The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Lee Archive
Stabbed in the Back
What's the Difference Between an "Unabashed Nationalist" and a "Fascist"?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Fascist”, it appears, is the go-to epithet for characterizing nationalists and racists we don’t like. “Nationalist” is apparently the go-to epithet for characterizing fascists we do like.

The Western media is coping with the conspicuous and undeniable presence of fascists in the Ukrainian paramilitaries by rebranding them. A recent case in point was in a Reuters article celebrating the doughty defenders of Mariupol i.e. the Azov Battalion, which discommodes Kyiv-friendly observers by unapologetically marching under the fascist “Wolfangel” banner:

Many in the Azov Battalion have unabashed Ukrainian nationalist sympathies, prompting rebels to label them neo-fascists.

From time to time, Azov fighters in Shyrokyne greeted one another with ironic Roman salutes and then grinned at their own humor. That kind of idle larking and the battalion’s flirtation with neo-Nazi symbolism is seized upon as confirmation of their critics’ worst fears.

The infamy appears only partly deserved, however.

Some embrace fervent Ukrainian nationalism as a repudiation of the heavily Russian-dominated Soviet legacy, all while serving with fighters from a wide array of political and ethnic backgrounds. Chit-chat switches casually from Ukrainian to Russian and back again.

Let me offer my back-of-the-envelope guide to discriminating between “unabashed nationalist sympathizers” and “neo-fascists”. Nationalists let their fervor, their bigotry, and enthusiasm play out in the quotidian realm, along the spectrum from vociferous Internet commentator to soccer hooligan.

Neo-fascists do something about their nationalist convictions, by joining an armed fascist formation which considers implementing a national or racial political and social agenda, by violence if necessary, an existential national imperative beyond state sanction. That’s been a powerful strain in Ukrainian political thought since the 1930s that flourishes today, and not just in the Azov Battalion.

Trying to submerge “fascism” in the mushy nomenclature of “nationalism” is an exercise in self-delusion that, in my opinion, balks understanding of trends throughout Europe and not just in Ukraine.

A classic German film by Fritz Lang, Die Nibelungen, provides an opportunity to reflect upon the difference between unabashed nationalism and meat and potatoes fascism. The epic, split into two stand-alone films, Siegfried and The Revenge of Kriemhild, is available on Netflix, so readers interested in film and fascism are invited to have a look. I’ll wait.…

For those readers who did not just sit through four and a half hours of black and white silent film, I will mention that this is not Wagner’s Nibelungen. Instead of the hallucinogenic word salad and musical bombast of the Wagnerian Ring cycle, Lang and his wife and scriptwriter, Thea von Harbou, went back to the ur-text of the Nibelungen Saga, a medieval epic that was rediscovered in the 19thcentury and was adopted as the German foundation myth, its Iliad, in order to give age, nobility, and gravitas to the Germanic historical tradition, its recently established Kaiser, and Bismarck’s newly-minted nation.

The original Nibelungen is a simple story of a boy, his dragon, his utterly bugnuts wife, and the interesting folk they encounter.

UFA spared no expense to bring Die Nibelungen to the screen. The artistic and technical resources of German cinema are on full display in the sets, costumes, makeup, and cinematography, as are the expressive power of silent-film acting. The movie is quite compelling and, to the patient, rewarding. Remarkably, much of the syntax of modern film—the closeups, cross cutting, establishing shots und so weiter—appears to be fully developed at this early date.

Die Nibelungen was made in 1924, as Germany was still trying to come to terms with the epic calamity of its defeat in World War I, the exile of Kaiser Wilhelm, loss of territories in the east and west, the rise of communism as a potential organizing principle opposed to German nationalism, and the appearance of the not-quite-ready-for-prime-time Weimar Republic. The explicit purpose of the film was to buck up the German people and assure them that the national mojo had not been lost.

The first title-card in The Nibelungen dedicates the film “To the German People.”

There’s a lot of good writing about the Lang movies. William Ahearn referenced several important works on his site and included this quote from Lang:

In 1974, in an interview with Focus on Film, Lang said: “By making ‘Die Nibelungen’ I wanted to show that Germany was searching for an ideal in her past, even during the horrible time after World War I in which the film was made. At that time in Berlin I remember seeing a poster on the street, which pictured a woman dancing with a skeleton. The caption read: ‘Berlin, you are dancing with Death.’ To counteract this pessimistic spirit I wanted to film the epic legend of Siegfried so that Germany could draw inspiration from her past, and not, as Mr Kracauer [author of From Caligari to Hitler; he links the films to Nazi themes—CH] suggests, as a looking forward to the rise of a political figure like Hitler or some such stupid thing as that.”

Unfortunately, it’s kind of hard not to think and look backward at “stupid things” such as Nazi racial ideology when looking at the depiction of Siegfried’s human and barely-human foils in the picture.

Siegfried benefits greatly from a charismatic turn in the title role by Paul Richter. Richter is, there’s no other way of putting it, gorgeous. He’s studly, buff, noble, merry, and with a disingenuous and spontaneous demeanor which is pretty much supposed to embody the positive “German” self-image–as I understand it. I invite readers to test this generalization, as well as subsequent generalizations about the stereotypes of non-Germanic people (which I do not endorse and carefully identify as stereotypes by the use of “quotation marks”) Lang and von Harbau perhaps chose to depict, by watching the films and drawing their own conclusions.

We first meet the blonde Richter displaying his energy and effervescence while rusticating in the forest realm of Mime the Blacksmith. Actually, he materializes like a shaft of golden light forging a sword amid a group of slovenly oafs who, I regret to say, may possibly be meant to represent a certain easterly contingent of the northern European woodland population. Siegfried impulsively decides to seek the hand of Kriemhild, sister of King Gunther of Burgundy, in marriage and jumps on his snow white steed to venture off. Consider the box for “German” initiative and vigor—in contrast to the lackadaisical deportment of certain neighbors—checked.

Next, Siegfried slays the dragon, in this case an enormous and to modern eyes somewhat unconvincing puppet that weighed one and a half tons and was operated by 32 men. He bathes in the dragon’s blood, thereby acquiring imperviousness to all weapons—except on his shoulderblade, where a linden leaf alights and blocks the shield-sauce. (Speaking of sauciness, Siegfried’s rear is on display in the bathing scene, but it is not Paul Richter’s. Richter refused to do the scene nude and Rudolf Klein-Rogge–another member of the Lang troupe, Thea von Harbau’s first husband and, subsequently, star of Metropolis –stepped up to depict the heroic booty.)

Siegfried then encounters a suspiciously “Jewish”-looking individual, Alberich–depicted as “not a handsome Jew, naturally, but as a vile Jew.”, as one contemporary account put it — a tricky dwarf from whom Siegfried acquires the treasure of the Nibelungen, in addition to a worrisome curse. Then it’s Off to Burgundy! To woo Kriemhild with his glamor and treasure.

Burgundy is “Germanic” but also kind of “Frankish”, if you get my drift, with a pervasive and oppressive Christian establishment that contrasts with Siegfried’s apparently joyous, unselfconscious paganism. Siegfried wins Kriemhild, but also gets embroiled in all sorts of intrigue and betrayal in the gloomy court, culminating in his murder—yes, he is STABBED IN THE BACK—by the king’s henchman, Hagen.

Siegfried ends with Kriemhild vowing revenge for her husband’s murder.

In the second film, The Revenge of Kriemhild, Siegfried’s widow marries Attila the Hun in her quest for revenge and the manpower to inflict it. Attila is portrayed by the protean Karl Klein-Rogge, who transforms himself from Paul Richter’s butt-double in the first film to a depraved and cadaverous, phrenologically-challenged “Mongoloid” Oriental despot in the sequel. It is interesting though unfortunately meaningless that the German form of Attila, “Etsel”, was the name Henry Ford gave to his son, Anglicized as “Edsel” (it was the given name of one of Ford’s closest friends).

The Huns are subhuman “Asiatic” hordes (“Slavs” or “Bolsheviks” in my reading) whom Kriemhild (“Spartacist”/”race traitor”, perhaps) is able to wrap around her little finger. When her brother, the King of Burgundy, and Hagen and a small company arrive at Attila’s encampment in an ill-starred reconciliatory visit, she gins up a massacre that fails, thanks to the Euro-valor of the Burgundians and the fecklessness of the debased Huns.

However, the vastly outnumbered Burgundians are unable to escape and find themselves trapped inside Attila’s castle. Kriemhild orders wave upon wave of attacks, all of which are beaten back by the doughty knights. Finally, she orders the hall torched (the inspiration for Wagner’s Gotterdammerung), the roof falls in, everybody dies, THE END. Well, the King and Hagen make it out, but they choose death instead of dishonor so THE END. To be honest, Lang missed a trick when he omitted the fate of Kriemhild described in the original edda: an enraged Burgundian retainer cuts her in half as she stands amid the corpses of her brother and her countrymen and she doesn’t even notice until she bends over to pick something up and literally FALLS TO PIECES. THE END.

The Burgundian band of brothers are explicitly identified as the Germans; when the king is offered a dirty deal of safe passage in return for giving up Hagen to Kriemhild’s wrath, the riposte is “You don’t understand us Germans.” And before the final inferno in Attila’s hall, one soldier speaks longingly of his wish to see “the green waters of the Rhine” again. At the time the film was released, German audiences were well aware that the Rhine was under Allied occupation and German troops forbidden to approach within 20 miles of the river per the terms of the Versailles Treaty. They were also aware that the French had occupied the Ruhr, on the “right” or east bank of the Rhine, in retaliation for Germany’s non-payment of reparations. Not only that, the French were currently engaged in an escapade to try to encourage the creation of a Rhenish Republic to permanently alienate the Rhine Valley from Germany. The Rhine crisis was the mother of hot-button issues for Germans, all Germans I suspect and not just over-the-top German nationalists, during this period.

For those with an interest in historical parallels, it could be said that the Rhineland represented the “classy, European elite-status schloss und kultur” element of German national identity as Kyiv does today for Ukrainian nationalists; and loss of the Rhine represented loss of caste, and a disastrous descent toward parity with “those people” inhabiting the eastern reaches of northern Europe.

The Revenge of Kriemhild did not find much favor with audiences or critics. Kriemhild does little more than glower, grumble, and occasionally point a minatory finger as the ape-like “Huns” caper about; the characters are universally unsympathetic and viewers are unable to develop a sporting interest in their fates which, it transpires, are universally dismal. One critic described The Revenge of Kriemhild as a “vast, spectacular pageant of boredom.”

On the other hand, everybody loved Siegfried. Including Hitler, who cried at the ending.

The character of Die Nebilungen as a national/nationalist rallying cry is indisputable, and its rather nasty nationalist/racialist approach to Germany’s relationship with its neighbors, though implicit is, I think, genuine.

Nationalism/racism themes inform both halves of Die Nibelungen, and both films fed into the unsavory theme of “dolchstosse”, the idea that Germany could only have been defeated in the Great War by the unpatriotic machinations of socialists and Jews in the homeland.

The general theme of the film is superior Teutonic stock gets cut down thanks to its inferior numbers, its hubris, and its quixotic devotion to noble ideals, especially when confronted with the duplicitous scheming of its enemies. It’s not just the tragedy of Siegfried, the invincible German hero vulnerable only to treachery; The Revenge of Kriemhild recapitulates his death at the collective level.

In fetishizing German martial valor, the film reflected broadly-held attitudes in Germany after World War I.

As Friedrich Altrichter, author of a widely-cited 1933 work on “the soul of the German Army” put it (h/t to the website Long Story Short Pier for the quote):

He had become painfully aware of the enemy’s overwhelming firepower, of his superiority in the air, of the countless tanks against which one could oppose nothing of equal force. Everyone recognized that Germany, economically exhausted and lacking important raw materials, helplessly faced the enormous harnessing of the world’s resources. But all this had nothing to do with the feeling of superiority as person, soldier, and fighter. The fact that this feeling of superiority was retained after the war’s conclusion is of utmost significance for the German future. It preserves a feeling in society that the battlefield was not left as loser, despite the lost war and the mighty collapse.

But the movie doesn’t quite qualify as “fascist” for a variety of reasons. First off, it was made too early—1924– to be part of the Nazi bandwagon. It was a Weimar product, approved by Weimar censors.

Second, Lang was not a fascist. Lang elaborately overstated his anti-fascism after he left Germany and emigrated to the United States, but the fact is he did leave Germany after the Nazis took power. Goebbels had actively recruited him to lead the Nazi cinema program on the strength of Die Nibelungen & Lang’s overall stature in the German film industry. But Lang demurred and left the country, maybe not the next morning as he endlessly declared in his potted autobiography, but soon after.

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse may not have been, as Lang pretended, his conscious riposte to the rise of Hitler (see David Kalat’s book, The Strange Case of Dr. Mabuse for an in-depth discussion of the gestation of the movie and its repurposing as part of Lang’s self-cultivated anti-fascist mythos), but it was a brilliant and unsettling look at a monomaniacal genius declaring “I am the state” and mobilizing a secret army of thugs and fanatics to destroy Weimar Germany through street terror, intimidation, and sabotage of its political and economic institutions. And it was banned by Goebbels (who secretly loved the film and frequently screened it in private) because its depiction of individuals and an entire society spiraling into madness worked against the will-exalting/subconscious and psychoanalysis-detesting Nazi program for social renewal.

Finally, Die Nibelungen doesn’t fit the fascist script. The movie acknowledges, explores, exalts and panders to nationalism and racism. But nationalism and racism ultimately are the instruments of annihilation, not rebirth and triumph.

At the end of the day, the dolchstossing of Siegfried is committed by another German, Hagen, enabled by the spinelessness of King Gunther and the gullibility of Kriemhild. And the calamity that befalls the Burgundian party in the second film is entirely the work of Kriemhild, who basically has to take over from an initially conciliatory and remarkably disengaged Attila the Hun to organize the massacre.

Taken as a whole, in other words, Die Nibelungen was not a fascist infomercial effectively advocating exclusionary racial unity over democracy and socialism as the indispensable recipe for national survival, unless the definition of “national survival” includes “burning your nation to the ground” (which, interestingly enough, is exactly what Hitler did!).

Eventually the Nazis had their chance to revisit Die Nibelungen.

In 1933, with Hitler in power, Siegfried was re-released in a truncated form,Siegfrieds Tod (Death of Siegfried), with passages of Wagner finally chunked in (the notoriously protective and contentious Wagner estate had denied music permissions to the film when it was first made). Netflix viewers can rest assured that they have watched a careful reconstruction of the original 1924 version—released on BluRay by Murnau Stiftung in 2012—and not the Nazified release.

According to scholar Adeline Mueller (in Joe & Gilman,Wagner and Cinema, Indian University Press, 2010) the 1933 version was re-edited without Lang’s input to shift focus away from the fecklessness of the Frankish king and the role of his cowardice in Siegfried’s death —after all, his royal seat stood on the shores of the hallowed Rhine at Worms! Can’t irresponsibly disparage German leadership!—in order to put the onus on one Burgundian bad apple, Hagen, for the demise of the Teutonic paragon.

And the entire second half of the opus—The Revenge of Kriemhild—the downer-bloodbath in which Germanic back-biting, vindictiveness, and stubborn malice effect the destruction of the entire Burgundian nobility—got ditched.

Ironically or perhaps understandably the Nazis had no appetite for Lang’s vision of self-annihilation of a group of obtuse, violent, and vicious German nationalists.

It is also amusing, I suppose, that Hitler was recapitulating American artistic judgment. For the 1924 release in New York, only Siegfried made the cut; The Revenge of Kriemhild stayed in the can and sank virtually without a trace on its US release three years later. And to reduce the “embittered-loser” vibe that would have set Americans’ teeth on edge, the last few minutes of Siegfried—Kriemhild’s vengeful mutterings that set up the second movie—were reportedly excised. Instead, Siegfried died heroically and pitifully…and then, in a tacked-on live-action epilogue, was transported to Valhalla by the Valkyries to the tune of the funeral march from Wagner’s Gotterdammerung! The pit orchestra was recruited from the Metropolitan Opera, and the arrangement apparently represented a flank attack on the Met’s ban on Wagner & indeed all sung German opera in place since World War I.

Mueller writes:

One practical explanation for this epilogue is that it provided a more conclusive ending to Siegfried, given the absence of Part 2. Another motivation was that American preference for happy endings…the renunciation of revenge suggests that the New York version of Siegfried sought to rewrite…history itself…to “speed the healing of the wounds of war”.

In other words, Siegfried got to go to Valhalla early using the EZPass lane of youthful martyrdom, so no biggee, right? Bygones be bygones?

Of course, Hitler didn’t feel that way, and decided to do something about it. That “something” was transforming his nationalist and racist inclinations into a political and paramilitary movement, fascism.

I expect a lot of members of the Azov Battalion feel the same way.

(Republished from China Matters by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 38 CommentsLeave a Comment
38 Comments to "Stabbed in the Back"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. SFG says:

    Probably the guy was a patriotic German who felt bad for his homeland after it had gotten knocked around at the end of WWI, but figured Hitler was bad news.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  2. D. K. says:
    @SFG

    Fritz Lang’s mother was Jewish; his father was a Roman Catholic. Young Fritz was raised as a Catholic, and his mother converted to Catholicism, when Fritz was about ten years old.

  3. Stogumber says:

    Mr. Lee exaggerates the differences between Germany and the United States.

    American movies, too, have shown us blond heroes and dark villains; and you might interprete the dark villains as Jews or Slavs, if you insist to do so.

    And in WWI, the U.S. have had their own split/division between a patriot/war party and a “sedition” party – only, if you win a war, it’s rather easy and reasonable to bury the axe and ignore this division afterwards. It’s not the same after you really have lost a war (a situation Americans don’t know and can’t judge about).

  4. joe webb says:

    It is of note that Fascist as a term means -case closed, end of discussion. The essential liberalist egalitarian mindset, which is a bigoted refusal to look at reality , like fascist movements and take them as part of contemporary politics, as well as yesterday’s politics, is what? silly?, triumphalist?, arrogant?, stupidly attached to The End of History as in Liberalism? All of the above?, Jewish?, when Israel is basically a fascist state, etc. Please let us all grow up and be political scientists, not school marms.

    Arguably fascism is very close to the natural evolutionary order for humans. War is totally normal. Defense of territory and conquest of other territory is totally normal. Making the antagonist/enemy an Other is totally normal. Race war is totally normal. Racial exclusivity is totally normal. Tribalism is totally normal.

    All of this is inferred from a HBD point of view. The issue is what can be done to minimize conflict and maximize comfortable living conditions for all races, and tribes.

    Adding to this is a humane interest in limiting warfare and social chaos. What is the best bet to keep the peace, nationally and internationally?

    Basically, it is separation of the races, rules against conquest of new territory, and an Ethics based realistically on HBD not abstractions like “all men are created equal.”

    we could discuss this but the author of this piece refuses discussion of fascism. It is just Very Bad and anybody who wants to talk about it must be worthy of being killed. Death to Fascists cry the anti-fas!

    Personally, I would rather talk to a fascist than to a liberal. Liberals are totalitarian and secular religionists…all men are created equal, one man one vote, etc. Disagree and you are just the detritus of History, per Marxists and Obongo a few years ago. Liberals make me ill, so stupid and reflexive as in knee-jerk.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    , @Mark Green
  5. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    I’m the only true fascist. A neo-fascist.

  6. Art says:

    Is it permissible to describe Zionist Israel as a fascist state?

    Neo-fascists do something about their nationalist convictions, by joining an armed fascist formation which considers implementing a national or racial political and social agenda, by violence if necessary, an existential national imperative beyond state sanction.

    Doesn’t Israel do something about its nationalist convictions? Is it not daily acting out as an apartheid state? Does it not treat its Arab people in a racist manner? Is it not violently aggressive against the Palestinian people? Does the Zionist state aggressively jail political Palestinians?

    What more does one need to label Israel as a fascist state?

  7. TheJester says:

    Yes, we have lost a war and we have our own “stabbed-in-the-back” rationalizations. It’s called the Vietnam War. We also have a similar legacy of political, social, and organizational actions to ensure that does not happen again.

    1. We got rid of the draft and replaced citizen soldiers with mercenaries.
    2. The media is no longer allowed in war zones unless under strict Pentagon control.
    3. A veil of secrecy has descended on where, why, and the cost of the United States committing military forces.
    4. Repressive actions to suppress internal descent are pervasive.
    5. We’re finding strange “bedfellow” among our allies … some of which are openly fascist and who actually commemorate the excesses of the Nazis in racial and cultural cleansing.

  8. “…unless the definition of “national survival” includes “burning your nation to the ground” (which, interestingly enough, is exactly what Hitler did!)”

    Oh, please. Anglo-American berserker barbarians did that.

  9. Bill P says:

    Fascism is the organizing ideological principle of the war band, so fascist symbolism should hardly be surprising in the midst of military units of any era. What else are they supposed to use? A rainbow flag?

    A fascist society is one that is organized by military principles, like Mao Zedong’s China during the Cultural Revolution (Mao, a warlord in practice if not in name, was instinctively fascist) or, for a more benevolent example, Francisco Franco’s postwar Spain.

    But if we want to find fascism today, we needn’t go so far as the Eurasian hinterlands. Fascist symbolism pervades the US military and the highest levels of government. The Great Seal of the United States has an eagle carrying a bundle of arrows, which clearly is meant to imply a fasces, while more traditional rod-and-axe fasces appear throughout the capital, including in the Oval Office, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

    The Lincoln Memorial is apparently designed to suggest that Honest Abe was our most fascist president, because he rests his hands on not just one measly fasces, but two really big ones.

    Perhaps in order to not appear fascist, one should go whole hog with the symbol as the US government and armed forces do. March around, bundle of sticks in hand, eagle on a staff, lightning bolts emblazoned here and there, and proclaim your ragtag little war band the very essence of liberty.

    But maybe herein lies the distinction: only the big boys get to enjoy the benefits and power of real, unbridled fascism. Little punks have no such right. It’s a sort of “fascism for me, but not for thee” spirit that undergirds this preoccupation with monitoring the ideological purity of impoverished upstarts at the edge of civilization.

    • Replies: @IBC
  10. fnn says:

    5. We’re finding strange “bedfellow” among our allies … some of which are openly fascist and who actually commemorate the excesses of the Nazis in racial and cultural cleansing.

    Other “bedfellows” include radical Jihadists [with a rich variety of names, including Al-Qaeda] used against Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria. In Syria USG still opposes Assad but now claims to be also fighting *some* of the Jihadist head-choppers. Or maybe it’s only on the Iraq side of the border where they’re fighting the latter.

  11. this is an honest question & an honest answer would be appreciated.

    Did Nazism really, truly, based-on-facts-and-evidence strongly promote a “racialist” policy favoring “blonde-haired blue-eyed Nordic types” such that others were killed by Dr. Mengele, “Dr. Death?”

    It’s necessary to ask and to demand facts and evidence because so many false narratives about WWII and its precedents (WWI, Versailles, Weimar, 1933-1938, 1938-1945-1950) have become “social facts” but which are not actual, concrete, smoking gun facts.

    At the risk of prissing off Priss Factor & Fran Macadam, consider “soap and lampshades made of Jewish flesh.” Rabbi Stephen Wise concocted that atrocity propaganda to motivate very influential and powerful people such as Henry Morgenthau, Jr., who said the information “changed his life” and subsequently drove him to send massive amounts of US taxpayer money and arms to Stalin’s Russia, and to prepare for and wage a Cartheginian war on the German people and nation.

    There is a well-documented evidence of Rabbi Wise claiming that “6 million Jews” were being persecuted, or starved, or killed, that extends back to 1900, shortly after Wise attended a zionist congress in Basle that, Wise reports in his autobiography, “changed his life” and turned him into a zealous zionist, determined to fulfill Herzl’s (and later, Jabotinsky’s) exhortation that ALL Jews return to their “ancient homeland” in the Levant, “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” In other words, very little that Rabbi Stephen Wise said is trustworthy, not when the fate of a nation is on the line.

    So I ask again, in fact, imho, the revitalization of the United States demands an answer to this question and others like it:

    Did Nazism really, truly, based-on-facts-and-evidence strongly promote a “racialist” policy favoring “blonde-haired blue-eyed Nordic types” such that others were killed by Dr. Mengele, “Dr. Death?”

    [Classical moral reasoning rejects “They did it too-ism” as a justification for bad acts. Presenting the context and thinking patterns of the era, however, is essential for understanding the political climate. With that in mind, it’s useful — rather, essential to acknowledge that the ideologues who “established Hebrew culture in zionist Palestine” were led by the award-winning eugenicist Arthur Ruppin ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/93755279/Etan-Bloom-Arthur-Ruppin-and-the-Production-of-the-Modern-Hebrew-Culture ); and among the men and women most eager to get a US war on against Germany were financiers of the US-origin eugenicist movement such as Rockefeller and the Harrimans http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php ]

    CROESUS, baby, CROESUS: if you don’t get the prophecy (or history) right, your empire is forfeit.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  12. @solontoCroesus

    Let’s start getting talk about Eugenics back to being calm and sensible instead of using references to eugenecists and eugenics as though it said everything by implication that needed to be said or thought.
    Sensible pragmatic eugenics was practised by most successful families in most successful societies including, most notably, Jews and the British successful upper middle business and professional classes. As a reading of Jane Austen would suggest they preferred mating with the successful arriviste in trade than the alcoholic younger son of the old aristocracy and, on average, that was a good breeding policy. The Nazis gave it a bad name through cruel measures based largely on bad science. Even the impeccably liberal decent eugenicists like John Maynard Keynes had to give it up as a tainted cause because of the Nazi perversions.

    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
  13. @Wizard of Oz

    “The Nazis gave it a bad name through cruel measures based largely on bad science. Even the impeccably liberal decent eugenicists like John Maynard Keynes had to give it up as a tainted cause because of the Nazi perversions.”

    Facts and evidence, please, Wizard of Oz.

    You’ve made assertions and laced them with the requisite adjectives and loaded judgments, but you’ve provided no facts and evidence.

    Charges as bold as you have made — “cruel measures,” “perversions,” require equally bold evidence to support them. You’ll have to PROVE that NSDAP was not sufficiently informed on Jane Austen and “tainted” those delicate sensibilities.

    Where is that evidence?

    You better make it good because I have on my desk evidence of the situation in Germany that will knock the pins out of any of the usual claims.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  14. joe webb says:

    well, mostly emotional responses here. I remind folks that Fascism arrived compliments of the Russian Revolution which was overthrowing all that was traditional, organic, hierarchical, and based in civil society, not some Nutty Idea.

    Fascism in Europe would never have occurred without 1917 in Russia.

    Today more Nutty Ideas of World This and That with Equality Banners fluttering over International Capitalist armies extending the banalities of Consumerism…are bringing about Reaction. Yes, Reactionaries are calling for return to nation, tribe, people (not economies), race, traditional religion and so on.

    Since Fascism is an approximation of pre-modern social organization, it behooves us to think about it. Our brains are wired for small groups, and “the simple life” whatever that means, but it does not mean International This and That. We want comfortable, familiar, predictable social relations amongst our own. All races want this, including tribes within races.

    Man is a social animal, and will fitfully, and pragmatically return to some form of the simpler life, or, Or Else. That Or Else might be a militant type fascist political form which expresses the passions of frustrated normal human impulses.

    All the Liberal Abstractions are junk, except for some fundamental White Man inventions like free speech, rule of law, justice tempered by mercy, and as much rationality as we can muster when dealing with vexing problems.

    Totemism is that which reminds us of our fundamental brother-sister-kin social situation, be it tribe or nation. It is absolutely Not World This and That. Flags are totems. You don’t approve of a swastika? Make up a flag of your own, something that I am thinking about for a White Nationalism that unites Europe, Russia, and N. America…a flag without a swastika.

    Idiots like the Saker in the Vinyard loves MLK, hates “nazi thugs” and so on. Liberals are True Believers in the Service of International Capital, etc. Liberalism is a secular religion, based only on pathological altruism and emotionalism of a very female variety, as in harpies.

    Thinking straight is very difficult, but a HBD point of view gets us started in the right direction, to get our Ethics consistent with our Biology.

    Joe Webb

  15. I disagree that comments have been “emotional.”

    If anything, the demand has been for the erasure of emotion in favor of facts and evidence.

    I also disagree with your analysis that Russian revolution started it all —

    “Fascism in Europe would never have occurred without 1917 in Russia.”

    The situation was more differentiated and complex than that.

    The word “Fascism” was used — popularized, one might say, by Mussolini. His goal was modernization and prosperity for Italy. Mussolini was informed by numerous Italian and European thinkers including his countryman, Niccolo Machiavelli. The author of “The Prince” was a passionate patriot whose goal was an orderly and stable republic.

    The Russian Revolution was as different from Mussolini’s project as can be: Bolshevik Communism sought to break down — shatter, in fact — national boundaries and, by sowing chaos, spread the “revolution” throughout the world.
    One of the most noteworthy aspects of Russia’s years-long effort to evolve from monarchy to whatever the Russian people sought to make of their own nation was the interference of wealthy Jews from outside — Jacob Schiff paid the Japanese army to militarize and defeat the Russian army because Schiff had a hard on about the Russian monarchy and thought he knew better how the Russian people ought to reform their government. Sound familiar?

    The situation did not pertain in Mussolini’s Italy. Curiously, however, Vladimir Jabotinsky spent the happiest years of his life in Rome; according to his biographer and friend, J. Schechtman, Jabotinsky’s “spirit” was Italian. Vlad was also a huge admirer of Mussolini’s bold and muscular approach. What Jabotinsky failed to register — as is characteristic of so many of the “mediocre intellects” that zionism produced — was that Mussolini’s bravado was the product of the Advertising department, but behind it all was some very sophisticated thinking. Zionists like Vlad and his acolytes, Benzion Netanyahu and his spawn, Benjamin, think that PR — or hasbara, or bluster, is the equivalent of solid thinking and careful planning for getting along with people, not just killing them.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  16. Bill P says:

    BTW, maybe there’s another reason besides historical resentment for joining the Azov Battalion.

    Seems these boys are mighty popular with the local babes.

    Can’t see that hurting recruitment.

  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @solontoCroesus

    sir, would you please provide what you deem the most important works for a corrected view of Nazi Germany? From what I have gleaned through informal interest in the topic (reading on the web), you are entirely on target with your skepticism here, and when it comes to Satan and his demons (Hitler and the NSDAP), nobody seems interested in applying the maxim “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The blatant lack of support for the popular narrative–“social facts”–provided by the World Almanacs’ population censuses of the relevant years was an especially shocking revelation to me. Anyway, if you would be so kind, I am interested in exploring the issue without the imposed Manichaean lens, but also not recklessly–which is why I ask for recommended scholarly works instead of relying on Google. Thanks.

  18. thank you, panscock, for taking the issue seriously.

    A good start is (German) Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof’s “1939: The War That Had Many Fathers.”

    here’s video of Schultze-Rhonhof himself (English subtitled) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBLgZAv_Iqo

    here’s the book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/1939-The-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X

    and here’s an interesting review of the book from a European perspective http://warreview.blogspot.com/2011/02/review-war-with-many-fathers-der-krieg.html
    (This review forces an American like me to bend my mind a bit & think in a different way.)

    R H S Stolfi tried to write a profile of Hitler that recognized him as an actual human being. In my opinion Stolfi, professor emeritus w/ specialty in German military history at Naval Postgraduate College at Monterey, labored under several handicaps:
    1. tremendous resistance to anything other than “Hitler – embodiment of evil”
    2. Stolfi is elderly and, I believe that in the process of writing this book his wife died. You can almost feel the pain in the book, or at least I thought so.
    3. Stolfi entangled himself in arguing with other biographers of Hitler — Kershaw, Bullock, etc. and may have tended to get too argumentative with those writers rather than directly engaging his topic.

    BUT — Stolfi broke ground, and that was a courageous thing to do.
    Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitler-Beyond-Tyranny-R-H-S-Stolfi/dp/1616144742/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429997486&sr=1-1&keywords=r+h+s+stolfi

    Three more books that, read carefully, refute the very arguments they try to make:

    “How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism,” by Benjamin Ginsberg

    and

    “The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau, Jr. …” by Peter Moreira
    very badly written book but informative in that the material is directly from Morgenthau’s voluminous diaries & notes — a million pages, recorded by his US government-paid secretary

    and

    “Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941” by Lynne Olson.
    What’s fascinating about Olson’s book is that a. she writes that the patterns set by US efforts to join war against Germany have shaped the US ever since, and those patterns include lying, character assassination, espionage, infiltration, propaganda. b. As well, it’s noteworthy that the “history” that we’re fed about WWII is not substantially different from the propaganda used to get the US into WWII in the 1939-1941 period Olson writes about. Curious fact.

    Olson writes about how Lindbergh was demonized and dismissed as antisemitic for claiming that “FDR, Churchill, and Jews wanted US involvement in war with Germany.”

    Ginsberg and Moreira demonstrate that Lindbergh was correct.

  19. @solontoCroesus

    I haven’t time or inclination to follow your obsessions but it just may be helpful to note that you have missed my point which was simply to put the prima facie sensible idea of good breeding practice into context, given that there seems to be a taboo against mentioning eugenics favourably. I don’t know what NSDAP us or was or what it has to do with my simple point that reading novels such as Jane Austen’s would introduce the ignorant to the idea of “marrying well”. As to what the Nazis did or didn’t do, the relevant point is that opinion came to be dominated by the stories of racial cleansing, surreptitious euthanasia as nd so on. Keynes, being one of those relatively well informed about what was happening in Eastern Europe, resigned as Vice President of the Malthusian Society in 1943. Perceptions and beliefs are very important. But your evidence you say us on your desk says the Nazis didndidn”t go un for racial cleansing? Or what? What evidence?

    • Replies: @solontoCroesus
  20. @Wizard of Oz

    don’t waste our time wizard of nonsense.

    this article is not about genteel breeding practices but about racialist policy.

    you’re fooling no one.

    you write , in essence, that facts are irrelevant, “opinion came to be dominated ….”

    indeed.

    “opinion came to be dominated” that Iraq had WMD, whereupon a million people were killed.

    FACTS MATTER.

  21. Bill P says:

    I sometimes wonder whether anti-fascism isn’t driven by some sexual pressure, i.e. the tikkun olam fags are really upset that they aren’t getting a piece of the action, so they agitate as though their balls are on fire.

    Healthy women seem to have a thing for militant guys, and that must be extremely frustrating for the Dilberts out there, so they come up with all sorts of reasons why these guys should be condemned eternally for their damned sexiness.

    I mean, shouldn’t academic weenies have a shot at these hot specimens from northern Europe instead of being stuck in sterile institutions with clumsy female nerds who have the sex appeal of lab monkeys?

    This is why Morris Dees is such a hero to these types. Through shameless self-promotion and deceptive advertising the man achieved alpha male status despite taking on a cause associated with the dregs of manhood. Really, a man to look up to, and one whose achievements every weaselly liar should strive to emulate.

    Oh, America, how proud I am of what you have wrought: the Clintonian scumbag with a girl under the table on her knees, selling out his own folk. A truly glorious specimen of homo nematodensis.

  22. Art Deco says: • Website

    Let me offer my back-of-the-envelope guide to discriminating between “unabashed nationalist sympathizers” and “neo-fascists”.

    Careful students of the history of interwar Europe (e.g. Stanley Payne) have delineated passable political taxonomies but we have to hear yours in service to the editorial line here (which is derived from all the contributors’ desire to bottom for Vladimir Putin).

    Revanchism against external rivals or (fancied rivals), imperialism, constitutional authoritarianism, and an ordering of political economy which might befit a country at war would be the marks of fascism, along with fanciful musings about cultural and social development which some have termed ‘vitalist’. It really has almost no history in post-war Europe, wherein the first three were monopolized by movements derived from Marxism. Ba’athist, Nasserist, and Islamist movements in the Near East might qualify as fascist, though Stanley Payne was reluctant to apply the term to, Nasser. There were political movements in Central America which glorified violence and a strain of thought in the Argentine military that was frankly lunatic (though just off normal for the Unz Review comment boards), but otherwise nothing. In the Far East, ghastly political movement have all been Communist (bar a brief period in Indonesia ca. 1966); in South Asia, political violence is communal in character; in Africa, it is the issue of communal disputants or frankly criminal organizations.

  23. joe webb says:

    well, I had intended to begin a general discussion of Fascism in the perhaps too abstract context of evolutionary psychology and Evolution generally.

    Let me state that I am not a National Socialist, and am opposed to the tendencies in that regard that occur among some racialists. However, NS is not the only type of Fascism both historically and possibility.

    That said, the appeal of Fascism must be considered.

    I would like to see a discussion of the social and psychological factors that account for the Fact of Fascist movements.

    It is apparent to me that the putative facts of racial conflict, national conflict, liberal economics on an international scale, the racial polarization on-going today certainly in the US and perhaps to a lesser degree in Europe, must be understood in the, again, ‘putative’ context of the general failure of Liberalism to keep the peace and prosperity.

    So, is Fascism (tribal, racial, militarist in its reaction to perceived attacks by Others, inegalitarian, and authoritarian in political governance and social life generally) in accord with human nature, or not?

    Joe Webb

  24. IBC says:
    @Bill P

    The Great Seal of the United States has an eagle carrying a bundle of arrows, which clearly is meant to imply a fasces

    Although the idea of strength through unity is the same, the bundle of arrows is probably more directly derived from the symbolism of the Iroquois League, a federation of five, and later six, independent tribal groups whose political system was well known to some of the Founding Fathers.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=zibNDBchPkMC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=iroquois+great+seal&source=bl&ots=3alGcBThW5&sig=Y-x6-9CnHM9tGiRCYlsm1ug0iCE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xFQ9VYz6IKHLsAS2poDwCw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=iroquois%20great%20seal&f=false

  25. @Art

    Neo-fascists do something about their nationalist convictions, by joining an armed fascist formation which considers implementing a national or racial political and social agenda, by violence if necessary, an existential national imperative beyond state sanction.

    Doesn’t Israel do something about its nationalist convictions? Is it not daily acting out as an apartheid state? Does it not treat its Arab people in a racist manner? Is it not violently aggressive against the Palestinian people? Does the Zionist state aggressively jail political Palestinians?

    What more does one need to label Israel as a fascist state?

    All true. But anyone who notices–that is, any prominent or influential person–is subject to career destruction and worse.

  26. @joe webb

    Fascism is the logical endpoint of the sedentism culture, communism is the logical endpoint of the forager culture.

    Both are deeply embedded in man’s animal nature since both are anti-freedom and both consider the individual to be property of the whole.

    • Replies: @matt
  27. Stogumber says:

    For a moment I would rather go back to the “stabbing-in-the-back” narrative (which indeed rose in the U.S. too, after the Vietnam war, even if its defeat was hardly comparable to Germany in 1918).

    There’s something leftists often don’t understand. The emotional core of this narrative is never that the other side (the sedition/antiwar party) was SO STRONG – played a crucial part in your defeat.
    The core of the narrative is the disinquieting experience that part of what you believed to be “your people” are SO ANTIPATHIC – feel so little loyalty or solidarity with yourself – that you have to completely rearrange your concepts about who belongs to “your people”.

  28. Rotten says:

    George Orwell, a Trotskyist, started the demonization of nationalism with his essay “notes on nationalism,” in 1945.

    Orwell seems to want to promote his version of socialism against both more militant USSR communism, and the last gasps of prewar free market Britain.

    He essentially says that nationalism (bad) is anytime a group goes on offense to try and get something but patriotism (good) is when a group tries to defend what they have. Others have ran with these ideas and equated (bad) nationalism with fascism, never mind that fascism was an economic system developed by Mussolini and wasn’t the cause of WW2.

    In other words, nationalism, patriotism, and fascism are the same thing, and the distinction between these can be said to lie in the observer’s interpretation of events.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  29. @Art

    What more does one need to label Israel as a fascist state?

    Although Frost doesn’t get into it, I would require such a state to have a political economy that resembles fascist political economy. Indeed, given how most of the West now works, to label a country fascist it would have to have a political economy that MORE closely resembles the fascist model than the rest of us.

    It is not clear at all that the degree of Israeli state interference in the economy is greater than that of any other advanced nation, not even the United States.

    It certainly does not qualify according to “everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”.

    It is not a corporatist economic model by Italian standards, or even the hybridized German standard, not even compared to societies like Spain or Portugal under Franco and Salazar, which were themselves only imperfectly ‘fascist’ on this score.

    Neither is Israeli society very dramatically organized along these lines. There are many subcultures, but their group/corporate entities do not directly enter the state institutions any more than America’s myriad of corporatist ethnic and economic lobbies do. They form political parties and compete for election, or lobby, or both, as everywhere else. This is not the fascist model for the organization of society, or the interaction of society and politics.

    And all of these institutions are rather raucously independent of state direction, and can and will challenge it.

    Similarly, open electoral and partisan politics is practiced in a way more comparable to liberal and now republican Italy than to the fascist era. More openly than in the US, at any rate.

    SO not fascist.

    An apartheid state, maybe. Not the same thing. [Side note, arguably apartheid South Africa’s socioeconomic model by the end was closer to fascism than Israel today, but not really fascist either.]

    Then again, Arab citizens are a minority and however abused they are, they get to live, move, own property, vote in elections, have parties, and serve in parliament. That’s more than Black South Africans got even under the 1980s RSA. No doubt possible only because Arabs are a minority and SA Blacks were the crushing majority [Coloureds and Indians got a low-impact franchise and representation under the Botha reforms] but true just the same.

    The Palestinians in the territories aren’t legally citizens and would rather be citizens of their own state anyway. That is not comparable to the Black SA experience. The latter always wanted to be citizens in the same country, their own.

    The Palestinians could have had their own state, an excellent one by current standards in both size and resources, in 1948. I respect their adherence to an all or nothing attitude, then as now, but the concomitant of that approach to life is that if you can’t have it all you get nothing.

    They could still have a state, albeit a much poorer and weaker one, under Israeli military control essentially indefinitely, nearly at the hour they concede Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. And make anyone believe it. Then again, anyone making that declaration would be such a reversal of policy that there would be an instinct to believe it. Of course, that Arab would be killed in minutes by his own, so he could never make it stick.

    Of course, if the Palestinians had been willing to coexist with a Jewish state in 1948, they would have had an equal division and no outside power would have for a second conceded Israel had any grounds to occupy any part of it or control its external borders.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  30. matt says:
    @Drapetomaniac

    Fascism is the logical endpoint of the sedentism culture, communism is the logical endpoint of the forager culture.

    I’m not sure I agree, but that’s a very interesting thought.

  31. joe webb says:
    @Rotten

    Orwell was not a trot. He was something of an anarchist. No trot would have written 1984 and Animal Farm, etc

    Left wing to be sure, but anti-communist.

    Joe Webb

  32. joe webb says:

    ” Fascism is the logical endpoint of the sedentism culture, communism is the logical endpoint of the forager culture.”

    cryptic? cute? precious? sophomoric? wise? etc. So, on an important issue, a normal person delivers some words, like a small paragraph at least in support of an argument that is , shall we say, minimalist and lacking in explanation. An abnormal person speaks as an oracle, at once ridiculous and puffed-up as well.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @matt
  33. joe webb says:
    @random observer

    This is called apologetics. First, to have a putative fascist economy, which i suppose is a relatively autarkic economy, the country must be large enough to be pretty much self-sufficient. Therefor Israel is exempt from the economic argument and is therefore still a fascism, but not an internationally cooperative one which can impose limits on itself. Limits for the Jews? ha.

    The sixth paragraph argues that Israel is in effect pluralistic. This is absurd. The consensus of Israeli tribalism is so profound, whether “religious” or secular, that permissible small differences that do not make a difference, are permitted. Euphrates to the Nile remains the zion agenda. On top of that the subversion of US politics is essential to their fascism. The only reason it works is that the US exceptionalism is founded on the US as a New Israel, a light unto the nations. It is Protestant chauvinism. No catholic country would call itself a New Israel, and be willing to nuke the enemies of the Jews.

    Then, the writer says the Palestinians made bad choices. That is correct.
    the “… all or nothing attitude, then as now, but the concomitant of that approach to life is that if you can’t have it all you get nothing.” as applied to Palestinians. Uh huh..

    The jews seem also to have that problem. Of course the difference in the two attitudes in that the Palestinians stole nothing and the Jews stole Palestine. The writer must be a Jew. They might all soon get Nothing.

    A fascism among fascisms, a state among similar states, would have to come to terms in international law. Theft of other states would have to be declared illegal and a threat to international order, etc. Fascism internationally would have to be rational, not irrational.

    Israel and its US nut-case with 80% or more of the country declaring itself religious and Protestants being about 50% and Catholics being about 25% . Evangelicalsl are about 25% of the US population. Some large part of that is fundamentalist with the Scofield bible pointing the way to armageddon with Israel leading the action of course. We are nutcases all, with the Jews grinning at the handful of rational people leftover fretting about nukes and the New Israel and the old Israel to boot.

    Sam Huntington said: The American Creed, in short is Protestantism without God, the secular credo of the ‘nation with the soul of a church.” This sounds a bit contradictory but it is not. The Hebraizing Puritans remains the main thread of Protestantism, even the “liberal” denominations that have lost half of their membership to the even more Hebraizing fundamentalists over the last half century or so, go on and on with their Old Testament prophetic bible thumping.

    I assume that Huntington’s “soul of a church” refers to governance and mass behavior of crowds of Israel dupes. Pray in a closet, go to war with your church…a crusade for the Jews/Israel/New Israel

    So the Jews lead us into more war. The protestants eagerly follow, a few anti-zionist/divestment folks notwithstanding.

    There is no God, per Huntington, in all of this assuming that God is a Christian and not a Jehovah insane and jealous warrior god.

    So Fascism would have more reasonable constraints placed on itself, once free of all the liberal and religious craziness of neocons and protestants and …and…

    Today, Liberalism is the Danger, not Fascism. Liberalism and its Pluralism ….disaster starting to happen.
    Joe Webb

  34. matt says:
    @joe webb

    The thought, I take it, is that hunter-gatherer societies tend to be egalitarian (as argued, e.g., here and here) with complex hierarchies coming into being with the advent of large-scale, sedentary agriculture. Communism would then be the extreme of the hunter-gatherer ethos, transported to modern society, and likewise for fascism and the agricultural ethos.

    The idea is supposed to be that we have both egalitarian and inegalitarian tendencies, which is why we were able to develop complex hierarchies so easily with the advent of agriculture, when changes in our material conditions brought to the fore inegalitarian aspects of our human nature. But the hunter-gatherer ethos is still latent (Razib Khan argues something like this here). That’s presumably why fascism and communism, and, more broadly, “leftist” and “rightist” movements generally, have both been very popular at different points in human history. Like I said, I’m not sure I totally agree, but it’s interesting to think about.

  35. joe webb says:

    thank you Matt. Now I get at least the ‘sedentary’ as a relatively fixed place as opposed to wandering around. So what is the ‘forager’ culture?’

    Since there was in National Socialism a sedentary element of emphasis on farming, which at least partly was a function of the land-hunger and Going East dogma of Hitler, we can pretty much dispense with that sedentary aspect today.

    As for the ‘foraging’ communists I do not understand that. They forage for other people’s money?
    Actually, communism was big on production and great leaps forward, etc. So, I still do not get the forager thesis.

    Today, with the Ripeness of Capitalism, as in finance capitalism and international markets, the whole thing has gone as far as it can, at least theoretically. Whether it can sustain itself under the contingencies of Modern life, is another story.

    Marx placed “social relations” under the thumb of the “productive forces” of capitalism. Marx must have had some anti-left view of human nature as Darwinian inasmuch as he loved Darwin. Therefore, a conservative take on human nature led him to argue that capitalist social relations were unsatisfactory, not only because workers were cheated out of their surplus labor, but because capitalist relations were ‘inhuman.” (per his early economic and philosophical writing)

    Today we can take a HBD line and predict the breakdown of international capitalism from a , pardon me, “humanist” perspective, as well as an economic perspective, the economic being the failure of Capitalism to distribute money/wages commensurate with productivity and the necessity of robust consumer spending to keep the whole machine going. Right now we are in , as Obongo says, a low , rolling, crisis of economic stagnation, and Surplus Capital in search of investment.

    In other words Scrooge is cavorting in his treasure chest while workers and middle-class people pinch pennies and do not Buy!

    Human Nature is Back. It will not be trifled with. Civil War is coming both from racial chaos and capitalist crisis. Let the bad times roll.

    Again , what is foraging? a zero sum game? Even the commies did not really do that.

    Joe Webb

  36. joe webb says:

    In rereading this article, I wonder how profoundly important political matters can be addressed by movie criticism. I admit that my eyes glazed over even though I am interested in art and film and literary stuff, and can hold my own with the lit-crib crowd, who are now a gang of lefties on a crusade against inter-continental drift.

    well, that is why they glazed over. What has an artifact of ‘culture’ got to do with politics, especially when that one little ‘cultural’ footnote of sorts is inflated into an ‘argument’ that readers are supposed to take seriously?

    Joe Webb

  37. @joe webb

    You are right, Joe. Moreover, the term ‘fascist’ comes from a political party by that name that existed in Italy at one unique time in history. The term has no specific boundaries and it never did. But that’s what makes it so politically useful to propagandists now.

    It’s a historical fact that the Fascists were proudly and decidedly anti-communist. For that they should be commended. But the Fascists were crushed by the commies and their allies over 70 years ago. It is the battle over their memory (and its meaning) that continues.

    Today’s neo-liberals and cultural Marxists are trying to manufacture a universal, evil archetype out of this conflict that they can use to degrade and dominate their adversaries. Thus, their obsession with Hitler. This two-dimensional cartoon is just one tool in their bag of tricks. Hitler imagery and symbolism shields both Israel and their bomb-loving allies in Washington from appropriate criticism, even though these war-happy globalists are plotting America’s next war right now. Serial warfare is what they do for a living. Whether or not they qualify as ‘fascists’ is irrelevant. Just arrest them.

    So the rising mythology and obsession involving ‘fascism’ is a ruse. The focus itself is a distraction for huge crimes now in progress. Agonizing over ‘fascism’ has about as much urgency as the spectacle of Israeli or US operatives hunting down a 96-year-old Nazi who–as a frightened young man–stood guard at a German interment camp while the Allies decimated Berlin and Hamburg and Dresden. It’s all is odious propaganda, fake morality. And it is especially true when one considers the millions of German men, women and children who were firebombed, brutalized, raped and starved by the glorious good guys during and after WWII. The Good War? Not if the dead could speak.

    As for the fascist personality, I remember rooting for the white guys when they fought the savage indians in countless movies and TV shows back when death battles involving ‘cowboys and indians’ were considered fine family fare. It wasn’t that long ago. Fascism? Who’s exceptional? Who’s invading whom?

    Then again, since when don’t blood relatives fight reflexively for one another and glorify one another’s sacrifice and heroism following battle? Is this ‘fascism’ or kinship?

    Unfortunately, Americans are now being conditioned to fear and go after terrorists (‘Islamo-fascists’) in distant lands like Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon for dubious political objectives. The manipulation never ends.

    This pattern of conduct underscores a similar mindset that drove many young American communists and their handlers to enter the Spanish civil war (Abraham Lincoln Brigade) before WWII exploded. These foreign combatants were pro-equality, anti-fascist jihadists marching off to war. And they were overwhelmingly under the spell of communism. Yet to this day, very few commie war criminals have ever been pursued–much less prosecuted–for their spectacular war crimes. Why?

    As for me, I’ll take the fascists over the global parasites anytime. But the correct course of action is to simply oppose all aggressive war. No First Strike. And while we’re at it, criminalize warmongering. It’s global hate speech. Are you listening, Bibi?

    Therefore, it’s time to put the screws to the ‘fascists’ in Washington and in Tel Aviv. Ethnocentric German films are not the problem now and they never were. We have far bigger fish to fry.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Lee Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?