have accepted a basic premise of modernism: that justice, freedom and equality are defined in terms of the assertion of human will. Unlike mainstream liberals, Hitler did not believe in attempting to reconcile millions of conflicting wills to create justice, freedom and equality. Instead, he thought that individual wills could be harmonised in terms of desired ends, by being subsumed within the single will of a Fuehrer. From there, the “triumph of the will” would be decided at the collective level, ultimately through a test of force in war. 26
Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:14 | # “the profound and substantially negative impact of Jewry upon Western Man” Yeah! That wicked old Bible! 27
Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:18 | # Mark is sure obsessed by “will”. So were Hitler, Lenin and the Bushidists, of course What’s the alternative? “won’t”? I would have thought that anything we do is an excercise of will. And who (other than the loons mentioned) does not know that will does not always succeed in its ends? 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:35 | # “You have very strange concept (‘hypercapitalist’) of the Right. What have to do the Right with capitalism?” (—Londinium) Londinium, you touch on a good point. Unbridled capitalism is antithetical to what I want for Western societies and nation-states. It kills society even more effectively than communism does, and of course it kills the nation-state which communism doesn’t necessarily. I for one don’t struggle to make rightist views consistent with what I want for society and the nation-state. I am not a rightist, a conservative, or a Republican Party supporter. I am a totally apolitical normal person who reacts to the headlines coming out of the political world the same way I react to those coming out of the rest of the world: with condemnation for what’s wrong and degenerate and sympathy for what’s right and normal. Bush and Clinton, for example, are not right and normal but wrong and degenerate 29
Posted by Phil on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:09 | # Jews were the scapegoat for German disunity At the risk of being tarred a “Nazi” by the usual suspects, let me state here that there is no smoke without a fire. While in no way justifying any of Hitler’s actions or those of his regime, it behoves us to examine the source of this animosity towards Jews. The Nazis were not the first in history who hated Jews. There have been many before them. Thinking of anti-semitism as “irrational, mad hatred of Jews driven by the vile character of the Gentile” pre-supposes lunacy of all peoples that have existed in history that were not Jews and committed acts driven by hatred of Jewry. One needs to see both sides of the coin. Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism often acted as the Catalyst adding fuel to fire. It is a fact that the majority of Marxist intellectuals and “activists” in Weimar Germany were Jewish. Ignoring that amounts to a distortion of history. When Hitler engaged in violent demagoguery against Jews, he found a receptive audience because some of his accusations were not untrue. 30
Posted by Phil on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:15 | # Yeah! That wicked old Bible! John, Have you read “The Culture of Critique”? We need to move beyond silly sogans. This isn’t a podium for political office. Pushing the line that anything less than the most fawning, obsequious opinions of Jewry is “evil” belongs to the political podium of today’s politicans. As educated men, we need to go beyond these slogans and deal with the unpalatable truths. Doing so won’t turn us into Nazis. 31
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:47 | # “I would have thought that anything we do is an exercise of will.” John, that observation misses the point. Modernism in politics is based on the idea that it’s our capacity to act according to our own will which is the basis of our distinctive humanity. Therefore the task of modernist politics is to break down impediments to human will (“freedom”) and to equalise wills (“justice” and “equality”). What impediments to individual will are there? Inborn and inherited things like our ethnic identity, our sex identity, our sexuality, our moral nature and moral tradition, traditional family structures and so on. A real conservative is someone who when it comes to the crunch rejects political modernism. For instance, if a modernist claims that a traditional ethnic identity is “rigid” and “grey” and “conformist” (i.e. it’s something that lies outside the sphere of the self-creating individual will) and should therefore be abolished, a genuine conservative will say “I don’t care if I didn’t choose my ethnic identity, it has too much importance as part of my identity to be sacrificed in the name of an individual freedom of will.” That’s the sense in which “will” matters as part of the modernist political debate. 32
Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:51 | # “That’s the sense in which “will” matters as part of the modernist political debate” I have never hears any such debate. It seems to be either a figment of your imagination or something you have distorted out of all recognition. 33
Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:52 | # Whoops! That should have been: I have never heard of any such debate. 34
Posted by jonjayray on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:56 | # Phil makes reasonable points. I agree that Hitler’s observation about the Marxist tendency among Jews was accurate. Jews still tend that way today. The folly is to tar all members of a very diverse group with the same brush. My “wicked old Bible” comment was intended to illustrate how stupid generalizations about Jews are 35
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:33 | # I have never heard of any such debate John, typical of our exchanges is that I assert semething, you claim it doesn’t exist, I carefully cite evidence that it does exist, which you then ignore. We went through this process, for instance, less than a fortnight ago here. I have written about sixty articles detailing the way that the logic of modernist liberal politics is carried through at Conservative Central. You can browse through any of the articles for evidence. A particulary useful one perhaps is the section “A critical moment” of the article Fatherless America, since it relates very directly to the point I was making in the earlier comment. (In this article, American writer David Blankenhorn notes that the attack on fatherhood is motivated by the desire of modern intellectuals to create a family structure in which people can “write their own scripts” and in which there is a “radical insistence on a self-created identity”. Blankenhorn notes that this vision is “the reigning ethos of much of contemporary American culture” but he rejects it in good conservative style because “it demands the obliteration of precisely those cultural boundaries, limitations, and behavioral norms” which favour paternal altruism.) In short, John, if what I am saying is a “figment of my imagination” it must also, by an odd coincidence, be a figment of the imagination of David Blankenhorn and the other 40 or 50 intellectuals whose work I cite at Conservative Central. 36
Posted by jonjayray on Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:36 | # Mark 37
Posted by jonjayray on Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:10 | # The current political debate is all about what the government should or should not do. Only the Fascists I mentioned were concerned about “will” Mark is fighting a battle of the 1930s, not of the 21st Century 38
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:20 | # I believe you John when you say you hadn’t heard the term self-created individual. But I think that’s because you are content to follow politics at the level at which people talk about freedom, individual choice, rights, liberty of will and so on, without examining where these terms have come from and why they should have the content that they do in fact carry. To the traditionalist conservative mind, the use of such terms in modern politics is puzzling and needs to be understood and made sense of. And perhaps that is why it’s me and not you who has tried to get to the underlying principles which give content to such modern political phraseology. And at this level the idea of a self-creating or self-fashioning individual is something that does become central. As to your claim that I am stuck in a 1930s debate, all I can say is that I have found examples of political thinkers who make the unimpeded will central to their philosophy from the Renaissance right up to the present time. 39
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:20 | # The folly is to tar all members of a very diverse group with the same brush. The folly is to ignore the fact that the group is, in fact, a group—a unit that, despite internal dissent, possesses structures that enable it to act as such. David Sloan Wilson (and I) will tell you that it is quite literally a genuine biological organism. This is the primary point of MacDonald’s first book (when considered in conjunction with D.S. Wilson’s work). The primary point of MacDonald’s second book is that successful competition with the Jewish group requires cohesion that enables a gentile population to act as a unit. The point of his third book is that the Jewish group has authored intellectual movements designed to prevent gentile populations from functioning effectively as a group. 40
Posted by luis afonso on Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:48 | # Dou you ever read Eric Voegelin? Post a comment:
Next entry: Happiness
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:09 | #
At least let us be generous enough to acknowledge that Jewish money and German liberal creativity do not together constitute the most propitious foundation for an investigation of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism.
I know that one MR writer has been toying with the idea of such an investigation. It isn’t me, but I can see immediately that the problem with such an article is the complexity of the story. Unless one can accomodate this:-
and this:-
... one cannot do justice to history.
Now, unlike Luis I have not seen Downfall. But I can say pretty categorically that Jewish and liberal German film-makers have no interest in stressing the positives. They want to send a message to the rest of us about, respectively, Jewish sainthood and the absolute prohibiton against white racial consciousness. We, however, owe it to ourselves NOT to buy that particular product. We need to sift the evidence with much greater intellectual rigour.