The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTrevor Lynch Archive
Bob Fosse's Cabaret
🔊 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

Bob Fosse’s 1972 film Cabaret is supposed to be propaganda for Weimar decadence and against Nazi brutality. But the film utterly fails as propaganda insofar as it changes no minds. In fact, Cabaret is more akin to a diagnostic tool—like inkblot tests or gestalt images—for distinguishing between fundamentally different human types: people who love beauty versus people who love ugliness, people who love order versus people who love chaos, people who love health versus people who love decadence. Just as some see a goblet and others a pair of profiles, just as some see a duck and others a rabbit, some see Cabaret as a celebration of decadence and others see it as a case for National Socialism. Most of the latter, of course, do not embrace or condone National Socialism themselves. But once the movie is over, they can at least understand why millions of Germans did so.

This is why I include Cabaret in my pantheon of Goebbels Award laureates—namely Hollywood films that Joseph Goebbels would have released unaltered—including such titles as Quiz Show, Storytelling, Miller’s Crossing, and Barton Fink.

Cabaret is set in Berlin in the early 1930s, just before the Nazis came to power. The titular cabaret is the Kit Kat Klub, which is upheld as the epitome of Weimar culture, as indeed it is. But what do we see on stage? Is it a new image of man’s highest potential? Is it a vision of a perfected society? Nothing of the sort. It is merely a parody and inversion of the existing culture and its values, including its sexual mores, martial ethos, and aesthetic standards.

The music is jazz of the most irritating type: brassy tuneless farts and raspberries over a monotonous, herky-jerky beat. The singing is tuneless and brassy Broadway caterwauling. The musicians are ugly women and female impersonators with exaggerated and grotesque clown makeup and skimpy costumes revealing sagging, ravaged flesh. The MC, played by Joel Grey (born Joel David Katz), is leering and sexually ambiguous, with ghastly yellow teeth.

The stage shows include ugly women wrestling in mud, bondage and sadism set to music, a bawdy burlesque in which dancers in German folk costumes slap one another’s asses, females and female impersonators mocking soldiers, a song about a ménage à trois, and a song about miscegenation, in which the singer pledges his love to a gorilla but ends with the words “But she doesn’t look Jewish at all.” It is pure cultural Bolshevism from start to finish.

ORDER IT NOW

The main character of Cabaret is Sally Bowles, a singer and aspiring actress. Sally Bowles was English in Christopher Isherwood’s Berlin Stories, the Ur-text of this and other adaptations. But in Cabaret, she is an American because, well, Liza Minnelli couldn’t play her as anything else. I have not read Isherwood’s original, so I can’t tell if Miss Minnelli does his character justice. Let’s just say that if Sally Bowles is meant to be a mediocre singer with a potato face and potato physique, such that her aspirations to be a great actress are a pathetic delusion, then Minnelli nails the part. Her attempts at glamor are laughable: an unfeminine bowl-cut, clown makeup, and gaudy thrift store rags, to say nothing of her braying speech, gawky mannerisms, and mannish gait. When we first see her on stage, she looks like a cartoon mouse pretending to be a dominatrix.

Sally’s motto is “divine decadence,” although it may simply be a brand of nail polish. Her philosophy is pure hedonism. Anything goes, “as long as you’re having fun.” She smokes, drinks, and fornicates with abandon. Her goal is to become a star, or be kept by a rich man, by sheer dint of schmoozing and whoring and faking it till she makes it. She’s a phony, a social climber, and a parasite.

But under all this surely there beats a heart of gold.

No, not really. Not at all. Sally is selfish, immature, insensitive, rude, and neurotic. We are supposed to feel for her because she pines for her neglectful father. (There is no mention of a mother.) But feeling pain doesn’t make you a good person. In fact, bitterness over festering wounds is the most common excuse for monstrous behavior. Strip away Sally’s gaucheries, neuroses, and machinations, and you won’t find a little rosebud of sweetness. You’ll just find a howling void of nihilism.

Minnelli’s songs all have mediocre music and lousy lyrics. Her catchiest number, “Mein Herr,” is about being a hypergamous gold-digger. When she meets a nice young homosexual, who beds her out of pity, she thinks “Maybe this Time” it will last. Then there’s her duet with Joel Grey, “Money, Money,” which informs us that “Money makes the world go ’round,” a witless ditty in which vulgar Marxism meets just plain vulgar. (By every measure, it is infinitely inferior to ABBA’s “Money, Money, Money.”) I’ll have a few words to say about her grand finale later.

The basic plot of Cabaret is that a young homosexual Englishman, Brian Roberts (Michael York, looking conspicuously wholesome), comes to Weimar Berlin. He finds lodging at a rooming house full of bohemian types, including a streetwalker and a pornographer who both turn out to be Nazis, as well as Sally Bowles, who is right across the hall.

The strait-laced (though gay) Englishman meets the brash American in clown makeup, and an unlikely friendship begins. Sally introduces Brian to the Kit Kat Klub, finds him work translating pornography, offers him her room for teaching English lessons, and generally inserts herself into his life, to the point of seducing him. Brian seems to sleep with her out of pity.

Once Brian and Sally are a couple, hypergamous Sally takes up with Maximilian, a fantastically wealthy aristocrat who finds Sally and Brian entertaining. He showers them with expensive presents, dangles the prospect of an adventure in Africa, beds both of them, then loses interest.

One of the most famous scenes in the film takes place as the trio returns to Berlin from Maximilian’s country estate. Maximilian has explained how the Nazis are hooligans but useful for stopping the Communists. Once the Communists are defeated, people like Max will reign in the Nazis. As they enjoy lunch at a beer garden, a handsome blond youth begins singing. It is standard German Romantic or folk fare, with stags, forests, the Rhine, babies, etc. Then we see that the young man is wearing the uniform of the Hitler Youth. The song takes on a more martial and strident air with the chorus “Tomorrow Belongs to Me,” and virtually the whole crowd joins in signing. “Still think you can control them?” Brian asks Max.

The song is pure, calculated kitsch, the product of two Jewish songwriters, and yet it is better—and seems more sincere and real—than anything else in the film. The scene is crushingly unsubtle, an exercise in ritualistic goy-hatred. These Hollywood Nazis are supposed to seem sinister and repellent, but they are infinitely more healthy and appealing than the smug and decadent Max and Brian, much less anything on stage at the Kit Kat Klub.

The most wholesome love story in Cabaret is between the impoverished businessman Fritz Wendel and the Jewish heiress Natalia Landauer, who meet through Brian, their English tutor. Fritz pursues Natalia, but there’s a hitch. Jew-gentile relations are at low ebb in Germany. But Fritz has a way out. He’s actually a Jew. He was merely pretending to be a Christian, because once you are a member of the vast majority in an individualistic society, people notice you and invite you to parties and cut you in on business deals. It is a farcical distortion of the truth. Crypto Jews don’t lose touch with the Jewish community. The whole point of crypsis is to enjoy the advantages of belonging to both communities. When Fritz admits to Natalia that he is an apostate who has lied to her and everyone else, she naturally agrees to marry him. It is supposed to be heartwarming, but morally normal people find it bizarre and repugnant.

Brian and Sally’s relationship has a less happy ending. Sally is pregnant. Maybe the baby is Brian’s. Maybe it is Max’s. Sally wouldn’t dream of asking Brian to pay for the abortion, though. She’ll just pawn the fur coat that Max bought her. Brian has another idea. He proposes marriage. He doesn’t care if the child might be Max’s. Decadence doesn’t seem so divine anymore. Berlin is hell. It is a rat race in pursuit of shallow and unsatisfying pleasures. Brian sees marriage and fatherhood as a chance for both him and Sally to escape and have a normal life. He’ll teach at Cambridge. Maybe there will be other children.

Sally is touched that someone would be willing to spend his life with her. But marriage would require some changes: fidelity, for one; sobriety, for another; plus unselfishness toward babies. It also wouldn’t hurt for her to pick up some of the social virtues necessary to live in a normal community. But the biggest change would be to stop chasing her absurd dream of becoming a movie star. Sally thinks about it a bit, then skulks off and has an abortion in secret. Some viewers see a strong, independent career girl strongly and independently being strong and independent, or something. And they applaud. Healthy people see that, in the end, hedonism and individualism are just a nihilistic death cult.

Brian is horrified, of course, but probably realizes he has dodged a bullet, because Sally Bowles will never change. Besides, who would want children with her looks and personality disorders? This, in truth, is the most enlightened perspective on the matter, but the only people who would voice it in Cabaret are the hated Nazis.

Brian returns to England, and Sally returns to the Kit Kat Klub, where she sings her final song, “Cabaret,” in which she informs us that “Life is a cabaret, old chum” and then tells the story of her old flat-mate Elsie, a whore who died of drink and pills and was the “happiest corpse she’d ever seen.” Then Sally vows that, instead of having a normal life, “When I go, I’m goin’ like Elsie.” It is an open celebration of nihilism. It is particularly grotesque from the lips of the daughter of Judy Garland, who was found sitting dead on her toilet, aged 47, after a lifetime of abusing alcohol and downers. Liza Minnelli herself has lived to be a ripe old chum, but one wonders how many lives were cut short because of her glamorization of a death cult.

Cabaret ends with another icky song and dance from Joel Grey. The final shot is a distorted reflection of the audience, in which we see a number of Nazi stormtroopers. Are they in the audience because they are hypocrites, dipping into the fleshpots while railing against them? Or are they there to bust up the place? In truth, it was a bit of both. Of course, the filmmakers want us to mourn the passing of Weimar. But healthy viewers see something very different, a message that Goebbels himself would have approved: Weimar was a disease. The Nazis were the cure.

 
• Category: Arts/Letters, History • Tags: Decadence, Germany, Movies, Nazism 
Hide 470 CommentsLeave a Comment
470 Comments to "Bob Fosse's Cabaret"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I saw Cabaret performed on stage and it’s no better than the movies. I agree with the article that to any fair-minded viewer the Nazis are the least decadent characters. Joseph Goebbels might well have approved.

    • Replies: @P. J. Collins
    , @Anonymous
  2. ‘ …Weimar was a disease. The Nazis were the cure.’

    It would be interesting to read an informed discussion of to what extent the Nazis were the beneficiaries of revulsion towards Weimar cultural degeneracy — and to what extent Jews were the victims of an association between them and that degeneracy.

  3. Glad I discovered this excellent re-assessment, old chum! (((Hollywood))) has been at it a lot longer than I knew, great to see it through the proper filter.

  4. Cabaret is certainly arguable, but I don’t see how Quiz Show can be called anything but anti-white propaganda. As is usual for Hollywood when dealing with a semi-real story, all of the good guys are conspicuously Jewish or Black, and all of the bad guys conspicuously Anglo. And as usual for Hollywood, they reversed the actual identites of the characters to make it all happen. This has only happened, what, twenty thousand times so far?

    • Agree: Lurker
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @anon19
  5. Good review. One minor nit: Liza M. was neither ugly nor a mediocre singer, although her character is a repellent flake who if alive today, might be running for President as a Democrat congressperson. One gets the feeling that Liza M. was essentially playing herself.

    “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” is clearly the high point of this movie. It was used, aptly, in at least one humorous Youtube video comparing B. Hussein to A. Schickelgruber.

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  6. I never saw this for the same reason I don’t want to see the new version of STAR IS BORN.

    I don’t much care for Bob Fosse. I loved ALL THAT JAZZ when I saw it as a kid but don’t much care for it now. His other movies are painful or dull.

  7. @Mr McKenna

    In QUIZ SHOW, the Jewish guy is just as full of BS as the lead goy guy. They are all crooked.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
  8. renfro says:

    The Broadway play ‘Hamilton’ in which the American white Europeans founder figures were played by blacks and portrayed as blacks , with rap and hip hop music , is very much a ”Weimar Cabaret” example of our current Weimar America.

    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @attilathehen
  9. It’s also amusing to see it from another angle:

    Bob Fosse was a straight gentile male with a genius at dance who worked in an industry–Broadway—that was rapidly becoming openly dominated by homosexuals and Jews. By the 1970s gay liberation was in full swing and Jews were becoming more open in their disdain for Western culture. New York Broadway shows/ musicals–filled with gays and Jews writing, producing, and starring in them— were rapidly degenerating from things that celebrating Western culture to things that openly sneered at it.

    While once upon a time–the 1950s or early 1960s—- a straight white male might go see the latest Broadway show or movie musical—Guys and Dolls, On the Town, or the countless other ones starring masculine men like Fran Sinatra, gene Kelly, and Bing Crosby(Fosse himself had been a background dancer in many of these early, manly musicals ) —by the 1970s the theater was infested with musicals that were camp, effeminate, nebbish, “subversive”, and/or anti-Christian.

    So when Fosse made this movie (he was the director), was it his own straight white male persona creeping in? He painted a picture of gay, Jewish decadence in full power and made it look….decadent. Then painted a picture of white straight gentile opposition and made it appear wholesome—and had the boy sing ominously “Tomorrow Belongs to Me.” Was this Fosse, the straight white male dancer, secretly identifying with the boy and warning the gays/Jews taking over his world that they may gain control for now, but beauty—and the future—belong to him?

    Food for thought.

  10. Sean says:

    Douglas Reed the Times correspondent in Weimar Germany said that he had thought it the summit of of decadence, but it was nothing compared to 50’s Chicago. Robert Boothby said the role of homosexuality in the early Nazi movement was greatly underestimated, maybe there was just a lot of young men. The performers in Cabaret are not all that young. The Hitler youth boy is.

    Weimar had a great number of young people in it, more than any time in Germany before or since, and in the call up class of 19 year olds Germany had it most overwhelming superiority over France. The most influential politician of Weimar Gustav Stresemann built up Germany’s military forces and would have used them, or threatened to use them, had he been still in power in the thirties. Finally, Weimar reformed and strengthened the tax raising powers of central government with the intention of making Germany far more formidable in any future war, and the nazis inherited that,

  11. SND says:

    Thomas Mann, the great German author of somewhat ambiguous sexuality (see Death in Venice, etc.), wrote a fine pro-German treatise (Reflections of a Non-Political Man) during WWI. That was in 1915. In 1905 he had married a nice Jewish woman from one of the richest families in Germany. Their first two children, Klaus & Erica, became well known homosexual personalities in Weimar Germany. Erica, thus a half-Jew, ran a cabaret, known as The Peppermill, using her all-Jewish lesbian lover as the feature performer. In 1933 Klaus & Erica advised their traveling father not to come back to Germany & he went into exile, eventually in Los Angeles. Erica, her lover & Klaus soon fled to New York where Erica tried to re-establish The Peppermill. The subtleties of language & style were somewhat lost on the New Yorkers (NY was not decadent enough!) and The Peppermill failed.

    It is my understanding the Christopher Isherwood used The Peppermill as a model for the club in Berlin Stories. Thus, the movie being reviewed here is about a story written by an English homosexual about a German Jewish homosexual phenomenon. All very Weimarian, indeed.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  12. Sean says:

    Anyway, I think this gets it back to front. Germany turned to the Nazis because that is who was saying
    they would reverse Germany’s defeat in WW1. Germany thought they could do better next time, and hey were right. Foreign not domestic policy is always paramount for a nation state.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  13. eah says:

    It’s one of those films that while watching it you’re already wondering why it was so highly regarded and can already imagine you will never want to watch it again.

    • Replies: @Angharad
  14. Lin says:

    Cabaret is my most favorite movie.
    BTW, the Brian Roberts character was loosely based on Christopher Isherwood’s autobiographic ‘Good bye to Berlin’. Brian Roberts according to the movie was initialy a hetero and later turned bi while Isherwood was 100% gay. Actually he complained on the plot twist after invited to the film premium that he had NEVER have sex with women.

    Ever watched ‘I am a Camera’ and ‘Christopher and his kind’? Both based on ‘Good bye to Berlin’.

    • Replies: @Lin
    , @Priss Factor
  15. Lin says:
    @Lin

    My typo,should be “Actually he complained on the plot twist after invited to the film premiere that he had NEVER have sex with women.”

  16. Miro23 says:

    Of course, the filmmakers want us to mourn the passing of Weimar. But healthy viewers see something very different, a message that Goebbels himself would have approved: Weimar was a disease. The Nazis were the cure.

    The filmmakers loved Weimar and the same crowd are now celebrating Weimar USA.

    Germany’s National Socialists cleaned up Germany. However, they should have stopped there, and not embarked on their Eastern Imperialism. Imperialism was finished after WW1 but somehow Hitler didn’t get the message. Netanyahu and the Zionists, are the modern Imperialists and are only making the same mistake.

    If a tiny number of British dominated Imperial India (government, media and economy) and a tiny number of Jews now dominate Imperial USA (government, media and economy), they have no right, although, having said that, the British were better overlords of India than the Jews are of the United States. They didn’t Weimar it, were notably uncorrupt, and promoted ethnic Indian development (all very unfashionable to say so now).

  17. @Colin Wright

    I’d suggest:
    Götz Aly, _”Hitler’s Beneficiaries_ and _Why the Germans? Why the Jews_

    If you’re actually interested in the historical period, I’d suggest Victor Suvorov, _The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II_, Naval Institute Press, original published early 2000s.
    The basic idea seems to be that Germany was pretty much looted be everybody who could afford a lute, which turned out to be the French and the Eastern European Jewish population. “Weimar decadence” was pretty much the old pornography game, much like we have here and now except not quite so intense. The French looting was more along the lines of legal theft. Added to that was an inflation that wiped out all current accounts. Our contemporary version that is, of course, the US law that permits banks to redeem bank accounts with stock in the bank that held the account. That one hasn’t been used yet in the US, but has been in Europe.

    Hitler was, surprisingly enough considering what we’ve been told, not the German answer to this. He was _a_ German answer to this, and would not have won out had not Stalin backed him (See Suvorov’s work). Lenin had decided that the USSR could not survive unless the rest of Europe also became SSR, and were unified under the USSR, remember that, when Lenin decide that, about 80% of the Central Committee was Jewish, and they didn’t say “How horrible” and resign as a group.

    To accomplish restarting WW I, Lenin and, later, Stalin re-armed the Weimar Republic, conducted joint maneuvers with the German Army that was essential for development of doctrine for both Soviet and German armored forces, instructed its German Communist Party to refuse to form a coalition with the Weimar government when that act would ensure a Fascist victory, and apparently supported Hitler as a specific Fascist once it became clear to Stalin that Hitler intended to attack Western Europe before expanding East. The Lenin/Stalin grand plan was to convert the USSR in to an armory for an army capable of offensive action, and to attack the West when it was exhausted from a repetition of WW I. It almost happened, but Hitler struck first, about two weeks before the Soviet planned attack date (despite Hitler’s Germany being utterly unprepared to support for such an attack logistically).

    That, at least, is what Suvorov says, and he seems to make a well documented case. If you have arguments, take them up from Suvorov, because I wasn’t there, am not an historian, and would be reduced to quoting Suvorov. Read him yourself, and remember that you weren’t there either. I will comment that the usual criticisms amount to repetition of Soviet propaganda at the time. Read Suvorov to get refutations.

    All things considered, the above puts a new light on the question you raided. In what sense was the Jewish community innocent?

    [MORE]

    Aly, OTH, shows that Hitler put together what amounts to a welfare state, very much like ours. The similarity between the two is a phrase I first saw maybe a decade ago: “Whites are the New Jews”. It was describing propaganda, and its point was that much of the “whiteness” propaganda one sees are almost identical to the old Nazi propaganda, except that “whiten” replaced “Jew”. In both welfare systems, contemporary Western and 1930s Nazi, the welfare state is financed by looting a specific group: for the Nazis, Jews. For the current Western establishment, “whites”. In both cases, the tactic is “Give a dog a bad name, then shot it” and loot it, but that goes without saying.
    We’re living in the 1930s, endlessly repeated. This is the _second_ time I’ve seen the US Government overthrown by the same tactics that took out Weimar. The West is going around in circles, as it has so many times before, and its _boring_!!!

    In any case, Hitler’s looting the Jewish population (justified in Nazi propaganda by the previous looting of Germany after WW I) and his later looting of conquered countries (using methods pioneered by France when its looted Germany after WW I) turned out to be Hitler’s undoing. It took on enemies it could not defeat – the Jewish Diaspora (which brought in the US) and the USSR, which (however idiotic its strategy in starting WW II) had an unreachable war industry beyond the Urals and considerable manpower, as did the US.

    Suvorov points out that while the USSR might have won WW II, Russian lost. By the Battle of Berlin, Stalin told its planners that they’d have to do it without a fresh levy of draftees, because the manpower pool was empty. After the war, teenagers were drafted as soldiers for garrison duty. There was a famine that killed yet another million people because there weren’t enough people to harvest the crops. The Russians were left with an Eastern Europe that they couldn’t control, and that eventually left them; they were also left with an industrial plant ideal for winning WW II (but no troops to use the war materiel) and utterly useless for peace time production. Khrushchev tried and failed to change this (see Francis Spufford, _Red Plenty_, for a popularized view of what happened, but note that Spufford doesn’t discuss Soviet depopulation). By the 1980 the Russian economy was taking valuable raw materials and making them into items with a market value less than the raw materials’ value on the international market, and couldn’t pay for its imports. After that, the USSR’s fall was just a matter of a decade.

    Again, the Soviet experience is fairly close to what happened to the West after WW II. Same welfare state, same gradual impoverishment due to an unworkable political system. Both Soviet and West were endlessly playing “1930s”, and finding that what didn’t work then doesn’t work now. The only good thing about it is that nobody has quite been dumb enough to start WW III, although we came close a few times (Cuban missile crisis, several false alarms of general missile attacks). The bad thing is that industrialization is gradually being lost.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Agree: Zumbuddi
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Curmudgeon
    , @PeterMX
    , @EH
  18. As for “Cabaret” itself, you’re right. The Nazis are looking like the good guys. Trouble is, they weren’t. They set up a welfare state dependent on looting other groups (feeble minded firs, then Jews, then foreigners) and eventually found themselves in a situation where they could either split up Poland with the USSR or lose their ability to borrow overseas, lose the welfare state, and lose the populations’ loyalty. You have to remember that the Nazis, in addition to restoring the German self-respect as “Cabaret” emphasizes, also paid their citizens in cold cash, goods, and services. See Götz Aly, _”Hitler’s Beneficiaries_. The Jewish establishment has, ever since WW II, said that white identity is dangerous, but it was the Autobahn, VW, rising wages, social services that bought off the German population. Every party was in favor of German identity, but the welfare state won out. Just as it has in the West.

    So, while mass market pornography doesn’t look good to me, the Nazis don’t look good to me either.

    They were, morally, on the same level (maybe a bit better) as the Soviets, with whom the West allied itself to “save Poland”, which in practice was fought through twice and then made into a colony of Russia, so let’s not discuss that. The USSR actually killed Jews because they were Jews, and, just as bad, preferentially made their internal security force Jewish, thus making some Jews among the largest mass killers in history. The international Jewish community appears to have been too embarrassed to protest, which saving of its feelings was perhaps the only good thing to come of the entire affair.

    Strategically, the Nazis were idiots, although tactically and operationally very good. I don’t see painting oneself into a corner as they did as a good idea. Of course, the West (having taken the Nazi idea of a welfare state and population control via social services) is essentially the form of government the Nazis pioneered. And the West seems to have painted itself into the same corner. So here we are, in the same corner as a lot of dead Nazis, the USSR c.a. 1980, and the PRC circa today.

    My thoughts on watching the original theater run were that there are lots and lots of ways to get killed, and that they should (in general) be avoided. Maybe not a general rule but at least as useful as Sonic the Hedgehog’s first episode advice: “Kids, NEVER chase hedgehogs in Formula 1 Racers”, and almost as obvious. I’ve always wondered why so few people follow it.

    Counterinsurgency

  19. Al Liguori says: • Website

    The Sexual Decadence of Weimar Germany
    by Lasha Darkmoon, September 25, 2013

    https://www.darkmoon.me/2013/the-sexual-decadence-of-weimar-germany/

    “The decay of moral values in all areas of life—the period of deepest German degradation—coincided exactly with the height of Jewish power in Germany.” — Dr Friederich Karl Wiehe, Germany and the Jewish Question. [1]


    Otto Dix, Metropolis (1928). Berlin in the heyday of the Weimar Republic: a hedonistic hellpit of sexual depravity.

    “No account of the Jewish Question in Germany can be complete without some mention of the tidal wave of sexual immorality that was to engulf the country during the period of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) following World War One. This also happened to be the apogee of Jewish power in Germany. Every single sphere of major influence had now fallen under Jewish control.…”

    See also: http://judaism.is/perversion.html

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  20. Bruno says:

    I love the decadence . The book is much better. There is a good TV movie Christopher Isherwood and his kind wich is more truth to the book.

    And for the one who really enjoy the decadence, there is a German TV series Babylon Berlin, wich a fantastic song from a Baltic singer, wich gives you the sense of decadence and poverty from that time. You see also the rapacious industrialist and the fanatic nationalist. The plot is unrealistic but it’s more of an atmosphere série. They ack the clever Jewish screen writer there.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @fnn
  21. Logan says:

    That Nazis despised the decadence and nihilism of Weimar doesn’t somehow change it from what it was.

    The Nazis also campaigned against tobacco use and were the first major group to start imposing environmentalist policies. That didn’t make smoking or destruction of the environment good ideas.

  22. JackOH says:

    As a youngster I’d read Isherwood’s Berlin Stories, and they succeed as a rendering of the Berlin demimonde and its characters, who are presented sympathetically. I saw an interview with Isherwood from the 1960s, and he appeared as a creepier/more pervy guy than you’d imagine from his writing.

    Would the Berlin Stories and its theatrical and cinematic offspring have succeeded financially and critically had the setting been anywhere other than Berlin?

    Nope.

    The demonization of Herr Hitler and his Nazi crew has been astoundingly successful, and that demonization has leveraged literature, political ideologies, and what-not that would have otherwise, in my opinion, have remained small-market, fringey phenomena.

  23. sally says:

    Weimar was a disease. The Nazis were the cure. What a thesis?

    Germany was a victim of a Jewish bankers plot to deny highly competitive, always better Germany’s desire to expand its market through colonialism in direct opposition to the monopoly on colonialism the he French, British and Swedes though they had. The bankers, corporations, and Oligarchs, saw Germany as a rising world power able to defeat take no prisoner, allow no competition, economic zionism.. The decision to end Germany was made just prior to and became a part of the planning process at the Zionist congresses.. beginning in 1896?.. the treaty with the French and Russians to contain Germany (much as is being done today to Iran), and the next year the financial supporters (French, British, and Swedish) decided Herzl ‘s Zionism could serve as a vector to defeat Germany. Why because it had been decided that war against powerful Germany was doomed to defeat without the wealth and manpower of America to do the task. so the Next year France and England made a deal with the USA to make happen, that Americans would to do the fighting, and taxes would collateralize the bank (fed reserve act and income tax 16 amendment) for its war time loans to Europe. Professor Usher’s book Pan Germanism 1913 says that and the Kaisers own book, Memoirs of Ex Kaiser Wilhelm, II, 1922 makes it clear had he known about these two treaties, the outcome of WWI would have been different. Weimar was dealing with highly placed Jewish leadership and wealth, it was impossible to solve the Jewish question under those circumstances.
    Cabaret might be a propaganda; type = designed to detach conserved beliefs <= liberalize.. long conserved beliefs .. it had no message, just a purpose..

  24. It is pure cultural Bolshevism from start to finish.

    I doubt you’d find any similar public scene of sicko pervy decadence under any of the Bolshevik regimes in the USSR.

    Money makes the world go ’round,” a witless ditty in which vulgar Marxism meets just plain vulgar.

    I’ve never come across Marxism, vulgar or otherwise, promoting such shallow monetary materialism.

    I find it annoying when the right deliberately misrepresents the left, just like the left misrepresents the right, and each try to make their own record look better than it is.

  25. Truth3 says:

    Weimar Germany shows what happens to a Christian Culture when Jews take control of the levers of power.

    We are living in Weimar II.

  26. @Truth3

    Related to that, I see that Taylor Swift just had her back catalogue bought out from underneath her, and she isn’t happy.

    https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/taylor-swift-slams-scooter-brauns-acquisition-of-big-machine-as-my-worst-case-scenario-1203256624/

    Not been a great month for her. It seems her fellow whites own not only her mind, but now also her records.

  27. The song is pure, calculated kitsch, the product of two Jewish songwriters, and yet it is better—and seems more sincere and real—than anything else in the film. The scene is crushingly unsubtle, an exercise in ritualistic goy-hatred. These Hollywood Nazis are supposed to seem sinister and repellent, but they are infinitely more healthy and appealing than the smug and decadent Max and Brian, much less anything on stage at the Kit Kat Klub.

    I don’t know what were songwriters’ intentions (possibly the author is right)- but this scene sends shivers down anyone’s spine. It’s not so important, in my opinion, as the presentation of health; its power lies in romantic nationalist infatuation & physical nobility of “Aryan” boy singer (nothing gay there), that will touch anyone who can feel beyond the problems of his sorry @ss.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  28. Hungrydog says:
    @Sean

    Gayness was big in the early Nazi movement because of Rohm and the SA. This is among the subsidiary reasons why Hitler wanted them out of the pucture.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  29. Jake says:

    The great problem with this article is summed in this line about the play: “It is pure cultural Bolshevism from start to finish.”

    That is not right. The source material is 2-fold, and neither man was a Bolshevik. In fact, Stalin would have used such idiots for a spell, and then disappeared them into his Gulag.

    John Van Druten wrote the play I Am a Camera. Van Druten was half Dutch and half Brit WASP raised in England. He was queer, from the large part of English life that dabbled in gay sex and, in many cases even with long marriages, stayed primarily gay. Short story author Christopher Isherwood was also English, and also middle class, also tied to good schools of, by, and for respectable Brit WASPs. Isherwood also was queer. Van Druten’s play is based on Isherwood’s fiction.

    Neither of those WASP queers was a Bolshevik by party membership. Any sympathy either had for Bolshevism was due entirely to seeing it as muscle to destroy whatever might remain of the values and morals of Christendom.

    Cabaret is another in a very long line of artistic/entertainment/journalistic/academic products that exist solely or at least preponderantly to serve the cause of continuing rebellion against Christ and Christendom. Your run-of-the-mill middle class, Brit WASP atheist/agnostic indulging his hedonism (for sex or alcohol or dope or money acquisition, or for things oriental), and who is anti-Marxist, does that even if he is not queer.

  30. @Commentator Mike

    I’ve never come across Marxism, vulgar or otherwise, promoting such shallow monetary materialism.

    “Money makes the world go around” is a pretty good summary of vulgar Marxism’s (i.e. Marxism before Solzhenitsyn discredited the idea) criticism of the West. There was considerable window dressing, and Marxism (being Hegelian) said that things used to be different and so could become different again, but dominance of middle classes with a rich man overlayer means that money drives everything. As a criticism of Western society, it put its finger on a sore spot.
    Counterinsurgency

  31. After 2020 it will be Cabaret USA!

  32. Jake says:
    @Truth3

    Germany had been secular, not Christian. And Germany’s secularist founding was followed immediately by the kulturkampf: culture war against the Catholic Church and against whatever remained across the newly forcibly united Germany of medieval Christian values and identities that would fail to align meekly under the new and rather vicious secularism.

    The decadence that exploded with Weimar after WW1 actually did not explode. It had grown very steadily across the 19th century and was central to the gunpoint unification. Berlin was a gay scene of epic proportions when it was still the capital of Prussia. In the latter third of the 19th century that decadence was spread across the entire new nation. Nudist nature clubs for teens and premarried 20-somethings became a rage, and gay sex as a fad followed on its heels.

    The Nazi Party was founded in a gay club. Not only were most early Nazi leaders queer, but many were pederasts, including Brownshirt leader Ernest Rohm.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @J
  33. @sally

    Keeping Germany out of the club was the basic wrong move that killed the West.
    It would have been difficult, but England should have allied itself with Germany. That would have been the classic English move: avoid combat, stay out of Europe except for expeditionary forces England could afford to lose, use alliances and money instead. Germany, in alliance, could have provided the men and goods that England, which had grown too small for its Empire even in 1900, no longer could.
    Differing ideas of family structure would have made things difficult, but not as difficult as WW I, WW II, and the American destruction of the Empire.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @S
    , @Anonymous
  34. @sally

    The thesis was the total destruction of Germany. All of Europe would be ravaged and weakened by the war. A great portion of the young, virile White males of Europe and her lap dog America would be eliminated. It would allow great portions of Europe(and China)to be Communized and for Christendom to be severely weakened. Political Zionism would be made strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. It must be said the plan was a smashing success.

    That leaves us where we are today, at the precipice of WWIII, which as Albert Pike laid out so long ago:
    Must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati” between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained. physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.”

    There we have it, the plan for our “one world government, new world order”.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  35. Wow. I’m not the only one who hated Sally Bowles, the freak played by Joel Grey and the rest of the Kit Kat crew. Found myself rooting for the Nazis. I can understand one of the reasons for the appeal of Nazism – they claimed to stand for moral decency. The Nazis opposed the decriminalization of homosexuality in the 1920s. Hitler’s public persona was that of a celibate heterosexual male.

    • Replies: @Anon
  36. @Diversity Heretic

    AS A MATTER OF FACT . . . the original 1966 Broadway version of Cabaret is quite a bit different from the 1972 Fosse film musical. The characters are different, the songs are different (at least half are replaced), and the historical spin on the plot is different.

    Sally Bowles (Jill Haworth) is an English convent-school girl, and her boyfriend Cliff (Bert Convy) is an American writer who is not apparently homosexual. The elderly love-match between the characters played by Lotte Lenya (Christian) and Jack Gilford (Jewish) is actually a substantial subplot. Jack gets to sing a cute little yiddishkeit ditty called “Meeskeit.”

    This is significant, because in the later scene with the dancing gorilla, the Joel Grey emcee does not finish up with, “She doesn’t look—Jewish—at all,” but rather, “She isn’t a Meeskeit at all!”

    That is a good example of how the movie inverted the humor and generally tarted things up. Compared to the film script, the stage libretto is saccharine and hackneyed, but it does not demonize Germans or Nazis, or caricature Jews as hopeless victims.

    “I am a camera,” was the title of an earlier, straight-play version (the line is Isherwood’s) and the stage musical at least tries to preserve some of that unbiased dramatisation of a historical “snapshot” . . . the exact opposite of the film version which is glitz and propaganda from start to finish. Nobody is just a Jew or a Nazi or a whore; they’re all Hollywood caricatures of “Jew,” “Nazi,” “Whore,” stripped-down stereotypes who never grow beyond their elevator-pitch.

    • Replies: @S
    , @Michael Robedson
  37. Jake says:

    “One of the most famous scenes in the film takes place as the trio returns to Berlin from Maximilian’s country estate. Maximilian has explained how the Nazis are hooligans but useful for stopping the Communists. Once the Communists are defeated, people like Max will reign in the Nazis. As they enjoy lunch at a beer garden, a handsome blond youth begins singing. It is standard German Romantic or folk fare, with stags, forests, the Rhine, babies, etc. Then we see that the young man is wearing the uniform of the Hitler Youth. The song takes on a more martial and strident air with the chorus “Tomorrow Belongs to Me,” and virtually the whole crowd joins in signing. “Still think you can control them?” Brian asks Max.”

    The scene explains the Globalist emphasis on hating middle class and working class Whitey. In the scene, the decadent German super rich and powerful guy assumes he can use the ‘white trash’ to defeat the Bolsheviks. But, say not merely the Jews but also the decadent middle class WASPs, history declares that those whites out there in the small towns and on the farms hated being ruled by us and our love of seducing them and buying and selling them. And they might rise up against us.

    The scene also explains the Brit Empire’s relationship with all its ‘white trash’ and the way that Country Club Republicans have always seen working class white Americans.

  38. @sally

    Your analysis is spot on,IMHO. Like button already used.

  39. @Jake

    For those of you who are unfamiliar with the concept of Cultural Bolshevism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism

    • Agree: Hail
  40. @Miro23

    Hitler knew a Soviet invasion was coming, that’s why he invaded Russia. He also knew the only chance for German success was a smashing surprise attack on Russia. All things considered, he came closer to pulling it off than most people consider.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @dfordoom
  41. @R.G. Camara

    Bob Fosse did choreography to perfection. He did dances you don’t forget. But you don’t forget them because you’re not distracted by other drama.

    Most of the sociological subtext and historical background to the original Berlin Stories of Christopher Isherwood, and the later stage versions by van Druten and Kander/Ebb, are stripped out of the 1972 film. The Fosse movie really has relatively little to with the earlier versions; it’s set up to provide an environment in which a few musical numbers and Fosse’s choreography are allowed to shine.

    Of course, the few bits retained from the 1966 Broadway version have a very different spin in the movie, because the context is removed. In the film, the song ‘Tomorrow Belongs to Me,’ seems to be an ominous anthem, unexpected, the Wave of the Future. In the musical-comedy stage version, it’s a rather perfunctory number, just thrown in there for pseudo-historical coloration.

  42. Truth says:

    God is the answer. The alpha and the omega.

    All else is window dressing

  43. What is wrong with the review & most comments is this: Weimar Germany (1918-1933) was not reducible to decadent faqqotry & similar stuff, nor were German Jews some dominant manipulative force behind it all. In fact, Weimar Germany (which also, as a cultural sphere includes Austria of the period) was one of the pinnacles of creativity, close in eminence to Periclean Athens (of course this is an exaggeration, but I have no other reference point except Medicis’ Florence. Anyway, this was great creative time). It was the time of greatest modern German painting, film, literature (Mann, Broch, Rilke, Musil, Hesse, Kafka, ..), music (Schoenberg, Berg, Orff, Hindemith, …), architecture, science, especially physics & mathematics (Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Pauli, Weyl, Noether, …), but also chemistry, medicine, philosophy (Husserl, Heidegger, Spengler, Scheler, Hartmann, Cassirer, Schmitt …), various other social sciences, engineering, finances etc. etc.

    So, widespread opinion among right-wingers that is was mostly decadence, prostitution, Jewish & homo depravity is a shallow view. Weimar Germany birthed titanic works of high modern culture & whole modern world.

  44. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @R.G. Camara

    Bob Fosse was a straight gentile male with a genius at dance who worked in an industry–Broadway—that was rapidly becoming openly dominated by homosexuals and Jews.

    Jews were always big on Broadway. Homos were less open but were big too,

    Fosse made LENNY and ALL THAT JAZZ. He love decadence.ATJ is semi-biographical and it shows Fosse as a full-time wild man all his life. And it seems grew up in that atmosphere.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
  45. Has Trevor lynch ever reviewed Quiz Show? It’s a deep movie in its truthfulness about the social geography, in a similar way to Social Network. There’s much revealed for those with eyes to see, in other words. I can’t figure out that whole snafu upon which the movie is based. Should we take it at face value, or are there dimensions of Levantine conspiracy behind the scenes? Was it all an elaborate plot to get van Doren out of his Cornell professorship, possibly?
    I would like to see Trevor’s take on the matter.

    It seems really similar to Bobby Fischer’s return match with Spassky, which was a strange affair in which a shadowy Israeli arms dealer(presumably Jewish) essentially made Fischer whole over money which had been defrauded from him over the years. But there was this peculiar worm in the apple of violating US sanctions. I feel there is more in both situations than meets the eye.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  46. Miro23 says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Hitler knew a Soviet invasion was coming, that’s why he invaded Russia. He also knew the only chance for German success was a smashing surprise attack on Russia.

    Disagree with this. Hitler had the most powerful and modern military in Europe. If he had deployed it a full force on short supply lines in defense of Germany’s eastern border, there is no way that the Soviets would have taken the gamble.

    Hitler could have continued to develop his rocketry, jet aircraft + nuclear research.

    • Agree: annamaria
    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  47. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    No, 1/3 of Germans finally voted for the Nazis because of the Depression.

    Germans had no taste for war. And many Germans enjoyed the freedom and decadence, much like many Americans enjoyed the Jazz Age amidst prosperity. Both Germany and US turned culturally more conservative or puritanist-leftist due to the Depression.

    • Replies: @S
    , @Sean
  48. I recall Cabaret on the television as a young child – I presume it was on an early iteration of cable television, perhaps Home Box Office. My grandmother – who was the world’s most devoted Judy Garland fan, and whose fandom was apparently hereditary and inherited by Ms. Minnelli – insisted upon watching it as I do not believe she saw the film in its theater release.

    Though I was unable to fully comprehend what was going on in the film, I do distinctly recall an intense feeling of disgust at the Joel Grey character, and a feeling of embarrassment at witnessing Minnelli’s own androgynous appearance in ill-fitting lingerie and gyrations in the company of my family. I quickly returned to playing with my G.I. Joe figures in the front room.

    I recently watched the film for the first time as an adult in order to determine what the acclaim was all about, and my predominant impression was similarly that of intense disgust.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    , @Susan
  49. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Truth3

    Japanese control Japanese culture, but it’s all cartoon porn.

    • LOL: Bruno
  50. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hungrydog

    HIDDEN HITLER says Hitler was a bohemian with lots of tooty friends.

  51. Alden says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    Thanks, very informative. I’ve always wondered if Weimar decadence was greatly exaggerated. Most Germans were still farmers then. The small towns were very conformist. Skipping church was a scandal.

    Probably the big cities had their drugs sex porn and gay neighborhoods but the majority led respectable lives. Just my opinion.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  52. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    It should be CULTURAL BALL-SHAVE-ISM.

  53. @Bardon Kaldian

    “Weimar” does not mean everything that happened during the Weimar era. It refers to everything that the cultural Left was up to. Thus including Spengler, Schmitt, Heidegger, and Orff among the glories of Weimar is disingenuous, for they rejected Weimar. You might as well say that the Nazis were also one of the glories of Weimar culture.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  54. @Yapius the 2nd

    I have reviewed Quiz Show, and the review will appear here in the coming days, once traffic and discussion connected with this review have died down.

  55. Alden says:
    @Bruno

    I’ve watched Babylon Berlin. It’s depressing, one young women supporting several adult relatives in a shabby apartment. ,

    • Replies: @Ancient Briton
  56. Bruno says:

    The Nazi made Stefan Zweig, and many others, go. What art did they gave us ?

    The same for mathematics. There were no mathematics left in Germany after the Jewish purge. It was number 1 . It has never recovered.

    Nationalism culture is boring as Jeova drawings. If it were like Ancient Greek or Rome, that would be différent. But then don’t speak against decadence ….

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
    , @S
  57. S says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    The American actress Louise Brooks starred in two 1929 films made in Germany and directed by the German George Pabst.

    One was Pandora’s Box and the other Diary of a Lost Girl. In both films Brook’s character is a prostitute.

    IIRC on the DVD’s film historian interview(s) Pabst was attempting to communicate to the audience something along the lines that the pimp and his prostitute represented freedom in the modern world.

    It’s understandable why people would turn away from that.

  58. Miro23 says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    So, widespread opinion among right-wingers that is was mostly decadence, prostitution, Jewish & homo depravity is a shallow view. Weimar Germany birthed titanic works of high modern culture & whole modern world.

    It depends where you look:

    Architecture – Bauhaus ( human beings in concrete and glass boxes ).

    Psychology – Freud ( all sex – penis envy etc.)

    Sociology – Frankfurt School ( e.g. Marcuse – erase traditional society like the family, marriage etc.).

    Art – Dada abstract pure emotion ( check Tom Wolfe’s “The Painted Word” ).

    Theatre – Brecht – Marxist dialectic theatre.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  59. Bruno says:

    My grandmother, who was a far right National catholic, said I never let my personal preference influence my objective judgment. For example, there is no doubt that both in writing and in painting, Winston Churchill had more style than A.H.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Bardon Kaldian
  60. fnn says:
    @Sean

    Douglas Reed the Times correspondent in Weimar Germany said that he had thought it the summit of of decadence, but it was nothing compared to 50’s Chicago.

    Chicago in the 1950s was almost entirely a socially conservative Catholic (as in pre-Vatican II Catholic) city. Organized crime was very powerful, but that was well-hidden. A couple of books about the power of organized crime in Chicago were Chicago Confidential and Ovid Demaris’ City In Chains. Also, much more recently, Gus Russo’s two books, The Outfit and Supermob.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  61. @Bruno

    Mathematics, science, and culture are universal. One doesn’t need to live with Jewish mathematicians to benefit from them.

    So are recipes. One can still eat burritos, if you go in for that kind of food, without living with Mexicans.

    • Replies: @Bruno
    , @Anonymous
  62. Alden says:
    @Alec Leamas

    I’ve only seen bits and pieces when it’s shown on TV. I can only take about 20 minutes of it. Sally struck me as pretentious. Joel Grey was something out of a horror film.

  63. S says:
    @P. J. Collins

    Sally Bowles (Jill Haworth) is an English convent-school girl, and her boyfriend Cliff (Bert Convy) is an American writer who is not apparently homosexual.

    Jill Haworth was a hottie. Left us far too young. (RIP)

  64. @S

    In that particular case, freedom really is slavery.

    Counterinsurgency

  65. @Trevor Lynch

    No, because Nazi period was basically culturally sterile except in some areas of invention. There was no great German literature written during that era (1933-1945) in Germany; physics & mathematics generally crumbled, as well as other areas (even superficially sympathetic Heidegger has passed his acme). As Hilbert had said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert#Later_years

    Hilbert lived to see the Nazis purge many of the prominent faculty members at University of Göttingen in 1933.[15] Those forced out included Hermann Weyl (who had taken Hilbert’s chair when he retired in 1930), Emmy Noether and Edmund Landau. One who had to leave Germany, Paul Bernays, had collaborated with Hilbert in mathematical logic, and co-authored with him the important book Grundlagen der Mathematik (which eventually appeared in two volumes, in 1934 and 1939). This was a sequel to the Hilbert-Ackermann book Principles of Mathematical Logic from 1928. Hermann Weyl’s successor was Helmut Hasse.

    About a year later, Hilbert attended a banquet and was seated next to the new Minister of Education, Bernhard Rust. Rust asked whether “the Mathematical Institute really suffered so much because of the departure of the Jews”. Hilbert replied, “Suffered? It doesn’t exist any longer, does it!”

    Nazi Germany was something like Sparta- powerful & well organized, but creatively sterile. Lack of freedom produces lack of creativity.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Priss Factor
  66. @Commentator Mike

    It doesn’t take a great deal of effort to make the left look bad.

    One hundred million dead people speaks volumes.

    • Replies: @David
  67. S says:
    @Bruno

    There were no mathematics left in Germany after the Jewish purge.

    They must have had at least one or two. 😉

    • Replies: @Ancient Briton
  68. @Alden

    Berlin, maybe other big cities. Germans in their version of flyover country were still quite conservative.

  69. Goofy people in here defending marxism, Weimar, and degeneracy.

    Russia got jewed, and then Germany was getting jewed and RUINED.

    Berlin was the Hollywood/globohomogayplex of its’ time and it was not pretty. It was the opposite of everything wholesome and good and decent, and that is why the German people fought back.

    The entire western world is now getting a taste of it, and the taste is foul.

  70. @P. J. Collins

    Meeskeit likely derives from the German word ‘mies’ or appalling, wretched, rotten, etc.’

  71. @R.G. Camara

    Very interesting. Having hated musicals instinctively ever since I happened upon American culture, I though they had always been superficial bullshit mock-operas for amateur singers catering to girls and effeminate men.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
  72. @Colin Wright

    In the book on Fascism Wilhelm Reich said that Berlin was the most mentally ill city on the planet and I’m pretty sure he meant the Nazis were the ones who were mentally ill but the ones who weren’t Nazis were not exactly well adjusted. Or maybe he knew the ones that were into sex and drugs and cabaret were the most mentally ill and he was just coy about it?

    (I always had a soft spot for Reich who got thrown out of Europe, got thrown out of the Freudian analysis association, and ended up persecuted by the United States government. His books are interesting but he would have had a lot happier life if he had learned some tact along the way.)

    • Replies: @Jake
  73. Che Guava says:

    Suvorov is a pseudonym on two levels; both a nom de plume, and his assumed name as a Sov. defector. Perhaps the names were not really the same.

    Would not match his real name. I read it somewhere once.

    His claim is very interesting, and everybody should read it, in detail. Still, I wonder if it is true. At least the force distributions on the eastern frontier of the USSR seem to be undeniable.

    I recommend to anybody, Svetlana Alliyulevna’s Twenty Letters to a Friend, it is not reliable history, because it is mainly her memoirs of her childhood and time as the young daughter of Stalin, mainly written (or heavily edited) after she had defected to the USA.

    Parts of it must be true, though, simply because it rings true, and matches other accounts.

    After the launch of op. Barbarossa, Stalin was said to to have gone on a drunken spree for two or three weeks.

    That fits Svetlana’s accounts of how he handled earlier parties (as in not political) with party officials.

    The world would be a much better place now if the USSR, Imperial (or fascist )Japan, and German nationa socialists had won.

    • Replies: @Republic
  74. Not Raul says:

    I have a different view on Fritz & Natalia.

    Fritz had gained a lot by passing as a Gentile, and was willing to give that up, and accept the risk that comes with being known as a Jew, out of love for Natalia.

    It seems brave and heroic.

    That scene alone would have kept Goebbels from approving of the movie.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  75. @Miro23

    Germany’s National Socialists cleaned up Germany.

    Allied bombers did a better job of cleaning up Germany.

  76. fnn says:
    @Bruno

    The plot includes Trotskyist action heroes, a phenomenon which certainly didn’t exist in Berlin at that time.

    • Replies: @Bruno
  77. Saying the NAZIs were healthier than the Cabaret crowd is like saying the Bubonic plague is healthier than Ebola. Both are the creations of a degenerate people.

  78. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    . “Hitler’s public persona was that of a celibate heterosexual male“

    The Nose has taught you to trust the supposed “celibate heterosexual male” against those nasty homos. How did that work out? How’s it working for the Vatican?

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  79. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Hitler knew a Soviet invasion was coming, that’s why he invaded Russia.

    That’s possible. Victor Suvorov’s theory that Stalin was about to invade Germany and that Operation Barbarossa was therefore a pre-emptive strike is interesting but it’s by no means universally accepted.

    Lots of right-wingers believe Suvorov’s theory because they want to believe it. It fits a certain right-wing narrative. The “Hitler did nothing wrong” kind of narrative.

    You also need to consider that Suvorov is not exactly an unbiased historian.

  80. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    How were citizens not “free” to do math or physics? What the Third Reich lacked were Jews and (officially) homos. That’s why it was as culturally sterile as Salt Lake City.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  81. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bruno

    Nonsense. Hitler could do a whole apartment in one afternoon. Two coats!

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
  82. I would certainly agree that the “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” scene is the central moment in the movie. It would appear that Mr Fosse sort of got carried away, because the scene is one of the most powerful and convincing piece of Nazi propaganda ever produced – it could very well come straight from Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will”.

    As regards the song itself, it is commonly reported that it was written by John Kander and
    Fred Ebb (both Jews and both homosexuals), and here again it would appear that they made and astonishing job in mimicking a HJ’s song not by way of ridicule, but rather in producing a beautiful and moving piece – both as regards text and music. Very strange.

    Stranger still, and something which puzzled me ever since I first saw the movie in German TV, is the fact that this is the one and only song in “Cabaret” of which a German language version exists (“Der morgige Tag ist mein”). The movie as shown on German TV was of course synchronized in German as regards the dialogues, but all the songs were left in English – apart from this one. Curious, I though.

    Even more bizarre: over the years, the song has been adopted in the standard repertoire of several right-wing or even openly pro-Nazi rock bands, and played at their concerts. One would expect that the rightful copyright owners would be upset and dismayed by such a misuse of their intellectual property, and take strong legal steps to block it. Nothing of the sort.

    And indeed: “The German Genius”, by Peter Watson states that the song was actually written in the ’20s for a Catholic Youth organisation (subsequently absorbed by the HJ). I am away from my library and cannot remember the name of the poet who wrote both verses and music, but the book provides a biography. If this is correct, Kander and Ebb simply lifted the music and translated the text.

  83. Bruno says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    As much as Sudanese and Liberian benefit from California brainies’ algorithms …

  84. Bruno says:
    @fnn

    Yeah it’s less realist than Game of Thrones. But it’s all about the decadent atmosphere (for those who like it).

    My dream would have been to know Berlin (20 to 30, then 70-80 east Berlin), Paris (1890-1920), NY (70ies), Madrid (same) and Casablanca (50ies) etc on their decadent years

  85. renfro says:

    White House Cabaret
    As the cameras flashed & Pompeo shuffled around, it took the first daughter a moment to realize he was trying to slide in. She eventually moved aside to let the secretary of state take his place between her and the South Korean first lady.”

    https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1145473379887177730/lnaMC2vg?format=jpg&name=600×314

  86. renfro says:

    So embarrassing.

    • LOL: S
    • Replies: @Republic
    , @ricpic
    , @Pericles
    , @Alden
  87. S says:
    @Anonymous

    …1/3 of Germans finally voted for the Nazis because of the Depression.

    Some years back Rolling Stone magazine published an extensive article which had as its central thesis that going back to the time of the Great Depression Goldman Sachs had been behind what the article submitted were artificially created ‘financial bubbles’ and their following ‘crashes’.

    While no doubt buying up vast amounts of property at pennies on the dollar is a powerful motivation for such behaviour, I have wondered if in regards to the Great Depression and its timing (ie 1929) if it had not been artificially induced for the specific purpose of getting Adolf Hitler into power in Germany. [It will be recalled prior to the Depression, as bad off as Germany was in many ways, Hitler was having difficulty making headway with its voting public.]

    According to the writer of Conjuring Hitler the US/UK wanted the most radical and militaristic expression of nationalism in power in Germany, and hence Anglosphere banks fostering Hitler and his National Socialism via the providing of financing.

    The reason being WWI had not broken Germany, and the hope here was that WWII would break out with Hitler in power. This would afford the opportunity of smashing Germany between the US/UK hammer blows from the West and the Russian anvil in the East.

    Secondary longer term US/UK goals against Russian identity and Soviet Communism would be met with Hitler in power by the tremendous human and material losses experienced by the Russian people (ie twenty million dead, massive infrastructure destruction) due to the war, all having the effect of ‘softening up’ Russia in any relatively near term future struggle with the US/UK.

    With Hitler in power in Germany it could only help to energize political Zionism.

    It has to be said, advocates of the ideology of multi-culturalism, are if anything, multi-taskers.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-195229/

    https://archive.org/details/ConjuringHitler

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  88. @Anon

    Hitler wasn’t celibate, but kept his romances discreet.

  89. renfro says:

    Too weird for father and daughter.

  90. @Chris Mallory

    Care to list the groups you approve of, Chris Mallory?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  91. @S

    Many US films the 1920s and early 1930s were racy – the much-maligned Motion Picture Code kicked in 1934 and temporarily cleaned Hollywood up.

    • Replies: @S
  92. Hollywood gave Joel Grey the Oscar for best supporting actor. the loser that night : Al Pacino for playing Michael on the Godfather.

    This is the most laughable award ever given by the Hollywood crew.

  93. I saw “Cabaret” when it came out (no pun intended) in ’72 and found it unremittingly depressing. In terms of the current unpleasantness the subject matter turns out to be timely–a sort of looking back to the future. TAC’s Mr. Dreher insists that we are immersed in a Weimar-like culture. I don’t think we’re there, at least not yet. But we’re sure getting there.

    • Replies: @Republic
    , @Pericles
  94. @Counterinsurgency

    In that sense OK. But surely right wingers would agree with that statement too. Don’t we all say “follow the money” when we’re trying to get to the bottom of things, even 9/11?

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  95. Wally says:
    @dfordoom

    Except that your silliness have been refuted rather easily. I suggest that the UR site is not a good one for your amateurish, hasbarist responses.

    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents, by Mark Weber: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/

    Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe: http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    and:
    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

  96. David says:
    @Robert Dolan

    volumes

    About 0.0064 cubic kilometers if they had an average weight of 64 kg.

  97. Anonymous[240] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chris Mallory

    A hearty fuck you from every innocent German woman and child incinerated in indiscriminate nightime raids.

    May (((Arthur Harris))) burn in hell and you can burn with him.

  98. @Not Raul

    I don’t agree. It is not even clear that he is not just a gold digger. Beyond that, Natalia’s lack of any apparent moral scruples about marrying a man who lied to her about not being Jewish made the whole thing distasteful and alien to me.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    , @reiner Tor
  99. Anonymous[240] • Disclaimer says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    ‘They set up a welfare state dependent on looting other groups (feeble minded firs, then Jews, then foreigners)’

    No actually they got rid of the (((bankers))) and stopped Jews parasitising them. Germany in about two years raised living standards astronomically and cut unemployment down to the smallest it could be. The money they were supposedly looting (in reality they were finally making Jews contribute to rearming Germany) mostly came from middle class Germans who had been robbed of it by Jews using foreign Jewish capital to buy up real assets for pennies on the dollar during hyperinflation. Cry me a river.

  100. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    Germany’s population was still quite rural in the Thirties. Cabaret is really about Berlin, which was never a Nazi stronghold.

    • Replies: @Wally
  101. Republic says:
    @Che Guava

    The world would be a much better place now if the USSR, Imperial (or fascist )Japan, and German national socialists had won.

    recently read three books on the great evils of Stalin:

    * Assignment in Utopia, Eugene Lyons
    *I chose Freedom, Victor Kravchenko
    *I chose Justice,Victor Kravchenko

    I first one is the memoir of a Communist UPI correspondent from New York in Moscow from 1929-34 and how he became an anti communist,
    The 2nd and 3rd were about the story of a defector from the USSR in 1943 when he was a diplomat in Washington and his later libel trial in Paris against the USSR

    Stalin and the USSR were ten times worst than the Nazi regime

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  102. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ezio Bonsignore

    There is a German language song in the original stage version (and original cast LP) called Verhierate [sp?] i.e., “Married,” sung by the Lotte Lenya character, I believe, about her and the Meeskeit guy getting married. Since their subplot was largely cut, it appears in the movie only as an instrumental, played on a 78 phongraph in the background of one scene.

  103. This play was just another installment in the deliberate–and supremely successful–ruling class project of the 70s to replace political–that is, antiwar, anti-Big Business, and pro-labor–activism with identity politics decadence. Context, please.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Not Raul
  104. Republic says:
    @renfro

    The high princess of kitsch

  105. Republic says:
    @Prester John

    But we’re sure getting there.

    waiting for the last taboo to be approved by the oligarchs

  106. @S

    bookmark

    One of the Warburgs — Max, I think — carefully assessed militaries of nations and potential leaders. He pronounced the Germans “a virile people” who could be counted on to fight to the end.

    There’s every reason to believe the Third Reich was selected and assembled by Central Casting.

    It’s as if zionists/bankers (the transgenerational criminal gang) shopped for the appropriate assets to carry out their plot.

    Jeff Gates:

    ” Assets are people who have been profiled in sufficient depth, that you put them in a time, place and circumstance over which you can have an enormous amount of control, particularly in politics, then you know within an acceptable range of probabilities that they will perform consistent with their profile.”

    http://americanfreepress.net/html/criminalstatedoc_09_20_10.html

    https://rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/criminal-state-a-closer-look-at-israels-role-in-terrorism/

    • Replies: @S
  107. Polymath says:

    People aren’t giving Fosse enough credit. He knew what he was doing and his technical and creative greatness allowed him to slip it by everyone who would have blocked a production that made Jews and gays look bad in any less subtle a way. He found the fault line and straddled it expertly, so that the decadent showbiz and media people could want to be the Weimar types while wholesome people could see the depravity and where it leads.

  108. @renfro

    Ah yes, there’s even a country song about such things:

  109. Zumbuddi says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes, Arthur Harris & RAG take most of the blame for the firebombing campsign, but USA , particularly 8th Army Air Force played just as significant a role in deliberately killing German civilians.

    Jews were major contributors to planning and carrying out the USA segment of firebombing campsign.

    The British have at least enough decency to be embarrassed re Harris, but Jews still celebrate those of their tribe and ilk who committed mass crimes against humanity & got away with it.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  110. gsjackson says:

    My view of the movie the movie has always been that it is meant to be taken as a cautionary tale — wallow in narcissism and hedonism, disengaged with public affairs, at your peril, because monsters are liable to take over while you aren’t paying attention. It never even occurred to me that the main characters weren’t being viewed ironically as tragically naive children. I don’t think their perspective on life was being celebrated, notwithstanding the title number.

    I haven’t read Berlin Tales, so I don’t know where Isherwood was coming from on all that. I’m assuming politicized lefty warning his alternative lifestyle fellow travelers to stay engaged — but that’s strictly a guess.

    • Replies: @anon
  111. A little food for thought on thse “evil Nazis”
    http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/

  112. @Anonymous

    Fosse lived a form of life to be expected of a straight while male genius in such a milleiu of effeminancy and decadence. Once establishing himself as simply better than everyone else—often through his very masculine, very straight, very straightforward form of intimidation/bullying—he was able to clean up with the ladies, since he was unchallengeable at his job and because of the dearth of actual testosterone around.

    Bruce Willis and the execrable Alec Baldwin come off the same way—two straight white masculine men, who, because they have established themselves and are in an industry of weak men, gays, and women, can basically stride forward with confidence and grab any woman in their industry and instantly have their way with them.

    Baldwin comes off as enjoying the decadence. Willis and Fosse, however, have delivered works of art that heavily criticize such a world, in between bouts of enjoying being the top straight dog.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  113. S says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Yes, quite true.

    It might surprise some to know that the term ‘sex appeal’ was used in some of those late 1920’s pre-code ‘talkies’.

    The whole ‘roaring twenties’ was in many ways a trial 1960’s hampered (a bit) by Prohibition and cut short by the Depression, but still, with many parallels.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  114. @Colin Wright

    The Jews were associated with the Communists. Not all Communists were Jews, but many Jews were Communists, including Kurt Eisner, the head of the Bavarian Soviet Republic in Munich in 1919. This affiliation of the Jews with the Communists is hardly mentioned, but it seems to be what got the Jews in the cross hairs of the Nazis. The Nazi’s weren’t just running around beating people up for being Jewish, they were attacking and defending themselves from the Communists who attacked the Nazis with as much fervor as the Nazis attacked them.

    Oh, and the best part of Cabaret:

    • Agree: Colin Wright, Mulegino1
    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Zumbuddi
    , @Alden
  115. @Parsnipitous

    It is true that gays have always been attracted to dance/the theater—its part of their degeneracy— and singing /dancingshows have always more appeal to females than straight males generally—but straight men and pro-masculine productions had strong positions in it until the 1970s washed most of it away.

    Even something such as The Music Man— a 1950s musical about a swindler and huckster fooling stupid hick small-town whites with a ludicrous lie—was masculine and watchable from straight white male’s point of view, with its celebration of the small town and getting married and the huckster not played nebbish or gay at all and the small town folk given diginity.

    The protagonist’s behavior in All That Jazz is just an updated, cynical, more sex-obsessed version of the Broadway director from the old 42nd Street—what such a director would have become in the Weimar Germany-esque atmosphere of 1970s Broadway as opposed to 1920s-1930s Broadway.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Parsnipitous
  116. ricpic says:
    @renfro

    Methinks Ivanka’s in love with Daddy.

  117. ricpic says:

    Can someone explain the appeal of Lisa Minelli to me? I mean not to me personally, in general. I just don’t get it.

  118. ricpic says:
    @renfro

    Takes guts to wear white and brown shoes.

  119. @S

    Compare the 1926 version of Ben-Hur with the 1959 version – the 1926 version is racier.

  120. Wally says:
    @Sean

    Actually thousands of Jews remained in Berlin throughout the war.

    Yet the ‘holocaust’ narrative says that ‘the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands on’.

    Some ‘Nazi plan of extermination’ that was.

  121. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @R.G. Camara

    “It is true that gays have always been attracted to dance/the theater—its part of their degeneracy— and singing /dancingshows have always more appeal to females than straight males generally—but straight men and pro-masculine productions had strong positions in it until the 1970s washed most of it away.”

    Nonsense, it started with that filthy degenerate Wagner, refusing to put in second act ballets so the real, manly men could ogle their mistresses in the dance corps. It’s been fag city ever since.

  122. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @gsjackson

    That would be true if it were a 30s problem play by Clifford Odets or Barton Fink. By the 70s, the New Left had Frankfurted everyone, and the appeal of the movie is to those who want to be like Liza, if not the Emcee. The Nazis are just here for a thrilling scare (like today!)

    • Replies: @gsjackson
    , @dfordoom
  123. Jake says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    I know what Cultural Marxism is. If that is what you mean, you are obliged to express it clearly. That goes triply when the setting of the work in question is the dawn of the 1930s, when actual Bolshevism was everywhere.

    I also know that queer Isherwood’s real life inspiration for Sally Bowles was Jean Ross, who was raised primarily in Egypt because her father was a high ranking and very wealthy part of the Brit Empire establishment in Cairo. I know that Ross was a lifelong friend of Bolshevism (it seems to have been her rebellion against the spiritual void of her rearing and the worship of only money and power that she felt defined the Brit Empire) and that even after Ross died, Isherwood commented negatively on Ross’s romance with Bolshevism.

    The works that lead to the musical Cabaret are undergirded by Queerdom, specifically Anglo-Saxon Queerdom, and not by anything that is truly Marxist. And that same comfortably middle class Brit WASP Queerdom would have had the same basic response to the Stalinist era USSR crackbacks against gays as subversive threats to any halfway decent order.

  124. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve never seen the movie but just the sight of Liza Minelli in a top hat and whatever you call that outfit she wears has always been a turn off. Reading this review of the film strengthens my resolve to never see the film or anything else Liza Minnelli has ever done or will ever do in the future.

  125. Jake says:
    @ricpic

    Her father was a gay Jew. Lots of gays, and not just Jews, promoted her because she looked to them like an ideal man in drag.

    I have sympathy for her. Her parents cursed her.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Angharad
    , @dfordoom
  126. @Anon

    Not that simple. Perhaps most important mathematician to emigrate, Hermann Weyl, was not a Jew (despite his surname which “sounds” Jewish); nor was Kurt Goedel; also, Schroedinger & many other “Aryan” physicists emigrated. On the other hand, Jewish Felix Hausdorff did not want to emigrate & ended in suicide when threatened with deportation to CC.

    Although, of course, this is not comparable to literature where virtually all masters, and those were non-Jews (Mann, Musil,..) emigrated.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
  127. Anonymous[240] • Disclaimer says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    I will do it for him:

    Jews.

  128. Jake says:
    @Winnetou1889

    The clear majority of the leaders of German Anarchist groups were Jewish as well.

    Many Jewish leaders of German Marxist groups were gay, while very few Jewish leaders of Anarchist groups were gay. Many early Nazis leaders were gay. All of them, however, were bound up in the world of wild sexual revolution.

    That phrase is from a book by a German Jew of the time who later fled to the US. Wilhelm Reich was a non-Marxist Socialist, atheist Freudian. Reich was seen by many German intellectuals c. 1930 as something of a ‘conservative’ because he was contemptuous of gay life and argued in The Sexual Revolution and elsewhere that a (hetero)sexual revolution would save many men from being gay.

    Because of the gay thing, German Anarchists were rather fond of Reich, while Bolsheviks and Nazis both tended to detest him.

  129. Anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    If their books are banned, as they were in the Third Reich, you won’t benefit from them. The non-Jew David Hilbert was asked by a Nazi official if his university department had suffered with the departure of the Jews and their friends. He replied it hadn’t suffered – it just did not exist any more.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  130. Zumbuddi says:
    @Winnetou1889

    The answer to Casablanca.

    Did Fosse appreciate how much the French resented the Allies?

  131. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Well, that’s a good point; Aryan figures emigrated too, either out of sympathy with the official targets, or because the overall atmos’ was too oppressive. So there was an overall “brain drain.”

    This reminds me of a related point: notice how anyone who “failed” to emigrate is treated as a “collaborator” (eg., Furtwangler) rather than a patriot, but those who left/tried to leave the Soviet Union during the Cold War are traitors, deserters, etc.

    BTW, I seem to recall that Mann expected a hero’s welcome after the war, but was shunned/attacked, esp. due to his about face on patriotism. Eventually he wound up moving to Switzerland like his buddy Hesse.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  132. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake

    “Lots of gays, and not just Jews, promoted her because she looked to them like an ideal man in drag”

    Nah, they found her “potato face” as TL calls it a tragic flaw worthy of their sympathy as a “victim of lookism.”

  133. Anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Otto
    This actor concealed his Jewish ancestry and participated in a number of films and stage productions in the Third Reich. In late 1943 his Jewish ancestry was discovered and he was due to be deported “east”. He committed suicide with his wife in Berlin. Quite a few Jews did that, I guess they didn’t have Wally around to tell them that it was OK, Auschwitz was a holiday resort and they had nothing to worry about.
    There were Jewish “U-Boats” in Berlin, as the slang of the day called them, but they were under the surface as the term implies, relying on false papers and false “Aryan” identities. It was easier to achieve this in the relative anonymity of a big city like Berlin. It is true there was a tendency in the mid- to late 1930s for Jews to emigrate to Berlin and Hamburg. This was because Jews resident in small towns and villages were particularly vulnerable to local harassment from Nazis and other anti-Semitic thugs.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
  134. @Alec Leamas

    Too sensitive. I’ve watched it long time ago & had a good time with it (generally). I’ve long since ditched the idea that movies should be something “morally elevating”.

    My general impression was: lots of more-or-less good song: a great scene with a Nazi boy singer (wow, national unity); that ghastly guy, forgot his name, who was Minnelli’s singing & dancing partner; Nazi street fights too schematic; Marisa Berenson sensual & alluring; whole homo stuff basically incomprehensible & Michael York character was not, in my eyes, homosexual, but was seduced by the entire neo-Babylonian atmosphere; the ending was captivating in its ambiguity.

    I’ve never perceived Nazis as good guys & they were, in my view, not some redeemers, but perhaps a logical product of the whole Sodom & Gomorrah – at least in this movie. Because I knew history, I knew of Communist-Nazi fights, starvation & hyper-inflation, wounded natural pride … so the idea that some local pervs with “alternative” life-style should be interpreted as the cause of Nazi rise to power never crossed my mind.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  135. Not Raul says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    I see what you mean.

    It isn’t really a clear case.

    It’s more gray than black and white.

    Yes, Fritz is a gold digger; but there might be a bit of heroism in him, too. It’s hard to say.

    The fact that there is even a possibility that this gold digger may have had some heroism in him would have made the scene problematic.

  136. Anonymous[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    German-language literature still hasn’t recovered, but then again Hans Johst, a playwright favoured by the Nazis, has a character in one of his plays say that when he hears the word “culture” he removes the safety catch on his Browning. And this was the Nazi attitude, although the quote is often falsely attributed to Goering.
    The stress on Weimar decadence as opposed to Nazi wholesomeness is exaggerated – the Nazis did much to undermine the traditional stigma of illegitimacy – if both parents were “Aryan” and the child was healthy and not ‘sub-normal’ Nazi officials didn’t care if the birth was out of wedlock. Especially during wartime there was also a tendency for young women and girls to go to barracks and have sex with servicemen. A Nazi statement noted there was criticism of this but said this behaviour was an expression of their admiration for “the soldierly estate”.

  137. gsjackson says:
    @anon

    Interesting take that never really occurred to me. So we were all the way to nihilist hell in a handbasket by the ’70s?

  138. Not Raul says:
    @obwandiyag

    Yes indeed.

    It’s interesting how much the politics of the “leftist” antifa thugs and the Fortune 500 overlap.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  139. Not Raul says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I think that one of the main factors contributing to the rise of the Nazis was the fear that surrounding countries would starve Germany in to submission, like they did between World War I and the Treaty of Versailles.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  140. annamaria says:
    @Zumbuddi

    The happy bombing of the raped and dismembered Yugoslavia is still celebrated by the ZUSA cannibals as a “triumph of democracy.” https://thesaker.is/the-saker-interviews-stephen-karganovic/

    Until the results of NATO aggression in 1999 are annulled, Kosovo will have no future, except as a narco and human organ trafficking pseudo state. …

    The land is saturated with the depleted uranium munitions left over from the three-month NATO bombing campaign and is scarcely fit for human habitation. Babies and animals are being born with hideous defects. … Few people are aware of this, but Kosovo was targeted with the highest concentration of depleted uranium and other toxic substances during NATO’s 1999 “liberation war.”

    Meanwhile, since Kosovo is a pot of gold in terms of its mineral and other resources, the chief liberators Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright have made a financial killing by awarding themselves juicy business opportunities, while the “philanthropist” George Soros has his eye set on the enormously valuable Trepča mining complex. International corporations will get their choice pickings. Meanwhile, Albanians are dying of cancer and desperately moving out.

  141. Not Raul says:
    @Anonymous

    The only smart people are Jews. That’s why universities in Eastern Europe (especially Poland) repeatedly crush Israeli universities in Maths and Computer Science competitions.

  142. @Alden

    The Brian Ferry (of Roxy Music) on-stage performance is worth the price of admission.

  143. @Trevor Lynch

    I am not convinced about that “Cultural Bolshevism” although I speak as a layman and am no culture buff.

    The approved Bolshevik art style was Social Realism which I find to be quite similar to Nazi art.

    Then there was Soviet Futurism, and Futurism was popular among fascists, and originated in fascist Italy.

    I contend that if there were anything like that Berlin Weimar scene in Bolshevik Russia, the deviant pervs would have been marched off to the gulags for some serious re-education.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Pericles
  144. S says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    ” Assets are people who have been profiled in sufficient depth, that you put them in a time, place and circumstance over which you can have an enormous amount of control, particularly in politics, then you know within an acceptable range of probabilities that they will perform consistent with their profile.”

    A lot of people don’t realize just how powerful the US/UK is.

    W T Stead, a close associate of Cecil Rhodes of British Empire fame, and a person most certainly ‘in the know’, in his 1902 book The Americanization of the World calculated on pg 9, 10, and 11, that the United States and United Kindom had between them three times the wealth and economic resources of the combined French, Russian, and German empires.

    A lot of that wealth since that time has probably been monetized and the US and UK may have more power now, maybe less.

    Even so, when you’re dealing with that kind of power, how difficult would it be to find people who fit your political needs, but don’t necessarily have the means or where with all to accomplish their own particular goals, and to provide them surreptitiously material and financial support so that they can do so, all whilst you (unbeknownst to them) ‘groom’ them for your own ends…ie people such as a Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, twenty wannabe Arab hijackers, or, perhaps, on a much larger scale, an Adolf Hitler?

    https://archive.org/details/americanizationo00stea/page/n15

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  145. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:

    “Nudist nature clubs for teens and premarried 20-somethings became a rage, and gay sex as a fad followed on its heels.”

    Nudism started as a natural back-to-nature-movement. Nothing gay or degenerate about it. As what Americans did to it in later years is an open question.

    “The Nazi Party was founded in a gay club. Not only were most early Nazi leaders queer, but many were pederasts, including Brownshirt leader Ernest Rohm.”

    Here you’re falling for the propaganda that the homosexual industry has been pushing for so many years in order to normalize homosexuality, they’ve tried to convince us that homosexuals have been so influential in all areas of society (whether “good” or “bad”) that we can’t ignore them, because they are society. This propaganda pushes that the Nazi movement (bad) was founded by homosexuals, all or most of our cherished great white geniuses (good and bad) Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo etc. were homosexuals, the “macho” movie stars of the past (good) were mostly all fags, Cary Grant, Spencer Tracy, et al. While there were documented homosexuals in Hitler’s Germany and probably many more in the Communist Party, they simply wouldn’t have been allowed to have any power, because fags are bad for morale anywhere except the stage, hair salons and interior decorating companies. If they are in the military or other tightly controlled organization, they are an impediment to efficiency and will be removed or deactivated in some way. Hitler’s Germany was a model of efficiency and wouldn’t of been that way had it been full of homosexuals. As for saying that this or that creative genius were homosexuals, historians are just speculating. They have no solid evidence as we have in the case of a known homosexual such as Oscar Wilde. As for Hollywood actors and actresses, there were homosexuals, but to believe the propaganda, one would think that almost everyone in old movies was this way. Homos have averaged around 2-3 percent of the population and to have such a high proportion in any other occupations than the traditional ones where they are accepted is pure propaganda. Being openly gay today is easy and even celebrated by our decadent society, but many still choose to keep it in the closet. In the past, such (as in the time of Leonardo Da Vinci) being a homosexual was enough to get you imprisoned or executed, almost nobody(unless they were crazy), would’ve engaged in such practices. If they had the urges, they kept them under wraps.

  146. @Miro23

    You may like or dislike Bauhaus – personally I’m indifferent – but you have to acknowledge its world importance & significance.

    Freud is pre-war, but psychoanalysis came to prominence during interwar period, true. Although this is not a “science”, of course, Freud stands as a powerful myth-maker of our times, along with Jung (both are, basically, metaphysicians masquerading themselves as psychologists). Well- Salvador Dali & Alfred Hitchcock (and many others) wouldn’t agree with you that he was rotten & pervy. In fact, if we put aside all mythology, the idea of dynamic unconscious is sound & could be true, just not the way Freud imagined it.

    Frankfurt school became prominent only after WW 2 thanks to works written in the US & later. During Weimar era they were marginal.

    Dada- nothing to do with Weimar.

    As for Brecht, no one can deny his importance as one of 2-3 most important 20th C world dramatists (after great Scandinavians). Two things remain, to me, mysterious: 1) why was he such a sensation, anytime? This all is so pathetically propagandist & poster-like. 2) is he the author of more than, say, 30% of works attributed to him, because he seems to have appropriated pieces written by his more gifted, but hopelessly masochistic mistresses?

    Anyway, you forgot Mann, Musil, Rilke, Jung, Berg, Cassirer, Heisenberg, …

    Weimar Germany was great, what to say….

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  147. @S

    Mathematicians create mathematics; engineers apply it – two distinct disciplines.

    • Replies: @S
  148. @Ezio Bonsignore

    TotW is a documentary, not propaganda.

  149. @Bruno

    Well- it’s a matter of taste. I prefer Adolf. Althoug both of them are mediocrities in these activities….

  150. Mulegino1 says:

    The song is pure, calculated kitsch, the product of two Jewish songwriters, and yet it is better—and seems more sincere and real—than anything else in the film. The scene is crushingly unsubtle, an exercise in ritualistic goy-hatred. These Hollywood Nazis are supposed to seem sinister and repellent, but they are infinitely more healthy and appealing than the smug and decadent Max and Brian, much less anything on stage at the Kit Kat Klub.

    Exactly my impressions. However “kitschy” the song is, it is refreshing amid all the horrid noise and depravity of Weimar Berlin- it is reminiscent of Dante and Virgil emerging from hell and seeing the starlit sky again.

  151. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chris Mallory

    If that’s so then we could sure use them on today on our major american cities today.

  152. @anon

    Life is complex. Many had Jewish wives (by the way- why so? Were German Jewish chicks more “available” or simply good for marriage? Food for thought …).

    Anyway, no free spirit likes to live in such an atmosphere. That goes even for Heidegger who was enthusiastic in the beginning, but soon disappointed (he expected a national rebirth & thought that Nazis were, essentially, myth-making shamans who will induce national transfiguration; soon, he realized they were basically gangsters).

    From American point of view, Furtwangler was a collaborator & Soviet defectors were heroes, not traitors.

    Mann is a case in complexity. No, he did not want to go to Germany, but he authored, along with Hermann Broch, two major German novels which are better than complete literature composed in Nazi Germany (or in any other country during that period, in the world, in their national languages, for that matter).

    Just- he’s boring.

    Personally, I’m sad that Stefan Zweig, Austrian-Jewish author, has vanished from literary landscape. He is one of rare non-boring German authors. Just, it seems that two factors combined caused sad decline in his reputation: his best work is in a non-canonical genre of essayist biographies, autobiography & other marginal genres hard to classify; he writes in extremely rhetorical, very emotional high Romantic language, which fell out of favor with post-war cynical literary gurus. Suicide didn’t help, too.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
    , @anon
    , @Herzog
    , @Anonymous
  153. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Time to go back to watching CNN where you get you’re whole world view.

  154. @Not Raul

    Yeah, starvation was a strong fear- and not without foundation.

  155. Mulegino1 says:

    This excellent documentary featured in Dennis Wise’s “The Greatest Story Never Told” is illustrative of how Jewry perverts and vitiates every society it achieves a critical mass of dominance in:

    The cleanup of Berlin by the National Socialists ought to be regarded as an exemplary act of good governance.

    The Jewnited Estados of Gaymerica is quickly becoming Weimar Berlin on steroids.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
  156. anon[289] • Disclaimer says:

    No one has mentioned The Blue Angel! Surely Fosse must have had it in mind, altho I suppose any movie about Wiemar would have the same look. The main plot is rather similar: naive professor seduced by club land and androgynous star performer. The one professor is German, of course, and elderly, but surprisingly naive, like the more appropriately young Brian; both actually teach English, and we even see Prof. Unrat teaching the boys the correct way to say “the”. Speaking of naifs, I’m sure Brian’s train arrival was based on the opening of The Third Man, with the equally naive Holly Martens arriving in Vienna.

    Surely Minnelli, with her film parents, must have based Sally on Dietrich.

    Oddly enough, Cabaret actually has a happy ending!

    • Replies: @S
  157. @anon

    I agree with much of this, but don’t forget there is a streak of uber-macho culture among homos. Historically, many highly efficient military units & even wider troops were gays/pederasts, in Greece, Ottoman Empire (Janissaries) & many prominent military or adventurous men were gays (Kitchener, R.F. Burton, Rhodes etc.).

    Gays can be, simplistically, divided into two categories: hyper-masculine & effeminate (with, of course, many nuances). It isn’t for nothing that many gays display quasi-Nazi fixation on leather & other iconographic emblems.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    , @anon
  158. anon[289] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    “Were German Jewish chicks more “available” or simply good for marriage? Food for thought …”

    A certain kind of conspiracy thinker like to point out that this is a deliberate “evolutionary strategy” to infiltrate the goyim; bankrupt gentry marry daughters of rich Jews. This is why “who is a Jew” is determined, for the rabbis, by the female line. The result is rich, powerful, influential Jews, crypto or otherwise.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  159. peterAUS says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    You know…hehe…..such posts here just must go over the heads of the most of readers/posters. Actually, over the heads of majority in the group that could be called “alt-Whatever”.

    We are talking about, mostly, from underclass to middle class, not even upper middle class.

    Now…I am positive you know that group of people and

    .. (Mann, Broch, Rilke, Musil, Hesse, Kafka, ..), music (Schoenberg, Berg, Orff, Hindemith, …), architecture, science, especially physics & mathematics (Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Pauli, Weyl, Noether, …), but also chemistry, medicine, philosophy (Husserl, Heidegger, Spengler, Scheler, Hartmann, Cassirer, Schmitt …)

    simply don’t coexist in the same Universe.
    I mean, Heidegger……..hahaha………oh man.I am sure most from that group think it’s some sort of beer.

    On a serious note it is an interesting point.
    You do need a lot of intellectual an moral freedom to bring out the best in men, or society. That…”X” factor if you will.
    And worst, of course.

    Too little of that freedom and, we’ll, let’s pass endless resident debate about Communism and Islam (among other things).
    We, as species, are experts in moving between extremes.

    Healthy balance simply ain’t in our genes.

  160. @Anonymous

    “It is true there was a tendency in the mid- to late 1930s for Jews to emigrate to Berlin and Hamburg. This was because Jews resident in small towns and villages were particularly vulnerable to local harassment from Nazis and other anti-Semitic thugs.”

    No. This is false. Just unoriginal, slavish parroting of the party line.

    The reason Jews migrate to cities in times of trouble is because they are driven by their instincts to do so.

    Remember that before antibiotics, the greatest threat to mass concentrations of people was plagues.

    Jews defend against the ravages of plague via their pollution laws that restrict contact with outsiders. They are like muskox forming a defensive circle. They band together on their home turf, the city, where their unique psychological and mental talents are most in demand.

    In Northern Europeans, on the other hand, because they lived in a land of natural abundance where people could support themselves on small farms and in the wild, the instinct to disperse was selected for. It’s like the deer population in Wisconsin. Those that are drawn to common feed sites by bait are victims of the plagues that periodically sweep through the population.

  161. By the way- why is typical English language literature of the 30s-40s so socialist, faggy & weak? Isherwood- Auden- Day Lewis- MacNeice- … (must be some novelist out there I forgot to mention) are evidently dwarfs in comparison with the great 20s authors like Yeats- Joyce-Eliot- Woolf- Lawrence- P.W. Lewis.

    Seems like gays & socialism & “progressives” are plainly inferior to reactionary aesthetes.

  162. @Bardon Kaldian

    Hyper-masculine gay men might still be expected to marry women.

    There are cultures where women are so despised that they are unworthy of being sex objects. Homosexuality in the form of pederasty is prefered.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  163. anon[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    “Anyway, no free spirit likes to live in such an atmosphere”

    Hence, a couple people here cautiously giving props to Wiemar. Not everyone was hanging out in divinely decadent clubs, just as not everyone joined the Party. A certain kind of ideological purist can’t admit that having a bit of “libertine” atmos’ on the fringes might help nourish a culture that could produce a Mann, a Heidegger or a Spengler, none of whom were able to thrive under the Reich. (Yeah, Heidegger liked to wear lederhosen and hang out in his no doubt “authentic” forest hut, but I bet he got a lot more done when Ebert was head of state. And obviously no Husserl, no Heidegger).

    These are the people who, like the Traditionalists (Coomaraswamy, for ex.), don’t get that Plato’s Republic is a reductio ad absurdum and treat it as gospel. “No sad songs, they rot the people’s morale!” indeed.

  164. anon[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Gays can be, simplistically, divided into two categories: hyper-masculine & effeminate (with, of course, many nuances).”

    Indeed. As for nuance, I’ve always liked Patton’s idea for a tank corps uniform: green leather, with gold helmet.

  165. anon[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    ” it seems that two factors combined caused sad decline in his reputation: his best work is in a non-canonical genre of essayist biographies, autobiography & other marginal genres hard to classify; he writes in extremely rhetorical, very emotional high Romantic language, which fell out of favor with post-war cynical literary gurus.”

    Yes, nothing I’ve seen attributed to him seemed to say “read me” but perhaps I should take the plunge and find out for myself.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  166. @anon

    Not convincing. Thomas Mann’s wife didn’t have much of a Jewish identity & Mann was not such a celebrity then (although- he was famous); Hesse’s & Musil’s wives were, I think (I’m not sure) Jewish widows, so I don’t see some grand evolutionary strategy here. Rilke was, more or less, lunatic, so his love affairs prove nothing. Brecht I don’t care for & his numerous mistresses, whether Jewish or not, were victims of that cunning sociopath.

    Most great Jewish-ancestry authors seem to have a weird of habit of becoming Catholics & then, some of them, apathetic atheists (Broch, Kraus, Doeblin). I don’t know of their spouses.

    What is even weirder is that German & Russian femmes fatales, some of them Jewish in ancestry (Lou Salome, Lily Brik, Sabina Spielrein,..) are plain Janes incarnated. What did they see in them …..

  167. @Miro23

    Out of curiosity – are you Miro 23, or Miró 23 ?

  168. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Well, that fascinating man, Richard Francis Burton, did marry & was faithful & devoted husband (well, he didn’t bang other women).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Francis_Burton

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  169. @ricpic

    Her mom was Judy Garland who was the biggest singer / dancer / actress / movie star in history. She only inherited a tenth of the talent but that was still enough to make her a star.

    Also Hollywood chewed up Garland and spit her out and everybody weeps when they read her life story. It was a very big deal. My mom was transfixed when old washed up Garland was on the television. She was like Elvis one period previous.

  170. @anon

    1. His autobiography “The World of Yesterday” is one of the best portraits of a vanished world & is highly readable, actually exciting (unlike overpraised 3-volume autobiography of another German-Jewish author, Elias Canetti, which is typically Teutonic- long, pedantic, dull & nothing happens)

    2. and here I’m completely subjective- Zweig’s short bios (to call them that) of Dostoevsky, Stendhal, Casanova, Nietzsche, Balzac, Tolstoy, Hoelderlin, Kleist, …better catch the “essence” of these authors than serious, academic works. Dickens is an exception because Zweig did not know of his “dark side”.
    The same goes for Magellan & Fouche. Just- not so for longer works on Erasmus & Balzac.

    3. Starstunden…/Decisive Moments is a joy to read.

    4. I didn’t read his stories & more “ordinary” fiction because ….. I wasn’t interested.

    It seems there is a half-hearted attempt in Israel to revive his status, but it is focused on his stories & plays I didn’t bother to read.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  171. @Anonymous

    The DVD “The Ritchie Boys” celebrates — turns cartwheels, whoops it up laughing over the exploits of the German Jewish refugees who made it to USA in the mid- to late 1930s, joined US forces and were trained in espionage, sabotage, and interrogation techniques at Fort Ritchie, MD, then sent into Germany to ply their craft. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435725/ (Ritchie Boys were responsible for acquiring a large percentage of German documents that made their way to US, and were also heavily involved in the prosecutions at Nuremberg.)

    In the closing scene, an especially self-righteously loathsome rat-faced chap boasts of how he shut down a German orphanage. “It was a baby mill,” he spits.

    It may be that the Reich ran a kind of stud center; the Germans had, after all, seen their young starve to death in the WWI blockade, and were aware of Theodor Kaufmann’s proposal to sterilize German men. Why wouldn’t any sober civilization seek to ensure its reproduction. The rat-faced one’s indignation over frustration of Kaufmann’s scheme suggests the intensity of the genocidal intent of the zionists who participated in plans for Germany’s destruction.


    The format of the DVD is the Return of now-Elderly Ritchie Boys to Fort Ritchie, where they wander through the barracks and reminisce on their exploits.

    When I traveled to Fort Ritchie I took pictures through the barracks windows of dead pigeons amid fallen rafters and rotted floor boards. Several attempts have been made to develop the site, but last I heard, Ft. Ritchie was still pretty much a useless set of semi-abandoned buildings on a spectacular piece of land in the shadow of Camp David.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  172. S says:
    @Ancient Briton

    The point of the two pics was that despite the ‘Jewish purge’ mathematics still appeared to be present in Germany (Not to mention the engineers necessary to apply it).

    Saying there was ‘no mathematics left’ after the fact seems a bit over the top.

  173. S says:
    @anon

    No one has mentioned The Blue Angel! Surely Fosse must have had it in mind…Surely Minnelli, with her film parents, must have based Sally on Dietrich.

    I’ve thought the very same.

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  174. Hail says: • Website
    @Sean

    Weimar had a great number of young people in it, more than any time in Germany before or since, and in the call up class of 19 year olds Germany had it most overwhelming superiority over France.

    I believe the period from WWI through 1932 was particularly low fertility (except a brief bump in the early 1920s), much lower TFR than otherwise would be expected absent the disruptions of war, Marxist agitation, and Weimar decadence. Weimar TFR sank to as low as 1.6 by the early 1930s; it was curious that the more TFR dropped, the more the NS movement gained adherents, with the low-point of the former also the high-point of the latter (1933).

    Germany’s TFR back above 2.0 immediately upon the new regime taking over (1934), and reached 2.6 by 1940, a truly remarkable turnaround that paralleled the economic recovery. The new regime’s pro-natalist policies worked in a narrow sense, but there was probably something else going on, less quantifiable; that which Trevor Lynch is getting at in this article.

    (As for the 19-year-old cohort in September 1939 (born fall 1919 through summer 1920), that cohort would’ve been large because of the brief boomerang effect, whereby some portion of the millions of births that didn’t happen during the four years of the fratricide occurred. That didn’t last, and as I say, TFR was on the steady downward slide in the Weimar Republic.)

  175. Skeptikal says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Possibly Brecht’s power or popularity or notoriety was a result of his theatrical works and their Inszenierung, also Kurt Weill’s music and the singing of Lotte Lenya. Surly Threepenny Opera is truly the quintessential Weimar stage piice, not some later cliche’d an dpropagandistic pastiche such as Cabaret that caters to the presumptions of ignorant Americans to undersatnd something about German culture aby recogniziing cookie-cutter tropes such as the Nazis in the audience, etc. What a bore.

    Unless they ahve really studiedi the period and also speak German, don’t couint on Americans to have a clue, althouigh they are very free with their opinions. Very difficult for Americans to grasp the level of disorientation, fear, unemployment, poverty, depression at the loss of the Great War, the revolution, the disappearance of the head of state, the collapse of the Reich—so many factors of dislocation. The average Aemrican, even quite clever Americans, know zero about this and thus has a childish view of the psychological profile of Germany and individual Germans after the Great War. The extreme suffering. Call it societywide PTSD. Many widows with children to support, no man (dead on the front). Many pepole leaving extremely isolated rural villages and streaming to cities, esp. Berlin to work and get out of the Hinterland. Etc. So, yes, I think the jaunty black humor of the Brecht-Weill productions, the instrumentation like a crazy marching parade going over a cliff, the cynicism of many characters juxtaposed with the idealism and self-sacrifice of others . . . I think the Brechtian theatrical atmosphere spoke very strongly and directly to many, Germans in a way that only theater and music can (as opposed to sitting by oneself and reading a book).

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  176. @Chris Mallory

    Are you the guy who used to, or sometimes comments as Chris M.?

  177. Herzog says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Thomas Mann is boring??

    You might also want to try out Alfred Döblin, in a sense’s Mann’s antipode in writing style and artistic sensibility generally. He is best known for his 1923 Berlin Alexanderplatz, which undisputedly is his masterpiece. But also some of his other novels make for very original and interesting reading. Unfortunately, they are all but forgotten in today’s Germany.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  178. I saw “Cabaret” when the film came out. Though I understood at the time what it was trying to portray, like most films of the 1970s, I did not find it very good.

    Cinema in the 1970s was going through a transitional period that would not end until the early 1990s when “naturalism” in acting would have matured into the current art form we now enjoy.

    However, whenever I read an article about the Third Reich or the the inter-war period and a description of National Socialism is included, the author invariably states that he or she does not condone National Socialism or makes some allusion as to why people wouldn’t normally condone such a political system.

    The question is why not?

    National Socialism, minus its more disreputable tenets, was designed to revitalize a nation and a people’s national destiny. It succeeded at doing so beyond anyone’s expectations turning Germany from a destroyed nation to the most powerful and prosperous one on the European continent in the space of only around 5 years. What’s not to like?

    What other political system in history has had this goal at its core and succeeded at it?

    It is true that British imperialism provided a lot of good in the world along with many negatives but no one is saying things such as it should never have been condoned or that many people would not agree with it. Many did and quite a few historians see British imperialism at its peak as Britain’s greatest time in history. Never mind the many populations that were subjugated to it. Yet no one ever makes any excuses for describing British history.

    Rome and her Legions may have conquered quite a bit of the known world in her time but many of us have been taught to admire this ancient society and its soldiers simply from the wonders that they built. Rome did commit of course many atrocities but when it comes right down to it, all Rome wanted was to be loved. If a conquered nation provided the necessary fealty (and taxes) she was more or less left alone from Roman proclivities for ruthlessness. There is no ROI in constantly trying to slaughter those you expect payment from.

    In reality, a large part of Roman administrative processes were devoted to is “protection racket” around its empire. Yet no one ever makes any excuses for describing Roman history.

    The United States’ political leaders just love to boast how great our nation is. The “indispensable nation on Earth” as some of them would say.

    But let’s get real here. The United States was created for one single reason, the greed of the colonial elite. After the American Revolution, very little changed for the average, newly minted American citizen.

    In 1787 the US Constitution was written and ratified in 1789. This revered document was designed to keep the “mob” at bay (the citizens of this august republic) while maintaining and enhancing the wealth of the existing colonial elites.

    Why do you think that the writers of this document made it so difficult to change? Getting 2/3’s majority vote in the Congress for a constitutional amendment is just about near impossible. As a result, we in the US are still stuck with an antiquated 18th century document that in all reality did not allow for much.

    The US capitalistic system may have led to the development of a very powerful economy over time with many inventions and discoveries along the way but the cost to the average American citizen (and its many immigrants) has been substantial in terms of misery; something National Socialism rescued the average German citizen from.

    Let’s also understand something else; the Weimar Republic was brought to you by those victorious allies in the first world war. For the first time in military history an opponent that was still very much on its adversary’s land was put into a position where it had to surrender to what was in reality a weaker opponent.

    Once done, the United States, Britain, and France set to ensuring that Germany would remain a destroyed and poverty stricken nation by carving her up and giving the pieces away to some of the most venal types on Earth. All along, the British maintained her starvation blockade of the German nation while Herbert Hoover did everything in his power to get food to the German citizenry. But no one ever makes a complaint regarding this atrocious part of British history. It was OK since they were a victor.

    And while Germany was on her knees the influx of eastern European Jews into Germany created a firestorm of Communist upheaval that took close to a civil war to suppress.

    France was the worst of the three considering that Prime Minister Clemenceau completely destroy Germany and hence the viscous monetary reparations that were levied against a prostate German nation.

    But last but not least we have the glorious, capitalistic creature that now knows no bounds to its inherent greed, the United States. Wilson got this country into a war that he should have never entered and after we left it, the US then insisted that all war debts by the Allies be repaid. This of course hit Britain and France very deep in their purses, which in turn added fuel to fire regarding German reparations.

    This toxic mix would of course have generated what would would become the “sin city” of Europe, Berlin while the republic itself remained weak and ineffective while France and Britain continued to drain the life out of this nation.

    So why should we not at least the consider National Socialism in the same light as we consider other histories. After all, it did its job quite well. The only problem was that Britain felt threatened economically and so instituted a set of schemes to bring on the second world war.

    No it was not Germany who brought this repeat performance but jolly, good, old England. Any who question this should then look at the diplomatic histories of the inter-war period and the documents they are based upon.

    Poland became a very good lackey for England in this process. Categorically speaking, the Polish leadership was nothing more than a bunch of fruitcakes that would make any Christmas cake look bad by comparison. These lunatics (just like their reactionary American counterparts of recent history) wanted to bring back the glorious Polish Empire days of the 17th century. They redefined the concept of “delusional”. So they were quite happy to mix it up with Germany at England’s urging. And would have done so as early as 1936 had they had the political opportunity to do so.

    Of course, they should have thought about the Soviet Bear that was just to their East while Germany was doing everything in its power to develop peaceful and friendly relations for this sad excuse of a nation.

    And of course, the US was again playing again both sides of this show.

    Was National Socialism something we should all cringe at today? I think not!

    A little dose of National Socialism in the US and Europe may actually straighten the current messes out.

    It is after all about our own backyards and not someone else’s…

  179. Feryl says:
    @fnn

    Corruption during the Great Compression (1930-1980) was considered shameful, and generally was done way behind closed doors/underneath tables. Whereas during times of high inequality (like 1880-1930, or 1980-present), corruption is much more visible and less likely to attract genuine outrage (because people in a time of high inequality are very cynical).

  180. JackOH says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    StC, I am astonished that many Americans, perhaps most, seem not to recognize that America’s political and military adventures have been and continue to be regarded by many peoples as “existential threats” (thanks Joe Biden) to their health, safety, religious expression, established relations amongst themselves, and a whole lot more.

  181. @Bardon Kaldian

    Richard Francis Burton was a remarkable man. Credit his fidelity to much maligned Victorian morality.

  182. @Herzog

    Thomas Mann is a great boring author. His philosophical novels are profound re ideas (some antiquated, but less than expected), but his “characters” are not alive (if you know what I mean). For instance, Naphta & Settembrini are very much alive, but Hans Castorp is a blank slate (and the ending, with “love” is simply – bonkers). Mme. Chauchat is Mann’s idea of feminine mystique, but I’m not convinced. Others are so-so, I just didn’t care for them, dead or alive.

    His Joseph’s novel I did not finish, but he was pulling my leg all the time. Made me think he deliberately plays with a reader to no effect except of boring him to death with his little bag of tricks.

    Dr. Faustus is great in parts, but the whole conception is, in my opinion, radically wrong. This novel on German destiny, or Germanhood, rests on- musicology. And this is indictment of the entire German nation – just in such a bizarre form that even a most extreme literate German nationalist would be left scrathching his head (“What the hell it is all about?”)

    Lotte in Weimar was better & more readable, but fat old Goethe exposing some mystical Unity of Being to his old flame is, well…strange.

    Most Mann’s essays are worth reading.

    Mann’s diaries are not worth reading.

    At the end: he is a philosophical novelist who will make you think & challenge your world-view. He is not antiquated. Yet – he’s not a creator of (very) believable or charismatic characters one finds in Russian and, to a lesser extent, in French fiction.

    • Replies: @anon
  183. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Ezio Bonsignore

    the “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” scene is the central moment in the movie. It would appear that Mr Fosse sort of got carried away, because the scene is one of the most powerful and convincing piece of Nazi propaganda ever produced – it could very well come straight from Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will”.

    As regards the song itself, it is commonly reported that it was written by John Kander and
    Fred Ebb (both Jews and both homosexuals), and here again it would appear that they made and astonishing job in mimicking a HJ’s song not by way of ridicule, but rather in producing a beautiful and moving piece – both as regards text and music. Very strange.

    You have to remember that most people assume that others see the world as they do. If you’re a homosexual or a Jew or a liberal or a mainstream conservative then you’ll react to that scene as if it’s something out of a horror movie. It will be your worst nightmare. You’ll be filled with disgust and loathing and fear.

    And you’ll assume that everyone else will respond in the same way. It will never occur to you that a small number of viewers may watch the movie and take the side of the Nazis. That would be inconceivable to you. All your Jewish or homosexual or liberal friends responded to the movie in the correct manner.

    This is why antiwar movies don’t work. The bleeding hearts who make such movies assume that everyone will respond to them in the correct manner and draw the correct lessons but in practice lots of adolescent males will flock to those movies and enjoy every moment of the cinematic carnage.

    • Replies: @Angharad
    , @Miro23
  184. @Skeptikal

    You could be right, but Brecht, in my opinion, lacks universality (Tolstoy’s only litmus for work of art). Then, in completely different circumstances, his work resembles to Noh theatre, i.e. something produced for the already initiated.

    His post-war success in many parts of Europe leaves me cold. He’s simply either too different, or not in the league with Chekhov or Pirandello (although he can be watched, unlike most of Yeats’ or Eliot’s “experiments”).

  185. peterAUS says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    Coherent, thought out, well put and civil post. A rarity here.
    Disagree with the most of it, but let’s not go there.

    One element I’d like to read a bit more is:

    In 1787 the US Constitution was written and ratified in 1789. This revered document was designed to keep the “mob” at bay (the citizens of this august republic) while maintaining and enhancing the wealth of the existing colonial elites.

    Why do you think that the writers of this document made it so difficult to change? Getting 2/3’s majority vote in the Congress for a constitutional amendment is just about near impossible. As a result, we in the US are still stuck with an antiquated 18th century document that in all reality did not allow for much.

    What, exactly, would you leave and what would you change there, please?

  186. Angharad says:
    @eah

    “Cabaret” was highly regarded when first released because the film was the antithesis of traditional music musicals. It was the sheer novelty of the darkness and bleakness of te subject matter.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Bardon Kaldian
  187. Angharad says:
    @dfordoom

    I agree on your last point. “Lord of War” is a terrific example of this. The film was made as a protest against – clutch the pearls! – guns – but the film made dealing in international arms seems like the coolest occupation ever. All the young males I knew thought arms dealing looks like terrific, thrilling, exciting debonair fun.

  188. Skeptikal says:

    My point is not to make a value judgment of Brecht or review his work or to have a comp. lit. discussion.
    Who cares?
    More interesting is why he may have captured the rep that he did. Certianly the Nazis did *not* like him. He believe was on one of the first or the very first list of those to be forcibly expatriated with losos of German citizenship in the Reichsanzeiger when Hitler came to power in 1933.
    https://www.zeit.de/1986/22/pedanterie-und-braune-chaotik

  189. @renfro

    And yet, cucked WASPs did not complain about it. They went to see it.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Alden
  190. Angharad says:
    @Jake

    Vincente Minelli was not a Jew. His mother was a French Canadian, with a strong suggestion of Anishinaabe (Indian) lineage, and his father was a rip-roaring Sicilian.

  191. @R.G. Camara

    I work at a place that has hosted at least one musical production a year since the 40s. I’m pretty sure all the titles you mentioned are on their wall of fame, including directors and pictures. This being an amateur troupe and very un-PC back then.

    I often wondered what this was about. Thanks again for the very informative posts.

  192. @Counterinsurgency

    You remind me of the objective fact that the characteristics of money, sound money any way, made the growth of civilisation, particularly trading civilisations, possible.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  193. @S

    How or by whom is that wealth – power wielded?

    Isn’t the wealth actually held in the hands of a very few?
    If that’s the case, why should it matter whether an entire society has vast wealth or if only a very few within an otherwise not-so-wealthy society possess wealth: it is the wealthy who rule.

    • Agree: S
  194. @Bardon Kaldian

    Curiously no mention of the most influential and popular German author between the two world wars, Erich Maria Remarque on your list, although his seminal work “All Quiet on the Western Front”, praised as “unquestionably the best story of the World War”, came out in 1928 during that very period. He was neither a communist nor of Jewish background yet despised by the Nazis for his pacifism. And neither was he boring like many of those you mention, and meets your Tolstoian universalism criteria. It’s interesting to read how Goebbels and the Nazis reacted to the American movie rendition of the novel, the book, and the author, and Goebbels’s flash mob attack on the German premiere of the film deserves to be made into a movie itself. And to his credit, Remarque was no poofter but a certified heterosexual, although a most promiscuous one.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/most-loved-and-hated-novel-about-world-war-I-180955540/

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  195. anarchyst says:
    @peterAUS

    I would suggest that you obtain an “education” on the way the Constitution of the united States is supposed to work…
    That “18th-century document” is just as valid today as it was when first adopted.
    Remember when 0’bama complained that the Constitution was a “charter of negative rights”?…that is one of his few observations that he got right.
    The Constitution is a prohibition on the federal government imposing laws regarding certain inalienable God-given “rights”
    This is why Ruth Bader Ginsburg lamented that the American Constitution was “flawed” compared to the South African “constitution”.
    You see, in every other country, “rights” come from governments and are actually “permissions”.
    The Constitution of the united States is the only document in the world that declares that our rights are inherent in our humanity, come from our Creator, and cannot be abrogated or taken away by governments…THAT is the difference, which is never taught in schools today…
    The “separation of powers” is brilliant, purposely making it difficult to “get things done”, requiring compromise and consensus in order to pass legislation.
    Educate yourself…

  196. @Steve Naidamast

    Dang good comment. Sterling. But too much objectivity for most people to handle. They prefer their illusions, which put them in a good light.

  197. Wally says:
    @attilathehen

    Indeed, indoctrination with little chance of rebuttal generally does work.

    And that’s exactly why it was contrived.

    You curiously seem unaware of that.

  198. @Counterinsurgency

    There is one problem with that narrative. Germany had met its commitment, under Versailles, to disarm. When it complained, at the League of Nations, that others had not disarmed, they were basically told to F-off. That is why the left the League, and began to re-arm.
    As for “ensuring a fascist victory”, the German Communist Party, was only one of a dozen parties in the Reichstag, and until the 1930 elections, had consistently held 4 times as many seats as the NSDAP. It was only in 1930 that the NSDAP surpassed the Communist Party, finishing second, with the CP finishing third. In 1932, the NSDAP won the most seats, and again the CP finished third, with an increased number of seats. The NSDAP never had a chance at a coalition, the other parties refused to do so, and there was no chance the NSDAP would offer that to the CP. There was also little or no chance the CP would have been invited into a coalition with any other party or parties.
    The “temporary powers” granted to the Chancellor after the Reichstag fire could have been stopped had the Social Democrats voted against it. It is important to remember that the top 3 of the 16 parties with seats in the Reichstag and more than half of the rest, including the NSDAP were “left”.
    The hypothesis that the CP was in a position to make or prevent any coalition doesn’t wash.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  199. anon[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Well, I am one of those Americans who is a sucker for big Teutonic novels; Magic Mountain, Faustus, Glass Bead Game, etc. Reading the early Steiner one gets the same sense of reassuring German cultural seriousness, whatever the truth value of the ideas.

    The musicology in Faustus is of course just a symbol … the basic idea, I think is the danger of seeking to break out of a cultural impasse by going backwards into barbarism … which is why Schoenberg was so pissed off at Mann for associating his “system” with such.

    As such, it seems like an iconic example of the Jewish idea that the goyim have to be kept under control, because deep down they’re still barbarians just waiting for a chance to run amok (thus, the early chapter about the town freaks in Kaisersaschern, the worries over medieval and Lutheran demonology, etc.).

    The portrait of the Munich “artistic scene” is remarkably relevant today. The portrait of Chaim Weisacher [?] is supposedly based on Oscar Goldberger, who had some hip ideas about the “cosmic Jewish soul” but actually reads like Evola vs. American “conservatives”: “What, Beethoven, Bach, counterpoint? Decadence! Back to real Tradition!” (“Burn the opera houses” — Evola, Ride the Tiger)

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  200. anon[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Angharad

    Anyone who hates Cabaret (not that it can’t be criticized) should be forced to watch the Lucille Ball Mame. Which, btw, is super-judeophilic and pro-naked children schools, apart from being tuneless and moronic.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Angharad
    , @anon
  201. Saggy says: • Website
    @Steve Naidamast

    No it was not Germany who brought this repeat performance but jolly, good, old England. Any who question this should then look at the diplomatic histories of the inter-war period and the documents they are based upon.-

    Look at the diplomatic histories? How so?

    In any case, there is a book that is probably the most important book you’ve never heard of, that makes the case. The book is ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Make a War About Nothing’ written by British man of letters Wyndham Lewis in 1936. Some quotes

    [MORE]

    As far as Great Britain is concerned, there is, in 1936, not a shadow of a reason for a war with anybody. It is because that there is no concrete reason that abstract reasons have had to be thought up and trotted out.

    Nationalism may be superseded by the issue between different forms of political structure, between parliamentarism, fascism, and Bolshevism. …. Parliamentarism and Bolshevism seem to feel a remarkable affinity for one another, if for no other reason than that they are both consumed with an equal hatred of fascism.

    No British statesman has ever desired a war with Germany. But they have apparently come to regard themselves as committed to a policy which is violently determined to rid Europe of Hitler. And they are well aware that that cannot be effected without the risk of another world-war. It is not so much ‘fascist dictatorship’ that excites them — for after all they left Mussolini in complete peace for a decade. Neither does Dictatorship , in itself, excite them so much as all that — even accompanied by a permanent Reign of Terror and the massacre of millions of people. For Soviet Russia has been left undisturbed. No, it can only be something about the internal regime of Adolf Hitler that excites in them this implacable mood.

    The Franco-Soviet pact has been ratified and it is highly probable that a Rumano-Soviet pact, on the lines of the military pact between the Soviet and Czechoslovakia, will be signed in the near future. The Austrian Government (which represents a fantastically small fraction of the people of Austria) seems to be moving towards an entente with the Little Entente. So the game of ‘encirclement’ goes on: and all these arrangements — carried on in every case over the heads and usually in contradiction to the wishes of the people — are made possible, and constantly stimulated by British and French gold. The remarks which I have quoted from the Morning Post mean, in plain language, that Great Britain is about to arm the Soviet against Germany. (Marshal Tukachevski stopped behind in England after the funeral of King George to go round the British armament factories to pick his tanks and guns.) There have constantly been rumours of a fifty million pounds British loan to France. That, too, in plain language, is Great Britain arming France against ‘the Hun’

    There is one country where the Englishman is certain of a warm welcome: there is one country whose government never ceases to proffer friendship, and to be accommodating and polite, and that is Germany. Year in and year out, like a love-sick supplicant, Herr Hitler pays his court to the haughty Britannia. Every insult that can be invented even by the resourceful Mr. Churchill is tamely swallowed, every rebuff of Mr. Baldwin’s, every sneer of Mr. Eden, is meekly accepted, by this pertinacious suitor!

  202. Paracelsus says: • Website

    Good article, great comment section!

    I’ve always been repulsed by musicals, my dad however, loves them. He’s a Boomer, I’m a Millennial, we’re worlds apart in artistic tastes. My revulsion is more for theater in general and the nature of “drama”. If anything, my tastes run towards the nihilistic and macabre. He would rather watch West Side Story, whereas I would sit down and re-watch Sicario.

    I digress… I’m aware of Cabaret and even Blue Angel, but I never have and never will see either. Frankly I’m more familiar with the history surrounding the Weimar Republic and the cultural decay depicted in both. Having made it through this entire comment section I can clearly see the COINTELPRO sneaking in and advocating for decadence. “No you’re wrong, within all cultural achievements is an element of decadence!”

    Wrong, within all achievements is the element of curiosity. Whether it be science, art, music, literature, or medicine, the driving force is curiosity and an inherent desire to express divinity. The decadence of the Weimar Republic and the America I have grown up in isn’t a joyous Bacchanalia. It is a somber and ritualistic attempt to satiate a taste for exquisitely prurient and sordid desires. Without any avenue to express or experience divinity, God becomes consumerism and vice. Worship at the altar of the illicit and immediate.

    Hitler became THE savior and the Nazi ideal became God for the masses who needed reconciliation with the divine. People became disgusted with disgusting things. Arguing against the minutiae of the Nazis is truly pilpul. Were some closet homos? Sure. Did some have Jewish wives? Sure. Was Alfred Rosenberg of Jewish descent, again, yes. There are staggering grey areas to extremist philosophies and profoundly hypocritical praxes at work.

    But, this is life. The reality on which the movie Cabaret was based is gross and unpleasant. Just like the movie I enjoy – Sicario – depicts a harsh reality with artistic license. We have moved from a world of homo buttsex to decapitation live streams. The Crowley ethos of “do as thou wilt” will turn your hair white. The new Cabaret is a Red Room on the Deep Web, hope you have a strong stomach!

  203. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon

    and the appeal of the movie is to those who want to be like Liza, if not the Emcee

    The objective of the movie is to normalise degeneracy. We’re supposed to watch this movie and realise that homosexuality is absolutely awesome. We’re supposed to look at Brian and think, “wow, any parent would be so thrilled to have a son like Brian, he’s so sweet and sensitive, everyone should want a bisexual son.” We’re supposed to look at Sally Bowles and instead of seeing a sad pathetic slut we’re supposed to see an awesome liberated empowered woman.

    We’re supposed to think how great it would be if only we could make the whole world just like the Berlin of the Weimar Republic.

    • Agree: Miro23
  204. @Charles_Martel

    One minor nit: Liza M. was neither ugly nor a mediocre singer, although her character is a repellent flake who if alive today, might be running for President as a Democrat congressperson.

    LOL

    Liza Minnelli was butt ugly unless you’re into trannies. Transgerderism has been a long-term Jewish Agenda and this movie was a not-too-subtle example of it.

    PS

    Joel Grey was probably a female-to-male transgender. The Jews love inversions and having a big laugh at goyim.

  205. @dfordoom

    We amateurs should be allowed to deploy well chosen test questions to help us know whether we are being lectured by the deluded. In another thread I posed as reason to remain sceptical about the Suvorov version the fact that it was inconsistent with what that most diligent of researchers David Irving wrote. Irving discovered that Hitler started planning Barbarossa as early as December 1940.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    , @Sam J.
  206. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jake

    Her father was a gay Jew.

    Liza Minnelli’s father was Jewish? I don’t think so.

  207. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Commentator Mike

    The approved Bolshevik art style was Social Realism which I find to be quite similar to Nazi art.

    You mean Socialist Realism. It’s actually not that bad. It’s a lot better than the decadent trash that the West was producing at the time.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  208. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon

    Nudism started as a natural back-to-nature-movement. Nothing gay or degenerate about it. As what Americans did to it in later years is an open question.

    Nudism was more of a weird Puritan anti-sex thing. Nudists were harmless nudists but the existence of such groups was a symptom of a culture in deep trouble.

    Nudism was very much like vegetarianism which was again a Puritan-type movement. Vegetarians are clearly a symptom of a diseased culture.

  209. Mulegino1 says:
    @S

    As rotten, traitorous and perverted a slut there ever was. She was never worth the time and celluloid that her Jewish masters in Hymiewood spent on her.

    Some names are better left to slip into oblivion. Like all pieces of cultural refuse, almost no one remembers her now.

  210. peterAUS says:
    @anarchyst

    Educate yourself…

    Work on your social intelligence…

    To still get something from your “miss”, just curious.
    Tell me, please, what’s the trick?
    How do your types (and there are plenty, otherwise I wouldn’t be writing this) manage that cognitive dissonance?
    How do you manage to believe in

    ….The Constitution is a prohibition on the federal government imposing laws regarding certain inalienable God-given “rights”

    You see, in every other country, “rights” come from governments and are actually “permissions”

    .
    and…haha…I mean…just crazy…..watching what’s going on around you?

    It’s just …fucking crazy. How can you believe that? I am really curious. What’s the trick?

    Your “rights” vs other people’s “permissions”.
    You mean your right to put on a t-shirt “White is beautiful” and walk along the main street in your city, for example? Hahaha….oh man. How about “Stop black racism”? Oh, wait, why don’t you take a placard “Holocaust TM is a racket” and walk along the main street. C’mon….exercise that..what was that…ah, yes, “right”. Hahaha……Wait, how about elementary things; the very foundation of life itself: “Homosexuals can not have children”. C’mon….exercise that …”right”.

    So, what’s the trick? I’d really like to now. Could use it around here.
    Not holding my breath, of course. I can just feel another “miss” coming. Well, understandable. Probably that’s also part of that “trick” I am asking for.

  211. @peterAUS

    Peter,

    No constitution can guarantee those rights you mention or how others will react if they disapprove of what your T-shirt screams, constitutional rights or no constitutional rights. Just try walking into a wrong pub in England with the wrong football club’s T-shirt and scarf and see what the regulars think of your right to dress as you please.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @peterAUS
  212. Anounder says:
    @anon

    Nudism started as a natural back-to-nature-movement.

    Aka noble savage degeneracy we’ve been getting since Rousseau at the latest. Alas, the noble savage refuses to die.

  213. peterAUS says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Must be some virus going on recently on this site making usually intelligent people little……tired?

    You also “miss” here.

    The System will protect me, as a victim, in a case of “pub” scenario.
    The same System will not protect me if I get smashed by “progs” carrying “Homos can’t….” placard.

    After stating the obvious back to the Constitution.

    The seeds of the current paradigm were set in the document.
    Yes, it was perfect (as human political document can be that….) for the place and the time.
    The place and the time changed. Obviously. People in particular.

    So, the question wasn’t about the current USA. Don’t care much about it save its capability to destroy the life on this planet as we see it.
    The question is about….in, say, scenario when some other entity could be carved out of the current USA what Constitution would work well for that piece of land/society.
    Secession thing. Unspeakable of here, for now. Will be in…. say, 10 years. Perhaps earlier.

  214. Miro23 says:
    @dfordoom

    You have to remember that most people assume that others see the world as they do. If you’re a homosexual or a Jew or a liberal or a mainstream conservative then you’ll react to that scene as if it’s something out of a horror movie. It will be your worst nightmare. You’ll be filled with disgust and loathing and fear.

    And you’ll assume that everyone else will respond in the same way. It will never occur to you that a small number of viewers may watch the movie and take the side of the Nazis. That would be inconceivable to you. All your Jewish or homosexual or liberal friends responded to the movie in the correct manner.

    That’s an important point, and the Zeitgeist (Spirit of the Time) also changes. In this case over 47 years (1972 – 2019). The perspective on Cabaret from a 2019 vantage point is different from the perspective on Cabaret from the original 1972 vantage point – although the MSM may pretend that it’s the same.

  215. Anonymous[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    ‘Hans Johst, a playwright favoured by the Nazis, has a character in one of his plays say that when he hears the word “culture” he removes the safety catch on his Browning’

    It was actually a German army officer who trained in anthropology who said this as he considered culture downstream from race.

  216. @Priss Factor

    No. Ralph Fiennes (?) is a privileged goy. The jew is a hard charging achiever. He earns what he gets, the goy is given.
    In one scene,his wife tells the jew “You’re a better man than he is!” Thats the core message.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  217. Anonymous[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    ‘Personally, I’m sad that Stefan Zweig, Austrian-Jewish author, has vanished from literary landscape’

    Even in his day he was considered a midle class hack and even he knew and accepted it. He has a reputation today when he should be forgotten because his tribe mates support it.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @Republic
  218. Anonymous[424] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    ‘German-Jewish author, Elias Canetti, which is typically Teutonic- long, pedantic, dull & nothing happens)’

    Cannetti was a Greek sephardic Jew. Nothing teutonic about him.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  219. Anonymous[240] • Disclaimer says:
    @MAOWASAYALI

    Liza is a blob fish

    • LOL: MAOWASAYALI
  220. @Anon

    Don’t touch ze paint! Its still VET!

  221. @Anonymous

    Can you recommend books on Weimar? Everything I see is written by Jews

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  222. @Commentator Mike

    Good point. Well, believe it or not- I forgot him because I haven’t read him. He, somehow, passed under my radar.

  223. @Angharad

    “Cabaret” was highly regarded when first released because the film was the antithesis of traditional music musicals.

    True. I haven’ seen most of them, but Esther Williams movies (alright- different era) are horrible. Actually, after giving it a thought, they belong to “so bad it’s actually good” category, along with, say, “The Room”:

    • Replies: @Angharad
  224. @dfordoom

    Socialist realism was horrible, with iconic Fyodor Gladkov’s “Cement” something of a torture. It is true that a few significant writers like Leonid Leonov became schematically associated with it, but this is a case of mistaken identity.

    Real, hard-core socialist realism is no more than “boy meets girl in tractor school”.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  225. Franz says:
    @Saggy

    The book is ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Make a War About Nothing’ written by British man of letters Wyndham Lewis in 1936.

    Always rated Lewis highly. Now even higher.

    From the excerpts you provide it sounds like the more things change, the more… repetitious this world now really is. NATO picks fights against potential assets while arming and charming duds. The suspicion of Putin in the US and UK in particular are so similar to the cold shoulder treatment Hitler got from the beginning, as Lewis notes.

    In white Norway rat studies of two generations ago, abasing yourself before dangerous potential killers and attacking your own harmless relatives is a pathological symptom of forced overcrowding.

    Our elites are too inbred and don’t get enough solitary desert holidays. Maybe we can solve that.

  226. @anon

    1. If you mean occultist author Rudolf Steiner – he’s one of typically super-muddle theosophist writers (except Leadbeater). His ex-buddy Max Heindel was much clearer & all-encompassing (in that genre).

    2. music & musicology are ideatic substrate of the novel, and the very concept to base historiosophy (however simplistic) of the German nation on such narrow subjects is fundamentally wrong. It just can’t work. Plus, Mann’s demonology is something I don’t believe in; Mann wrote much about myth, but he was a sophisticated secular analytical thinker (unlike William Faulkner who possessed that quality of primitive, myth-making mind). Mann writes about myths, but does not write myths.

    3. Evola, along with most other perennialists is very subjective & not convincing in his constructions. I prefer real charismatic scholars from the Eranos circle (Corbin, Eliade, Campbell, Scholem, Quispel, Jonas, …).

  227. PeterMX says:
    @Colin Wright

    For that you would need to talk to a German that lived in that time period or maybe one of Germany’s current unapproved authors. Most Germans are completely ignorant of their own history, having their heads filled with allied lies, but the same goes for most westerners. But even many Germans from that time period I think had different views of Weimar. My parents were German but they were young and growing up in the 30’s and 40’s so their knowledge of politics was probably less than my grandparents. The only thing I heard about Weimar from my mother is that it was a failure that couldn’t get anything done. But to her, Berlin wasn’t obscenely decadent but maybe outrageous in a good way. But, she wasn’t from there. Also, she never mentioned Jews in association with Berlin. From my parents I could tell Jews were not discussed much, even though Germany’s leaders discussed them. But Germanys leaders also discussed the British, Americans and I’m sure all their neighbors too. Communists were discussed more. My mother told me my grandfather had his epilets torn off by a communist when he returned from WW I.

    Just like myself, I think my parents would be surprised at the amount of influence Jews had in Germany during the Weimar period. I think the most politically aware people were the National Socialists and the communists and other left wing groups. They knew what they were fighting for and against. But Jews weren’t the victims of Weimar cultural degeneracy. They were the perpetrators of it, just as they are the major force behind the degeneracy in the US. They made themselves felt starting in the 60’s. Eliminating Christianity, removing prayer from school, pushing homosexuality, transgenderism, busing schoolchildren and the 1965 immigration act which is gradually wiping out the American population (whites), Jewish leaders back and played a major role in all these things.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  228. @Anonymous

    Except his type of writing.

  229. @Commentator Mike

    In that sense OK. But surely right wingers would agree with that statement too. Don’t we all say “follow the money” when we’re trying to get to the bottom of things, even 9/11?

    The point of following the money when something wrong has been done is consistent with Timothy 6:10 “The love of money is the root of all evil”, and actually s a lot older than that. Note that 6:10 doesn’t say that _money_ is the root of all evil, but rather that _love_ of money is the root of all evil.

    So what’s money? It’s a symbol for goods and services that is interchangeable for goods and services. 6:10 might be re-written as “A love of the world (secular events) is the root of all evil. In other words, you can drop “money” out of the statement and retain its meaning, although not its tractability.

    OK, this leaves us with the question of doing without money. I heard that seriously proposed as a brand new revolutionary idea back while I was working in DC, from a Puerto Rican Naval officer of all people. He was happy with the new and shocking idea he’d thought up.

    First occurrence of that thought I know of was “The Ecclesiazusae” by Aristophanes (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/eccles.html ), written c.a. 411 BC. This was the time of the Peloponnesian War, Athens vs. Sparta (victor: Sparta, which did not long survive its victory) and Athens was (like the US today) under a wartime economy. Prices were controlled to an extent. Athens leadership was mixed; Aristophanes didn’t like it. The very intelligent Athenians tried just about everything, but nothing worked well enough to defeat the Spartan coalition. Aristophanes was anti-Peloponnesian War, and his plays tended to point out some of the mistakes the Athenians were making.
    “The Ecclesiazusae” (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/eccles.html ) is worth reading. It’s still entertaining, and it pretty much echoes the Democratic debate of late 2019/06, right down to having women control the government, except that it goes further: it proposes the elimination of all money. Money had been largely displaced anyway by price controls. As far as I can tell, Aristophanes discusses everything the Democrats did — back in 411 BC.
    Perhaps the best line is:
    BLEPYRUS: It would be awful. But who will till the soil?
    PRAXAGORA: The slaves. Your only cares will be to scent yourself, and to go and dine, when the shadow of the gnomon is ten feet long on the dial.

    The next person to propose the end of all money was Marx. Marx was a bit of a philosopher, and tended to go for the throat. He proposed an end to the industrial system by destroying symbols for goods (money) and replacing them with “production for use”, augmented by limited barter. Marx was most definitely correct that this would end industrial production and make the society of his day impossible.

    The first person to try actually doing with out money in a major nation was Lenin. In the early days of the revolution he actually tried implementing something very similar to the scheme in Ecclesiazusae because he though that it would increase support for the revolutionary government. support decreased, and Lenin brought back money. The USSR had a system of combined money and rationing (if only be empty shelves) that worked rather badly and was dropped by its successor state.

    So much for abolishing money.

    One could also abolish society and leave the money standing. That’s what the “right wing” libertarians do; among other things, they like sex work and open borders. Our current situation (worst in the West Coast) suggests that this doesn’t produce good results. My personal comment is that “liver” is spelled with a “v”, not a “b”.

    And we’re left with the usual human condition that most tools can be badly abused, no tool is everything, and we don’t have all or even many of the answers we so badly want.

    One of Keith Laumer’s aliens, a one appearance taxi driver in the Retief series, commented: “I could never understand what you Terries have against learning from experience.”, and that sort of sums it up. These ideas are very old, but always presented as brand new, and nobody learns.

    At this point, you might be interested in piece by Houseman:
    ” LXII. Terence, this is stupid stuff”
    https://www.bartleby.com/123/62.html

    Counterinsurgency

  230. @Anonymous

    You repeat the standard story that everybody has heard. Take a look at Alys’ _Hitler’s Beneficiaries_. Hitler’s welfare state was founded on loot. That’s the only foundation that a welfare state _can_ have.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Sam J.
  231. @Curmudgeon

    What if the CP had formed a coalition with the SDs to stop the NSDP? That would have been less of a change than Stalin’s later treaty with Hitler’s Germany. Suvorov points out that Stalin had control over such decisions, and that actual events were consistent with a attempt to give Germany to a government that would then attack Western Europe.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  232. PeterMX says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    I think your interpretation is totally wrong. No one comments that the Americans and Soviets were allies that supported each other when they negotiated SALT, SALT II and all the other treaties to avoid killing off each others populations. The Soviets “helped” the Germans because they benefitted from German know how and technology. Same with the Americans that supposedly “helped” the “NAZIS”. Those so called “NAZIS” had far more Nobel Prizes than anyone else and the Americans in particular had very few. Germany was a leader in all areas of science and technology so others benefitted from German know how. Two of the USA’s top pharmaceutical companies they got by taking over (stealing?) the German companies facilities in the US, Merck and Schering.

    The National Socialists and Communists were arch enemies and the Molotoz-Ribbentrop pact was not an alliance, but an attempt to avoid war between the countries. National Socialist speeches frequently show their loathing of murderous communism. FDR became a friend of the Soviets starting in the early thirties and the US and Britain stood by while millions of Ukrainian Christians were murdered by their Jewish dominated government and later allied themselves with the murderers. German leaders like Goebbels frequently castigated the Soviet gov’t. long before the war started. Germany sent military aid to the Fascist Catholics in Spain, the US and Britain aided the communists, fighting alongside Russians and to this day Americans are proud of it, glorifying the Lincoln Brigade. The fact that Jews played a major role in the Lincoln Brigade as well as Soviet leadership is another area to be discussed, but the American media and publishers tell us they were wonderful. And so, the same people told FDR and Churchill which side to back in WW II.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    , @Alden
  233. @Anonymous

    It is true Zweig was never highly regarded- which says something about cultural snobbery. Just:

    a) many, now established great writers were underrated during at least periods of their lives (Conrad, Faulkner, R.L. Stevenson, F. Scott Fitzgerald, ..), while others, like Percy Wyndham Lewis are still ignored due to politics (Fascist fellow-traveler)

    b) there is a prejudice that a great writer has to be boring. It is not to argue about anyone’s “greatness”, but Zweig had been actually best-selling author Mann was jealous of. There are authors that may not belong to some snobbish “canon”, but are immensely more than just hacks- Raymond Chandler, Somerset Maugham etc. Zweig belongs to that category; just, unlike them- he is now completely ignored.

    There are pages of Zweig that simply are elevating, unforgettable, exciting, highly poetic, alive…unlike Mann, Musil or Kraus’ magnum opus, which make you think, but don’t touch your “soul” (or whatever stands for it).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  234. @Achilles Wannabe

    Can you recommend books on Weimar? Everything I see is written by Jews.

    The Wiemar Republic does seem very sparsely covered, and the coverage does seem like propaganda. Goetz Aly’s two books and Suvorov’s _The Chief Culprit_ actually had better coverage of Weimar than I’ve seen elsewhere. Even they don’t cover phenomena like the Freikorps.

    Essentially, post WW I Eastern and Middle Europe was a mess. The victors in WW I (save the US) were too beaten up to do anything except the French, who looted Germany. Eastern Europe was invaded by the USSR in support of several attempted Communist revolutions (supported by the international Jewish community in about the same way Soros is supporting the Left in the US today). Much of Germany had effectively no government, and the USSR invasions were defeated by local forces and by German war vets, who also provided considerable local security within Germany. As is usually the case, voluntary military organizations became politically active but had no real program beyond restoring German society to the pre-war state. In Heinlein’s _Starship Troopers_, that state succeeds. In Germany, the military vets were absorbed into regular politics.
    If you really read Jewish triumphalist literature, you will see a description of a callous and opportunistic society, one adept at exploiting disorganization in other societies, and the opportunities for such a society were plentiful in Germany. Jewish literature regards Weimar as a golden time. It appeared possible to have a successful Communist revolution, and there were several attempts at Communist revolution. The voluntary military organizations were generally opposed to these revolutions, and also supported (sometimes by fighting) opposition to revolutions in Eastern Europe. The Jewish establishment has never forgiven them for that.

    Germany had to reorganize itself, but as you can see from the above reorganization was quite difficult. Hence, decadent Weimar, and a later return of a less chaotic society. Suvorov’s point is that the less chaotic society didn’t have to be Nazi. The Jewish establishment position is that the les chaotic society had to be Nazi and that, in fact, Nazi is the end state of all European societies unless they are destroyed (Sontang’s “Whites are the cancer of mankind” thesis). The Jewish establishment position is pretty clearly hysterical, the more so since the USSR appears to be responsible for the Nazi victory.

  235. @Anonymous

    No actually they got rid of the (((bankers))) and stopped Jews parasitising them. Germany in about two years raised living standards astronomically and cut unemployment down to the smallest it could be.

    They also lost WW II, according to Suvorov because they were out-thought by Lenin and Stalin. This was directly caused by the Nazi welfare state. The welfare state was a bad choice (although consistent with the Germanic idea of a strong and all -providing father in a strong family) because, when Hitler finally ran out of domestic sources of income (the ones you cite above), he had little alternative to seeking the funds he need by expedients such as his USSR treaty. That treaty, and the influence of the Jewish establishment in the UK and the USA lost Hitler the war. And just how free are the German people now?

    You have to want the consequences of what you want. Hitler got out-thought. Try not to get out-thought yourself.

    “Wrestling is all skill. Skill! Skill! Skill or be skilled!”

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Mr. Anon
    , @Sam J.
  236. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    ‘Hitler’s welfare state was founded on loot. That’s the only foundation that a welfare state _can_ have.’

    Germans are literally the most productive nation of the most productive race which is White people. Even today it is bankrolling southern Europe and Israel (a billion dollars for diesel submarines?). The only area Germany does not overperform is defense spending and that is because they are stll occupied by America.

    Jews do not have any right to lecture any one about looting lol.

    The only thing Germany did was divest itself of parasites. Even back then it was refereed to as an economic miracle.

    Try harder.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  237. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    ‘They also lost WW II, according to Suvorov because they were out-thought by Lenin and Stalin. This was directly caused by the Nazi welfare state’

    Please either stay off the drugs or refrain from commenting here.

    ‘Try not to get out-thought yourself.’

    I have seen the types of people who post rambling non-sequiter comments in defense of Jews here at UNZ and I am in no danger of being out-thought believe me.

    Nice to know you care though.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  238. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    ‘but are immensely more than just hacks- Raymond Chandler, Somerset Maugham etc. Zweig belongs to that category; just, unlike them- he is now completely ignored.’

    No he does not. Chandler along with Dashiell Hammet wrote the best noir fiction and had a massive influence on film noir. Sonerset Maugham despite being a misanthrope of the highest order is still taught and read. Zweig was by his own admission a hack, even other Jewish writers at the time found it distasteful how bad he was and he admitted this; even he lamented his lack of talent.

    He is forgotten because his work was parochial and very mitteleurope and was never good to begin with.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  239. @Anonymous

    De gustibus…. You haven’t addressed my implied claim that Zweig is frequently highly dynamic, poetic & exhilarating, while “true classics” are boring pedants who may frequently provoke one’s thoughts & mind, but are, all of them, Gentile & Jewish, dry & emotionally-imaginatively dull, without a single “aha!” liberating moment one can find in Zweig in abundance.

    But, each to his own.

  240. anarchyst says:
    @peterAUS

    I lamentably agree that the Constitution has been rendered “null and void” by the “powers that be” and by the purposeful “dumbing down” of the education system in which the purpose of the Constitution is not even taught, instead being replaced by communist Howard Zinn textbooks which minimize “the greatest document ever formulated” by mankind.
    Looking back through history, it took a Constitutional Amendment to make alcohol illegal. Fast forward to the 1960s when “drug laws” were formulated, making certain substances “illegal” without going through the Constitutional process.
    It would take a wholesale cleansing of both government and society to get back to Constitutional principles, but will never happen.

  241. @PeterMX

    ‘…Just like myself, I think my parents would be surprised at the amount of influence Jews had in Germany during the Weimar period. I think the most politically aware people were the National Socialists and the communists and other left wing groups. They knew what they were fighting for and against. But Jews weren’t the victims of Weimar cultural degeneracy. They were the perpetrators of it, just as they are the major force behind the degeneracy in the US…’

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right — but the whole subject could certainly do with some academically rigorous examination. That is to say, I don’t want simply an inverse of Hitler’s Willing Executioners’ — if you’re familiar with that tract. I want something that at least attempts to weigh all the evidence and come to a considered conclusion.

    …of course, the odds of my getting this are nil.

    • Replies: @PeterMX
    , @Achilles Wannabe
  242. @Anonymous

    ‘The stress on Weimar decadence as opposed to Nazi wholesomeness is exaggerated – the Nazis did much to undermine the traditional stigma of illegitimacy – if both parents were “Aryan” and the child was healthy and not ‘sub-normal’ Nazi officials didn’t care if the birth was out of wedlock. Especially during wartime there was also a tendency for young women and girls to go to barracks and have sex with servicemen. A Nazi statement noted there was criticism of this but said this behaviour was an expression of their admiration for “the soldierly estate”…’

    That’s another thing that intrigues me.

    The whole ‘they were bad’ schtick prevents any serious examination of Nazi society as a revolutionary state. A whole lot was going on there, and the mere fact that they were able to keep putting waves of increasingly enthusiastic if decreasingly well-prepared infantry into the field right through 1944 implies that it was all very successful. After all, German troops were advancing singing against the American positions at Anzio in 1944; and this was after four years of war, not after four months.

    Again, I’m sure there’s much to be said both for and against this version of events — but I’d like to see it said. Not just more of the monotonous — and ultimately superficial — ‘they were bad.’

    Something like Melita Maschmann’s Account Rendered gives an idea of the spirit of the times — even if she has to wrap it in that ‘we were bad’ lining. There’s Melita — a twenty-three year old nice girl from a good bourgeois family — and she’s off in Poland, entirely alone, winging it as she leads several hundred bewildered Volksdeutsch from Bessarabia into the new Aryan future. She has to make it up as she goes along.

    It really was incredible. Not good or bad — just incredible. But it’s all obscured and submerged in that ‘we were bad’ mantra.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  243. @Steve Naidamast

    I have been studying and thinking about political economy for most of my adult life. From a logical socioeconomic standpoint, National Socialism and its related ideas ensure the greatest amount of prosperity, liberty, and peace for the ordinary citizen in the modern world.

    National Socialism is Feudalism adjusted for the industrial age. It is not really an “-ism” invented by the head but simply the organic functioning of a healthy society, properly recognized and codified. Despite their personal faults, you can’t help but admire what the fascists were fighting for, whereas the defenders of oligo-capitalism always sound faggy and contrived.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  244. Republic says:
    @Anonymous

    Zweig’s, Memoir, The World of Yesterday,shows the golden age of freedom which was enjoyed in pre war Vienna before the great war.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  245. wow what unadulterated crap – won’t go into details because this site won’t allow criticism of its babies, but 5 thumbs down here. pathetic crud

  246. @peterAUS

    @peterAUS

    To your question regarding what I would change in the US Constitution…

    To begin with I would start with the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. It was far more sophisticated than the original US Constitution in that it insisted on line-item vetoes at both the national and federal levels.

    Though I would remove all tenets regarding slavery, the CSA Constitution made provisions for eradicating the slave trade within a 10-year period once the Confederacy had been able to stabilize itself economically.

    I would also add strict term limits for representatives and senators and seriously weaken the power of the executive branch.

    Donations from corporations would be banned and there would be enforced party diversity making the US adhere more to a parliamentary form of government where proportional representation is far more balanced than with the current 2-party system.

    Though I agree with the concept of state rights as the Confederacy professed, there are certain things that would have to remain at a national level so that there can be no corruption by various states. One example of such enforcement would be that of national health care administered on a Medicare style implementation.

    Another such example would be a new code of employment rights of workers. Only those people who actually invent and\or create an actual product that benefits people as a whole and is environmentally safe would be allowed to reap the rewards of their creations. Under such a plan, such people who begin companies to produce such products will be entitled to the wealth that such products provide.

    All other executive management will not be allowed to collect out-sized salaries and bonuses simply because they are management.

    And employees will be far better protected against the stupidity of layoffs and outsourcing of their jobs.

    I could go on but these are some of the ideas I have had for a long time.

    They are also the reason why I could never get elected president… 🙂

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Alden
  247. Pericles says:
    @Prester John

    Mr. Dreher insists that we are immersed in a Weimar-like culture. I don’t think we’re there, at least not yet.

    The pride parades in Weimar Berlin were wilder or something?

  248. @Counterinsurgency

    The NSDAP had banned the CP from voting on the Emergency Powers. Had the SDP voted against the measure, it would have been defeated, and the CP restored to the Reichstag. That tells me, that there was a snowball’s chance in hell that the SDP would be in a coalition with the CP. While the CP was very popular, given that the communists had overthrown Berlin and Bavaria in 1919 establishing soviet republics, there were likely more of a pariah than the NSDAP. It would have been political suicide for the SDP to form a coalition with them.

  249. Pericles says:
    @renfro

    Title: The Explanation.

  250. Pericles says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Many seem to equate bolshevism with former bankrobber turned law-and-order-or-extermination Stalin. But before him there were also these guys Lenin and Trotsky and a lot of other zestful revolutionaries who ran the show. Thus, the early Soviet Union tried to abolish marriage among other things. Here is an article from 1926 on how that turned out.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/07/the-russian-effort-to-abolish-marriage/306295/

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  251. @Intelligent Dasein

    I agree for the most part.
    Fascism began as a moral movement arguing that capital had solved the means of production problem, but was wrong on the distribution side. The more people could afford to buy things, the better for all. It’s labor reforms worked toward that end.
    NS, on the other hand, never saw the production of goods as the end, rather the means to an end. It saw consumerism as empty spiritually.
    The mischaracterized Nuremberg Rallies were gatherings of party members from every corner of Germany to share their stories of successes and failures and learn from others. The party was keen to learn from these experiences to determine the best way forward. It was organic. To the best of my knowledge, fascism lacked a similar mechanism.

  252. @Saggy

    There is a huge difference between what the historical diplomatic primary source documentation says about inter-war Britain and what an author writes about British culture.

    If you want to study this diplomatic history, one of the most detailed books available is David Hoggan’s, “The Forced War”.

    It is a difficult read due to the detail involved but it is probably the definitive study on the subject…

  253. @PeterMX

    Yes, that’s the standard theory. One takes facts and tries to make sense out of them. But take a look at Suvorov’s _The Chief Culprit_. Same facts, plus some more facts, and a different interpretation.

    One of the things that I’ve found out is that most of the things we’re told are plausible interpretations that both coincide with what people want to believe and with facts that cannot be hidden. Quite often, when more facts come to light it turns out that what people want to believe simply wasn’t true. A very mild case was scrap metal collection during WW II. The populace of the USA was told that there was a metal shortage, and that they had to collect scrap (voluntarily). The collected scrap was, of course, a metellurgically meritless manage (sorry) and was discarded. The entire program was intended to “build a sense of participation”, rather like those “walk in circles to cure cancer” affairs we all remember. Those who read this will also remember recycling, in which we were told that recycling (esp. plastic) was the key to saving the world, and the people who told us this sent the plastic to Asia, where it was dumped into the ocean. (Perhaps if the boxes hadn’t been marked “To SEA” the result would have been different? Probably not.). Same scam.

    So take a look at Suvorov’s works (published by Naval Institute, please note) and see what he says. I think you’ll find it interesting.

    Counterinsurgency

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  254. @Truth3

    We are living in Weimar II.

    Yep. 1930s, endlessly repeated. Boring. The Jewish establishment might be callous and opportunistic, but original thinkers they are not.

    Counterinsurgency

  255. @Wizard of Oz

    Agree. Even the simplest tribal societies tend to have some version of a currency — quite often beads of some kind that take considerable effort to make (inflation), are easily lost (deflation), and are beautiful in themselves (have some intrinsic worth).
    You could get rid of money, but there would be few left to admire the feat …
    “If they don’t
    We don’t mind!
    We’ll abolish all mankind!”
    “The Persecution and Assassination of Jean Paul Marat . . .”, a movie of the 1960s. Search Youtube.com

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  256. Skeptikal says:
    @SND

    One of the foremost sources of inspiration of homosexuals and homosexuality, and homosexual imagery in Weimar Berlin was the superb classical Greek vase collections in Berlin museums.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=greek+vases+homosexuality&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT3fjD75bjAhXLm-AKHQo9BssQ_AUIECgB&biw=797&bih=397

  257. @Anonymous

    The only thing Germany did was divest itself of parasites. Even back then it was refereed to as an economic miracle.

    The only thing Germany did was get itself invaded by very nearly everybody on Earth who wasn’t a member of the Axis and who was capable of industrial warfare. And getting out-thought by Lenin, and out-executed by a Georgian bank robber. Doesn’t impress me as successful.

    As far as welfare states and loot goes, I’ll stand by that. It’s an almost mystic connection — the West is now importing non-Western foreigners and supporting them with welfare for the sole purpose of looting the Western hinterlands. It’s almost as if the looting was such an integral part of a welfare state that the looters had to be invented, even when not necessary.

    Counterinsurgency

  258. peterAUS says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    Not bad actually.
    Some things are, interestingly, missing from that summary: main culture, ideology, religion, race, immigration, citizenship…
    Then, on practical level, voting (who and how).
    Military (professional or conscript/draft).

    Ah, yes, and, for USA in particular: secession thing.

    In any case some of us sometimes do try to think about those things. Not much of quality output so far , but in time, maybe, something will be done about it.Hope and miracle things.
    The rest, say…….90% don’t even bother with that.

    One thing I am sure of 100%. It will get, for lower 70 % of society in West, much worse before there is a chance to get better.
    Prudent person could act accordingly.

    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
  259. @Curmudgeon

    It would have been political suicide for the SDP to form a coalition with them.

    It was suicide not to form a coalition between the SDP and the CP. If the NSDAP were as evil and insane as we’ve been told (instead of just inept and ruthless) there should have been an SDP/CP coalition. According to Suverov _The Chief Culprit_ Stalin forbade CP to accept or offer any coalition with SDP under any conditions. If the SDP would have been reluctant to accept in any case, that doesn’t change Stalin’s responsibility. If Stalin wanted to stop WW II before it started, he’d have told CP to form a coalition no matter what that coalition cost.

    This “political suicide” business is a lot like criticizing Trump not being polite while praising the foul mouthed, insulting, and actually genocidal Left for being forward thinking. Sure, it wouldn’t have been wonderful, but we’re talking **poltitics** here, that and WW II. Wonderful politics is like picturesque sausage making — doesn’t happen.

    Counterinsurgency

  260. @Anonymous

    Please either stay off the drugs or refrain from commenting here.

    Well, first, you’re not a moderator. Second, you have no record of posting (being Anonymous), so I doubt you have the prestige to make such a suggestion. Third, this forum is at least in theory fact based. You can say that Suvorov _The Chief Culprit_ was wrong, but you can’t play minor oracle, authorized to make indisputable judgments, not and have the judgements accepted, at least.

    Counterinsurgency

  261. Che Guava says:
    @Republic

    I am sure that Stalin was a bad man. However, history shows that Bronstein (Trotsky) was far worse. Even while the Russian civil war (produced by the Bolshevik coup d’etat) was still not resolved, he brought the Red Army into central Europe.

    I am grateful for your reading recommendations, but have read much (Zamyatin’s We, collected works of Stalin, much more, including propaganda films from all over).

    Japan maintained peace with the USSR until, as agreed by the ‘alliies’, they finally attacked in Manchuria.

    It is a forbidden thought,

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  262. @Father O'Hara

    But the Jew in QS is an unpleasant character. Also, he was given the cheat sheet too.

    What’s most wrong about the movie is that the real-life wasp of the story was NOT attractive.

  263. @Lin

    You must be deaf as well as blind.

  264. @Bardon Kaldian

    I don’t know what were songwriters’ intentions (possibly the author is right)- but this scene sends shivers down anyone’s spine.

    The intentions are clear. The song begins pleasantly enough, and the sentiments sound nice. But the singing becomes more militant and the emotions go from assertion to aggression. It goes from the wish for a nicer Germany to impose one’s vision of Germany on ALL of German and beyond.

  265. @Bardon Kaldian

    Nazi Germany was something like Sparta- powerful & well organized, but creatively sterile. Lack of freedom produces lack of creativity.

    But post-war democratic Germany didn’t produce much in the way of arts.
    Also, keep in mind that Nazis had only 5-6 yrs with culture. From 1939, all the efforts were into war.

    Furthermore, there was far more artistic and cultural freedom in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy than in the USSR, and yet it was the USSR that made some of the greatest films in the 20s.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  266. Weimar was a disease. The Nazis were the cure.

    Sometimes, too much chemo kills the patient.

  267. @anarchyst

    I can’t agree with you on your view point towards the US Constitution.

    It was a highly flawed document, which exploded in everyone’s face in 1861.

    True, that slavery was a serious issue for the War Between the States but the more important factor was the territorial acquisitions under the Polk administration that threatened to upset (and eventually did) the fragile balance between the southern and northern states in the Congress.

    The South by way of its slave population had maintained the edge in Congress up until the Polk territorial acquisitions came into play as to whether they would be slave or free states.

    The South was its own unique culture and despite the fact that they had many slaves working the plantations, mots of the history one learns about the antebellum south is completely distorted to promote a northern, elitist agenda.

    Most people in the North could have cared less about the well being of the southern slaves as many northerners owned slaves as well. And on a per-capita basis, there were more northern slave owners than southern.

    The South was also moving towards integration of their African slaves into mainstream society, though at a very slow pace, while in the North, this never happened.

    To understand why the US Constitution was such a horrible creation, all you have to do is read the history of the ratification process in 1787. It was still-born birth that finally turned into the monstrosity that was genuinely feared in 1865 when the North defeated the South in their effort for independence.

    I would suggest that you do a little research yourself…

  268. @peterAUS

    I would completely agree with you… 🙂

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  269. @Pericles

    Yes, there could have been initially a phase of some moral depravity among the Bolsheviks after the revolution but it was nothing compared to Berlin and the Weimar Republic. I think the Bolsheviks may have even legalised homosexuality early on. I think that period could do with more scrutiny and investigation from a sociological viewpoint. So they tried to abolish marriage as per Marx’s ideas, yet now marriage is being adopted even by homos.

  270. Skeptikal says:
    @Curmudgeon

    “While the CP was very popular, given that the communists had overthrown Berlin and Bavaria in 1919 establishing soviet republics, there were likely more of a pariah”

    This is a most odd definition of a “pariah.”
    Reminds me of the statement I read reacently, that “everyone was worried” about the SDP winning some Weimar election, because they had so much support. So, who was “everyone”???

  271. Miro23 says:
    @anon

    Anyone who hates Cabaret (not that it can’t be criticized) should be forced to watch the Lucille Ball Mame. Which, btw, is super-judeophilic and pro-naked children schools, apart from being tuneless and moronic.

    Going the other way, Fritz Lang’s 1922 film “Dr Mabuse the Gambler” is recommended viewing (all 4 hours of it). It’s a Weimar story.

    https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Mabuse-Gambler-Rudolf-Klein-Rogge/dp/B000FS9FLW

    • Replies: @Alden
  272. peterAUS says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    You would!?

    Well, how about this:
    By some miracle the current North West of USA secedes. Yes, yes, I know, but let’s keep it simple. Just imagine a chunk of land there and it does secede.

    And you are a member of a team which is supposed to write a Constitution for that country.

    So….the questions:
    Do you define dominant culture? If so, which one?
    Religion.If so…
    RACE…..If so….
    Immigration, citizenship…how?
    Voting. Who?
    Military. Who? I did put this because it’s hard to wage effective Imperial wars with conscripts/draftees. At the same time….hehe…not easy to be quite good with conscripts/draftees. Conundrum of sort.

    You would have to define those clearly; no implicit stuff. That’s what Founding Fathers didn’t take into account, I guess, and here we are.
    I say “we” because whatever happens in USA it affects the rest of Five Eyes a LOT. Hehe…I actually stopped paying attention to local politics ages ago. No point and waste of time/energy, IMHO.

  273. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Allied bombers did a better job of cleaning up Germany.

    You do know that the western democracies started the war don’t you?

    This is why we need revisionist historians, to then clean up false narrative. Too many people have their heads filled with nonsense that doesn’t comport with reality. Garbage in and garbage out.

    Also, WW2 cannot be understood outside the context of WW1, with behind the scenes maneuverings of certain (((finance capitalists))).

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI
  274. @Priss Factor

    Nazis destroyed cultural & civilizational infrastructure; post-1945 German societies had to start from the rubble. These two periods are simply not comparable. Hitler’s Germany was not a miracle; Adenauer’s, definitely, was.

  275. Angharad says:
    @anon

    I like Lucille Ball as a comedienne a LOT! She was wonderful, in her youth and middle age. She should have retired entirely in the 1960’s though. She was beginning to….run out of steam. Her “Mame” is an atrocity. She and the other adult cast members were way, way way too old for their roles. The film was poorly photographed and eidted as well. It’s sad that Ball ended such an amazing career on such a dreadful “note, shall we say….

    By the by – if you’ve never seen Technicolor Tessie in a film called, “Dance, Girl, Dance” – seek [it] out. This 1940 “B” film was directed by the lesbian Dorothy Arzner (she invented the boom mic, fyi). Ball plays the second lead, a sort of hard boiled dame with a heart as pure as a driven gold digger. And driven she is. The subject matter revolves around the lives of 2 dancers; Maureen O’Hara (another spectacular redhead) and Ball, as “Bubbles”. O’Hara is the “good girl” ballerina, and Ball – well – her names tells you her line of Terpsichorean Endeavor. The film is a kinda sorta proto feminist screed; the O’Hara character is forced to work in Bubble’s burlesque show, in order to keep food on the table, and delivers a furious scold to the jeering men in the audience about lusting after women while thier wives are alone at home, etc – but the film is actually a lot of fun. The, photography, pacing and editing are brisk, inventive, and to the point, the characterizations are wonderfully deft and knowing, and the dialogue is absolutely top drawer. The film was made before lesbians lost their sense of humour. Or at least Arzner had a wonderful sense of humour…

    The whole thing is worth your time for Ball, alone. She tears into her role – and she is dazzling, in every way. She made tons of films in the 30’s, in bit parts, and slowly gained larger roles, but I think she was really under utilized, until her land mark television program. This silly little film reveals that she was a terrific actress of intelligence, depth and perception, as well as a being a gorgeous gal with great gams. Ball was at the peak of her beauty, and sadly well “before her time”… funnily enough, The Lucille Ball of this era would have been a perfect actress for a Fosse film.

  276. Angharad says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Everything you’ve written about the Reich is the polar oposite of the FACTS.

  277. Mulegino1 says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    You talk about the National Socialists “destroying civilization” yet the destructive , genocidal murder and vandalism yet nothing the National Socialists did could be compared with what the Allies did to German culture. Think of both the bombing of Monte Cassino, the destruction of Dresden, the bombing of every single major German city, etc. The Allies killed far more French, Italian and other non-combatants and destroyed more cultural and historical landmarks than the Germans could ever be accused of in the most lurid Holohoax and Soviet propaganda.

    Adenauer’s “miracle” was only possible because there was still a population remaining with the discipline and dignity instilled by the National Socialist regime.

  278. @Chris Mallory

    Pathetic, really. Britain NEVER defeated Germany without American help, and in WW2 the Americans never really faced German forces at full strength, anyone with even a bit of knowledge knows the Soviets faced the full force of the Wehrmacht and defeated them basically alone. But yeah, keep up your Team America wet dreams about bombing civilians, maybe it will help you finally dispatch the fearsome goat herders of Afghanistan. Asshole.

  279. @Anonymous

    Harris at least had the honesty to admit that if Britain lost the war, they would be tried for war crimes. The Americans are just fucking clueless, irredeemably so.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  280. @R.G. Camara

    Interesting perspective. It’s difficult to take Baldwin seriously as anything but a liberal idiot, but Willis is potentially subversive (in a reactionary sense), yes.

  281. @Anonymous

    There were certainly people with concealed identities, but there were also many Jews living openly in Berlin for nearly the duration of the war. It was the American/English air raids that drove/wiped them out.

  282. anarchyst says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    I must respectfully disagree with you assertion that the Constitution is a “flawed” document. However, I do agree that we “lost” the Constitution as a result of the “war of northern aggression” and that Lincoln was NOT the “great emancipator” as is taught in today’s history books. In fact, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, incarcerated newspaper editors who did not toe the line and make the South the villain.
    The beginning of the end of the “grand experiment” came with the rise of federal power. Previous to the war of northern aggression, most people had very little interaction with the federal government, the post office being the main contact. People considered themselves to be citizens of “their respective state”, NOT the united States. After the conclusion of the war of northern aggression, the federal government became much more intrusive. This is where the idea that one was an American was born…
    The final consolidation of federal power and the rise of the federal government’s domination over the states came in 1913 with the establishment of the federal reserve and the income tax. It was further bolstered by the erosion of the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution which was (re)interpreted by the “supreme court” to regulate “intrastate commerce”.

    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
  283. @Bardon Kaldian

    Nazis destroyed cultural & civilizational infrastructure

    I don’t buy this. Also, many talents left Germany voluntarily. If anything, the Nazis tried to woo many big talents in arts and culture, but as many happened to be on the Left, they left for other nations.

    The real problem of post-war Germany was the lack of confidence. German culture is nothing without passion and soul, but after the war, Germans were told to be cautious lest their souls lead them down the dark path again. But Germany cannot produce Beethovens and Wagners without the soul thing. It cannot produce thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegger.

    It was German caution after WWII that held back its art and culture.

    In contrast, Japanese culture flowered for about 2 decades after WWII because Japanese had far less of such hangups. Though the US occupiers did try to reform Japan’s culture somewhat, the Cold War put Japan in good graces of the US once again, and Japanese could be true to themselves.

    What really killed Japanese culture was too much order and prosperity in the 70s and 80s. Japan just got used to wealth, order, and efficiency. They just became consumers.

    But in the crisis-laden soul-searching period after WWII, Japan produced directors like Kurosawa and writers like Mishima.

  284. @Counterinsurgency

    Doesn’t that perhaps tend to favour a quite moral, even moralistic, view of Cabaret by allowing the Money song to be seen as satirising, very critically, the state of German bourgeois (and upper class?) morals given the universal starting point (at least in NW Europe and the white Angloshere) that well bred people didn’t talk about money?

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  285. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Steve Naidamast

    It is true that British imperialism provided a lot of good in the world along with many negatives but no one is saying things such as it should never have been condoned or that many people would not agree with it.

    Actually everyone who wants to keep out of trouble with the Thought Police is saying exactly that.

    Try getting an article published in the mainstream press defending British imperialism. Try hanging on to a job at a university after defending British imperialism. In both cases you’d be torn to pieces.

  286. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Real, hard-core socialist realism is no more than “boy meets girl in tractor school”.

    I was talking about Socialist Realism in the visual arts. I think it’s obvious that it was a hell of a lot better than the trash that was being celebrated as visual art in the West at that period.

    I don’t know anything at all about Socialist Realism in literature.

    • Replies: @Alden
  287. @Steve Naidamast

    Why do you think that the writers of this document made it so difficult to change? Getting 2/3’s majority vote in the Congress for a constitutional amendment is just about near impossible. As a result, we in the US are still stuck with an antiquated 18th century document that in all reality did not allow for much.

    Unlike many newfangled “constitutions,” ours is not an exhaustive code of law – it leaves copious room for State legislatures to do any number of things to meet the needs of changing times. I think you’re just captive of the silly idea that all interests must be rights, which is really an expression of the elite casuistry of our day which seeks to rule by extrademocratic means through a “living constitution” in which its wishlist is said to be found.

    The 2/3 vote and the State ratification requirements ensure that major changes take place as the result of broad consensus after hashing out arguments in public for a good long time. A 51% majority is usually the plan of a group to stick it to another group. In the absence of the Courts grossly exceeding their authority, we would most likely have a much more vigorous public discourse around amending the Constitution. As things stand, the easier path is to legislate under the guise of private party litigation.

    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
  288. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Counterinsurgency

    Yes, that’s the standard theory. One takes facts and tries to make sense out of them. But take a look at Suvorov’s _The Chief Culprit_. Same facts, plus some more facts, and a different interpretation.

    One of the things that I’ve found out is that most of the things we’re told are plausible interpretations that both coincide with what people want to believe and with facts that cannot be hidden.

    Yes, and Suvorov’s theories are a prime example of an interpretation that some people desperately desperately want to believe. If Suvorov is right then Hitler did nothing wrong. Therefore Suvorov must be right.

    Suvorov is a guy whose theories should be approached with extreme caution. He is extremely biased.

  289. @Beefcake the Mighty

    I think Curtis LeMay was at least aware that the firebombing of Japanese cities was morally and possibly legally questionable.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  290. Hey! You! Mr Reviewer! Sheet for brains! IT WAS A MOVIE!!

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  291. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Che Guava

    I am sure that Stalin was a bad man. However, history shows that Bronstein (Trotsky) was far worse.

    The trouble with political leaders is that they’re all bad men. Apart from the women, who are bad women. No decent sane virtuous man becomes a political leader. It’s like being a gangster. Some gangsters are worse than others. Some are more successful than others. But it’s a safe bet that if someone is a gangster he’s probably not a nice guy.

    Stalin was at least a realist. And he was successful. Unlike Trotsky, Hitler, Churchill who were failures.

    Stalin was certainly an improvement on Lenin.

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Republic
  292. Alden says:
    @renfro

    Look at her roots. She needs a touch up. I’m really jealous of her clothes. She looks a lot like her mother in that photo.

  293. Alden says:
    @Winnetou1889

    Eisner murdered 10,000 Christian Germans when he ran that Munich commune.

  294. Alden says:
    @dfordoom

    Isn’t socialist realism good looking boys and girls in work clothes brandishing tools? Good color combos red black and yellow.

    Title

    Steel mill amongst wheat fields

  295. Alden says:
    @attilathehen

    I don’t think any WASPS live in NYC and suburbs anymore

  296. Alden says:
    @Priss Factor

    Kurosawa made some excellent films in the 30s. My favorite is I think it’s called The Mountain the brave old warlord.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  297. Miro23 says:
    @Republic

    Zweig’s, Memoir, The World of Yesterday,shows the golden age of freedom which was enjoyed in pre war Vienna before the great war.

    A more realistic picture is Brigitte Hamann’s “Hitler’s Vienna: A Dictator’s Apprenticeship”.

    She follows Hitler’s life in pre WW1 Vienna, until he left for Munich in 1913 ( enlisting in the German army). Vienna was the chaotic capital of the collapsing multiethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire (6th largest city in the world) with extremes of wealth and poverty. It’s media and economy were dominated by Jews (she plays this down) and it had a dysfunctional parliament with feuding ethnic/nationalist parties (Germans, Czechs, Hungarians etc.). Also the cultural chaos , racism and social Darwinist ideas.

    Hitler absorbed the ideas of Karl Lueger (populist mayor of Vienna) and Schönerer (Pan Germanism).

    A more Jewish focused book on the same place and time is Albert Lindemann’s “Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews”.

    The main theme here is the massive influx of poor religious Jews from the Russian Pale of Settlement and Galicia adding to the already dominant Jewish presence. As Lindemann says, “The rise of the Jews in Austria-Hungary may well have been the most sudden , impressive rise of Jews in modern history.” He quotes a German-Jewish writer who had moved to Vienna from Germany,

    “….all public life was dominated by Jews. The banks, the press, the theater, literature, social organizations, all lay in the hands of the Jews…. The aristocracy would have nothing to do with such things…. The small number of untitled patrician families imitated the aristocracy; the original upper-middle class had disappeared….. The court, the lower middle class and the Jews gave the city its stamp. And that the Jews, as the most mobile group, kept all the others in continual motion is, on the whole, not surprising.”

    The Jewish press ferociously attacked any criticism directed at Jews, but the dam finally broke with the election of Karl Lueger (mayor of Vienna) who picked up the anti-Jewish lower middle class and working class vote.

    Lindemann shows that the proportion of Jews in dominant positions in society, business and the professions became a critical factor in anti-semitism (especially among the Germans of Vienna who were displaced) with the whole thing turning into a major sociological disaster.

  298. Alden says:
    @Miro23

    I’ve only seen the Roz Russell Mame many times in TCM. Every time I see it I see more and more pro Jewish propaganda. All the WASPS but Mame and her nephew are made fun of, even the southern one who marries her and saves her from the stock market crash.

    WASP fathers and husbands made her rich enough she could sneer at them and their ways. Can’t wait till some Asian buttinskies attack the movie for the Japanese houseman

  299. @Colin Wright

    Agreed. The moralizing is tiresome when it is not just hiding something about “the Nazi”
    or the Jew(((somebody))) doesn’t want us to know. But can you recommend any books from or about the period? 20’s and 30’s. Everything I can find on Weimar is written by Jews

  300. Alden says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    You left out the most important thing severely severely weakening the powers of the judiciary and vastly strengthening the powers of the executive branch which is elected by the people.

    I know what to do with the judges. It’s illegal.

    Much of what’s wrong with this country is because of the common law tradition. It sure doesn’t have anything to do with the common good . It means law made up by judges. Based on the old German Celtic tribes. The biggest baddest bully in the tribe became a judge and made up the laws.

    The executive branch has been subordinate to the judicial branch since Marbury Vs Madison 1804. That’s the biggest flaw in the constitution.

    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
  301. Alden says:
    @PeterMX

    Wonderful wonderful article everything you write is absolutely true.

    • Replies: @PeterMX
  302. Alden says:
    @MAOWASAYALI

    Wasn’t Liza a big gay Icon? Weren’t they her big fan base?

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  303. Alden says:
    @anarchyst

    Consensus and compromise works well for legislation. But it’s totally absent in the judiciary. They are dictators who can make laws and overturn laws made by a legislature.

    There must be someway to prevent the judiciary from just making up laws. And that’s all it is. Eliminate all the constitutional blither blather and it’s just judges making up any law they want. Roe vs Wade all the gay marriage laws most of affirmative action, the worst environmental laws , all judge made.

  304. anon19 says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    “The Jewish establishment has said that white identity is dangerous..”

    Which is why Jews are nation wrecking every white country they can.

  305. Alden says:
    @anarchyst

    The only way to gain an education in constitutional law is to buy law school constitutional law text books and see if you can take a course in a law school.

    When you finish the course you will realize that the constitution is whatever a judge says it is. And once the findings and orders are made, they stand as new laws although sometimes they overturn old laws Roe.

    Roe, the legal abortion law made by a majority of 1? 2? unelected life long tenured judges is the perfect example of constitutional law.

    I’m not familiar with names if the cases in which often just one lower court state judge legalized gay marriage. In other words, just made up a law.

    The only way to change the constitution is to raise vast amounts of money. Decide what you want; affirmative action for hetero White men. Close the border, compulsory day care for newborns to age 6, anything at all. Use the money to fund legal aid non profit law firms all over the country to look for the perfect plaintiff.

    It’s called law fare and it works. Why waste money bribing legislators when the same money can be used for a lawsuit? Legislators can always vote against you next month. But once a judge has issued findings and orders, it stands.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  306. Mr. Anon says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    They also lost WW II, according to Suvorov because they were out-thought by Lenin and Stalin.

    Out thought by Lenin? He died 15 years before WWII began

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  307. ‘Agreed. The moralizing is tiresome when it is not just hiding something about “the Nazi”
    or the Jew(((somebody))) doesn’t want us to know. But can you recommend any books from or about the period? 20’s and 30’s…’

    I wish I could, but no. I’d certainly be interested if anyone does have any recommendations.

  308. @drhakenkreuz

    Oy Vey! It was not just a movie, but Great Jewish Art!

    Here’s the proof:

    Accolades

    The film earned a total of eight Academy Awards in the 45th Academy Awards:

    Best Director (Bob Fosse)
    Best Actress in a Leading Role (Liza Minnelli)
    Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Joel Grey)
    Best Cinematography (Geoffrey Unsworth)
    Best Film Editing (David Bretherton)
    Best Original Song Score or Adaptation Score (Ralph Burns)
    Best Art Direction (Art Direction: Rolf Zehetbauer and Hans Jürgen Kiebach; Set Decoration: Herbert Strabel)
    Best Sound (Robert Knudson and David Hildyard)

    Source: Wikipedia

  309. @MAOWASAYALI

    Liza Minelli is Italian-American Catholic you fool. You can look at her coloring and her big tits and know that.

    Joel Grey fathered Jennifer (Who looks like him) and so clearly he was born with a nut sack.

    Some posters here makes such inane comments that I wonder if they are having the Zio-conspiracy freaks on as a joke.

  310. @Wizard of Oz

    Doesn’t that perhaps tend to favour a quite moral, even moralistic, view of Cabaret by allowing the Money song to be seen as satirising, very critically, the state of German bourgeois (and upper class?) morals given the universal starting point (at least in NW Europe and the white Angloshere) that well bred people didn’t talk about money?

    Your argument leaves out a line:
    “Cabaret”‘s “Money” song is satirizing.
    Satirizing is good.
    Therefore “Cabaret” is good.

    You want satire, buy a copy of _Mad_ magazine. You can satirize anything and, the more essential it is, the easier to satirize. Doesn’t mean a thing, same as flame wars.

    At the time of Cabaret, the morals of the bourgeois (origin: those who live in towns) and even the upper class weren’t anything like the most important concerns. French looting and USSR attempts to convert Eastern and Middle Europe to SSRs were the most important concrens. Quite a few people buckled under the stress, and there was an ample supply of vendors of anti-stress drugs and events (such as the cabarets).

    So: If you ask the questions framed by a propaganda piece, and only those questions, the propaganda meme grabs your tiny mind and _squeezes_. You have to step outside the propaganda piece, which can take years of work, to escape it’s vicious little meme. Fortunately, all the memes come from the 1930s, so once the escape is made, it’s made.
    Even the “open borders” propaganda theme comes from Nazi “place in the sun” propaganda! It’s both amazing and boring.

    Note: “well bred” people _anywhere_, cross culturally, didn’t talk about money while land was money and land was reward for political service. Why should they think about money in daily life? They had stewards who did that.

    Counterinsurgency

  311. @Steve Naidamast

    Cinema in the 1970s was going through a transitional period that would not end until the early 1990s when “naturalism” in acting would have matured into the current art form we now enjoy.

    Trouble is we _don’t_ enjoy it (see slumping sales).

    Counterinsurgency

  312. Bukowski says:

    Interesting review. For a look at Hollywood in the 1930s and the decadent and immoral types who populated it I would recommend the 1975 film directed by John Schlesinger called The Day of the Locust.
    http://www.soiledsinema.com/2019/07/the-day-of-locust.html

  313. Anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    The old queen was pro-German, and under pressure from her, the British government made several attempts to negotiate an Anglo-German alliance around the turn of the century. It didn’t work. There were too many disagreements, notably about the future of South Africa. She died in 1901 and in 1904 Britain entered into an alliance with France.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  314. Dube says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    Categorically speaking, the Polish leadership was nothing more than a bunch of fruitcakes that would make any Christmas cake look bad by comparison. These lunatics,,,wanted to bring back the glorious Polish Empire days of the 17th century. They redefined the concept of “delusional”. So they were quite happy to mix it up with Germany at England’s urging. And would have done so as early as 1936 had they had the political opportunity to do so.

    Well, you’ve a dangling thread there, and you might see what happens if you tug it. Pilsudski watched the re-armament of Germany and proposed to France in 1933 that it be stopped by a joint Polish/French military action. That was without “England’s urging.”

    Of course, they should have thought about the Soviet Bear that was just to their East while Germany was doing everything in its power to develop peaceful and friendly relations for this sad excuse of a nation.

    The Poles never thought about “the Soviet Bear to the East?” Even after the war of 1920-21?

    I’m not convinced that Poland would not have resisted in 1939 except for “England’s urging.” Your “peaceful, friendly relations” were to include a battle plan against the Bear, and thus a resumed de facto German military occupation. And that was not too popular during its preceding 123 years.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  315. @Diversity Heretic

    Fair point, there were American generals who were opposed to the atomic bombings. But overall the Americans are just brain-dead on this issue.

  316. @Dube

    The Poles got what they deserved. Completely hopeless. And BTW, they bear most of the blame for the 1920 conflict with the Soviets turning into war (which they were lucky not to lose).

    • Replies: @Dube
  317. anarchyst says:
    @Alden

    Good points!

    However, the checks and balances still exist, if only the executive and legislative branches would use them.

    It was Marbury vs. Madison that elevated the courts to the arbiter of the constitutionality of laws because we let them.

    The “checks and balances” would still work if the executive and legislative branches merely REFUSED to abide by the “court’s decisions”.

    “They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it”.

    As an aside, congress DOES have the right to make ANY subject “off-limits” to court rulings. A good example of this was the congress passing legislation making court rulings regarding the Boy Scouts “off-limits”.

  318. Republic says:

    https://www.darkmoon.me/2013/the-sexual-decadence-of-weimar-germany/

    “The decay of moral values in all areas of life—the period of deepest German degradation—coincided exactly with the height of Jewish power in Germany.” — Dr Friederich Karl Wiehe, Germany and the Jewish Question.

    Well before 1933 the Jews had taken possession of the film industry even more thoroughly than of the theater. That was understandable, because the earnings in the film industry overshadow the earnings of any other artistic activity….
    The biggest step in the direction of the decline of the German cultural life [however] was taken in the field of the light entertainment genre. Here—in the genre of musical comedy and above all in revue and burlesque—frivolity and lasciviousness were to rear their ugly heads. So much so that during these years Berlin was quite correctly considered the most immoral city in the world.
    It was Jews who introduced this pornographic “art form” to Germany, a debased genre completely unknown before the Great War, and so it is the Jews who can be held responsible for the general decline in morals.

    In 1931, over 60 percent of German films were produced by Jews and 82 percent of the film scripts were written by Jewish writers, though Jews made up less than 1 percent of the German population (0.9o%). A quick look at the names of directors, producers, stage managers, actors, script writers and critics, “revealed everywhere an overwhelming preponderance of Jews.”
    Light entertainment (revue/burlesque) was a Jewish innovation. The revue theaters, all concentrated within great cities such as Berlin, were owned and run almost exclusively by Jews. Shows consisted of little more than excuses for sexual titillation involving the display of the female form in lascivious dances that were to degenerate later into striptease and scenes of public masturbation.

  319. Republic says:
    @dfordoom

    read:

    The Great Terror

    Robert Conquest

  320. @Trevor Lynch

    Hi Trevor,

    Have you ever written about the movie Downfall (Der Untergang)? If yes, I haven’t found it. If no, is there a chance of you ever writing about it?

    Thanks,

    reiner Tor

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  321. Anonymous[275] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    In the 30s?

    • Replies: @Alden
  322. @jeff stryker

    Jeff,

    There used to be this website jewdar.com where you could enter any movie and it would tell you the %age of Jewish involvement. A few years ago I was reading all these articles about Jewish involvement in pornography so I decided to enter “Deep Throat” and “The Devil in Miss Jones”, two seminal 70’s movies that greatly popularised this genre in the mainstream, and was shocked when jewdar.com returned the answer that there was 0% Jewish involvement in these movies, while for other regular Hollywood films I never got such an answer and usually the %ages were very high. I’m now not sure how reliable that site may have been but I see it has been deleted. Even if they don’t instigate something, Jews will move into it if there’s money to be made. And anyway the macabre Marquis the Sade, original pornographer, sadist torturer, and sex murderer, who is credited with much of that which is corrosive of societal morality, wasn’t a Jew as far as I know. Nor was Caligula or the Borgias, another lot of sex perverts with massive influence on western society of their day.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  323. @Commentator Mike

    MIKE

    Linda Lovelace was an Irish-Catholic from New York who attended a seminary and intended to be a nun at one point. Gerard Damiano, the director, was an Italian whose backers were in the mafia.

    As for DEVIL IN MISS JONES, again, the film was backed by Italians. Georgina Spelvin, who was homely as all hell, was a Texan.

    Harry Reems, the Jew male performer, was the one being exploited for being forced to have sex with such unattractive women.

    The US media is based in New York and Los Angeles. Obviously many people involved will be Jews and Irish-Americans because these are huge populations in these places.

    Do I believe for a minute that Jews run the atrociously vile Japanese porn industry? Ridiculous. Absurd.

  324. @anarchyst

    For someone who disagrees with my assertion that the US Constitution is a highly flawed document, you appear to substantiate it with your many excellent points…

    🙂

  325. @Alden

    Actually, US Common Law is based upon 17th century English Common Law not on Celtic Common Law traditions…

    • Replies: @Alden
  326. @Alec Leamas

    The 2/3’s vote in the legislature for an amendment was designed to be a choke-point for such processes.

    It doesn’t matter how broad a consensus is given the nature of Human beings. Getting a 2/3’s vote in Congress would be akin to someone winning the jackpot in a huge lottery. It simply isn’t going to happen enough to make necessary changes on a timely basis.

    However, I do very much agree with your comments regarding the US courts; at the federal level, few judges really adhere to constitutional doctrine.

    You are also correct that the US Constitution was supposed to be flexible enough to allow the states to design their own legal systems within it. However, that was the problem. The South saw the new Constitution as a severe danger to the original concept of the Articles of Confederation, which were the basis for what would become a The Confederacy of States. This was the actual name adopted by pre-Constitution America and thus would become The Confederacy of Southern States of America or the CSA.

    The actual concept and experiment in the creation of US was to have a consensus of states to a central, federal authority. This is what was never attempted in history up to then; not a democracy or a republic.

    The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787/1789 is what started the long road to the War Between the States in 1861… And the South knew this long before the North did…

  327. @jeff stryker

    LOL!

    You’ve never heard of silicone breast implants and in vitro fertilization (IVF)?

    You don’t need to be “Italian-American Catholic” to have big tits, Jeff.

    Newsflash: Bruce Jenner who isn’t Italian-American Catholic has bigger tits than your fake Italian-American Catholic Liza MANelli.

  328. paulll says:

    A review such as this, reeking with hate and intolerance, is a vomitous sign of the moral degeneracy of the times we live in. Of course, Sally and her friends are not meant to be models of rectitude in Cabaret. This does not make Cabaret a bad movie. Cabaret, like all great works of art, has moral complexity. Nazis are bad doesn’t mean non-Nazis are perfect and good. If anything, Cabaret suggests that the Nazis rose as a kind out of ultimate evil out of a society that itself was ethically ambivalent, to say the least. We clearly aren’t meant to admire the characters in Cabaret. They are symptoms of larger problems. Joel Grey’s character in particular, the Master of Ceremonies, is meant to come off as someone who hints at much darker things and is brilliantly played as such by Grey. Liza Minneli was an astounding artist at her peak when she made Cabaret. The character she plays is a tormented soul in headlong flight from herself. She is much to be pitied. Her only redeeming characteristic is that she does at least have some moral complexity. The Nazis are offended by moral complexity. They deploy brutal means to sweep away complexity, blaming and destroying. They seek moral certitude – which, of course, they do not even achieve. Cabaret only hints at all this, but the hints are clear. Those who seek moral certainties end up unleashing the most monstrous evils. Cabaret could almost be a painting by Bosch. It is a depiction of a Ship of Fools, about to be overwhelmed by an enormous wave of pure evil.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
    , @paulll
  329. @Priss Factor

    It was German caution after WWII that held back its art and culture.

    More like, it was American Occupation Forces psychological warfare after WWII that held back — rather, scrubbed, expunged, eradicated, from the German mental and spiritual internal and external landscape– German art and culture.

    Capturing the German Eye: American Visual Propaganda in Occupied Germany by Cora Sol Goldstein
    https://books.google.com/books?id=d-Qyqp15fDkC&q=bandersky#v=onepage&q=bandersky&f=false

    (Too much to attempt to quote/excerpt; rather, it makes me so angry I don’t know where to stop. Much of the introductory material is readable online. )

    What Goldstein records with approval I view as prima facie evidence of cultural genocide carried out against the German people by US CIA and others of US occupying forces.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  330. @jeff stryker

    I’m Italian, Stryker.

    Italians in USA have been caricatured quite enough.

    Your asinine commentary is not helpful.
    No, not “Not helpful.”
    It’s stupid.
    Uninformed.
    Without basis in reality.

    Where does “Stryker” come from?
    Concentrate on whatever sorry-ass subset of humanity you come from and leave my Italian heritage alone.

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI
    • Replies: @jeff stryker
    , @renfro
  331. @paulll

    Those who seek moral certainties end up unleashing the most monstrous evils.

    He doesn’t see the irony.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  332. @reiner Tor

    Hi Trevor,

    Have you ever written about the movie Downfall (Der Untergang)? If yes, I haven’t found it. If no, is there a chance of you ever writing about it?

    Thanks,

    reiner Tor

    I haven’t written about it. I thought it was an excellent movie, with a riveting performance by Bruno Ganz. I am not sure I have anything more to say about it than that, though.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @mh505
    , @eah
  333. paulll says:
    @paulll

    Anyone who can watch Cabaret without feeling empathy and pity for the Sally Bowles character is, in my opinion, someone who has no soul.

  334. @SolontoCroesus

    …Then you would know that Liza Minelli’s grandfather was part of the Sicilian failed revolution against Bourbon rule in 1848.

    Stryker is not my real name. You think I would want anyone here knowing my real name?

    In my opinion, Minelli has that part-Saracen Arab look common among Sicilian-Americans that Zappa and Stallone also have.

  335. peterAUS says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    Definitely not.

    @paulll
    Anyone who can watch Cabaret without feeling empathy and pity for the Sally Bowles character is, in my opinion, someone who has no soul.

    The “handle” is right in

    …is a vomitous sign of the moral degeneracy of the times we live in

    I mean, just funny.
    There is no moral certitude and morality is complex.
    BUT
    Nazis were/are evil. Or “alt-Right”. Or Trump supporters. Or those who think that homos aren’t actually equal to heteros. Or that men and women aren’t quite the same.

    I came to conclusion, ages ago, that communicating with such types is true waste of time.
    Verbal communication, that is.

    Which, interestingly perhaps, brings up ONE element in the movie I haven’t seen mentioned here.
    Taking into account somehow puzzling attitude towards violence around here it’s sort of understandable.
    The beating of that guy……

  336. renfro says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    As Jeff said , Jeff Stryker is not his real name…..he borrowed it from a porn star:

    Jeff Stryker – Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Stryker
    Jeff Stryker is an American porn star who has starred in bisexual, gay, and straight adult films. He lives in California. Contents. 1 Early life; 2 Pre-film career

    Now you know why he says all the crap he says.

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
    , @jeff stryker
  337. @Priss Factor

    I don’t buy this. Also, many talents left Germany voluntarily. If anything, the Nazis tried to woo many big talents in arts and culture, but as many happened to be on the Left, they left for other nations.

    Ahhh, stop it. German soul is not in crappy third-rate racial ideology, fantasies about Germania that had never existed, in existential & spiritual slavery, in totalitarian dictatorship & euthanasia.

    Most truly creative Germans left not because they were leftists, but because they couldn’t tolerate both dehumanizing status quo & they feared- rightly- for Germany’s future. And most of those who stayed were just following my country, right or wrong.. (Jaspers, Heidegger, Heisenberg,..).

    Nazi mythos is an interesting phenomenon, but one should keep a realist perspective.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  338. PeterMX says:
    @Colin Wright

    I was looking for an excellent documentary that used to be on Youtube about Cultural Marxism but I can’t find it any more. I hope it hasn’t been removed by Youtube. They are deleting important videos, iccluding important speeches from historical figures that they don’t want people to see. The video featured Dr. Kevin MacDonald (below), Dr. E Michael Jones and one or two other people. It was very interesting and covered how Cultural Marxism was spread into the universities social science departments and then into culture and society and its profound affects on life in the USA .

    The interview below is also very intersting. Dr. Kevin Macdonald (a former university professor) from California State University, Long Beach is interviewd. He has written three major books on Jews and their influence on the world. He is a scholar and speaks in that manner. Some people have called him the intellectual leader of the Alt Right. I have not read his books but I’m very famiiar with his website below. Many of the articles are about Jews. And I’ll just mention it. One of his featured writers is Jewish. Many of his authors are PHDs. It’s a fascnating website.

    His books have been almost completely igorned by academia until recently when someonne finally crtiqued one of the professor’s books. My understanding is he didn’t do very well. Dr. MacDonald responded to the criticism. But the fact that until now no one read or even discussed his books doesn’t mean Dr. MacDonald was being ignored. The largely Jewish SPLC sent one of itts representatives to the tenured professor’s university to whip up hatred against him and try to get him fired. She didn’t succced in getting him fired but she succeeded in making his life difficult and unpleasnat for his last few years at the university. If you want to listen to him being intervewed on Cultural Marxism I recommend watching part 4 first.

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/

    Kevin MacDonald on Cultural Marxism

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Susan
  339. Alden says:
    @Steve Naidamast

    The “ English” are Germans and Celts and English judges made up laws according to whim, aka common law is the worst legal system ever.

    One English judge created American slavery in 1654? in Virginia. Marbury vs Madison 1804 judicial branch supreme over executive branch.

  340. Alden says:
    @Anonymous

    Late 30s. Took advantage of UCLA film school when I worked there. Did you see the one about the hospital? Supposedly he researched and made all the blankets furniture equipment clothes authentic 17tg century materials and manufacture. Then he washed all the fabrics numerous times and battered the furniture so it would look used.

  341. @renfro

    From your above-cited source:

    [MORE]

    Merchandising

    The Jeff Stryker Cock and Balls, a dildo fashioned from a cast of his penis, is widely sold in sex stores. The dildo was academically analyzed in a paper presented at the 1995 Bowling Green State University Conference in Cultural Studies: Lesbian Pornography and Transformation: Foucault, Bourdieu, and de Certeau Make Sense of the Jeff Stryker Dildo, by Mary T. Conway, then a graduate student at Temple University. The sex toy is notable not only for being popular, but also as Stryker and the manufacturer of the item litigated for the rights to its likeness as part of Stryker’s intellectual property.

    ROFLMAO

    • LOL: Republic
    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  342. Angharad says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    “The Room” is hilarious – and so transcendently atrocious that it’s wonderful!

  343. To view a more recent show deserving of a Goebbels Award watch Ray Donovan. The Jews, though decadent, are all wise and powerful. The Goyim, though wily, are brutish and cruel savages in service to their all knowing masters.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  344. Skeptikal says:
    @Alden

    Could be.
    That was definitely the case with Judy Garland, her mother.
    Cabaret may have contributed to Liza Minelli’s becoming a figure beloved by homosexuals.

  345. @Anonymous

    The old queen was pro-German, and under pressure from her, the British government made several attempts to negotiate an Anglo-German alliance around the turn of the century. It didn’t work. There were too many disagreements, notably about the future of South Africa. She died in 1901 and in 1904 Britain entered into an alliance with France.

    In reality, perhaps it really was the impossible dream.

    I still remember a movie entitled “The Lifeboat”, A. Hitchcock directing. A passenger boat is destroyed by a U-boat. The movie concerns a lifeboat with all but one citizens of the Allies, and the one being a German from the U-boat, which was apparently destroyed in the encounter. The German mans the lifeboat’s oars, and actually rows on a compass course while the others talk (the destination turns out to be a “German supply ship”). Water is scarce, and when the Allied citizens find that the German has his own source of water, they kill him. After the German is dead, one of the Allied citizens says “Gentlemen, we have killed our motor.” The metaphor is obvious.

    Counterinsurgency.

  346. @Yves Vannes

    Indeed. A Jewish actor playing an explicitly Irish-American character? Classic two-plus-two-is-five moment, they clearly like to fuck with us.

  347. Skeptikal says:
    @Jake

    “Germany had been secular, not Christian. A”

    Huh?

    Everyone in Germany had to state a religion.
    Evangelisch oder Katholisch.
    Certainly in the Weimar era, Germany was deeply religious, esp. in the countryside.
    Bavaria and the Rhineland were Catholic (hence the great Fasching traditions).
    Most of the rest was Lutheran but with pockets.

  348. @Mr. Anon

    Out thought by Lenin? He died 15 years before WWII began

    Right. It’s humiliating. Germany, the new wonder country, the engine of progress in the late 1800s, obvious successor to the UK, defeated by the plans of a dead megalomaniac. Happened, though.

    Lenin originated the plan to force Europe into another World War; his thought was that the USSR could exist only if the (very powerful) “capitalist” countries in Europe were converted by revolution into SSRs. To make the revolution successful, Lenin planned to support a revenge attack by Germany against Western Europe (WW I, round II) and pick up the pieces afterwards.
    Stalin implemented this plan by taking control of all the capital and labor in the USSR and converting the USSR into an arsenal, and its Army into an unrivaled invasion force. This was essentially Lenin’s plan with a few details filled in.
    Salin’s plan would have worked like a charm except that Hitler’s forces attacked Stalin’s two weeks ahead of Stalin’s attack date. Hitler did this despite his being logistically unable to conduct a prolonged Russian campaign, and was able to blunt the Soviet attack so much that, after taking half of Europe the USSR was out of manpower and stayed out of manpower for the rest of its existence. But it was Lenin’s plan that defeated Hitler.
    Heck of a deal. Lenin’s plan was an insanely risky MAXIMAX strategy, and quite possibly the result of suicidal hatred. Destroying Europe to install SSRs? Why not be Mr. Nice Guy and just build a few pyramids of skulls? And yet the plan _almost_ worked.
    Suvorov makes interesting reading. I’m pretty much convinced that the grand narrative, the nice sounding WW II propaganda we’re told, is unrelated to actual history, which is actually worse.

    Counterinsurgency

  349. @dfordoom

    The “Hitler did nothing wrong” kind of narrative.

    More like “Hitler was a bloody fool who was set up and out-thought every step of the way” kind of narrative. Suvorov never so much as hints at “Hitler did nothing wrong”. As to massacres in Eastern Europe, they were evenly split between the USSR and the German forces.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  350. @renfro

    Fosse directed a film called STAR 80 about the death of Playboy Centerfold. It is interesting.

  351. @Wizard of Oz

    Irving discovered that Hitler started planning Barbarossa as early as December 1940.

    The Battle of France started 1940/04 and had ended in French defeat six weeks later, 1940/06, at which time effectively all of Germany’s forces were in France. Had Stalin attacked 1940/06, he’d have taken all Germany before the German Army could have redeployed out of France, but apparently the end of the Western war that Stalin had expected to devolve into a stalemate surprised Stalin he decided to attack next Summer, 1941.

    1940/12 wasn’t early to plan Barbarosa, it was too late to start planning for a large invasion scheduled for early Summer 1941. Among other things, it left no time to produce clothing for the Russian winter, adequate ammunition supplies, wide-tread tanks, fuel that would not gel during Russian winter, etc. That appears to be why Stalin was surprised by the German attack — the German attack was obviously not sustainable, no logistics.

    Looks like Hitler threw together Barbarosa.

    Seriously, read Suvorov _The Chief Culprit_. He discusses these things at length.

    Counterinsurgency

  352. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Counterinsurgency

    The “Hitler did nothing wrong” kind of narrative.

    More like “Hitler was a bloody fool who was set up and out-thought every step of the way” kind of narrative. Suvorov never so much as hints at “Hitler did nothing wrong”.

    No, Suvorov doesn’t. But his theories are very appealing to the “Hitler did nothing wrong” crowd. By making Stalin the chief bad guy (and Suvorov definitely does make Stalin the chief bad guy) his theories let Hitler off the hook. They make it easy to portray Hitler as the victim of Evil Communist Aggression.

    Suvorov’s ideas are very popular with Hitler’s fan club (which has quite a few members here at UR).

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  353. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Counterinsurgency

    but apparently the end of the Western war that Stalin had expected to devolve into a stalemate surprised Stalin he decided to attack next Summer, 1941.

    If you believe Suvorov. A man with a very major anti-Soviet axe to grind.

    Seriously, read Suvorov _The Chief Culprit_. He discusses these things at length.

    It’s an interesting book, but it doesn’t amount to proof. There’s no smoking gun.

    And Suvorov starts off from the position that Stalin was totally evil so he does tend to go looking for evidence to support the conclusion that he’s already reached. It’s polemics rather than history.

    Maybe Suvorov’s right. I’m not convinced. Hitler certainly had a motive for attacking Russia. His long-term large-scale imperial plans for the East were going to require the destruction of the Soviet Union. Britain and France had been removed as threats. Why not turn what seemed like an invincible war machine against the Soviets right away? It would not be surprising if Hitler had been ludicrously over-confident after easily disposing on the British and French. And the German intelligence services seemed to have massively underestimated Soviet strength. The idea that Hitler was the aggressor remains extremely plausible.

    From Stalin’s point of view an invasion of Germany would have been incredibly risky. He had no allies. He had no way of knowing what Britain would do (and in any case Britain turned out to be an entirely useless ally). He would have to assume that he would be fighting Germany alone. A Germany that had just flattened the British and French armies. Stalin was very cautious when it came to foreign policy. Would he have taken such an unnecessary risk?

    • Agree: reiner Tor, Miro23
    • Replies: @Bukowski
  354. @MAOWASAYALI

    The state of academia these days. And that was 25 years ago. You can just imagine what they get their Ph.D.s in today and what kind of people teach and research there. Or better not.

    • Replies: @Parisian Guy
  355. EH says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    That was one of the most illuminating comments I have seen in many years of reading this site, equal to some of the best articles.

  356. @Colin Wright

    There are a thousand academic books written on the Weimar. 999 are written by Jews The other one has gone missing

  357. Dube says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    “Completely hopeless” & “lucky”?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  358. Anonymous[303] • Disclaimer says:

    I managed to ignore CABARET all these years — I was never a fan of Bob Fosse and musicals in general besides — , but upon reading the above review, I checked it out, and yep, not my cup of tea. It reeks of sleaze(without a real sense of danger), and Liza Minnelli is one of the most repellent screen presences ever. She looks like a cross between Raggedy Ann Doll and Malcolm McDowell in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Her character’s like a freako Lena Dunham impersonating Matthew Broderick as Ferris Bueller.
    Like many artists who came to film-making from other fields, Fosse never developed a sure cinematic style of his own, which accounts for his peppering his movies with obvious and intrusive visual antics(usually with editing) to demonstrate his cinematic prowess. A true master of cinema doesn’t have to remind us at every turn that he’s making-a-movie. If anything, he renders the making-of-film invisible and subservient to the final product. ALL THAT JAZZ is half-interesting(at least to my younger self when I’d seen nothing like that prior), but it too is marred by excessive razzle-dazzle of cutting, lighting, and odd angles.
    Granted, the very great Orson Welles also moved from theater to cinema, but his genius transferred theatrics into cinematics with natural ease. Stagecraft merged with screen-magic. In contrast, Fosse’s theatrics stick out from his films. The difference between Welles and Fosse is that between compound and mixture. Welles’ method is a chemical process whereas Fosse’s method is merely the physical joining of one art-form with another. And because Fosse could not rise above the stage-centrism of his performance arts background, he relied excessively on editing, a technique unique to cinema, to earn film-making credentials.
    Other than that, I find Cabaret-style music mostly cringe-worthy, and it’s all the worse in CABARET because everything is overripe, wearying, and putrid. At the very least, the American Vaudeville scene was without pretension. In contrast, the Cabaret scene had the affectations of bohemian chic, a conceit that made it even worse. We can enjoy a movie like STRIPES(with Bill Murray) for what it is. It doesn’t pretend to be a serious work of satire. In contrast, CABARET masquerades as an Important Art Film. Its musical acts lack the light-hearted spirit of a number like the “Dreaming of You” in SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN or other breezy American musicals. Instead of freshness, there’s the stale air of putrefaction, as if we’re watching musical acts done by ghouls(like the ones in CARNIVAL OF SOULS).

    Politically, CABARET is a dishonest and stupid movie, especially irritating because it tries to have it both ways: Apologia of Immorality as Liberation and Morality Tale about looming Tyranny. (In rare moments, one wonders if the film is actually a criticism of Weimar Period for indulging in mindless decadence than waking up to the dangers of Nazism. Indeed, the most touching scene is the wedding where two Jews reverently reconnect with their roots in a traditional ceremony. Immorality is hardly an effective weapon against a moralized movement like Nazism or communism. Shanghai decadents and the like were swept aside by Mao and his communists, as shown in THE LAST EMPEROR and FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE. Perhaps, this accounts as to why today’s decadence and degeneracy as been moralized than merely liberalized. As globo-homomania is regarded as a ‘spiritual’ crusade, it has the New Moralists on its side. In current America, Cabaret isn’t merely a club but the new church. Stonewall Riots are commemorated as akin to the Resurrection of Jesus. Thus, if few people were willing to die for Weimar Germany, many are willing to fight and die for Weimerica as a ‘moral’ principle.) Culturally, CABARET is THE SOUND OF MUSIC for the artsy set. Oddly enough, both movies ironically end up giving the Nazis their due. While the wholesome family in TSOM is staunchly anti-Nazi and ‘good’, they represent in looks and manners exactly the kind of people that the Nazis would have endorsed. They are like the idealization of the Perfect Aryan Family except that they’re Anti-Nazi. In contrast, one might say CABARET is a celebration of freaks and weirdos, exactly the kind of ‘degenerates’ and reprobates denounced culturally and morally by the Nazis. It’s like watching the satanic rituals in ROSEMARY’S BABY. And yet, they do really come across as ugly, repugnant, and demented, as if to admit that maybe the Nazis did have a point. Such perception would have been ‘accidental’(or perhaps incidental) than intentional on the film-makers’ part, but it’s nearly inescapable, especially those who are preordained to disdain overt displays of excessive decadence. (A much greater work about the life in theater and music is TOPSY-TURVY, a genuine masterpiece by Mike Leigh who, until then, was mainly know for neo-kitchen-sink or bitchin-stink dramas that were mostly wearying.)

    [MORE]

    The film reminds us of what Paul Johnson said of Modern Art in general: Nazi persecution lent it an air of tragedy and significance it otherwise might not have possessed. Among anti-fascists in the Liberal West, the idea was “If the Nazis hate it, it must be good.” After all, if the Nazis were Evil Incarnate, everything they opposed must have been on the side of angels. In the dreary film FARAWAY, SO CLOSE by Wim Wenders, we see traumatized angels throwing tantrums at the Nazi exhibition of Degenerate Art. With so many problems around the world, one would think angels would be occupied with matters other than a Modern Art exhibit, but such is the conceit of deracinated cosmopolitan artists. Since the satanic Nazis were opposed to degeneracy, degeneracy must have been good, or so the anti-Nazi logic would lead us to conclude. If not for the specter of Nazism, one would have to wonder WHAT cultural value the trashy musical numbers in CABARET have. It’s like Jews, even the most noxious and corrupt ones, invoking the Holocaust Card — my so-and-so was a ‘Holocaust Survivor’ — as get-out-of-jail-free card. Never mind one’s lack of intrinsic virtue because one is bestowed worth simply as the hated-of-Nazis. Similarly, Antifa, a gathering of lunatics and thugs, has been bestowed with ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ because they presumably fight ‘Nazis’. And illegal invaders are ‘dreamers’ simply because their presence is an affront to Trumpism, aka ‘New Nazism’. To be sure, the pro-Nazis can fall into a similar mental trap. If the Anti-Nazis argue, “If Nazis hated it, it must be good”, the Pro-Nazis argue, “If Nazis were anti-degeneracy, they must have been good.” In truth, a movement or system can be anti-degenerate and still turn out to be terrible. Consider Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Theocratic Iran and Saudi Arabia(not to mention the Taliban), and the Khmer Rouge. Does anyone want the US to be ruled by the 700 Club? Besides, the very people who claim to be anti-degenerate could turn out to be closet-degenerates or repressed-degenerates whose neo-puritanical campaigns serve as cover for new forms of degeneracy passing themselves as morality and order. Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Josef Goebbels, and other Nazi big-shots were pathological degenerates in their own ways except that they donned kulturkampf armors to conceal their crippled souls. Just like Televangelist charlatans hide behind God & ‘family values’, pervert-sadists like Beria hide behind Social Justice ideology, and the axis of cretinous Neocon Zionists & Pentagon warmongers hide behind the smokescreen of ‘spreading democracy’ and ‘war on terror’, the Nazis too honed their skills in presenting themselves as the cure for the disease when, if anything, too many of them were diseased themselves.
    Now, given the nature of human psychology, it could be that all such individuals were sincere in their self-delusions. Whether Beria or Himmler, it’s possible he actually believed he was on the right side of History. And it’s possible that many in the neo-imperialist Deep State sincerely believe in the crap that they spout to maintain world hegemony. And consider the pathetic case of Matthew Heimbach. The Malt-Right bubble-butt kid made a name for himself by spouting off against the corrupting power of Jewish degeneracy. He promoted a family-friendly version of Neo-Nazism as a cure, but it turned out his private life was akin to antics on the Jerry Springer Show. The fat boy humped the wife of his father-in-law and then beat him up upon being exposed. And there’s Richard Spencer and his crew whose idea of White Nationalism was all-night drinking binges and fantasizing about being 007 Darth Vaderians sticking their laser dongs into anything that moves. And there was the audio-recording by some bi-sexual guy(who goes by the pseudonym Pilleater)that revealed Greg Johnson discussing about how it’s fun to recruit young men for homosexual trysts at white nationalist conventions. Now, this was mis-characterized as ‘grooming’ by the gross fatbody Matt Forney-the-Horny, but it wasn’t exactly wholesome either. Incidentally, Forney is yet another moralist who is actually a total degenerate unlike his nemesis Jim Goad who is open about and even proud of his degeneracy. It seems the crucial difference between Gavin McInnes & Milo(and Goad) AND Richard Spencer & Greg Johnson(and Forney) is the former’s degeneracy is out in the open whereas the latter is more keen to keep it under wraps from the public(without much success, one might add).

    What is striking about CABARET is its Judeo-centrism. It exemplifies the golden Jewish rule of “Is it good for the Jews?” Power over principles. If Jews can use degeneracy against a power they don’t like, they are pro-degeneracy. But if Jews can use anti-degeneracy against a perceived enemy, they can just as easily be anti-degenerate. The very Jews who defended Weimar degeneracy against the Nazis could have been the same ones cheering for neo-puritanical communists against capitalist-imperialist decadence(when it was dominated by gentiles in the West). Plenty of Jews admired the Cuban communists and Vietnamese communists for resisting American Imperialism with its crass materialism, consumerism, and hedonism. New York Times played a key role in bringing Castro to power and did its part in undermining American efforts in Vietnam. Today, we see Jews promoting globo-homo degeneracy against Christian moralists but also defending Muslims and #MeToo Movement against Trump who is portrayed as a vulgarian bigot and pussy-grabbing degenerate. When American Capitalist-Imperialism was once mainly associated with Wasp power and the right-wing military, Jews were more than willing to support neo-puritanical forces against it. There was a time when even a millionaire Jewess like Carole King serenaded none other than Fidel Castro with the song, “You’ve gotta a friend.”
    But when degeneracy was the weapon against the enemies of Jews, such as the Nazis, it was suddenly a GOOD thing. So, the very Jews who might watch the Soviet film I AM CUBA and cheer on the neo-puritanical revolutionaries against the decadent capitalists of casinos and swanky hotels might, on the next day, cheer for the decadents in CABARET whose acts are hardly distinguishable from the capitalist excesses of pre-Castroite Cuba.

    In the 60s, the very Jews and Liberals who used Sex, Drugs, & Rock n Roll against Old White Conservative America could extol the virtue of selfless and spartan Viet Cong who were fighting the South Vietnamese lackeys indulging in capitalist-consumerist excesses imported by American Imperialist Occupiers. In the documentary HEARTS AND MINDS, Americans are shown as corrupting agents by spreading drugs, degeneracy, and prostitution among the Vietnamese. But few years prior, Jews and Liberals cheered for M*A*S*H where libertine Americans use sex and debauchery as anti-authoritarian and antiwar statement, especially at the expense of Robert Duvall’s character who is exposed as a Christian-moralist hypocrite. The very Jews who morally condemn a bunch of white people placing bacon inside mosques lend full support to Pussy Riot degenerates who desecrate Churches in Russia. How can Jews be pro-morality in one case but pro-degeneracy in another? It all boils down to, “Is it good for Jews?”
    Granted, there is less contradiction among today’s Jews because they now possess the ultimate power. Decades ago, Jews resented the dominant position of Wasps in elite institutions, and they sought EVERY means, decadent or moralistic, to undermine Anglo-American prestige and power. But with the fading of communism, the triumph of Jewish power in the US as the Lone Superpower, and the decline of Third World nationalism, Jews now have a narrower agenda than prior to their seizure of power. If in the past, Jews used moralism against decadence(siding with Castro and Viet Cong contra US capitalists) or decadence against moralism(idolizing Weimar subversives contra Nazi authoritarianism), Jews today are more likely to say Decadence Is Moralism, as with their promotion of Globo-Homo that went from pleading for ‘gay rights’ to mandatory worship of Gay Rites. Indeed, things are worse now than in the Weimar period because we can’t even tell degeneracy apart from morality. At least with Weimar, you knew degeneracy when you saw it. Even those championing it didn’t pretend it was moral. If anything, they got high on its nihilistic kicks. It’s like Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald in THE SUN ALSO RISES and THE GREAT GATSBY weren’t morally endorsing the hedonism they depicted even as they delighted in much of it. Weimarians of the pre-Nazi period were for freedom of perversion as a democratic value; they weren’t arguing perversion IS morality. In contrast, so many people today embrace degeneracy as the new hope, the new faith, the new path forward for all mankind. Degeneracy once used to mock religions and faith. Now, globo-homo-mania seeks to take over churches and preach ass-buggery as the stuff of ‘rainbow’ visions and revelations. There was a time when degeneracy took pride in being rejected by the Middle and Mainstream. It was so cool in its dangerous ‘subversiveness’ and as an affront to the Social-Moral Order. But now, the Power(that is mostly Jewish) pulls out all the fireworks to ensure that Middle America will bend over to Degeneracy as the New Normal. 80% of Americans accept ‘gay marriage’, and most Americans do NOTHING to lend support to Christian bakers being sued by Jewish law firms at the behest of vicious homos and disgusting trannies. And just consider the spread of tattoos and piercings EVEN AMONG conservatives. If heavily-tattooed Gavin McInnes who kisses Milo(whose bung is filled with Negro dongs) and sticks a dildo up his ass is the face of New Conservatism, it really makes you wonder.

    A scene near the end in CABARET mocks stupid Germans of suspecting a Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy consisting of both financiers and communists. It’s an invitation to “Don’t think beyond A-B-C.” The A-B-C logic goes, IF Jews are commies, how could they also be capitalists, or vice versa? Surely, only DUMB people could accuse Jews of both radicalism and greed. But, let’s consider the historical facts. While it’d be ludicrous to say Jewish communists and Jewish capitalists were completely without ideological scruples, there were many cases of collective-complementary-symbiotic strategy between the Jewish Left and Jewish Right on the basis of tribal solidarity. The capitalist Armand Hammer had no qualms about doing business with the Soviets. And of course, Zionism was a collective-movement of the Jewish Right and Jewish Left to wrest Palestine from the native Arabs. Also, plenty of capitalist Hollywood Jews gave cover to Jewish communists who sat around swimming pools while penning screenplays about the Proles. In a way, the Jewish Socialists and Jewish Capitalists could be mutually beneficial to one another. Jewish capitalists could wash away the sins of ‘greed’ by association with ‘progressive’ causes, and Jewish socialists could deflect accusations of communism by association with wheeler-dealer Jews. Quite often, Jewish capitalists chose Jewish communists over white capitalists. It was blood over creed. And so many former Jewish communists made the easy Zelig-like transition to capitalism, suggesting their identity ultimately mattered more than their ideology. But then, Jews are hardly the only people who’ve acted in this regard. After all, what holds the disparate elements of the GOP together? It is implicit whiteness whether one is Christian Right or Libertarian-Capitalist. Donald Trump is hardly a spiritual figure, but many white Christians voted for him because he was ‘one of us’. In India, religious Hindus(who tend to be culturally arch-conservative) are allied with capitalist Hindus(who tend to be worldly) because what they have in common is a powerful sense of Indian identity and nationalism. And when communist Vietnamese persecuted ethnic Chinese in the late 70s, communist China made didn’t make common ideological cause with the communist Vietnamese but sided with their capitalist-leaning co-ethnics. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Jewish communists and Jewish capitalists sometimes saw eye-to-eye on the basis of “Is it good for Jews?”

    In a way, it confuses matters to address the politics of degeneracy within a left-right ideological framework. Historically, both the hard left and hard right had problems with degeneracy that became mainly associated with aristocratic privilege and/or capitalist excess. Monarchs and aristocrats were supposed to be noble, but their wealth and privilege often led to self-indulgence and excessive behavior. Emperor Ludwig II was the Michael Jackson of his day. He built lavish useless palaces and made homo advances on his servants. He did good to patronize the genius of Richard Wagner, but it’s ironic that the whims of a homo ’emperor’ laid the material groundwork for the music that would inspire men like Hitler. Many aristocrats ran out of money because they led lives of dissipation filled with partying and gambling. And then, capitalists made tons of money, and their spoiled children grew up with bohemian tastes and became the patrons of Modern Art. Also, as capitalism is all about the BUCK, it was willing to market ANYTHING for profit. This led to the explosion of vice industries, culminating in national legalization of gambling, pornography, and drugs(and even prostitution in some countries), with the result that, especially since the 1960s(but going back to the Jazz Age as well), decadence & degeneracy became synonymous with the masses as well in a world where young kids grew up to ‘decanography’ of MTV. In time, the aristocracy vanished and gave way to the capitalists. At they very least with aristocrats, despite their dissipation and decadence, there lingered the ideal of dignity and honor. With capitalists, all such class ideals eventually faded(as each successive generation of capitalists were further removed from the aristocratic model to which the first capitalists aspired) and gave way to the culture of shamelessness.
    In the pre-capitalist world, the main economy comprised procuring food and essential goods, and that meant most people were involved with virtuous industry of agriculture, manufacture, repair, and transport. But as capitalist industrialism greatly expanded the economy and relocated people from farms to cities, many more people got involved with occupations that were centered around vanity and vice… or at the end of the day, they turned on the TV and became fixated on vanity & vice as their cultural mainstay. Then, it is not so surprising that homos became the New Angels of the 21st century. In a world where culture is mostly defined by narcissism, hedonism, and vanity, it seems only fitting that the most froopilaloop group would become the focus of attention for the masses hooked to TV shows and the latest fads and fashions.

    At any rate, this is not strictly a left-right issue. It confuses matters to refer to the current politics(and even neo-spirituality) of degeneracy as ‘leftist’. If anything, it gives the degenerates & decadents(and their globalist-supremacist patrons) too much credit by lending the impression that the Revolution is still alive. Granted, one could argue that decadence is more leftist than rightist because the left is about constant change whereas the right is about reverence of heritage and tradition. However, tradition can grow decadent, stale, and effete, whereas the culture of health could be embodied by the dynamism of change. During the French Revolution, it was the Left that embodied strength, vitality, and warrior spirit whereas the King and aristocrats with their powdered wigs, fake birthmarks, & snuff boxes were a bunch of hapless dweebs. In THE LAST EMPEROR, we see how traditional Chinese Power came to be consolidated in the hands of weak monarchs and silly eunuchs locked within their palace as a kind of Never-Land. And tradition among Chinese women had devolved into the sick practice of foot-binding. And traditionalist Chinese literati were effete men who grew their fingernails long and scribbled poetry while disdaining any use of their muscles as ‘vulgar’ and ‘low’. If anything, it was the Chinese modernizers, among whom communists were prominent, who emphasized the need for a healthy vigorous culture that respects labor and exercise. The ultra-conservative Byzantium and Ottoman courts grew decadent. The Ottoman sultan was more likely to indulge in orgies with his harem than roll up his sleeves and rule an empire. And the elite power-holders of Rome grew decadent and acted like the clowns in Fellini’s SATRYICON. There is a reason why Hitler shared the communist disdain for the German bourgeoisie. Even though National Socialism chose to work with the bourgeoisie than overthrow them(as the communists wished), Hitler found the conservative elite class too timid, effete, or dull to possess the necessary will and boldness to take command of History. And in a way, he proved to be right. The German Business class had aided Hitler’s rise in the hope that it could guide him, but, as events proved, it lacked the ‘balls’ to control Hitler whose balls proved bigger like Tony Montana’s in SCARFACE. National Socialism drew much from the Left — the color of red for example — because, despite fundamental disagreements, men like Hitler admired the leftist fighting spirit and determination to smash the old corrupt order and build a new one. Part of the reason why Wasp Conservatives became almost overnight a bunch of decadent ninnies is their power and privilege spoiled and softened them. Without the toughening effects of struggle, people lose the Will to Power and power of vision. Catholic Church is supposed to be ‘conservative’, but its inner circle now seems to be made up of a bunch of child-molesting degenerates addicted to privilege.

    The true leftist struggle is dead and had been so for quite some time. Globalism is both anti-true-right and anti-true-left. No true leftist would have embraced globo-homo or ‘gay marriage’ or so many things associated with ‘progressivism’ nowadays, like ‘twerking as liberation’ or ‘Bruce Jenner is a woman’. Leftists believed women could do a lot of things that men can do, but they never said Man is Woman or vice versa. What goes by the label of ‘progressivism’ today is really the product of late-stage capitalism and the end-logic of vanity and hedonism as the highest values in the post-virtue age. This isn’t even ‘Cultural Bolshevism’ but Cultural Capitalism. It is what happens when capitalism goes from an economic system to a value system. Now, there are some solid values, even virtues, associated with capitalism: Hard Work, Enterprise, Competition, Risk, and Ability, all of which support Competence, Accountability, and Meritocracy. But as capitalism emphasizes profit uber alles, it is driven to market and sell anything to maximize inflow of cash. So, if billions can be made by selling fast food junk and turn lots of people into fatty-fatsos, capitalism does so. If billions can be made by expanding gambling into every town and city, so be it. If stuff like Rap can rake in lots of dough, capitalists don’t hesitate to fill the airwaves with garbage despite its corrosive effects on society. In time, the profit-centrism of capitalism can effectively rot the core of society. While capitalists themselves must be intelligent and hardworking, they make their money by selling stuff to the masses, most of whom happen to be dumb and vulgar. To maximize profits, capitalists use their smarts to come up with dumber things for the idiocratic masses. Lots of smarts went into the creation and development of video-games, but consider its overall impact on society. Smart geeks make dumb stuff for the masses. Consider the impact of smart-phones on consumers. It’s smart-machines for the high IQ designers & engineers but dumb-machines for their owners who spend inordinate amount of time staring at nonsense on them. And lots of creativity and smarts go into CGI, but the result has mostly been lots of dumb action movie spectacles about superheroes. And estimates show that one-third of all internet traffic goes to pornography. So, when addressing the problem of degeneracy, we need to stop blaming the left. It is the result of neither the left nor the right but of capitalism’s fixation on profits based on maximum short-term efficacy. Since the shameless masters-of-hedonism are most adept at concocting stuff that bring in the most profit, they are favored by capitalists to manage and define the culture, and the result is the ‘Gay Party’, like the one in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, which is like the culmination of the late consumer-capitalist mentality of the X-ers in RISKY BUSINESS, hardly a movie about ‘leftists’. (What goes in fraternities are pretty crazy too, and the opening scene of DAS BOOT would suggest German military men were no strangers to acting wild and crazy.)

    Had the German communists come to power in 1933, they would have done away with Weimar decadence just the same IF NOT MORE SO. Indeed, even under Nazi Rule, Germany was far less repressive than communist nations where culture was concerned. Jazz was disapproved but not banned. Swanky clubs continued to exist though without the excess of degeneracy seen in CABARET. For several years, Nazi Germany was less censorious of Hollywood movies than the Soviet Union was. Indeed, most of Nazi movie production aped Hollywood genres far more than the Soviet movie industry did. It’s no wonder that the ‘gay’ character(William Hurt) in THE KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN love to watch Nazi-era movies because they are filled with glamour and fantasy. If anything, the neo-puritan leftist prisoner despises Hurt-character’s frivolity… though their eventual love-and-alliance perhaps prophesied the new politics whereupon leftism went ‘gay’ and ‘gayness’ became political. The film THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING shows how communist authorities didn’t care for ‘decadence'(associated with capitalism) either.

    Also, the humanist cinema of the 40s and 50s(that generally leaned heavily to the Left) was often disapproving of the ‘capitalist’ culture of vanity and pleasure. Keep in mind that classic Marxists argued that Fascism was the final culmination of capitalism — maybe there is something to that given the current state of US as a gangster-fascist fiefdom of Jews and their globo-homo henchmen. In Roberto Rossellini’s OPEN CITY, the Nazis come across as rather decadent, and there is a lesbian Nazi bitch to boot. In Vittorio De Sica’s UMBERTO D, the least likable character is the wanna-be-rich landlady who evicts the old protagonist and invites affluent bohemian types to her parties. In Frank Capra’s movies — Capra was a conservative Republican but worked on scripts by leftists, even crpyto-communists — , the Good Common Folks embody simplicity whereas capitalists live it up. In IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, the vision of hell is Pottersville where raw capitalism runs like sewage; Violet isn’t merely a floozy but an all-out whore, and Martini’s joint is Nick’s with a big-ass cigar-chomping Negro banging blues rhythms on the piano. Also, even though Sam Wainwright the uber-capitalist turns out to be an A-Okay guy, it’s the social-communitarian George Bailey who is the real hero, and he’s all about the Family and Community. He stuck with the Savings and Loans out of loyalty to his father, and he finds most meaning with wife and kids in his hometown. (This is why today’s globo-homo urban decadents hoot-and-holler throughout the movie, especially in the scene where George encounters Mary-as-old-maid-librarian.)

    In Akira Kurosawa’s movies like STRAY DOG, IKIRU, and HIGH AND LOW, the urban capitalist culture is presented as corrupting, degrading, and alienating. Federico Fellini’s LA DOLCE VITA and Michelangelo Antonioni’s L’AVVENTURA were hailed at the time for what many took to be a commentary on the soulless materialism of post-war Europe where everything revolves around the ME. Even up to the 70s and 80s, it wasn’t rare for Leftist or Liberal artists to depict villainy in the form of homosexuals(even when the artists themselves were toots). In Visconti’s THE DAMNED, one of the arch-villains is a transvestite who goes over to the Nazis like Annakin Skywalker went over to the Dark Side. In THE CONFORMIST, it’s implied the main character settled for fascist conformism as the result of childhood trauma of having been molested by a homo. In Z by Costa Gavras, one of the right-wing thugs is a nasty homo. Even as late as 1987, the arch-villain in NO WAY OUT was William Patton’s brilliant portrayal of a homo social-climber and henchman whose blushy face always gives the impression that he just walked out of the washroom after sucking someone’s cock.
    Also, back when society disdained homosexuality(or found it ridiculous, as in Mel Brooks’ THE PRODUCERS with “Springtime for Hitler” number), it was commonplace to associate the Nazis and Fascists with the culture of perversity. In that regard, CABARET somewhat stood apart from anti-fascist films such as Pasolini’s SALO(where fascists bugger kids), NIGHT PORTER(where fascists indulge in S&M), and Szabo’s MEPHISTO. In Bernardo Bertolucci’s 1900, the Fascists come across as the craziest bunch of party dudes who even hang a cat on the wall and bash its guts out. Donald Sutherland plays a Fascist who makes Alex of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE look like Mr. Rogers. He’s a total pervert and degenerate. In contrast, the communists represent simplicity and virtue. Fellini’s AMARCORD is supposed to be about how everyone was so idiotic under Fascism, but everyone just comes across as lovable and funny, even the Fascists.

    A kind of Saul-Alinsky’s RULES-FOR-RADICALS outlook shaped the cultural strategy of the 70s, especially as the 60s flamed out by alienating Middle America or the Silent Majority. Alinsky argued that radicalism has to be presented as mainstream, normal, and respectable. But, if radicalism was to become the New Normal, then the Old Normal had to be made the New Perverse. It appears Alinsky was a genuine leftist and socialist, but his lessons were adopted by others as well, though they likely arrived at the same conclusion on their own.
    If cultural perverts were to gain power in a society that was still socially conservative — where even many liberals found homosexuality to be weird or sick, pornography to be offensive or demeaning, and drugs to be corrupting to the young — , then the biggest symbols of Political Order, the Nazis and Fascists, had to be presented as the Real Perverts. Then, it is not surprising that so many Fascinating-Fascist Cinema of the late 60s and 70s featured Nazis not so much as Men of Order but the Real Men of Degeneracy, with Pasolini’s SALO really taking the cake. (In contrast, globo-homo came to associate ‘gays’ with middle-class values, white picket fences & green lawns, clean-cut white collar jobs, and even ‘marriage’. PHILADELPHIA presented a homo as upstanding middle class professional, and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN had homos as American icons: Cowboys as rump-humpers. Homos were made out to be more-normal-than-normal, and in time, even churches were festooned with ‘gay’ colors. The fact that the children of John McCain and George W. Bush all so easily become globo-homo shows how vapid and shallow the values of the ‘conservative’ elites are. They have no core convictions other than hankering for status premised on approval by the latest fads and fashions.) Why did homos and other perverts feel a need to invert symbols and values in this way? It was their way of hoodwinking the larger society that was still culturally conservative in many respects. When we survey the some of the biggest or most significant films of 70s, what really strikes us is how ‘conservative’ they are despite the fact that most were written and/or directed by ‘liberals’ or Jews. There was PATTON, DIRTY HARRY, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, THE GODFATHER I & II, DEATH WISH, THE EXORCIST, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST(if not conservative, then libertarian against liberalism), FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, TAXI DRIVER, JAWS, ROCKY, and THE DEER HUNTER. The problems of urban crime made DIRTY HARRY, FRENCH CONNECTION, and DEATH WISH relevant. THE GODFATHER and FIDDLER ON THE ROOF focused on the Family as the only worthy attachment in a world of chaos, corruption, greed, and/or hypocrisy. THE EXORCIST portrayed men of the church doing battle with the Devil who turn a young girl into proto-Miley-Cyrus. CARRIE mocked the ultra-religious mother, but its top villains were the soulless materialist school girls who torment Carrie. And Woody Allen’s early comedies, though certainly not right-wing, tended to be more negating of the Left because of their cynical anti-utopianism that remained skeptical of the program. It was Allen’s way of saying “We Won’t Get Fooled Again”. Given the norms of the time, it would have been rather risky to make an anti-Nazi statement by promoting degeneracy as the cure. It made more sense to associate Nazism or Fascism itself with degeneracy and decadence. Besides, the early 70s dealt with the hangover of the late 60s with its hippie freakouts, Manson murders, Altamont disaster, endless riots, and social protests. In that context, CABARET’s unapologetic celebration of Weimar degeneracy wasn’t characteristic of the period. Despite Nazism’s anti-homosexual policy, it wasn’t rare in arts & culture to associate Nazism with homo perversion, not least because of emergence of S&M homo subculture with fetishes for Nazi regalia(like in CRUISING with Al Pacino who, as undercover cop, gets in too deep with the bung-busters). Granted, times were changing fast. ALL IN THE FAMILY featured Divine as a sympathetic transvestite character. And the sitcom SOAP featured Billy Crystal as a nice ‘gay’ character. Still, the overwhelming attitude about homos remained negative throughout the 70s. At most, homos could hope to turn homosexuality from a butt of kicks to butt of jokes. Better to have people laugh at homos than insult or attach them. Make people see homosexuality as humorous than hostile, like in the SANFORD AND SON episode: at 16:10

    The problem with CABARET(and movies like ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW) is their weirdness is too easy and mostly phony. Weirdness, strangeness, and even freakiness are a part of life and may be fascinating as such but not when misguided souls(who are even genuinely weird) go out of their way to be ‘different’. Perhaps, the cult of modernism spread weirdness as some kind of ‘cool’ ideal, thereby encouraging even non-weirdos to go out on a limb to appear eccentric or odd in some odd way. “Hey look, I’m special.” (Today, so many people get tattoos and piercings to make a ‘statement’. Especially as Political Correctness doesn’t allow for controversy or differences of views, people hope to be a fresh face in the crowd with token signifiers, a conceit that gets lamer by the day as tattoos, piercings, and pink/green hair dyes have become the symbol of New Conformism among idiot Millennials, the dumbest generation of all time surely.) It’s like some people are genuinely schizo and, as such, their condition can be an interesting and worthy subject of study, but it makes no sense for non-schizos to act schizo. It’d be a mockery, at best a parody, and why? Non-weird pretending to be weird is like non-talented pretending to be talented. The Arts & Culture community has an excess of both. Too many nice middle-class kids raised on cult of modernism & post-modernism trying desperately to be the next weirdo artist. As much as I detest Robert Crumb, at least he is a genuine weirdo with real talent. But everything in CABARET is fake, a farce. The players are just insipid no-talents pretending to be edgy bohemians and free spirits when they’re about as engaging as the no-can-dance extras in ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW.

    Generally speaking, striking forms of creativity, especially in the modern era, tend to be either strange or the product of strange sensibilities. Normality doesn’t breed much in the way of inspiration. Even when someone like Brian Wilson wrote pop songs for mainstream America, he dreamed his private dreams to access the muse. It is the Strange Factor, as muse or expression, that distinguishes notable works from others. This strangeness could be overt(as in the paintings of Salvador Dali) or subtle(as in the stories of Katherine Anne Porter), but it throws people off balance and lends privy to new perceptions. In modernism, mere mastery or expertise isn’t enough, though, to be sure, even the greatest pre-modern works of art had something strange about them. The X-factor of vision or style that distinguished it from the rest.
    This Strange Factor is always a bit disturbing but also fascinating and provocative. Even beauty is most potent with an element of strangeness. Any number of decent artists can paint a beautiful scenery with trees, lakes, and sunsets, but it is the special artist who conveys something more than niceness. The real question is whether the strangeness is genuine, the stuff of inspiration/conflict, OR just a big put-on. For the naturally normal or non-talented who seek fame(or even notoriety) in the arts, strange-posturing is all-too-often a shortcut to being ‘special’. It’s like avant-garde-ism is dime-a-dozen across Art Schools with their new broods of artistes who’d be the new Basquiat or worse. It’s all just a put-on with the freaks on display in CABARET. Worse, it’s a put-on without any discernible talent. (Bob Fosse has been widely praised as a choreographer, but what was his contribution to dance other than having women roll their hips and thighs like chunks of ham on a stick?) Now, a put-on artist or poseur can have talent, which was certainly the case with David Byrne as part of Talking Heads. Unlike David Bowie, Byrne wasn’t a real weirdo but a clever showman(like Peter Gabriel) but with some genuine musical flair. But apart from playfulness, Byrne was nothing more than a College Rock band. In contrast, Bowie had a genuinely strange musical sensibility, though his stage persona as Ziggy or some such freak was just plain dumb. Musically however, he was like one-man time-machine bridging nostalgia and futurism, primitivism and sophistication. Most people will outgrow Talking Heads but will be haunted by some Bowie songs for a long time.

    The problem with Nazi conception of Art was the lack of appreciation of strangeness. Nazi cultural theorists appreciated the outer-manifestations of genius(at least that which was devoted to beauty or grandeur) but were reluctant to ponder the inner turmoil that makes such art possible. It’s like the limitations of someone looking at a beautiful child and thinking that beautiful life can be created beautifully. But in fact, life is created through exchange of fluids in animal-sex, the burden of childbearing, and the gross agony of child-birth. Beauty is born of pain and ugliness. Flowers don’t create flowers. Flowers bloom from stems that grow from the soil that absorb nutrients from decay in the soil. Honey isn’t made by honey but by bees through a complex and arduous process. Fixating on beauty as the end-all of art is like regarding the honey without considering the processes involved in making it.
    When it came to biology, the Nazis understood the dark side of life. Aryan beauty was the product of ruthless evolutionary processes of struggle and brutality. Every life-form, no matter how beautiful, is the product of violent and shocking biological struggles. Yet, when it came to Arts & Culture, the Nazis were almost timidly and tidily bourgeois in their near-phobia for the strange and dark. Though Goebbels initially argued in favor of German Expressionism, he fell in line with the Hitlerian dogma that art must mandate beauty and be borne of beauty. Think beautiful images and make beautiful art. But even visions of beauty must emanate from a darker place, just like the light of the Sun draws from turbulence deep beneath the surface. True art can only be created by genius individuals, and they must be free to seek their own path. The state cannot dictate or ordain creativity. It can only support it if it exists in the first place on the individual level.

    Because of the crucial Strange Factor in creativity, it makes little sense to discuss art in terms of disease vs cure, foul vs wholesome, sick vs noble. The real question is whether it is true in vision, meaning, and talent. A work can be ‘noble’, ‘wholesome’, and/or ‘healthy’ but still lack value as just a bundle of trite cliches executed without talent or skill. Granted, a work can be ‘diseased’, ‘foul’, & ‘sick’ and without artistic value, which would be WORSE than a bad work with ‘positive’ or ‘healthy’ qualities. And in this sense, I agree with Trevor Lynch that the volkish song by the young blond lad at a beer garden is preferable to what goes at the Cabaret. It may not be much, but at least it’s positive and healthy. In contrast, not only are the Cabaret acts demented but lousy to boot. Worse, it’s like a freakshow with pretend-freaks, like watching Lar Von Trier’s IDIOTS where non-idiots act like idiots just to annoy everyone.
    As for Liza Minnelli’s character, Sally Bowles doesn’t come across as a true free spirit(like Louise Brooks’ silent movie personas or Jeanne Moreau’s Catherine in JULES AND JIM) but merely someone aping the type. To be sure, the film at one point has the Michael York character blurt out that her femme-fatale act is rather pathetic, but then, why are we made to fixate on her miserable life as some kind of meaningful defiance against bourgeois morality and the Nazis?
    Everything in CABARET is fake because it’s about people going out of their way to be WILLFULLY weird, which is all fake. Willfully wallowing in decadence is the flip-side of willfully straining to worship beauty, which is what made the Nazis dreary. Ironically, the Weimar decadents and Nazis in CABARET have more in common than they realize. Both are dogmatically committed to the notion that Culture MUST BE one thing or another instead of naturally flowing from genius and inspiration to make us see the world with new lenses.
    At least Holly Golightly of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S was a ‘real phony’ and was played by the lovely and charming Audrey Hepburn. In contrast, Liza Minnelli is about as captivating as a sack of moldy potatoes. And her Louise-Brooks hairdo is all the more irritating for reminding us of the fabulous silent star to whom Minnelli can’t hold a candle to. As for Joel Grey, he seems to be imitating the magician in Fellini’s 8 ½, possibly Fosse’s favorite film as his semi-autobiographical ALL THAT JAZZ draws so much from it.

    The difference between SEVEN BEAUTIES and CABARET is the former understands Nazism/Fascism as a pathology within the larger sickness of the human condition. In other words, fascism or no fascism, the human species has always been a one big fuc*-up since the time of cavemen to the age of Romans to the modern present. So, while Nazism was a more pronounced form of lunacy, the roots of human sickness go much deeper and its seeds will continue to spread and sprout around the world. In contrast, CABARET’s stunted moral vision would have us believe that since the Nazis were the bad guys, the good guys must have been the degenerates denounced by the Nazis even though the movie clearly shows the Cabaret world as tawdry and sordid. There’s a ridiculous stage-act in SEVEN BEAUTIES, but Wertmuller didn’t pretend it could have moral significance against Fascism.

    Lina Wertmuller could see the problems of humanity BEYOND Nazism/Fascism. The makers of CABARET apparently couldn’t. One gets the impression from CABARET that, “If not for the Nazis, all would be well with everyone having a grand time.” It’s like the crazy notion within PC that evil could be purged from the world by eradicating ‘Anti-Semites’, ‘racists’, and ‘homophobes’, most of whom happen to be white. But such logic is self-defeating because the moral value of the Cabaret world depends on Nazis as the villainous foil. Without the Nazis, the obvious degenerates of CABARET wouldn’t be able to say, “At least I’m not a Nazi.”
    Michael York’s character’s only purpose is serve as the alter ego of the average moviegoer. Though he’s a homo, he’s the most normal person in the story, the one that
    the average moviegoer will want to identify with. He is meant to act, talk, and think for us. Since he turns pro-degenerate and anti-Nazi, the average moviegoer is expected to nod along. His role is much like that of the southern boy in SOPHIE’S CHOICE who befriends a very messed-up couple — a Jewish neurotic and a Polish knucklehead — who are meant to represent the tragic burden of art, romance, and history. Though deeply flawed, a much more interesting movie about Weimar Germany is Ingmar Bergman’s THE SERPENT’S EGG that at least tries to understand why things fell apart to make way for the New Order in Germany.

    In medicine, one cannot understand health without the study of disease, and the German medical community played a key role in the rise of Nazism as physical & psychological health were seen as analogous to social, cultural, and national health. In a way, an artist is like a doctor who puts his stethoscope to matters of soul & society to listen for signs of health or sickness. An artist who only wants to deal with pleasant, beautiful, or nice subjects is like a doctor who insists only seeing only healthy patients. If Nazis were like illness-phobic doctors, Weimar degenerates were like quacks selling snake-oil to spread disease. A true doctor must possess genuine curiosity to understand the nature of disease, just like a true artist must have the courage to delve into life’s realities to gain deeper understanding.
    Of course, doctors must ultimately treat diseases, but they must also regard them with fascination and even respect. After all, there is a certain Relativity Principle to diseases and organisms. We regard many bacteria as parasitic carriers of disease, but plenty of organisms would say the same of humanity if they could think and speak. After all, humans have parasitically used land and water to their own benefit at the expense of other organisms. Humans leech milk from cows. Humans empty lakes and seas of fish. All organisms are parasitic in some way. But then, even as they harm other species, they provide opportunities for others. Humans have been bad for wolves and bears but great for dogs, cats, rats, and pigeons. Also, the decaying agency of micro-organisms provides a cleaning service. Dead animals rot in nature, but it’s also a process of cleansing and renewal. People find maggots gross, but they feed on carrion and waste material. To the extent that other organisms may regard humans as a disease, we need to respect all organisms on some level because life is a competition among parasites. Like humans, all organisms doing what they can to survive, thrive, and gain dominance. In many cases, one organism seeks to devour other organisms, but organisms also seek a symbiotic relation where they not only co-exist but become co-dependent. Humans couldn’t survive without certain kinds of bacteria in their guts. Therefore, the Nazi medical ideology, like its cultural ideology, was limited in its strict distinctions of healthy and sick, noble and ignoble. For deeper understanding, some degree of empathy is required to understand why the Other acts as it does and how We may appear to Them from their own sets of values and priorities. Art, at its best, is about exploring and understanding than preaching dogma and pushing the same idols over and over. This aspect of culture was completely missing in Hitler who was so sure of everything, but this tendency was evident from childhood. Germans and had Jews developed a symbiotic relationship over the centuries. They were parasites on the other and yet also mutually beneficial. Germany kings and princes gained much from Jewish financial expertise. In that sense, they were leeching off Jewish intelligence and knowhow. But, Jews used their financial wizardly to leech off Germans as well. They were both feeding and taking from the another. Same could be said of their cultural relations. Gentiles often regarded Jews as cultural parasites who stole and exploited white culture. But Jews could say of Europeans that they stole the Jewish God as their own God. Also, white Europeans stole the Biblical Narrative as their own. Furthermore, even as Jews took from German culture, they also made key contributions from which Germans drew inspiration. So, the Aryan-Semitic relationship through the years was both troublesome and constructive, with rights and wrongs on both sides. Alexander Solzhenitsyn felt much the same way about Russian-Jewish relations over the centuries. But Hitler refused to consider the Jewish side of the equation and simply denounced Jewishness as all-bad. Today, we see the same pathology among Jews who insist on the narrative/dogma that they were entirely good and innocent while white goyim were entirely to blame for all friction between Jews and Gentiles. Just like Hitler’s arrogance led to the madness of WWII, the current Jewish madness — an unwillingness and inability to consider the goy side of the equation — is pushing the world over the brink with Jewish Power demanding everything go its way or the highway. Notice how Jewish publishers in the US have refused to publish Solzhentisyn’s book that call for reconciliation by both sides confessing their historical wrongs. Just like Hitler, today’s Jews feel that their side is totally correct while all others exist only to lick the Jewish boot.

    The problem with Nazi medical ideology was it overlooked the sickness within Nazism itself. Though Hitler and his cohorts presented themselves as the political healers of Germany and provided certain much-needed cures, they also spread the disease of racial arrogance, aggression, and contempt. National Socialism didn’t so much counter Weimar decadence with morality as replace it with its own brand of nihilism giving Aryans the license to do as they pleased, which would have terrible consequences in the East once war broke out.
    Besides, it’s one thing to suppress excessive degeneracy but quite another to render the culture sterile with too strong a dosage of antisepticism. And given the psychological profiles of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and others, it should have been clear to the German medical community that the cure could just as easily turn out to be as bad as the disease. Likewise, when a pathological nut Jim Jones got to play spiritual arbiter at Jonestown, the result was worse than secular sin. And communists, in their war on capitalist exploitation, ended up creating an even more tyrannical society.

    One thing for sure, the medical community is never fully independent of ideology and politics. While all doctors will readily identify certain conditions as diseases — it’s difficult to imagine a day when doctors will defend cancer as a sign of health — , the fact is the medical community is also influenced by whims of power politics. Once upon a time, the medical community recognized homosexuality as a pathology, but today, it’s seen as ‘normal’ and ‘natural’. HIV was seen as a grave threat to society, but due to the ‘gay’ lobby, much stigma has been removed from the disease, and there’s even been push for legislation that would NOT criminalize those who knowingly spread HIV to ‘sexual’ partners. Also, part of the reason why HIV causes less panic now is due to the enormous amounts of funding that went into developing medicines to suppress its symptoms and its spread. The reason why HIV treatment got preferential funding owed to the powerful Jewish and homo lobbies that did everything to ensure that their demands were prioritized. Who/whom matters in medicine. If there were a disease that mainly kills Jews and a disease that mainly kills American Indians, you bet that more funds will be spent on a cure for the former. Due to Jewish promotion of themselves and homos, America values Jewish and homo lives over all others. In foreign policy, Jewish lives matter more than Palestinian lives. And in medical funding, homo lives are prioritized over the lives of others. Notice how the medical community and the media paid scant attention to all the white working class folks dying as the result of the opioid crisis. The overall attitude among the elites has been, “Let the white trash choke on their own vomit and die”, which is hardly distinguishable to Jewish attitude about Russian misery and deaths in the 1990s.

    For quite some time, the medical community has allowed and even encouraged the mutilation of genitals in ‘sex-change operations’ so as to allow men to become ‘women’ and women to become ‘men’. There are doctors who dare not tell their patients to lose weight because lawyers on behalf of fatso clients will sue doctors who regard obesity as a medical problem. Things were no different in Nazi Germany where the medical community caved to the prevailing ideology in identifying health or sickness. Psychopaths like Hitler got to dictate to the medical community what was sick or healthy, just like, in our time, the Jewish globo-homo elites get to decide what the medical community may deem as diseased or not. A medical researcher today who writes an article debunking much of tranny gender theory could face severe ostracization and even be fired & blacklisted from further research. So, while there is a core consensus on health among all societies — broken bones are broken bones, and cancer is cancer — , the meaning of ‘health’ at the margins has often been ‘fluid’ in accordance to the vagaries of shifting ideological winds.
    Like those in the medical profession, many people perceive good vs bad based on what they’re told by the prevailing ideology to focus on. If the media/academia tell us that ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ are the biggest problems, a lot of white people are likely to look for them under every rock like dogs ordered to track down rabbits will obsessively chase after rabbits. Having their scents directed at specific targets, they will overlook all the social problems caused by blacks and homos. Notice how Jewish Supremacism is the real power that controls America, but too many Americans are fixated on exposing ‘white supremacism’ because the Jewish-controlled media/academia fill impressionable people’s minds with nonstop panics about ‘Nazis’ and ‘white supremacists’. Sometimes, a kind of automania takes hold of human behavior. Just like a dog trained to dig for rabbits will keep digging at everything even when there are no more rabbits to catch, thereby causing damage to floor and furniture, social crusaders trained to hunt down ‘evil’ will keep on the hunt despite the ‘evil’ having been suppressed or expelled.

    Now, the analogy of doctor and the artist doesn’t entirely work, especially in the Performing Arts, because the doctor’s role is cerebral and rational, whereas the artist deals with sensations and passion. Whereas the doctor’s role is always about making the patient healthier(in the objective sense), the artist/entertainer is often about making the audience FEEL good, which doesn’t necessarily comport with becoming a Better Person. In that sense, an artist/entertainer is as much a drug dealer as a pharmacist. An artist/entertainer may offer his product as a medicine with moral content, but he knows the audience wants something more than soul-instruction. The audience wants excitement and thrills, a bit of sensationalism. After all, the selling point of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT isn’t merely its Christian message but elements of violence and suspense. Also, if doctors take care to not become diseased themselves even as they treat diseases, artists often embody the dark, impassioned, or irrational moods of their material.
    It’s no wonder many notable artists have been manic-depressives, like Jean Sibelius for example who was most creative when clawing out from pits of gloom. In a way, an artist is like a patient trying to infect others with his mad fever. Van Gogh’s paintings are made richer by the ‘sickness’. Beethoven’s manic-obsessiveness is all over his music. Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page cast their crazed nets of sounds far and wide to ensnare their audiences. There is an element of sorcery and witchcraft in the arts. In ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST, the Medical State is the castrator of all that is alive and virile. It tries to tame man’s nature that must retain a wildness to be real. Similar message is found in John Boorman’s ZARDOZ where repressed nature wreaks vengeance on an ultra-elitist society of absolute order and harmony.
    In a way, Hitler’s confusion owed to contradictions between his sorcerer-nature and doctor-tendencies. He might have actually done less harm if he’d just embraced his craziness instead of trying to make the world right with moral instruction, but he couldn’t let himself go due to certain personality traits and/or social upbringing that stressed honor, reputation, seriousness, and respectability. According to the semi-interesting movie MAX about Hitler as young artist befriending a Jewish art-dealer, ex-corporal has technical talent and strangeness but is unable to connect the two. He couldn’t come face to face with this ‘crippled’ and ‘wounded’ side of himself(as artists like Edvard Munch and Ingmar Bergman could), which remained repressed to spin his self-made myth as a divine man of history.

    At any rate, if we are going to have strangeness, weirdness, and even perversity, we want the Real thing, not a put-on or farce. The difference between ERASERHEAD and ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW — among the biggest cult movies ever — is David Lynch’s work is the product of genuinely weird rumination that experiences the world, inner and outer, in a singularly odd way. Maybe it’s demented and even depraved, but it’s one of a kind. One could argue ERASERHEAD and MULHOLLAND DR.(and BLUE VELVET that I like less) are ‘degenerate’, but their visionary genius cannot be denied. In contrast, ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW is a silly pile of nonsense made by gimps who were desperate to be ‘subversive’. The fakery and strain show in every shot. Granted, even faux-weirdness can be amusing if done with humor minus the pretension. Tim Burton and Paul Reubens had a blast with PEE WEE HERMAN’S BIG ADVENTURE.

    Of course, mere strangeness isn’t sufficient for art, a lesson lost among art students/critics at some juncture in Modernism. Art is strangeness + talent. There are those with inner vision without means of outer expression. Even among artists, most tend to be limited to mastery in one form of expression. William Blake was a far greater poet than illustrator though he immersed himself in both. Norman Mailer could burn a stack of paper with his fever dreams but was cold with celluloid. Imagine if Van Gogh possessed strangeness but lacked talent; his visions would have remained in his head. If some people have strangeness but lack talent, others have talent but lack strangeness, the singular vision thing fueled by some mysterious source within. It is the rare artist that has both, like Stanley Kubrick or Sam Peckinpah. David Lean had mastery of technique, a way with actors, and a great eye but lacked soulful depth and that strange maverick quality to truly own a work in the way Kubrick or Kurosawa did. Essentially, he provided efficient drama and pretty pictures in grand spectacles that mostly stuck to formula(albeit with more intelligence and taste).

    Art needs balance like everything else in life.
    If the subject is ‘degenerate’ or contemptible — and why not since so much of the world is indeed degenerate or contemptible? — , the artist should seek to explore and interpret it than wallow and indulge in it: Be a surgeon than a butcher. IN COLD BLOOD and MIDNIGHT COWBOY are dark but also illuminating. Same goes for Martin Scorsese’s GOODFELLAS that, as it guides us through the world of psychopaths and criminals, maintains what might be called a Silent Morality, one that isn’t pronounced enough to blur the clarity of the world at hand but nevertheless insists on a distance and awareness that we are in a kind of hell. (Scorsese’s film of THE SILENCE makes more sense in this regard. In a way, Scorsese the artist has had to maintain his silence as a spiritualist-moralist in order to work in Sin City on projects mostly about shameless characters immersed in sin, excess, and debauchery. A moralist can walk away from such a world or barge in to condemn it. But if the moralist is also an empathetic artist who wants burrow inside evil and see what makes it tick, he needs to be like a spy and maintain his silence. In the ensuing intimacy, he is in too deep to pass judgement but also too mindful to surrender to temptation. Without this Christo-Zen detachment-within-closeness, the result could be like the utterly degenerate movies MAN BITES DOG and Quentin Tarantino’s demented movies following RESERVOIR DOGS, his best film and the only one with any sign of moral health, perversely ironic as it may be.

    In contrast, if the subject is positive, inspiring, and ‘healthy’, the artist needs to look beyond the ‘ennobling’ elements and dig deeper for the dirt of life. Jan Troell’s EMIGRANTS and NEW LAND are about good, simple, hardworking folks, but they offer much more, the very stuff of art. We get the fullness of life with follies and failings as well as strength and sacrifice. We see the characters in both their noble and petty moments. From the prosaic growth of details there gradually emerges something like poetry of patience, like syrup slowly flowing out of maple trees. There are no pat truths or easy comforts. As such, it isn’t trite and familiar like PLACES IN THE HEART, a decent enough movie that doesn’t show us anything more than what we’ve come to expect from American Cinema.

    It’s oft been said that Nazi Germany was a low-point of Western Civilization in the 20th century(or maybe of all time). According to Ian Buruma, communists made better art/culture because the underlying humanism of their ideology was accepted man-as-man. In contrast, the myth-driven ideology of Nazism couldn’t tolerate the small and intimate, the stuff that makes rich and interesting. Also, master-race ideology is less inspiring for artists than the dream of the brotherhood of man. But in fact, most German movies during the Nazi period weren’t all that much different from Hollywood kitsch, and one of Hitler’s favorite German movie was rather humanist in tone. Also, Soviets remained in power for 70 yrs whereas Nazism lasted only 12 yrs, with the last six years devoted mainly to war. If Nazism had lasted 70 yrs, it may have produced more interesting artists.
    Still, it’s worth pondering why the less repressive Nazi Germany was culturally less productive than the Stalinist Soviet Union that produced its share of great films and literature(and allowed Shostakovich and Prokofiev to compose their masterpieces). More than the policy of repression, the bigger problem was probably self-exile by talented people who simply weren’t as inspired by Nazism as by Marxism. (To be sure, Nazi Germany was far more likely than the Soviet Union to allow people to just pick up and leave, thereby bleeding more of its talented individuals.) For starters, as murderous as Stalin’s system was, Marxism was about the embrace of mankind as fellow brethren whereas the ideology of Nazism was about racial arrogance. Even the British who were steeped in racial-supremacist sentiments were offended by the Nazis who made their views so brazen and blatant. Brits found it coarse and in bad form.
    As for artists, actors, and writers, they tend to be vain and are anxious to be seen with the ‘right kind of people’. Given the low reputation of the radical right in many cultural circles, even those who weren’t inclined toward leftism preferred not to be associated with Nazis or Fascists. It’s also worth noting that, while most artists, actors, and writers are a bunch of narcissistic jerks and stupid pigs, they love the cachet of ‘leftism’ to impress the public that they’re about ‘justice’ than Just Me. So, artists and entertainers are very nervous about whom they associate with. Today, we see this phenomenon with people in Western arts & entertainment steering clear of Putin’s Russia(and Donald Trump). Though current Russia is hardly tyrannical or crazy — Jewish-run US is now closer to Nazi madness — , it was given bad repute by Jews who dominate arts & entertainment, and so, all those who seek to be on good terms in the culture sphere would rather be caught dead than be regarded as chummy with Russians, at least those who aren’t Jewish or globo-homo. Nazis and Fascists quietly agonized over this deficiency in arts & culture and what they could to court artists and entertainers but had little more success than the GOP in attracting stars and celebrities. Same could be said of Franco’s Spain that actually went out of its way to court artistic talent, such as that of Picasso. But most artists remained on the Left, not because they wanted to live under communism but because leftism made them feel better as an ideology of the brotherhood of man whereas radical rightism of Nazism struck them as too contemptible of too much of humanity. Themes do matter. Just like universalist Christianity and Islam spread far and wide whereas Judaism was appealing only to Jews, the universalism of leftism naturally won more converts and enthusiasts than the narrow racial ideology of the Nazis. In a similar way, it is precisely because Zionism has limited appeal around the world that Jews have justified the Wars for Israel on themes such as ‘War on Terror’ or ‘spreading democracy’. It is why they’ve tried to use Globo-Homo as neo-universalist or mino-universalist(universalism of minority privilege) proxy to captivate and control the entire world. The fact that the degeneracy of globo-homoctopus has extended its tentacles so far and wide is proof that something about humanity is made of total shit.

    Another reason for communism’s advantage over Nazism in the world of arts & letters had to do with its intellectual pedigree. As tyrannical and capricious as Stalin could be, communism was bigger than any single leader. It was underpinned by elaborate intellectual theory that supposedly unified all of material science, philosophy, ethics, and neo-spiritual longing. Marx, not Muhammad, was the last great prophet in the eyes of communists. As Marx was regarded as a great thinker, no communist leader, however powerful, could be bigger than Marxism and communism. Communist leaders could only be servants of history. This accounts as to why Stalin, despite his cult of personality and iron rule, stuck with the rather modest title of ‘secretary general’ and professed to a humble servant of Marx & Engels(and Lenin).
    In contrast, most people understood Fascism and Nazism as nothing if not for the cult of personality. Fascism was about Mussolini cult, and Nazism was about Hitler cult, with its tome being Hitler’s autobiography MEIN KAMPF. Now, some may disagree and contend that Fascism and Nazism were not without big ideas with deep roots in Western Civilization, but because neither Fascism nor Nazism came up with a unified theory of everything(as Marxism did), most people came to regard them as cults of charisma. For the intellectual-minded and sophisticates, it seemed childish and simple-minded, a blindman’s game of ‘follow the leader’. Another reason why communism appealed more to intellectuals and writers in the West was they faced the real danger of living under Fascism/Nazism but felt no such imminent fear of communist tyranny. So, communism could remain an idealized abstraction than a looming threat. Indeed, even Eastern European nations would have faced greater threat of fascist than communist rule but for the fact that Hitler invaded Russia and lost the war. Of course, Eastern Europeans who lived under the Iron Curtain after World War II came to see the true side of radical leftism and developed immunity to its temptations, something Western Europe failed to realize as no nation there turned communist.
    Now, it was possible that a great right-wing intellectual movement could have risen in the West. Despite the leftist advantage, the right was not with its big guns in arts & letters in the early part of the 20th century. Besides, 19th century Romanticism has been as rightist as leftist. Also, the horrors of the Soviet experiment made many thinkers in the West recoil in horror, much like the reaction against the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. Indeed, both Fascism and Nazism were fueled by these intellectual and cultural ferments on the Right. Also, prior to WWII and revelations about the Holocaust, there was no great taboo with which to silence the Right. If anything, even Winston Churchill named the Jew as a crucial component in the Bolshevik Revolution. And plenty of politicians in Europe has more to gain than lose by baiting the Jew.
    In a way, the worst thing for the Intellectual Right was the triumph of Italian Fascism, Franco in Spain, and National Socialism. Victory often makes people lazy and rest on their laurels. The most interesting right-wing ideas emerged prior to radical right’s seizure of power. Also, once the radical right took power, it decided which right-wing ideas were correct or incorrect. Thus, the intellectual right became straitjacketed by its own ideological victory. Same happened where communists came to power. Almost all the best Marxist thinkers did their best work in capitalist democracies. Where communism came to power, one bunch of radical leftists soon purged their rivals(much like Catholics used to attack Protestants and vice versa), and the result was the Iron Boot of Stalinism as the new dogma. Revolutions do tend to devour their children all around.

    As for Nazi Art, only Leni Riefenstahl’s two monumental propaganda-documentaries, Albert Speer’s architecture, and a handful of paintings & sculptures have lasting value(though most haven’t survived the war and its aftermath). The state cannot decree or dictate creativity. The state can patronize real talent — like the Soviet state with Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Shostakovich, and Tarkovsky —, but it cannot turn non-artists into artists, no more than the Chinese government can turn Chinese basketball players into Gold medalists in the Olympics. Most artists favored by the Nazis were second-raters or third-raters, and no amount of state support could turn them into great artists. Granted, second-raters, through experience and practice, can become pretty decent. But as the Nazis sought greatness in art, they weren’t going to achieve much with the kind of human material that were willing to do the Party’s bidding. Nazi artistry relied too much on themes than inspiration. So, artists were commissioned to create work extolling noble themes, but individuality of talent simply wasn’t there to bring it to life. Most self-respecting artists didn’t want to make art according to program, and so, the Nazi Party ended up hiring a bunch of hacks to produce state propaganda masquerading as timeless art.

    There’s been much talk of how the Weimar period, despite or because of the crisis and turbulence, was a time of great cultural ferment. And there is truth in this inasmuch it was a time of new freedoms and possibilities. There was a dizzying spirit of novelty and experimentation in the air. Also, defeat in WWI led to intensive soul-searching in some quarters — think of the great anti-war novels like ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, later banned by the Nazis — and Faustian flirtations with nihilism that, despite the dangers, opened up new venues of thought and behaviors. Even the German Right was most interesting in this period because it had to do a lot of soul-searching and unprecedented freedoms to do so. Times of crisis can drive people over the cliff with madness but also bring them to new revelations and resolutions. Crisis moments turn everything into a question and compel people to re-evaluate everything. Nothing could be taken for granted, and in a way, the Nietzschean moment had finally arrived.
    Weimar period was also interesting for its intense of balance of power between the left and the right. While Jews and Social-Democrats wielded great power in government and media, many universities were right-dominated. So was the court system that let the Nazis off the hook time and time again, much like how Antifa is slapped on the wrist by the current system. Also, there were many powerful conservative German oligarchs who bankrolled men like Hitler as a bulwark against the communists. So, Weimar Germany wasn’t all about left over right or right over left. Both sides had their key advantages. Likewise, the US was especially interesting from 1950s to 1980s because of the balance of powers among the right and left, among Jews, Wasps, Catholics, and etc. However, just like the Nazi seizure of power broke the balance in Germany, the Jewish-Zionist seizure of power in the US that was finally sealed in the 1990s led to what is essentially a post-democratic America where all political elites are little more than tools of the Jewish globo-homo elites. And in the current US, not only the media and the state but the courts, academia, and just about everything that matters are controlled by Jews and overseen by their goonish cuck-collaborators. There’s one difference however: If the Nazi revolution happened out in the open, the Jewish-Zionist takeover has been invisible, executed behind the veil of the ‘democratic process’. As such, most Americans still think they’re living in a liberal democracy when they are the colonized subjects of the Empire of Judea.

    Though Weimar Germany was artistically and culturally a fertile period, one that produced lots of flowers and trees as well as weeds and fungi, it had already run out of steam by the time Nazis came to power. But then, nothing lasts forever. It’s like the British Invasion and the French New Wave had their moments of glory but soon faded. People say Rock is dead, and Western Culture has been exhausted to the point where no one cares about anything anymore. Notre Dame burns down, but what do we get from experts? Insipid proposals about turning the Cathedral into a greenhouse or maybe a disco. And in pop culture, people say the music sounds the same year in and year out, and Hollywood keeps recycling shopworn formulas whose only appeal is Better Special Effects. So, maybe the Nazis had a point in a way. While democracies can guarantee more freedom for the creative pursuits, an excess of creative fuel can burn out fast, resulting in a jaded culture whereby increased dosages of jolts and thrills are required to elicit any reaction. Culture often acts like a drug. Like a junkie develops tolerance and needs heavier amounts to get the same high, Western Culture has reached ridiculous levels of tolerance whereby excess has become the New Normal because people can’t feel anything without overdosing on thrills and sex. Chris Hedges calls this the Empire of Illusion.
    It’s as if most people have become comfortably numb with too muchness and inured to ever-shifting distractions of violent video games, porny pop songs, and movies that are more about explosions than expressions. Japan had a great run in cinema and literature in the aftermath of WWII, what with all the soul-searching by the generation that had undergone so many crises; but when the dust finally settled and Japan became a stable & affluent nation, the culture degenerated into infantile TV shows, trashy literature, comic books, pornography, and video games. Japanese became at once more mechanical & animal and less human & soulful. The lesson here is that a society doesn’t need ‘fascist’ or communist tyranny to run into a cultural deadend. This happened in so-called liberal-democratic Japan. Incidentally, it’s quite a challenge to think of any significant cultural product from France or UK in the last 20 yrs, something that was truly seminal and really made a difference. Some might say HARRY POTTER, but if that’s the best the UK could do, it is a joke. As for the world of Fine Arts, vapid junk by the likes of Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst is making even the worst of Nazi and Commie Art seem not-so-bad by comparison. Maybe there was something to the culture of eternal truth and meaning sought by the National Socialists. That said, they weren’t going to find it under the leadership of Hitler whose blindspots, moral and historical, were legion.

  359. @Bardon Kaldian

    Ahhh, stop it. German soul is not in crappy third-rate racial ideology, fantasies about Germania that had never existed, in existential & spiritual slavery, in totalitarian dictatorship & euthanasia.

    I didn’t say it was. Rather, following WWII, everything passionate, irrational, and romantic about German culture got lumped in with Nazism. Germans were fearful of any passion, even non-Nazi ones, because they felt they had to be 100% rational to avoid another war and holocaust. German threw out the baby with the bathwater.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  360. @SolontoCroesus

    More like, it was American Occupation Forces psychological warfare after WWII that held back — rather, scrubbed, expunged, eradicated, from the German mental and spiritual internal and external landscape– German art and culture.

    But the same thing happened to Sweden and UK.

    Also, due to the rising Cold War tensions, the US eased on de-Nazification in Germany, just like Japanese Right was allowed to return to power(under the guise of Liberal Democrats).

    The real war on the Nazi Past began in earnest by the Germans themselves in the 60s. Just as Jews made Holocaust into the New Judaism, Germans made holocaust-guilt their new christianity. Holocaust guilt fills Germans with both self-loathing and perverse pride, as a once-evil people who’d finally seen the light and try harder than the rest of the world to be so very good.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  361. @Trevor Lynch

    Thanks for the answer.

    I’m pretty sure you’d be able to write more about it, and I’d be interested in whatever you write, but anyway, write about what you think is important. I usually like your reviews, regardless of the movie in question. Have a nice day!

  362. @dfordoom

    Suvorov’s ideas are very popular with Hitler’s fan club (which has quite a few members here at UR).

    Actually, I’ve very seldom seen Hitler mentioned here, and then ordinarily in connection with war crimes.

    In fact, come to think of it, the only place I’ve seen Hitler discussed is in connection with war crimes, and then only against the Jewish population. However, since you mention Hitler, I’ll point out that Suvorov does state that, under Hitler during wartime, Auschwitz had a mortality rate of 25%. Auschwitz, Suvorov says, remained open under USSR control for several years after WW II and achieved a mortality rate of 27%. Nobody cares, apparently because Hitler was not involved.

    My point? The only people crediting Hitler with supernatural powers, the only group I’ve seen talking about Hitler, is the Left, and the Left is only interested in what Hitler did to the Jewish population, which is a critical element of the contemporary Left — although WW II killed, well, it killed so many people that nobody knows how many it killed, except that both Germany and the USSR were running out of troops by war’s end. This treatment of Hitler is looking more and more like a form of mental disease, PTSD perhaps, or perhaps simple induced hysteria.

    Consider the standard “X is literally Hitler!” or “Hitler was insane and made the German People insane!” or “The Right is always talking about Hitler (implied: and is insane as the German People were insane)”. These are descriptions of a supernatural being. The Left has given Hitler apotheosis, made him yet another minor god or demon, at least in the Jewish faith. The Jewish religion, in some odd version of the Stockholm syndrome, now worships Hitler in exactly the same way that the antisemites worship the Jews, attributing supernatural abilities to the group. Hitler is not a good god, but you’re treating him like a god.

    So: If you want to worship Hitler, at least have the honesty to admit it.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Agree: Parisian Guy
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @J
  363. Bukowski says:
    @dfordoom

    But Suvorov is not the only author to state that Stalin was going to attack Germany. There is also David Irving, Mark Solonin, John Mosier, Igor Bunich, Constantine Pleshakov etc.
    https://codoh.com/library/document/1826/
    Stalin himself stated in May 1941 that the USSR was preparing to start an offensive war.
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/04/Stalin_plans.html
    Igor Bunich even discovered the name for Stalin’s attack it was Operatsia Groza (Operation Thunderstorm).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

  364. @Counterinsurgency

    It should also be mentioned that the decision to attack came after Molotov’s trip to Berlin in November 1940, when the Soviets’ aggressive intents became clear (in light of the unacceptable demands they put before the Germans).

  365. @Dube

    Yes. A high-IQ people and a legitimate historical nation, but historically incapable of responsible self-government (witness their current bending over for the US/NATO).

  366. @Bukowski

    Yes. The arrangement of Soviet troops could only mean offensive plans of some sort, nothing else makes any sense. There is debate about the timing (either weeks away or some time in 1942), but it is clear the Germans faced a use-it-or-lose-it situation and it was only a matter of time before the Soviets struck first. (At a minimum the Soviets could have easily seized the Romanian oil fields in 1941 and strangled the Wehrmacht.)

  367. J says: • Website
    @Jake

    About that high point of the film when a handsome blond youth begins singing. It is standard German Romantic or folk fare, with stags, forests, the Rhine, babies, etc.

    Can’t you see that the painted boy is utterly feminine? He/She irradiates sick sexuality.

  368. Miro23 says:
    @Anonymous

    This must the longest comment I’ve read on Unz, but v. good.

    What is striking about CABARET is its Judeo-centrism. It exemplifies the golden Jewish rule of “Is it good for the Jews?” Power over principles. If Jews can use degeneracy against a power they don’t like, they are pro-degeneracy. But if Jews can use anti-degeneracy against a perceived enemy, they can just as easily be anti-degenerate. The very Jews who defended Weimar degeneracy against the Nazis could have been the same ones cheering for neo-puritanical communists against capitalist-imperialist decadence(when it was dominated by gentiles in the West).

    IOW it’s a war against Goys, where a suitable strategy, tactics, weapons (and deception) are selected according to circumstances . Ethics doesn’t come into it.

    The ideal result is a subject Gentile society, ruled by a Jewish elite (using any crap ideology), with heretical dissent harshly punished.

  369. @Anonymous

    What a tour de force of a comment! Many interesting points indeed about (mis)perceptions and (mis)representations of the left and right in culture by proponents of these ideologies. What interests me most is how to move beyond this dichotomy in the present context and not be stuck in the groove of the past. Still misconceptions remain because of the definitions of these opposing viewpoints.

    It may be worthwhile to point out Ted Kaczynski’s definition of leftism in his Unabomber manifesto:

    “But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types.”

    He elaborates further in the manifesto available online.

  370. @Priss Factor

    The real war on the Nazi Past began in earnest by the Germans themselves in the 60s. Just as Jews made Holocaust into the New Judaism, Germans made holocaust-guilt their new christianity.

    You have to wonder just what happened during and after WW II. You saw the end of Western society (which now wishes it were dead so thoroughly that it’s subsidized very nearly anyone in the world who’s interested to help with the death) _and_ the end of Jewish society,which seems to have lost all its intellectual capital in the rush to assist the West as above, making so many strategic blunders that its very long term existence is in danger. Contrast the West and Judaism with Islam, a society that is incapable of industrialization, and with China, a society that incorporates industrialization very well, at least in the short to mid term, and for that matter even to Japan, which isn’t imitating the West or anybody else these days and seems to be reducing its population successfully. None of them have a death wish.

    The West has been through similar catastrophes: 100 Years War, 30 Years War, Napoleonic Wars. These resulted in an old Western order being replaced by a new order. The replacement this time isn’t obvious at all, unless it’s people not descended from Europeans.

    I don’t know what is going on. It isn’t the “minority groups”. The Islamic rape gangs in the UK show just how independent of the law “minority groups” can be. We’re looking at some sort of Spenglerian civilizational collapse, something like the “strange enfeeblement” that has hit most other civilizations just before they vanish [1]. Anybody here have an idea?

    1] Even past civilizational “strange enfeeblement” isn’t that good an analogy. Archeology has shown that the “strange enfeeblement” wasn’t really so strange — it was some environmental change that made the civilization unsuited for its new environment. Bronze age and Mayan civilizations ended by seriously prolonged drought, Roman and Aztec societies ended by plague that left them with inadequate numbers of specialists, even the Assyrians ended by a revolt made possible by attrition in the overly large Assyrian empire and the and by Assyrian invention of effective cavalry (which made the steppe barbarians a serious threat for the first time). And so on.

    What happened that was so terrible as to make the West actively seek its own death? What died and made life not worth living?

    Counterinsurgency

  371. @Steve Naidamast

    The South by way of its slave population had maintained the edge in Congress up until the Polk territorial acquisitions came into play as to whether they would be slave or free states.

    Yet another precedent for the idea that achieving a political coup by bringing foreigners into the US to determine the outcome of elections is a prohibited practice in the United States that, last time it was tried ended in a major war.

    The current propaganda game is that “We can bring any foreigner to vote in the US. Why not?” The US Civil War shows that importing non-citizens worked out very badly the last time it was tried, even though the practice dated back before the US Revolution. Some way must be found to change the foundation of the debate, and Ann Coulter’s “ringer” argument, reinforced by history and current laws, just might start that change.

    Counterinsurgency

  372. @Miro23

    Hitler had the most powerful and modern military in Europe. If he had deployed it a full force on short supply lines in defense of Germany’s eastern border, there is no way that the Soviets would have taken the gamble.

    Trouble is that Hitler didn’t have the most powerful and modern military in Europe. Stalin did. Please see Suvorov, _The Chief Culprit_.

    If he had deployed it a full force on short supply lines in defense of Germany’s eastern border, there is no way that the Soviets would have taken the gamble.

    You’d think so, but the Germans really didn’t have the ammunition or the manpower for an attrition campaign. The Soviets would have rolled right over them after the Germans ran out of ammunition, and then taken Western Europe to the Atlantic. Again, see Suvorov.

    Surprisingly enough, one can make an argument that the Germans might have tied WW II by inflicting heavy casualties while retreating _if_ the Allied forces hadn’t bombed German industry and tied up German troops in the West (and, of course, had not developed nuclear weapons). As it was, Stalin had no more replacements by the Battle of Berlin.

    Counterinsurgency

  373. @Priss Factor

    German threw out the baby with the bathwater.

    True dat.

  374. mh505 says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    A good movie – yes; and even greater acting.

    But historically false in several areas

  375. Susan says:
    @Alec Leamas

    Your grandmother may have been a devoted Judy Garland fan, but the world’s MOST devoted Judy Garland fan is likely to be a gay man.

    See http://www.huffpost.com/entry/judy-garland-gay-fans_n_5b30edb3e4b0321a01d3a9d7

    I had the same reaction as you when I watched Cabaret last year.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  376. Susan says:
    @PeterMX

    The documentary is called Goy Guide to World History and is fortunately still online. It’s available on youtube in parts, maybe the whole too. Part 4 covers the Frankfurt School and social science. Very interesting.

    The whole film, 2 hours and 47 minutes, is available also at https://archive.org/details/youtube-EwjTm4ncWnY.

  377. Wally says:
    @Anonymous

    The author applies the amateurish & childish use of what Revisionist Dr. Robert Faurisson refers to as ‘Argumentum ad Hitlerum’, ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’.

    Hitler, Schmitler.

    Propping up this long winded harangue are the author’s belief in the false claims within the “holocaust” canon, and the false assertion that Germany / Hitler were to blame for WWII.

    As numerous works at this site and elsewhere have proven, nothing could be farther from the truth.

    The author falls on his butt because of his acceptance of easily debunked propaganda.

    Thanks.

  378. @Counterinsurgency

    Hi
    You probably knows Glubb Pacha’s “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival”
    http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  379. @Commentator Mike

    What about your askings being same?Lesbian Pornography and Transformation: Foucault, Bourdieu, and de Certeau Make Sense of the Jeff Stryker Dildo, by Mary T. Conway,

    Bourdieu can be read. He is, in my opinion, the only French thinker in the end of 20th century who produced something useful, new and seriously worked out. But he was a sociologist, a scientific one. He spoke like a master, which he actually was. For sure he was Left leaning, thus he was adopted as a guru or an icon by all Left, including cultural marxists. In truth, most of his followers never had read Bourdieu, and they had only superficial knowledge of his theories.
    What I want to say, is that there is nothing in Bourdieu writings which could be used for any thesis about a dildo. Therefore, he has been used here only because of its icon/guru status. The Bourdieu’s writings were obviously misunderstood. They could only have been used like an esoterical book whom meaning is unclear. From it, long strings of words were mined, whom meanings were recreated according to the wishes of the user, that is this M. Conway who authored this academic work.

    About Foucault: He was definitely not a scientist. He had several interesting intuitions about power inside society, but never was able to transform them in clearcut, powerful and operationnal concepts. Since the concepts were unclear, lot of texts were inefficient, long and unclear. Thus he produced quite more books than his findings deserved. But there was always some bit of thruth in it.
    Thus Foucault was always a preferred source for those who want to impress others with some statements whom obscurity pretends to be the clue of deep thought.
    So here is the almost certain hypothesis: one more time Foucault was used to produce pure bullshit branded as deep thought.

    The pity is that Americans have imported from France into academia either a wrong understanding of correct thinkers, either the more dubious thinkers (such as Deleuze&Guattari also).
    It’s like buying imported wine ; the actual quality of the product is less considered than the “France” tag.

  380. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Counterinsurgency

    In fact, come to think of it, the only place I’ve seen Hitler discussed is in connection with war crimes

    If you hang around here long enough you’ll find him referenced as a Hero of White Civilisation.

    On one of Ron Unz’s recent post there was a long long long discussion of Hitler as the Saviour of the West.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  381. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Counterinsurgency

    These resulted in an old Western order being replaced by a new order. The replacement this time isn’t obvious at all, unless it’s people not descended from Europeans.

    Over the course of the 19th century the new aristocracy of industrial wealth displaced the old aristocracy of land. We then saw the aristocracy of finance displacing the aristocracy of industrial wealth. In the mid to late 20th century the managerial class fought its way into the ranks of the elite – these were not the owners of wealth but the managers of wealth. In the late 20th century new elites, media and tech elites, started to displace the older elites.

    It always comes down to new elites displacing old elites. Ordinary people are irrelevant to all this. Democracy is irrelevant.

  382. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Counterinsurgency

    What happened that was so terrible as to make the West actively seek its own death? What died and made life not worth living?

    Tens of millions butchered in the two world wars. Countless millions of civilians butchered. And for what? And the slaughter only stopped because of the nuclear balance of terror.

    And imperialism and colonialism, the source of so much pride in the 19th century, turned out to be worthless. The European colonial powers lost their empires, and became third-rate powers. And when they’d lost their empires they realised they’d always been pretty shameful.

    So the West had plenty of reason to feel really really bad about itself.

    But the people driving things like Social Justice and wanting to welcome refugees don’t feel bad about themselves. They feel smug and superior. They believe they are morally on a higher plane than those awful bad white people who aren’t SJWs. SJWs don’t actively seek their own deaths. They seek the deaths of bad white people. Dividing white people into goodwhites and badwhites is the way that liberals cope with the burden of the terrible things that the West did in the past.

  383. @Parisian Guy

    You probably knows Glubb Pacha’s “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival”
    http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

    I’d read it before, but so long ago that I’d forgotten the author and paper title. I remembered the brief ascent of feminism in Baghdad in the early tenth century, however, and the limited life span of empires.

    I’m tempted to say that the “ten generations” rule couldn’t hold because of the sheer number of people involved, but here’s a chemical reaction (with many more molecules than the empires had people) that occurs at a fixed time interval from reaction start:

    “Chemistry experiment 28 – Iodine clock reaction”.

    Here’s anothr theory that seems to fit the historical facts:
    Edward Dutton.
    _At our wit’s end_.
    Kindle book, Amazon.com

    Dutton documents the obvious: we’re not as smart at the Victorians. In fact, we’re about 15 IQ points dumber than the English of AD 1850, and we (the West) are losing cognative ability at about an IQ point/decade.

    Couple that with:

    Gregory Clarke.
    _A Farewell to Alms_

    and you start to take the thesis a bit more seriously. Dutton extends, tentatively, his theory about cognitive ability decline to past empires, pointing out that the commercial life doesn’t breed for intelligence or health, and that the population explosion that always accompanies the new Empire leads to increased genetic load.
    In our case, the West has apparently inherited a technical society that the West (as a group) is too dumb to run.

    But there are many hypotheses about failure. J. Peterson suggests that the emphasis of historical theory is wrong: the miracle isn’t that things eventually go bad, it is that anything ever worked in the first place. Margaret Mead, of all people, once suggested something very similar — don’t look for dysfunction, look for the miracle of function.

    Ah, well. I don’t have a theory, or rather I have too many. Spring comes and the grass grows of itself. Time for a societal reorganization, and there are plenty of volunteers for that.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Parisian Guy
    , @Ray P
  384. @Counterinsurgency

    As for “Cabaret” itself, you’re right. The Nazis are looking like the good guys.

    Not even a little bit.
    Nazis were the bad guys in almost every instance; even the Hitler Youth singing a patriotic song a) somehow focused on the mouths of the singers, as if they were some yawning maw preparing to devour; then b) the scene devolved into what we are accustomed to perceive as Nazi mass hysteria induced to enable world conquest.

    Moreover, only Jews retained and ended the story as “good guys.”
    Neither Max (the student who courted Natalia) nor Natalia ever appears disheveled much less undressed; neither Max nor Natalia engages in sexual activity on camera — and the nature of Max’s “pounce” is ambiguous. Finally, while all other characters end up in pretty much the same indecisive and uncommitted state they were at the beginning, only Max and Natalia are fully honest with each other — Max reveals that he is Jewish — and they do the grown-up, establishment thing: they marry, in a traditional Jewish ceremony.

    Jews are victims — natch — while Nazis are thugs and brawlers.

    I didn’t come away from the film recalling any German in a good light — except, perhaps, bustling and eager-to-please domestic help (internalizing the commands of their oppressors).

    (Must confess — I did not at all understand the Joel Gray character, he was too freakish to categorize.)

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  385. anon[264] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Its musical acts lack the light-hearted spirit of a number like the “Dreaming of You” in SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN or other breezy American musicals. Instead of freshness, there’s the stale air of putrefaction, as if we’re watching musical acts done by ghouls(like the ones in CARNIVAL OF SOULS).

    Yes — Ziegfeld Follies came to mind: it was as if Fosse aimed for the anti-Ziegfeld.

  386. The review is good fun. For me you either fight or run: when you start judging you are lost. You just become part of the jumble.

  387. Liza says:

    Dividing white people into goodwhites and badwhites is the way that liberals cope with the burden of the terrible things that the West did in the past.

    Now who’s going to take on the burden of the terrible things that the East did in the past? Mongol hordes/Turks/Muslims/Tamerlane/Genghis Khan, etc. I don’t see too many Asians of any category losing their schit over the deeds of their ancestors.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  388. @dfordoom

    Dividing white people into goodwhites and badwhites is the way that liberals cope with the burden of the terrible things that the West did in the past.

    Right, that’s what they are doing. But what, exactly, are the terrible things the West did in the past? Anything it hadn’t done before? How are these things less terrible than genocide against all surviving Europeans? The two Word Wars were actually less lethal than the 30 years war, perhaps roughly comparable to the Napoleonic wars, and certainly less than influenza or the Maunder minimum, or for that matter Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, not to mention the mortality of Communism.

    OK, I think a review of American history is called for here, to see what led to the present situation.

    I remember the post-WW II period. The US credited itself with having saved the world, not with having killed a large number of people. Generally speaking Americans (who had comparatively few casualties) were quite proud of saving the world. Europe might have been in bad shape, but the US was (to all appearances) not. Nuclear weapons use had saved the US and Japan from severe casualties consequent to an invasion of the Home Islands. The Korean War, among the general public, was thought of as bad because it had not re-united North and South Korea.

    Federal government (actually, only the bureaucracy and the President) were thought of as good because they had given the US victory in WW II. Same for the large corporations. Same with the news media. In fact, none of them were trustworthy, and the media broadcasts of the 1950s now look like obvious propaganda — but like the propaganda that won WW II.

    Note that the European descended population of the US has, since the 1950s, remained about constant (186 total population million in 1960, say 90% non-Hispanic Whites for 167 million total c.a. 1960 , vs. 196 million non-Hispanic whites out of 281,421,906 total in 2000 [1]). In other words, allowing for immigration from Europe, approximately _all_ of the population growth in the US since 1960 has come from immigration. The US 1960 White population, the ones that won WW II and built US industry in the late 1800s, that population hasn’t been allowed to grow. It now seems scheduled for genocide, judging from the Democratic Presidential panels, and, in fact, the entire Democratic voting block now seems to be post-WW II immigrants, many of them actually remaining foreigners (in the sense of not having US citizenship as well as in sociology). The above examples of 1950s American optimism and enthusiasm suggest that this is not an emergent characteristic of the general American population, but was somehow imposed.

    This is right up there with Lenin’s plans to destroy Europe.

    Note that your previous post, which cited the cycling of elites (http://www.unz.com/tlynch/bob-fosses-cabaret/#comment-3311382), precludes the idea that the above could be an emergent property of the elites. They elites (using your definition) have cycled quickly enough to make a persistent plan unlikely.

    To me, there are only two regions in the US capable of executing such a long range plan: New England (Yankeedom) and New York (New Amsterdam). The terms come from Collins [2]. New England was largely responsible for the internal war of the mid-1860s, and New York believes in money and never giving a rube an even break. I disregard the Left Coast because it is largely a colony of New England and New York (from the founder effect).

    However, there are other possibilities. Progressivism was largely responsible for the abandonment of most Anglo Saxon ideals and their replacement by a Darwinian fighting creed, characterized by T. Roosevelt’s (TR) “The Man in the Arena” speech [3]. TR’s party proceeded self-destruct [4], partially recover, then get steamrollered by FDR’s party, turn bottom up, and sink to the bottom of the political sea. By the time my generation was raised, the Anglo Saxons had been reduced to fighting their own kids — it was the only fight they could possibly win. The entire generation of Anglo Saxons got battered into conformity, and lost their capacity to fight anybody. The non-Anglo Saxons (and there were at the time many sorts of non-Anglo Saxons. There were even significant Irish factions back then.) didn’t, and kept on governing. Their efforts to destroy what was left of the Anglo Saxons eventually led to the evens we enjoy today.

    So we see that, in the US at least, the defeat of the West was not emergent from the general population (or, as some would have it, from the Jewish establishment (although they helped)), but instead emergent from US politics and previous bright ideas, such as allowing immigration from areas that could not possibly support or approve of Anglo Saxon self government.

    Bungling idiocy, right up there with the Peloponnesian Wars or the Spanish attempt to use the newly acquired flow off gold to clear its Northern flank of the Protestants before following up the Battle of Lepanto [5] with forcing an end to the Islamic invasion of Eastern Europe.

    Like Darwin’s granddaughter asking why evolution was so bloody, I would like history to be more competently run than it has been. I’d like a lot of things.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#White_(non-Hispanic)

    2] Collins
    _American Nations_
    http://www.colinwoodard.com/americannations.html

    3] https://mentalfloss.com/article/63389/roosevelts-man-arena

    4] Thanks largely to the Republicans’ own creation, the Federal Reserve (https://fee.org/articles/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/). They had an early version of the corporate economy, in which competition was suppressed and everything managed. As one would expect, they had no idea how difficult (indeed, unworkable) such a methodology is. While blundering around and trying to look competent they flooded the US with cheap money, which ended up funding an inflation caused boom in stocks. Hubris got its usual reward and, for once, the responsible Republicans got booted. OTH, the New Deal was arguably much worse.

    5] War poetry: Chesterson’s “Lepanto”.
    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47917/lepanto

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Sam J.
  389. @SolontoCroesus

    Not even a little bit.
    Nazis were the bad guys in almost every instance; even the Hitler Youth singing a patriotic song a) somehow focused on the mouths of the singers, as if they were some yawning maw preparing to devour; then b) the scene devolved into what we are accustomed to perceive as Nazi mass hysteria induced to enable world conquest.

    I think the symbolism there just rolled right by me, whatever the movie Director might have intended.

    You know that the actor playing the Hitler Youth member was recreating a classic Nazi propaganda picture at the beginning of the scene, so it’s the rest of it that’s important. I was familiar with head shots of singers, so the “open mouth” symbol escaped me, and the hostile German audience was, well, it was yet another hostile and cohesive group, of which I’d already seen too many by the time I’d seen “Cabaret”.
    Above all, I knew the end of the story. The singer was going to die in WW II and the audience was going to lose their children and many other relatives. Things didn’t turn out well. (Speaking of survivors, last place I worked there was a German immigrant who claimed to have lost five close relatives, all military age men, in WW II. It still bothered him. Jewish survivors aren’t the only ones.)

    So, to me, the Nazis weren’t good guys because they led their nation to destruction. The rest of the scene looked a lot like any music video does today.

    For what it’s worth.

    Counterinsurgency

  390. @dfordoom

    On one of Ron Unz’s recent post there was a long long long discussion of Hitler as the Saviour of the West.

    Could you give me a URL for that, please? Serious request.

    Hitler thought of himself as the Savior of the West, in the same way that Mao thought of himself as the Savior of China, or Pol Pot thought of himself as the Savior of Cambodia.

    Hitler’s attack on the USSR probably stopped the USSR from taking over Europe to the Atlantic. Of course, considering that the former Warsaw nations are now in much better shape than the former Allied countries, that might actually have been a bad thing. Then, again, it migh thave stopped an actual 3 empire wold dominating outcome like that of _1984_. History is strange.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  391. As gross, stupid, and ridiculous as Cabaret numbers are, I can understand why some Germans gravitated to that scene. There is a sense of looseness and freedom where anyone is possible and permitted. In our age when decadence and degeneracy are dime-a-dozen, it now looks tired and boring(and even mandatory in ‘gay pride’ festivities). But with Weimar Germany, Germans experience true freedom and democracy for the first time. Not that pre-democratic Germany was all that tyrannical. Lots of freedoms, even a good deal of decadence, has been allowed and tolerated in Imperial Germany. Still, it was the first time Germans had freedom to be themselves. If not for the Great Depression, Weimar System would surely have survived. But as with Russia in the 90s, the dire economic problems led to a new order. In the case of Russia, it was mild national autocracy. In the case of Germany, the rise of the radical modern right.

    As uplifting and inspiring as the song by the blond Nazi lad may be, there is an air of rigidity and stiffness about it. It is the body hardened into resolve. There is surely meaning and value in that, but there is something about human nature that also seeks to stretch out, wiggle, and be loose. Just go with the natural flow than stick with the program. Dance than march. And by dance, dance freely than follow a set choreography. This, I think, was a point made by BEAU TRAVAIL where a military guy feels a need to stamp out individual spirit in his men as within himself. Self-denial leads to a desire to deny the freedom in others. At the end of the movie, we see the guy loosening up and connecting with the self that wants to run free than obey. We see this with dogs too. On the one hand, dogs are eager to learn tricks and obey orders to gain the approval of the master. But other times, they just want to break free and be themselves and play loose. Mishima also embodied both natures. He was both a militarist-traditionalist and a decadent-playboy.

  392. S says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    What happened that was so terrible as to make the West actively seek its own death? What died and made life not worth living?

    In an attempt to (somewhat) answer that I’ll concentrate very specifically on the Puritan Anglo-Saxon history of the United States. To be even more specific, as the South lost the catastrophic US Civil War*, this concentration will be on the North’s power center, the Northeast, ie New England.

    Needless to say the United States due to its geo-political history has had a massive influence on the modern day West.

    Others may well have different ideas on the subject and their input is certainly welcome.

    The Puritan northeast, living practically out of the Old Testament from 1620 onwards in Massachusetts and the rest of New England, from the get go had a problem with identity.

    Were they Anglo-Saxons or Jewish?

    In the 18th century this identity conflict would be compounded further with the idea of ‘American Israel’ (British Israelism pretty much). This identity conflict was even more compounded in the latter 19th and early 20th century with the arrival of substantial numbers of actual Jewish people from Eastern Europe and Russia, and some resulting inter-marriage between Anglo-Saxons and Jews.

    Later still, some of these Jewish folks would obtain real power in the corporate media and engage in a ‘culture of critique’ against the Anglo-Saxons.

    New England also had the chattel slave trade, the epicenter of which in British North America was Massachusetts, not to mention tens of thousands of household slaves physically owned by northeastern freeholders.

    [MORE]

    Much is made about the supposed 19th century ‘abolition’ of chattel slavery and it’s trade by the British Empire and the United States. I say ‘supposed’ as I submit that in reality chattel slavery and it’s trade was monetized rather than abolished, and that it’s core essence remains in the so called ‘cheap labor’/mass immigration system with its wage slavery, the ‘immigrant’ being the slave for whatever period of time (days, weeks, months, years) he or she, skilled or more likely unskilled, is paid substantially below whatever the prevailing real time local costs of labor was without the immigration or the immigrant being present.

    After all, from a financial point of view, ultimately all the purchaser of a slave cared about was paying substantially below the prevailing real time local costs of labor (aka ‘living wage’) that they would typically have to pay their own people.

    With the wage slave ‘immigrant’ they get this, now with ‘overhead’ costs and hassle (ie old age care, food, clothing, etc) safely outsourced to the general non-slaving public to pay for and deal with.

    The cheap labor/mass immigration system and it’s wage slavery is the economic and political basis of the multi-cultural society, a society which not coincidentally closely parallels the chattel slave holding society it evolved from.

    It’s also not coincidental that multi-culturalism is strongest in the Anglosphere countries, it having been the British Empire which dominated the global trade in slaves at the time the transition was made in the early 19th century from chattel slavery to the much more profitable wage slavery system with it’s so called cheap labor/mass immigration.

    The Anglosphere in this sense with it’s wage slavery still dominates the global trade in slaves.

    Deep down in their hearts, the Anglo-Saxon former chattel slave dealers and slave owners of New England (today’s self described ‘progressives’ and ‘liberals’ from the Atlantic Northeast to the Pacific Northwest) know what they did at some level, and feel very guilty about it, as they should.

    This guilt threatens to tear them apart.

    Guilt’s place is to bring about correction, in this instance a true abolition of slavery via putting a complete halt to the cheap labor/mass immigration system and it’s wage slavery, allowing the peoples of the world and the Anglo-Saxons themselves the chance to heal and restore themselves, to choose life in otherwards.

    However, in doing so this would entail also giving up the insane profits (the MONEY!) made and power acquired from wage slavery.

    Never!

    Instead, already lost and confused somewhat in their sense of identity (am I Anglo-Saxon or Jewish?), and majorly depressed from the guilt of not having truly dealt with slavery, but instead having greatly expanded it with wage slavery, and hating themselves for it, they double down and decide to commit murder/suicide by promoting genocide via the ‘mixing’ of the races, not only of their own race but other (particularly European) races as well.

    True, most Anglo-Saxon people in New England (and other later arrivals) did not own chattel slaves, nor trade them, and neither did they import and exploit ‘immigrants’ as so called ‘cheap labor’. Indeed, none of this was ultimately in their interest.

    They were never asked, however, as both chattel and it’s monetization wage slavery (so called ‘cheap labor’) were put in place by diktat.

    And unless it’s formally understood, denounced, and halted, as the cheap labor/mass immigration system and it’s wage slavery has (for the most part) not been, ultimately people will tend to internalize whatever is going on in the hearts and minds of their power elites and hangers on…ie the self hatred, the historic ‘doting’ upon their slaves masquerading as care and compassion, first upon their African chattel slaves and then upon their ‘immigrant’ wage slaves, the so called ‘cheap labor’, when all they really ever cared about was the financial value of the labor they were systematically stealing from them, the associated over concern with money, the lack of any true concern for their own people, let alone ultimately themselves as individuals, etc.

    In New England powerful elements of the historically Anglo-Saxon Puritan elites and hangers on had historically been heavily involved in first, chattel slavery and it’s trade, and then in it’s monetization, the cheap labor/mass immigration system and it’s wage slavery.

    The descendants of the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, whether they be ‘left’ or ‘right’, and while in many instances not believing in a God at all, still often retain the fanaticism, the belief in the absolute rightness or wrongness of a cause, and the shame based morality of their forebears.

    Ann Dunham (the mother of Barack Obama) on her father’s side is a direct descendant of an early, almost certainly Puritan, Anglo-Saxon 17th century Massachusett’s colony family.

    * The guns were turned on the wrong people in the war. Rather than turning the guns on each other, the guns should of been turned on chattel slave owners in the South and the same ilk in the North, ie those promoting and profiting from the ‘cheap labor’/mass immigration system and it’s wage slavery. Most when confronted by their own in that way and given a choice of choosing between their own people or their slaves (chattel or wage), would have readily surrendered and felt, I’m convinced,…relieved.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Singletary_Dunham

    • Replies: @S
    , @Counterinsurgency
    , @Miro23
  393. Dan’l says:

    I enjoyed the article but I haven’t been to a movie or watched TV since 2005 and this just reinforces that decision.

  394. @Jake

    This dynamic is almost as supreme in Jewish behavior as God Incarnate Jesus is absolutely supreme:

    Cabaret is another in a very long line of artistic/entertainment/journalistic/academic products that exist solely or at least preponderantly to serve the cause of continuing rebellion against Christ and Christendom.

  395. S says:
    @S

    An interesting factoid regarding my just previous post: Ann Dunham, whose family on her father’s side can be traced to early 17th century Puritan Massachusetts, married Barack Obama Sr in 1961. Dunham, after having a child by Obama Sr, would divorce him in 1964.

    Obama Sr in late 1964 would then proceed to marry Ruth Beatrice Baker of Massachusetts, who despite the name, is Jewish. After having two children by her, Obama would divorce her in 1973.

    Also, reflective of New England influence, on Ann Dunham’s father’s side of the family, both her grandfather and uncle were named Ralph Waldo Emerson Sr and Jr respectively.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_Sr.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson

  396. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Liza

    Dividing white people into goodwhites and badwhites is the way that liberals cope with the burden of the terrible things that the West did in the past.

    Now who’s going to take on the burden of the terrible things that the East did in the past? Mongol hordes/Turks/Muslims/Tamerlane/Genghis Khan, etc. I don’t see too many Asians of any category losing their schit over the deeds of their ancestors.

    Which was kind of my point. Whites like to believe they’re incredibly moral and virtuous but then they take a look at their own history and it’s brutality and hypocrisy and duplicity and mass slaughter. So they suffer from cognitive dissonance, which they deal with by blaming the bad stuff on the badwhites.

    Other cultures just accept that brutality and mass slaughter and exploitation are the way of the world. So they just move on.

    The important thing to keep in mind is that for all our hand-wringing and all our indulgences in guilt and for all our pious promises not to do terrible things again we have been just as vicious and just as barbarous as any other culture. And we still are.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  397. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Counterinsurgency

    Right, that’s what they are doing. But what, exactly, are the terrible things the West did in the past?

    Well there were two world wars with tens of millions dead. And it was very hard for even those on the winning side to feel good since they’d indulged in their own atrocities. Maybe the Thirty Years’ War was just as bad, so the best we can say is that we’re no more barbarous now than we were in the 17th century. That’s hardly a reason to feel good about western civilisation.

    There was slavery. Yes I know that it’s an issue that has been exploited for cynical political reasons but what you can’t get away from is that it happened. Yes, other cultures practised slavery. So again the best we can say is that we were no worse than other cultures. But we want to believe our civilisation is superior and the evidence suggests that it isn’t.

    Read up a bit about Britain’s colonial wars. It’s a long tale of cynicism, thieving, hypocrisy and viciousness. Yes I know that it’s another issue that has been exploited for political purposes but the reality really was shameful.

    The fact is that the evidence for the moral superiority of the West is non-existent. But white people can’t cope with that. They want to be seen as nice. They want to be loved. What’s really sick is that they want to be loved by the very people they cheerfully brutalised in the past.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    , @Sam J.
  398. @dfordoom

    second reply, relating to assertion that current situation in US is from an alliance of two classic American socioeconomic regions, which have done this sort of thing before: Colin’s _American Nation_ regions of New Amsterdam and Yankeedom:

    Note that only 30% of Americans
    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/americans-strongly-dislike-pc-culture?utm_source=pocket-newtab

    Quote refers to people who support PC: “Political activists” (PAs) are 8% of the American population, and 70% of the PAs, or 6% (to one digit accurcy) of the American population, support PC.

    So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

    The usual argument is that the Jewish establishment is responsible for all “political activism”. Can’t be. There just aren’t enough Jews of the right age group and right version of the Jewish religion to staff even 6% of the American population. The effort, as with Communism in the early USSR needs a majority of non-Jewish personnel. However, 6% is not beyond the range of New Amsterdam and New England. Here’s another quote from the article, describing the people who support PC:

    politically engaged, highly educated, left-leaning Americans—the kinds of people, in other words, who are in charge of universities, edit the nation’s most important newspapers and magazines, and advise Democratic political candidates on their campaigns.

    The article’s author is a self satisfied and complacent fool. He has no idea how many adults and children PC and the Left have hurt, and no idea how many enemies they and he have. The analogy is to the French Aristocracy during the French Revolution. Again, see move “Assassination and Persecution of Marat ..” to get a feel for the times. The French Aristocrats were astonished when the Paris mob demanded and obtained their execution.

    Or, on a somewhat less somber note, the author demonstrates that the Jewish establishment in the US is part of an _alliance_, not a supernatural entity with the mystic power it attribtues to Hitler: the power to make people crazy by their simple existence.

    Counterinsurgency

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  399. @Counterinsurgency

    I’m tempted to say that the “ten generations” rule couldn’t hold because of the sheer number of people involved, but here’s a chemical reaction (with many more molecules than the empires had people) that occurs at a fixed time interval from reaction start:

    Well, I got some high college degree in maths for statistical analysis for life sciences. Our rule number one has ever been that the more individuals there are involved, the more the phenomena will repeat identically.

    Our body is made of billions of cells. Each one as a short live and is replaced by a new cell. It’s like human members of a society who are replaced by their descendents. Each cell as a special function, and its replacing cell will have the same function. As the body ages, the replacing cells are less and less efficient than the previous one. Also, cancer can appear, that is some cells becoming antisocial and purely parasitical.
    Let’s say our body is a civilization, or a society of cell. Billions of cells. Nevertheless the length of life is about the same for every such civilization of cells. It is more or less 80 years.

    I see that you spoke several times of Lenin out-thinking Hitler. I don’t wish to discuss the topic itself. I just want to notice that you seems to look for individual facts as explanation. Here, my way of analyzing what happened on this planet is quite differing from yours. I know of course that some special event had a great impact, but very often their real effect was only to modify the timing or the extent of something which was bound to happen anyway. So I’m quite more than you interested to find mechanismus or systems, that is complex structures, which repeat more or less identically. That’s why I found the whole synthesis from Glubb quite a good matter for thought. I don’t want to make you a convert of the Glubb theory; I’ll just say that you perhaps will better estimate its value on a second reading.

    Also, you don’t seems interested so much in economics. Well, what about the excessive concentration of wealth on a few peoples ; whatabout the replacement, as the main profitable activity, of productive industries by financial industry. These two points are also typical of dying empires.

    About the IQ decreasing: I don’t knows the cause. At first the US rarely imported members of the higher classes of Europe. And now it imports from third world. There may be also an effect of the TV+internet, which makes childs less able to resolve logical or practical problem. On the other side these TV child seems more able to speak, discuss and interface with others. I mean: more verbal IQ. I was not referring to their ability to build sane relationships.
    So this new brand of intelligence is not taken into account by IQ tests.
    Glubb speaks about the people from dying societies who are more interested in materialy unproductive jobs. Think of all these useless college degrees now. Narcissistic satisfaction comes first. cf. Karl Laske. Also: the quants working for Wall Street doesn’t produce any wealth, they only harvest the wealth produced by others, in most of the cases. In the same time, there was a large lack of IQ in the 737MAX design shop.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  400. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Counterinsurgency

    On one of Ron Unz’s recent post there was a long long long discussion of Hitler as the Saviour of the West.

    Could you give me a URL for that, please? Serious request.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-secrets-of-military-intelligence/

    You’ll find the Hitler Fan Club very active on many of Ron’s posts.

  401. @Counterinsurgency

    Again, it’s not the sheer number of Jews that matters, it’s Jewish money in politics.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  402. @dfordoom

    Can you provide a specific example, instead of an entire discussion thread? I.e. a particular post?

  403. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Again, it’s not the sheer number of Jews that matters, it’s Jewish money in politics.

    Excellent point, and well taken. In a way, it’s exactly as you say. The World Wars looted the privately owned assets of the upper classes of every participating country to fund the wars. This left the Jewish establishment in the winning side with effective control of political funding (through banking, government run social programs, and most likely quite a few avenues I don’t know).

    However — there are limits to what money can buy. Stalin’s rise in the USSR and the current revolt within the US starts to show these limits. Both the POC within the Democratic Party and the desendants of the European descenended population in the US are in open revolt. Both have shown a strong desire to avoid money sourced from the Jewish establishment, and the legacy media is increasingly being ignored.

    Which is my point. Believe it or not, I’m not saying “ignore the Jewish establishment”. What I _am_ saying is that, like everything else humans do, it is, well, to be blunt, not very good. It has limits. We are seeing those limits right now in Trump and the Democratic debates of late 2019/06. If _anybody_ wants to win, one of the things they must do is see the _limits_ of the opposition’s capabilities and use those limits to the hilt. The Jewish establishment (and its clients) is _not_ a weakly god-like entity, it’s succeeded largely because the West was stunned by WW II. Minerva’s owl flies at dusk, and it is dusk for the entire post WW II era, to include the Jewish establishment _and every other establishment as well_ (e.g. Republicans, US protection of the sea lanes, treating POC as retards, etc.)

    So, yes, the opposition is formidable. But that’s all it is.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  404. @dfordoom

    The fact is that the evidence for the moral superiority of the West is non-existent. But white people can’t cope with that. They want to be seen as nice. They want to be loved. What’s really sick is that they want to be loved by the very people they cheerfully brutalized in the past.

    Not any more.

    The “love everybody” era was sold as (a) a way to win the Cold War, and (b) a kind of side effect of the corporate / welfare society of the 1950s. Today, the non-Hispanic white death rate is rising from the “diseases of despair”, and the only people who ” want to be loved by the very people they cheerfully brutalized in the past” (back before anybody alive was born in most cases, and through lies of their government in service of their government’s goals in the rest) are doing so because they have to do that to have a career, and so must be PC. Watch what happens when those careers crumble (like fairy gold in the old stories) in their hands.
    The rest of the non-Hispanic whites are descending (as has been noted at unz.com) into something that looks a lot like the path the Democrats put their Black voting farms on under LBJ. They don’t love nobody, as the song goes, and are going to love them less as they descend along the path. Don’t count on moral restraint — every “moral” institution in the West has sold these people out, and has no authority. The destruction of constraints upon the “rest of the whites” described above has (of course) generated blowback.

    As I’ve said in other comments, the Left in general has had a disastrous 20th and 201st century so far, repudiated everywhere with heavy casualties and materiel loss. Left propaganda says that they’re weakly god-like. Lies — what else? If they wanted to sprint into absolute power, they shouldn’t have shot their feet.

    So: not any more.

    Counterinsurgency

  405. @Susan

    I’ve known for some time that Judy Garland was the ultimate gay icon. I’ve read some explanations for it, but, when I think of it- it remains, at least to me, a mystery. I just cannot understand it.

  406. @S

    The descendants of the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, whether they be ‘left’ or ‘right’, and while in many instances not believing in a God at all, still often retain the fanaticism, the belief in the absolute rightness or wrongness of a cause, and the shame based morality of their forebears.

    Yep, those are the New Englanders I’ve known and . . . known. Their chief religious innovation appears to have been atoning for their sins by making _others_ suffer for their sins.

    The part about chattel slavery being common in New England during the colonial period was news to me. Propaganda since WW II has been that there were no slaves in New England (or any other part of Yankeedom, such as upstate New York). I’ve never seen a description of New England slaves in any American author, or for that matter a description of the life of indentured servants (who were very similar to slaves and had a higher mortality than the established population).

    The description of wage slavery is the first serious discussion I’ve encountered, although I’ve seen fragments of it in the works of Mark Twain and casual references in various histories. I’ve never before seen a coherent description of why slavery was displaced by a wage system in Latin America.

    What I have seen has to do with Western industrialization. The earliest instance of industry, in the UK a bit before the Napoleonic wars, involved recruiting paupers to run machines. Paupers were people whose yearly income was less than that required to buy food, and some of them would work for basic substance.

    Think of the contemporary homeless – 40% crazy, 30% addicted, 20% homeless by choice, 10^ with zero income (CATO4321 mnemonic) and you get the idea of what the early industrialists had to work with. Maybe 10% (WAG on my part) of the pauper population were both capable of sustained effort _and_ had an IQ over about 85. To make it work, the industrialists had to (a) pick a product, (b) design and acquire machines (belt driven from a central source) that the 10% of the paupers cold operate, (c) select the 10^, (d) acquire logistic support for the entire workforce, (e) find guards and foremen for the entire workforce, which would be utterly untrained and probably unruly, (d) train the selected utterly unskilled workers in operation of the machine tools, and finally (e) operate the business.
    These problems had largely been solved by the military, as they were very similar to recruiting and fielding an infantry force (Soldiers or Marines) equipped with black powder weapons made of high carbon steel. It isn’t surprising that military methods were used, the workers were marched to and from the factories, and guarded in their dormitories [1].
    The working conditions were much better than starving in the street (usually), so let’s drop moral condemnations as a waste of time.

    So why describe the above? Well, it was a precursor to the “wage slavery” you mention. BTW, “wage slavery” is a surprisingly accurate and apt term. Using that term, here’s the problem:

    The pioneers in the industrial revolution turned a profit _entirely_ by wage slavery. The essentially took a very large part of the population that was incapable of supporting itself and making it productive. As a direct result, English population growth sharply increased after AD 1812 (manufacturing in factories had been massively funded by Napoleonic War spending, and the capital was used to continue expansion into new markets.[2]).

    The problem: Industry, world wide, hasn’t found any alternative to the system above. Workers are still treated like paupers once were. The complex social structure required to manufacture at a profit cannot be abandoned (nobody knows how), yet the workers can’t stand it. It always ends in unionization and “gradual enfeeblement” as _having a job_ becomes more important than _producing output_.

    So we have a system of production that eventually fails (through unionization and management decay) and no alternative. I haven’t mentioned this before, but a large part of the move of manufacturing overseas was the union’s demands: “All we want is less work and more pay for not doing it.” Yes, it really did get that bad. Even when management decay didn’t freeze the organization, Union demands did.

    “Wage slavery” sounds bad, but starvation sounds worse. The problem seems to be that these are our alternative, despite two centuries of trying to find an alternative.

    Still, you can see that “wage slavery” today involves either displacing the native population just as thoroughly as the Polynesians were displaced in Hawaii or economic stagnation as the workers use their political influence to gradually stop working and the managers use their political influence to gradually eliminate competition so that management can pretend to work without fear.

    As Darwin’s granddaughter sypposedly once asked him: “Why is it all so cruel?”. Job asked much the same question.

    But that’s secondary. Congratulations on the best description of New England (Yankeedom) that I’ve seen so far. Any sources you’d like to cite would be appreciated.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] (a) _A Farewell to Alms_ argues that English paupers were, by this time, the descendants of successful businessmen a few generations back. The argument is that the class of successful businessmen (the “rich”) simply had more children than any other group, and that these children tended to drop through the social ranks for simple lack high income slots in the economy.
    (b) The factories were called “factories” because they looked like the fortified warehouses that factors (company sales reps) lived in when there was a history of the natives raiding foreign warehouses. They looked like small forts. Guess is sounds better than calling the “prisons”.
    (c) There were attempts made to convert the factory system into a utopian community system, but to date none has succeeded. The author once worked in one, and it put me closer to death than any other situation I’ve ever been in. One of the managers told me that their employees “couldn’t survive in the outside world” and that “the company protected them”. Sounds a lot like the paupers, no? My opinion was that if they wanted a pet, they should buy a dog, or maybe a goldfish.
    (d) The population group most responsible for English industrialization as the “dissenters”, diehards from Cromwell’s time, who refused Anglican church membership and so were barred from government employment. Many of them were “corn merchants”, grain dealers, and so had the money to capitalize industrialization. You can still see one of them, Scrooge, portrayed in “A Christmas Carol”. The Dissenters were essentially Puritans that stayed in England after Cromwell’s death. The US New Englanders were Puritans who moved to the US before the Cromwell affair, and had little trouble establishing factories. The first New England factories were Utopian communities, in which young New England women came briefly to make a “hope chest” of capital to use in their future family. As competition and volume rose, these women were eventually replaced by French Canadian (lower wage) labor. And so it goes.
    2] The earlier change in rate of population increase was the result of an agricultural revolution that involved importation of Dutch intensive agriculture. Prior to that, English population was caught in the Malthusian trap. England used the temporary escape from Malthus to trade and start the Industrial Revolution.

    • Replies: @S
    , @S
  407. @Counterinsurgency

    Yes, Jewish power cannot be ignored, but it shouldn’t be portrayed as invincible either. Stalin’s experience is very interesting:

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/09/20/stalin’s-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/

  408. @dfordoom

    On one of Ron Unz’s recent post there was a long long long discussion of Hitler as the Saviour of the West.

    OK, looked at the URL and two others [1]. Your “Hitler did nothing wrong” makes sense only if you assume that Hitler and the Jewish organizations are both weakly weakly g0d-like[2]. No human group could do what either Hitler or the Jewish establishments are said to do. Suvorov’s description of events is at least typical of human organizations: an utterly lost manager gets to run everything, has to come up with something, pulls out his pet plan since he was six years old, and tries to execute it. It _almost_ works. Sometimes these plans work out really well, sometimes they produce some good and some bad results, sometimes they are absolute catastrophe. It depends on context, not on the weakly god-like qualities of the planner.

    Take the theory that the Zionist wanted Hitler to force Jews into Israel for them. Sure, might have been their plan. But look what happened: massive casualties, and an Israel that is now one of the most inviting nuclear targets in the world for various antisemitic nations and groups, with a deteriorating domestic situation as the fundamentalist Jewish population refuses military service and most participation in the industries Israel needs to survive. That’s idiocy, outsmarting themselves, and quite a variety of unpleasant names. It isn’t evidence of weakly god-like capabilities. Hitler made similarly bad blunders, as described elsewhere in my comments, by Goetz Ally, and by Suvorov (among others). His decision to fund his welfare program by confiscating from the Jewish population can be adequately described as “evil”, but were the evil acts of a man, not a weakly god-like entity. Same thing concerning quite a few other acts by Hitler.

    The idea behind calling anything other than an utter condemnation of Hitler a “Hitler fan club” is an exercise in theology, no more. You’re assuming only two kinds of weakly god-like entities: angels (backed by Jehovah an actual God) or demons (backed by Satan (a much less weakly god-like entity)). You’d have to be a weakly god-like entity yourself to make such classifications. But no human is weakly god-like.

    I’ll put the result in secular terms: You’re going to end up with as much influence as CNN now has in the US if you keep this up.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-secrets-of-military-intelligence/ , http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies, http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

    2] “Weakly god-like entity” means an entity that could do things that no human can do (e.g. near omniscience, perfect planning, influencing probabilistic events) but can’t do things that a fully God like entity could do like make the Universe, destroy the Galaxy, define or change physical laws, change past events, etc.)

  409. S says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    Yep, those are the New Englanders I’ve known and . . . known. Their chief religious innovation appears to have been atoning for their sins by making _others_ suffer for their sins.

    Yes, I think there is some projection going on there with their guilt and self loathing.

    The part about chattel slavery being common in New England during the colonial period was news to me. Propaganda since WW II has been that there were no slaves in New England (or any other part of Yankeedom, such as upstate New York). I’ve never seen a description of New England slaves in any American author, or for that matter a description of the life of indentured servants (who were very similar to slaves and had a higher mortality than the established population).

    [MORE]

    Yes, chattel slavery and it’s trade existed throughout British North America in 1776. Due to climatic conditions there was something of a division of labor in the sordid business, the Northeast (ie Massachusetts in particular) tended to be more into the slave dealing, and those Southerners involved tended to be ‘consumers’, ie slave owners.

    The link below to ‘slave north’ explores this in depth. At the start of the Civil War (1861) there were legally owned chattel slaves in New Jersey, albeit elderly. He, like yourself, and myself as well, was quite surprised the North had chattel slaves at all, but they did, tens of thousands of them. [The North won the Civil War and writes the history!] It might be recalled at the Salem witch trials in circa 1690 Massachusetts a household African slave (Tabitha?) figured in the proceedings.

    Yes, the term wage slavery has been much abused by some, even being used to reference generic wage labor or labor that happens to be somewhat low in pay. I’m not using it in that way.

    ‘Slavery’ simply refers to the systematic theft of a significant portion of the value of a person’s labor. The term before it, ie ‘chattel’, ‘sex’, or ‘wage’, is the descriptor of the means for this theft. I’m also specifically referring to the phenomena of where people (often alien people as ‘immigrants’) are deliberately ‘imported’ in because some don’t want to pay the prevailing real time local rate of labor typically to their own.

    A great example is the Chinese being imported in by the tens of thousands into California in the 1870’s. The California state legislature found (circa 1875) when forced to investigate the matter that these Chinese were often being paid upwards of 70% (ie two thirds to be specific) below the prevailing local rate of labor.

    Anyhow, when chattel slave owners attempted to bring their ‘servants’ with them to London or Amsterdam it was forbidden, due apparently to the observable negative effects. For the same reason chattel slavery and it’s trade should of been forbidden at Jamestown from the earliest date, and the other Euro colonies as well.

    One would have thought the Spartacus slave revolt in Rome would have been enough of an indication of the utter folly and danger of importing chattel slaves into one’s homeland to last for all time.

    By allowing it (chattel slavery and it’s trade) to set roots starting in 1619 it created a horrible pattern in British North America. Anglo-Saxon slave dealers in the Northeast, by their almost two hundred years of slave dealing, had set the course for their own people in the South to become minorities in their own states vs the slave population, ie South Carolina in 1860. Slave owners had also gotten use to doing anything but anything, than pay their own people the prevailing real time local cost of labor, and instead purchasing chattel slaves. [And all too often slap the label ‘White trash’ on some of their own]

    The pattern we’ve had since the wage slavery system (ie cheap labor/mass immigration) was adopted in the first half of the 19th century with the physical, economic, and cultural displacement of the Anglo-Saxon population proceeding is simply a continuation of the same horrible pattern (now gone viral) we had with chattel slavery and its trade prior.

    People are creatures of habit. The elites and hangers on involved historically in slavery and its trade in North America were used to treating their own horribly. They cared more about their slaves than their own people. Their own not involved in slavery (most) had gotten used to taking it.

    When those Anglo-Saxon farmer’s daughters in New England (ie the ‘Yankee Girls’) were threatened with displacenent by outsiders being imported in, ie ‘immigrants’, they with their families should have drawn the line right there. As mentioned, the US Civil War was a missed opportunity to put a stop to slavery, both chattel in the South and it’s more malignant monetized manifestation in the North, wage slavery. That’s the war that should of been fought against slavery but wasn’t.

    I’ll link below some other threads that delve deeply into this subject and a quote below from a person whose family was one of the ‘4000’ major slave holding and allied families that ruled over the South.

    From the foreward of the book The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865 (1908):

    Our Southern States, being still in the agricultural stage, on account of our practical monopoly of the world’s chief textile staple, were the last of the great civilized nations to find chattel slavery less profitable than wage slavery, and hence the “great moral crusade” of the North against the perverse and unregenerate South.

    It was a pure case of economic determinism, which means that our great moral conflict reduces itself, in the last analysis, to a question of dollars and cents, though the real issue was so obscured by other considerations that we of the South honestly believe to this day that we were fighting for States Rights, while the North is equally honest in the conviction that it was engaged in a magnanimous struggle to free the slave.

    Entries 76 and 78 by Alex in the thread below:

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_death_of_a_multi_racialist/

    Entry 74 by Alex, and the four links posted there:

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/debunking_the_myth_of_white_privilege_draft/#c56525

    http://slavenorth.com

    The two links below are regarding Lawrence ‘Immigrant City’, Mass, and it’s sister city Lawrence, KS, whose construction were both financed by the same Lawrence family of Massachusetts based textile factory magnates during the 1840’s and ’50’s respectively.

    Mass textile plant owners didn’t like paying the very expensive chattel slave labor costs which picked the cotton which in turn fed their textile mills. They wanted the recalcitrant Southern slave owners and hangers on to adopt the Northeast’s wage slavery system acquired by so called ‘cheap labor’/mass immigration, hence the construction of the infamous Lawrence, KS as a base for ‘abolitionists’ in ‘bleeding Kansas’. Yes, cynically ‘abolish’ chattel to make the way clear for the wage slavery system.

    Again, the guns were turned on the wrong people in the damnable US Civil War.

    https://matteroffact.tv/lawrence-mass-immigrant-city/

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence,_Kansas

    Below are a couple of NY Times article’s published in 1869 regarding the Dutch ‘labor contractor’ Cornelius Koopmanschap and his proposal to import one hundred thousand Chinese wage slaves (ie so called ‘cheap labor’) directly from China into the US South to work the plantations now that the African chattel slaves were no longer there to do the work.

    The Southern plantation owners were said to be quite enthusiastic about this idea at the time.

    Koopmanschap handled North American distribution of the Chinese wage slaves. Maurice Bosman, his half (possibly wholly Jewish) Hong Kong based business partner, handled their Asian procurement.

    Wasn’t it a Dutch ship with a load of slaves that appeared off the coast at Jamestown in 1619?

    https://www.nytimes.com/1869/07/21/archives/koopmanschap-who-he-is-what-he-has-done-and-what-he-proposes-to-do.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/1869/10/12/archives/mr-koopmanschap-and-his-labor-contracts.html

  410. Miro23 says:
    @S

    The descendants of the Anglo-Saxon Puritans, whether they be ‘left’ or ‘right’, and while in many instances not believing in a God at all, still often retain the fanaticism, the belief in the absolute rightness or wrongness of a cause, and the shame based morality of their forebears.

    Anglo-Saxons are the descendents/relatives of Germanics, and the English language derives from German. This belief in absolute rightness or wrongness is even stronger with the Germans in Germany.

    Britain’s other races (Welsh and Celts) are not such absolutists – and it was the Anglos who chased them away to their current refuges in the hills of Northern Wales and the Scottish Highlands.

    • Replies: @S
  411. Rex says:

    Stage play or movie, the experience is pure shit from beginning to end.

  412. S says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    Wage slavery sounds bad, but starvation sounds worse.

    Genocide of entire peoples by being ‘mixed’ out of existence or other wise via the wage slavery (so called ‘cheap labor’) system sounds even worse still.

    Speaking of which, starving to death Irish in 1847 were shooting members of the British aristocracy in Ireland for promoting or sponsoring their mass exodus from Ireland so that they could be wage slaves (cheap labor) in US factories. The Irish did not call this ‘mass immigration’, or ‘a helping hand’, but rather ‘extermination’. [See link below regarding ‘Extermination and Vengeance’]

    Legitimate help regarding famine in the past in Ireland was to simply limit food exports from the island.

    During the same famine period (1851) the London Times would entirely concur with the Irish assessment regarding the effects of their enmasse predation as wage slaves in the US, declaring it would directly result in the Irish being ‘known no more’ as a people. The Times editorial thought this was a very positive thing.

    Again, slavery, whether chattel or wage, is genocidal.

    The problem seems to be that these are our alternative, despite two centuries of trying to find an alternative.

    That would seem to be a false dichotomy in regards to alternatives.

    The Japanese until only very recently were not importing in any significant numbers of immigrants. The US between 1924-65 had very limited immigration. Before the Windthrush (sp?) in 1947 the UK had relatively speaking limited immigration.

    I’ll take a supposedly ‘boring’ and ‘sluggish’ economic situation like Japan had in the 90’s with the stability of it’s homogeneous people and culture, as opposed to an ever economically growing, but unstable, violent, and genocidal ‘vibrant’ and ‘multi-cultural’ society, any day of the week.

    I suppose I rather see the big problem is the Anglosphere countries to this day having failed to have dealt in a truthful manner with chattel slavery and it’s trade, but instead to have monetized it with the cheap labor/mass immigration system and it’s wage slavery. This problem has been compounded further by coercing Germany and Japan, as well as other countries to adopt this barbaric system.

    http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/20th-november-1847/12/extermination-and-vengeance

    http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/22nd-june-1850/15/american-factories-in-ireland

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  413. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Stalin’s experience is very interesting:
    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/09/20/stalin’s-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/

    Interesting indeed, and new to me in many important ways. Burovsky’s thesis clears up quite a bit. You can see why the US establishment has attempted to destroy every American nationalist who has made it to high office, and why it has such stringent membership requirements (competence is not required, but opposition to American nationalism is). The American establishment remembers Stalin.
    Not that it’s going to help the American Establishment. Its Jewish component has (Ron Unz) lost the unusual achievement that characterized it in the 1930s, the PIC / Rainbow coalition that it depends on is amazingly inept, and the US population that descended from the US population in WW II is starting to realize that it hasn’t grown much at all, and that, while it was working and saving and not having children because the American establishment told it not to (and enforced that legally), the American establishment was importing people who were told to do the exact opposite _and who now comprise about half the nation’s population and are the sole reason that the Democrats rule the US.

    Some interesting quotes form the article:

    According to Jewish World, 1939, Jews, representing 1.8% of the total population, constituted 20% of the students in higher institutes of learning in the USSR in 1939

    Very similar to Ron Unz’s figures for US IV League colleges at the same time, today also.

    All displays of Christian belief were outlawed.

    As in the US today.

    “We have to get 90 out of 100 million of the population of the Soviet Republic to follow us. Those left over have nothing for us. They will have to liquidated.”

    Sounds like Oprah, or anybody associated with ending “whiteness”.

    Yet, the crimes of the Lenin-Trotsky faction were either glossed over or simply not mentioned in the press or on the radio, while the Western media concentrated on and exaggerated those committed by Stalin during the “Great Purge.”

    Trump vs. Hillary

    We shall burn everything, we shall destroy everything,
    We shall wipe everything from the face of the Earth,
    We shall extinguish the old Sun,
    We shall ignite a new Sun.

    Or, as R. A. Lafferty put it:

    [MORE]

    “To slay the folk
    and cleanse the land
    and make the world a reeking roastie.
    High purpose of the gallant band
    and six were kids and one a ghostie.

    Sounds like many of the articles Steve Sailor posts.

    As I’ve said before, the world is the 1930s endlessly replayed. There is a nursery rhyme that fits this:

    There was a man in our town
    and he was wondrous wise.
    He jumped into a bramble bush
    and scratched out both his eyes!

    And when he saw what he had done
    with all his might and main
    he jumped back in that bramble bush
    and scratched them in again!

    Counterinsurgency

  414. Ray P says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    President “Bobby”: Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?

    [Long pause]

    Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.

    President “Bobby”: In the garden.

    Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.

    President “Bobby”: Spring and summer.

    Chance the Gardener: Yes.

    President “Bobby”: Then fall and winter.

    Chance the Gardener: Yes.

    Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we’re upset by the seasons of our economy.

    Chance the Gardener: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!

    Benjamin Rand: Hmm!

    Chance the Gardener: Hmm!

    President “Bobby”: Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I’ve heard in a very, very long time.

    [Benjamin Rand applauds]

    President “Bobby”: I admire your good, solid sense. That’s precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.

  415. Sam J. says:
    @Saggy

    A very good quote and there’s a very important point to be made here.

    “…Nationalism may be superseded by the issue between different forms of political structure, between parliamentarism, fascism, and Bolshevism. …. Parliamentarism and Bolshevism seem to feel a remarkable affinity for one another, if for no other reason than that they are both consumed with an equal hatred of fascism…”

    Neither the capitalist or the commies are of any use at all if the economy is run in a balanced fashion like National Socialism. With National Socialism capitalist are held in check, the crazy commies who want to turn the whole entire country upside down without any proof at all they can run anything at all are held in check and at the same time business and people who are obsessed with money can make a buck if they work within the boundaries set by the NS government to protect the people. The National Socialist system is a balanced system. There’s no doubt at all that Hitler made huge gains for the average German. The capitalistic system does provide great material progress if it’s not too monopolized but needs checks which NS provides. Neither capitalism or communism have appropriate checks and balances.

    Commies don’t care about any sort of tradition or nationalism either. They want to melt down all relationships to economics just EXACTLY like the capitalist. They are just the flip side. Even worse it’s guaranteed that any commie revolution will have masses of psychopaths at the top repressing everyone.

    You want to see what a National Socialist government can do. Look at Japan. They are 100% Nazi. Their government, banking and business system is 100% structured like the Nazis. Japan may be far from perfect and they have struggled economically but look at their economy. They have not allowed ANY immigration so the working population has shrunk dramatically yet they still live in a modern, clean, healthy environment compared to…say San Fransisco. They don’t have masses of people shitting in the streets. All this even though they have next to no resources in minerals, fuel or food. They still do reasonably well. They’re not rich but have a vast middle class and no one is starving. The reason commies hate National Socialist so bad is that people are happier under National Socialist and have no need of commies to balance against the Oligarchical rapist capitalist. In NS the capitalist are already balanced so the commies have no reason to be.

  416. Sam J. says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “…the Suvorov version the fact that it was inconsistent with what that most diligent of researchers David Irving wrote…”

    This is not true. I have read both Suvorov’s books on the matter and I think all of David Irvings books and your quoting him to denigrate Suvorov is misleading.

    I agree with Counterinsurgency comment and agree that reading Suvorov “The Chief Culprit” is of value but it does have a a lot of “Icebreaker” rehashed. I would read it if I hadn’t read either one.

  417. Sam J. says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    “…Hitler’s Beneficiaries_. Hitler’s welfare state was founded on loot…”

    In my opinion you are equating apples and oranges. If the Germans are taxing and spending as “a people” it’s not necessarily looting as they are considered a family of nations. They are kin.

    As far as the Jews go they have no right to complain about Hitler looting them. They bribed, blackmailed and cheated their way to owning large parts of the German GNP by getting laws passed that favored them. They can hardly complain if the Nazis get laws passed that send the money flow a different direction. The Jews have a habit of believing anything they immorally get from others is morally theirs but if you try to repatriate it it is then immoral. They forget how they got it in the first place.

  418. Sam J. says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    “…They also lost WW II, according to Suvorov because they were out-thought by Lenin and Stalin. This was directly caused by the Nazi welfare state…”

    This is one of the silliest things I’ve ever seen written down. It’s obvious the Germans were massively outclassed in Men and Material. Even so they came close to winning.

    I think Hitlers biggest mistake was when he invaded the USSR and seemed to be winning he backed off on military preparedness. If he would have turned 100% of the economy over to war production and pushed every single resource he had into the war he might have squeaked through a win before the US entered the war. At that point with no eastern front the western attack could have failed.

  419. @Beefcake the Mighty

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/09/20/stalin’s-1937-counter-revolution-against-trotskyism/ does a very nice job of depicting Stalin as a Russian (or at least Slavic) nationalist. One gets a picture of power going to the heads of the the Old Bolsheviks Trotsky faction, some of the more responsible Old Bolsheviks siding with Stalin to stabilize the situation, and Stalin using that to destroy (eventually, the 1950s purge) both factions. The basic problem, of course, was putting a non-ethnic into an ethnic organization that acted against the non-ethnic’s extended family (ethnic group). The Old Bolsheviks really had no choice, though. They were very few in number. I’d imagine [1] that they put Stalin into what they thought of as a dead end job, tabulating votes and taking care of routine admin, while they did the important, glamorous, and rewarding jobs that were short of personnel.

    Note that Stalin wasn’t even very bright, as planners go. His invasion of Europe was maximax [2], which involved everything going perfectly. It didn’t, and he won half of Europe but at the cost of almost all his force (see: “Pyrrhic victory”) and a legacy of a non-viable USSR. Surprising how many of the grand strategists end up that way.

    One can see something like the Old Bolsheviks loss to a non-Jewish ethnic group happening in the US [3] right now. The contemporary rebellion of POC in the Democratic party closely follows events in the NAACP in the 1960s.

    1] and it is my imagination, based on expereience in US organizations. If anybody knows what actually happened, I’d appreciate actual information.
    2] maximax: maximize probability of maximum loss. This is ordinarily done to maximize possible gain. Example: mortgage your house to start a new business. Maximax attempts that fail are why we have bankruptcy laws, and why they used to have debtor’s prisons.
    Luck is hot and people funny.
    Everybody’s fond of money.
    Make a bet and lose your mother.
    Win the pot and buy another!
    Other people fall and smash. You may win thee ton of cash!
    Cordwainer Smith

    2] “2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates Shun Pro-Israel AIPAC Conference”
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/26/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-shun-pro-israel-aipac-conference/

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  420. @Sam J.

    Japan went through a horrendous recession in the nineties from which they never recovered.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  421. S says:
    @Miro23

    Thanks for bringing up that angle. One can only suppose this had the effect of ‘enhancing’ the unfortunate Puritan belief system and what remains of the mindset.

  422. @S

    Note to moderator: Is this post relevant to the article? The larger issue in Cabaret seems to be to be: What was reality, what were the real problems, and what could have been done? In previous posts, I’ve talked about the stasis between the left and the non-left. The stasis seems to have devolved into a religious war, each side attributing weakly god-like powers to the others, and the debate being about which side is Angels and which Demons. The material below takes another look at the fundamental problems. S has a new view of them, with which I’m mostly agreeing with and trying to contribute to.

    [MORE]

    1) For the paupers , it really was wage slavery or starvation (and dying of exposure, in winter of course.)
    2) The same arguments that say one should feed a population that is simultaneously starving _and_ undergoing a population boom also say that the US should have open borders now, and that the industrialized world should reduce its living standards to that of the non-industrialized world so as to maximize human welfare (utilitarian argument). The Irish population had become (like that of Poland at the time) dependent on potatoes. When the potatoes died, so did the Irish.
    A little later, the British Empire died, and the British were gradually forced out of London.
    Nobody helped the Irish, nobody helped the British. Nobody is going to help the US. Welcome to reality. Stuff happens, and sometimes there is no known solution.

    Now, back to wage slavery:
    The problem I’m trying to outline is a bit subtle:
    a) In practice, all wage labor is wage slavery _in the sense that_ the actual workers have very little autonomy, less as time passes (e.g. the contemporary RFID geolocation badges). Resentment of this eventually lowers productivity among workers in various ways (entrenched unions, simple resistance to changes, severe resistance to reorganization). Both workers and management eventually pursue internal goals over formal goals.
    b) The Laissez-faire system used a HAL 9000 methodology: let the business fail, then replace it. Laissez-faire isn’t compatible with the contemporary “large corporation” system. Granted, it happens, and corporations supposedly have a 30 year average lifespan, _but_ within a field one tends to find monopolies or oligopolies that are kept alive long after they’ve become unproductive.
    c) This is not a good system. It is part of a system that has choked off fundamental innovation since about AD 1970.
    d) It should be replaced by something better. Instead, it has been used to import vast numbers of what you call wage slaves” [1] and I call “immigrants” in a political variation on the imported labor that made the Polynesian islands non-Polynesian ethnically. At the very least, this is not sustainable.
    e) Unfortunately, nobody has come up with anything better. The Swedish model has been found wanting in that it, also, has flooded Sweden with immigrants. The Japanese model looked better, and maybe it is — at least Japan is reducing its population to something it can feed and house, but (i) it’s pretty brutal, old people dying in isolation, and (2) they’re bringing in immigrants anyway (very few as of now, but perhaps more in future). In any event, we don’t have Japan’s homogeneous genetic composition (although the US in the 1960s was about as safe in white areas as is Japan today, and a good deal safer in non-white areas as well.).

    And that’s my point: there is an unsolved problem here that is so big that nobody sees it. It may cost us industrialized society — we could end up like the Middle East, which is now a graveyard of Bronze Age and the Oslamic/Persian Golden Age.

    Now, with regard to policy — by all means re-enact the immigration laws of the late 1920s. Moreover, re-execute mass deportations, rule the “citizenship birth” clause was never valid and enforce it on current population. Increase support for being married and saying married, tell women hat they they no more have to pretend to be men than Blacks have to walk around in whiteface, _but_ they have to do the extremely difficult but utterly vital things that women have done historically (and will be rewarded for it by lifetime support from their husbands and children), and make it clear that producing more than you consume (to repelinish capital if nothing else) is the only way to get an income, and you might have a stable industrialized country again. Drop any one of these, and you get something like the unstable we have today.

    As to my background: I’m a former high level systems type who participated in what was probably the last attempt to save American Manufacturing. The attempt was by NSF as a Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) program. What I saw from the inside was that _nobody_, academic or industry, wanted industry saved. They wanted a continuation of the status quo. It didn’t help that the only solution available was something out of computer science and none of them understood it, but the basic problem was that they wanted no change whatsoever. See: Meyer and Zucker, _Permanently Failing Organizations_, 1989.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Differences in terminology. “Slaves”, to me, means a group that has enough of its output taken from it that it does not, as a group, reproduce itself. Manor law in the middle ages that tied serfs to the land descended from a Roman law intended to incentivize Roman slaves to have children by ensuring that their master did not leave them with bare subsistence. Seems Rome ran short of slaves, and had to satisfy itself with serfs.
    By this definition (enough confiscation of output to inhibit reproduction), the American European population as of 1945 were subsequently enslaved or close to it (they have grown very little, 5% to 10%) and the immigrant labor has not been enslaved (going from almost none to about half the population now). Maybe its not good definition, but it does make a point: it’s not obvious who needs sympathy. Most things in systems aren’t obvious.

    • Replies: @S
  423. @Parisian Guy

    Glub is good, no question. he also has a mechanism for the observed phenomena (finite lifespan of Empires). There are very many such theories. Glub’s theory is an observation that lifespan as a commonality however, it does not provide a mechanism for the change (no underlying system dynamics), nor any way to avoid getting caught in the gears if you’re alive during a transition. As an engineer, I’m interested in applications. As a human, I’d just as soon not get caught in the gears yet again.

    [MORE]

    Other theorues:
    Dutton – increased mutation load reduces surplus to maintain civilization.
    Turchin – overproduction of elites:
    https://evolution-institute.org/blog/elite-overproduction-brings-disorder/
    Spengler – civilizations like organisms, born, child, adult, old age (empires), die.
    Climate – societies can be kileed by droughts, especially when coupled with barbarian invasions.
    Disease- Empires tend to construct large trade routes, which kill off the Empire’s base population. Examples being Rome and the Mongol Empire. (_Plagues and Peoples_, W. H. McNeil).
    God’s Wrath: people become sinful, and God selects the faithful to survive.
    Cheating: Bad people have caused the Golden Age to fall. One day we’ll get even.
    Conventional: stuff happens. This is favored by the media and is the most widely believed.

    Real embarrassment of riches.

    If you want a very high level systems analysis of Europe during the two World Wars, here it is:
    The large empires of the time were internally unstable in that they
    (a) were experiencing and industrialization that made their social structures obsolete and
    (b) the social structure was attempting to hold itself together by emphasizing military force (see; “Guns of August” concerning start of WW II, see various volunteer organizations in Europe that tried to “recreate the unity of WW I”).
    Moreover, c) (as is true today) some of these Empires were doing better than others and, especially in Eastern Europe, some groups were doing better than others (see Chu’s work on market dominant minorities to see a description of the same thing in the Far East).

    Given (a through c), it was inevitable that the empires would clash, and that at least some of them would fall. In the event, they all fell except for the British and French Empires, which fell shortly after the end of WW II fighting (Suez crisis being the historical marker event), and a new Empire, the USSR was formed.
    Also, by the end of WW I, some of the these groups were gone, killed by their neighbors. (Same thing happened in Indonesia, ad 2006). By the end of WW II, even more had vanished.that might be the most enduring effect of the World War interval.

    If you want a meta-system analysis of the present:
    * the West is overdue for a reorganization because none of its basic systems produce an economic surplus today (as you point out), and it has been driven back to using raw force and to hiring out mercenaries and borrowing money. (see Creveld, “The Fate of the State”, _Parameters_.
    * South America: the Indios and Meztizos are out-populating the whites, and finding that they can’t run an industrialized society. Where there are few Indios and Meztizos, nothing much seems to be happening; mixed economies continue, and are based on food or mineral exports.
    * Japan: marking time intil the post-WW II generation dies off, after which it will probably re-organize itself completely, as it has several times in its history.
    * Russian and China: after losing its basic organizational form (Czars, Confucian Imperial respectively) they are re-organizing themselves right now, and appear to be successful so far.
    * Africa: No sign of an industrial society developing, many signs of an industrial society vanishing. China is attempting an Imperial resource extraction operation that is too young to evaluate. Similar operations in the past have been rejected by the historic African population.

    I also tend to not use words like “excessive”. No common definition, very much in the eye of the beholder. Mark Twain: “His money is twice tainted: taint yours and taint mine”. Some highly unequal societies have supported immense populations. Should we therefore change the society and left the now excess population die? Maybe saying “Whoops, didn’t expect _that_ to happen” while they’re dying? J. Peterson points out that life is tragic, and some things just can’t be changed.

    Counteinsurgency

  424. @Counterinsurgency

    Agreed, the demographic tilt of the Democratic Party to majority-minorities will mainly be to the (long-term) detriment of Jews, not Whites.

  425. J says: • Website
    @Counterinsurgency

    Auschwitz had a mortality rate of 25%.

    Per day.

  426. @J

    Actually it was 6,000,000%. (See what I did there?)

  427. @MAOWASAYALI

    Liza Minnelli is “probably” a tranny? If so, she is the first tranny in the history of the world to make her transition while in the womb. Gimme a break. https://www.vintag.es/2015/06/14-adorable-photos-of-baby-liza.html

  428. S says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    First, it didn’t just happen inexplicably that the British got pushed out of London. Political decisions were made (See link below regarding the SS Windrush; an example of the long term results of the dysfunctional relationship between the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish peoples).

    Second, people privately and publically (ie government) did help the famine stricken Irish by sending food. It was Indian corn or maize, not the highest quality and not enough ultimately, but food all the same.

    Of course, the traditional thing should of been done which was simply to ease food exports during time of famine, and not export it away as was done in this instance. Better still, the Brits shouldn’t of been there in the first place.

    About no one helping the US plenty of people are, even here, by speaking truth.

    I think it was Upton Sinclair that said he was against or indifferent to any form of welfare or social security assistance, a complete ‘rugged individual’, until he himself found himself ‘in the hole’ one day, and then he changed his thinking.

    [MORE]

    I think a big part of the problem is Capitalism itself (not to say it’s flip side Communism is any better or desireable).

    Commerce is very important, but not above every last thing as with Capitalism…ie so as to maximize profits you import millions of so called ‘cheap laborers’ literally destroying your own people and yourself ultimately. I see Capitalism in that sense as unreformable.

    I take it as a given that just as distinct individuals exist, so do distinct peoples, physically and culturally, and that they’re worthy of preservation. They exist (including European peoples) and not just in the negative sense.

    [To say this will have ‘true believers’ in Capitalism, Communism, and their ‘convergance’ Multi-culturalism, all in agreement accusing a person of ‘hate’ and ‘racism’.]

    Another part of the problem seems to be this idea of perfectability. Well, things just aren’t perfect.

    That’s why I’d be perfectly okay with what Japan or many other countries had prior to the ‘mass immigration’ phenomena of the past fifty plus years. I’d also be okay, if it meant a chance for peoplehood, with the United States breaking up if necessary.

    And not suggesting you don’t think this is important, but morality is important. Some say Karma. And it works like the laws of physics. If the US and UK, specifically Anglo-Saxons, had been more moral in their ways, being more honest and truthful towards their own selves and others, much of this gigantic present day mess wouldn’t have come about.

    Regarding chattel slavery and it’s monetization, ie wage slavery, or so called ‘cheap labor’, we might just have to agree to disagree. I think you might be being a bit ‘too understanding’ about this subject. [I realize my ideas in this area sound quite alien, even to myself at times, but then the historic slave dealers of the northeast won the US Civil War, and it is they that are still in power now in the US. It is they that write ‘the narrative’.]

    Abraham Lincoln’s chief economic adviser Henry C Carey concluded just what I have here, by the way, ie that the cheap labor/mass immigration system in reality was simply ‘the slave trade of the last century reproduced on a grander scale’, and no he was not for it. [See link below]

    I see that it’s critical an immediate true abolition of slavery take place (unlike the fraudulent 19th century one) meaning a halt to the cheap labor/mass immigration system with an open acknowledgement and explanation of what happened, how it was driven by a combination of self deception and greed. And then for a physical and cultural healing (Or at least the right to heal) of the people’s of the world.

    Along with that there should be a de-slaving process, ie a removal of people from power and authority who were personally profiting from or promoting the cheap labor/mass immigration system.

    You can’t have peoplehood with slavery, either chattel or wage. Slavery destroys everything.

    If they did not in reality reform regarding their slave dealing/owning ways as I submit is the case one would expect to see some external evidence of this.

    Indeed one does, all over the place.

    People might recall the scene in Amistad where when the law got too hot the slaver simply weighted the slaves with rocks and threw them overboard to drown.

    You have the exact parallel today when closed trailers filled with ‘illegal alien’ wage slaves being imported in are discarded in an out of the way place leaving it’s sixty or seventy occupants to die inside.

    In that light is it surprising they call the migrants they claim to care about so much ‘stock’, as in ‘migrant stock’? The term ‘stock’ is first and foremost synonomous with ‘merchandise’, which is exactly how they saw their chattel slaves.

    The below is an insightful excerpt from a book published over a hundred years ago by a person whose family was one of the ‘4000’ families which ruled over the US South. It reveals the rationalisations going on.

    (pg 14, 17, 18) The War Time Journal of a Georgia Girl

    The truth of the matter is that the transition from chattel to wage slavery [ie so called ‘cheap labor’] was the next step forward in the evolution of the race, just as the transition from wage slavery to free and independent labor will be the next..

    ..And now that we have learned wisdom through suffering; now that we have seen how much more can be accomplished by peaceful coöperation under the safe guidance of natural laws, than by wasteful violence, we are prepared to take our part intelligently in the next great forward movement of the race – a movement having for its object not merely a closer union of kindred states, but that grander union dreamed of by the poet, which is to find its consummation in:

    “The parliament of man, the federation of the world.”

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/slavery_on_a_grander_scale

    https://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/andrews/andrews.html

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/07/12/jews-the-ss-empire-windrush-and-the-origins-of-multicultural-britain/

    https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimates15.asp

  429. Sam J. says:
    @jeff stryker

    I think the depth of their recession is overblown by the Japanese press to stop the US from raising tariffs on them and if you look at the GNP of Japan while taking into account the vast number of older people not working at all you will see their situation is not near as dire as it’s reported to be. Not that I’m completely denying that they have problems. The competition form China and elsewhere is effecting them but I suspect much lass than us. If you look into the situation deeper you will see a vast array of components are made in Japan, shipped to China and then put into products sold in China and the elsewhere.

  430. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Liza Minnelli has been called “William Shatner with a vagina”, i.e., a total non-actress who is simply herself in any role. Shatner is Shatner, whether he’s Capt. Kirk, T.J. Hooker, or in any other character, such as it is, he may ostensibly portray.

    I’m told Vanna White did a better job onstage.

    At any rate, I agree that Cabaret does in fact present the beginnings of national Socilism in an accurate light, in that they were a reasonble reaction to Antifa and communism given the circumstances. It will never be remade for that very reason, plus seeing any other imaginable actress in the role would make an obvious mockery of Minnelli, the gay icon who must not be criticized.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  431. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @MAOWASAYALI

    Minnelli is most definitely a she, although she married four different men who were all obvious and known homosexuals. Even Liz Taylor had more sense than that.

  432. @S

    I’ll make this brief:

    a) Importing “cheap labor” from another culture is suicidal for the importing country. Several generations later, the “cheap labor” isn’t cheap, has the same rights as citizens, and very little interest in perpetuating the culture of the people who originally imported them. As for the people imported, well, Cassius Clay supposedly once said, after returning from Africa, “All I can say is, I sure am glad my great-granddaddy caught that boat!”.
    b) The problem is bigger than that. The contemporary factory system has proven non-viable thanks to the two class system (managers/owner and workers) that makes it productive. Moreover, nobody has an alternative (except the Marxists, whose alternative turned out to be increasing the gap between management/government and workers).
    c) The last time the US had enough immigration to upset the US political system, the immigration was stopped, and stayed that way for about three decades. We’re probably looking at that again.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @S
  433. Sam J. says:
    @dfordoom

    “…There was slavery. Yes I know that it’s an issue that has been exploited for cynical political reasons but what you can’t get away from is that it happened. Yes, other cultures practised slavery. So again the best we can say is that we were no worse than other cultures. But we want to believe our civilisation is superior and the evidence suggests that it isn’t…”

    An absurdity. The west is the only culture that fought wars and used wholesale government power to stop slavery. All the rest had slavery but no one else extended as much energy to stop slavery. Western civilazation owes no apologies at ALL for anything to do with slavery.

  434. Sam J. says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    “…So we see that, in the US at least, the defeat of the West was not emergent from the general population (or, as some would have it, from the Jewish establishment (although they helped)), but instead emergent from US politics and previous bright ideas, such as allowing immigration from areas that could not possibly support or approve of Anglo Saxon self government…”

    This is not true. Without the Jews mass immigration could not have occurred. If you wish to say such things you need to provide data to do so. You need to counter the well know data that the Jews spent millions of dollars on campaign contributions and millions of dollars on organizations to effect mass immigration.

    That someone White someday uttered a thought that we should have mass immigration or any of the other deviancys that now infest the West is hardly proof that the SOCIETY decided it to be so or that there was some great upswell to do something.

  435. @S

    I think it was Upton Sinclair that said he was against or indifferent to any form of welfare or social security assistance, a complete ‘rugged individual’, until he himself found himself ‘in the hole’ one day, and then he changed his thinking.

    Not everybody does. I once worked with a Cuban refugee who had once worked for IBM. Then, one day, he had a heart attack. An IBM personnel specialist came to his hospital room and told him not to worry, because IBM was his family and his mother and his father and would take care of him. The Cuban replied:
    “I quit. Get out of this room.”
    and remained constant in that.
    Some people see welfare, even corporate welfare in return for productive work, as a trap, a cheap means of getting the subject to give the welfare giver the loyalty granted to kin in a clan society at the expense of the subject’s genetic kin. Sociobiologically, these people have a case, and one could point out some forms of symbiosis that have shaded over to parasitism in the sense that the host is sterilized.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @S
  436. @J

    Suvorov wrote it (_The Chief Culprit_), his point being that the USSR was beyond criticism. If you have complaints, complain to Suvorov.

    Counterinsurgency

  437. Sam J. says:
    @dfordoom

    “…The important thing to keep in mind is that for all our hand-wringing and all our indulgences in guilt and for all our pious promises not to do terrible things again we have been just as vicious and just as barbarous as any other culture. And we still are…”

    This is not true. Many cultures when they had the power used mass genocide against others. The Jews have done this many times when they have had a chance to do so.

    You might attempt to say Whites genocided the American Indians but this would not be true as the Indians died from disease primarily. In some cases 90% or more of the population.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  438. @Sam J.

    Nobody knows how to run an economy. There are several proofs that it can’t be done:
    * The difficulty in gathering data on demand and supply makes a control system impossible.
    * Given data, processing it is an NP complete problem. To put it mildly the control system would be slower than real time.
    * Revealed preferences (actual acquisitions) aren’t mental preferences. If nothing else, actual acquisitions say nothing about the desirability of new products. They also say little about relative preferences (e.g. in a famine people might eat many potatoes, but still prefer beef).
    * Nobody knows how to correct for falsified information.

    That Western economies run, however imperfectly, even under massive government intervention, is sort of like the applicability of mathematics to reality: it’s a gift from an unknown source that we neither understand or deserve. Attempts to radically remake it are more apt to stop it then improve it.

    Counterinsurgency

    To get some idea of the problem in the USSR during Kruschev’s attempts at reform see: Spufford, _Red Plenty_

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  439. @S

    We seem to be in violent agreement here.

    Remember, this thread started with an assertion that the current attempts to “change America” were driven by New England and New York City. It think that these assertions have been validated by material cited by other commenters. While the Jewish establishment is important, it is not weakly god-like (whatever it and its enemies may say or believe), nor is it alone, and there have been similar instances of attempts to “change America” in the past, back before that Ashkenazim’s migration to the US.

    This implies something with respect to various contemporary political conflicts.
    I’ve also pointed out that the present factory system of industrialization is not suitable for a literate population, and that at present the West has not alternative to the factory system (nor did the Nazis or the Communists, or for that matter the Japanese or the People’s Republic of China). Pol Pot had an alternative, and it proved to be far worse. The system is being patched up now by finding illiterate populations and putting them in factories. This is, at best, a temporary solution with many bad side effects, and is not sustainable for a given population over even three generations.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @S
  440. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sam J.

    This is not true. Many cultures when they had the power used mass genocide against others.

    That’s my point. Many cultures have done this. Including us. We’re no better or worse than other cultures. Human nature is pretty vicious regardless of what colour people are.

    The big difference is that we’re more hypocritical about it. I don’t think Genghiz Khan ever tried to claim that he had to slaughter millions of people for their own good, to bring them the benefits of freedom and democracy.

    The one thread that runs through western history is hypocrisy.

    And hypocrisy is unhealthy.

    • Replies: @Anounder
    , @Sam J.
  441. @Commentator Mike

    I doubt you’d find any similar public scene of sicko pervy decadence under any of the Bolshevik regimes in the USSR.

    I believe the author was claiming that the decadence was a product of the Jewish need to subvert cultural norms and sabotage the reigning social order. The same impetus would be absent under a Jewish Bolshevik regime.

  442. S says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    Importing “cheap labor” from another culture is suicidal for the importing country. Several generations later, the “cheap labor” isn’t cheap,

    Quite true.

    The problem is bigger than that. The contemporary factory system has proven non-viable thanks to the two class system (managers/owner and workers) that makes it productive. Moreover, nobody has an alternative

    I don’t know, I’ve both owned a business and worked in factories. It seemed to work out okay for both myself and others I’ve known as workers and or owners. Does there have to be ‘an alternative’?

    The last time the US had enough immigration to upset the US political system, the immigration was stopped, and stayed that way for about three decades. We’re probably looking at that again.

    I wish that were correct. You’re far more optimistic than I am about this sort of thing.

    Of course the 1924 immigration restrictions was far more than just about the political system, it was about an attempt by northwest Euros to preserve their race, and why shouldn’t they have?

    And even should such occur regarding a possible restriction of immigration, unless the damage racially is undone, the fanatics pushing the present zeitgeist will simply use it as a stepping stone to continue on when the floodgates are opened once more, just as they did in 1965.

    The ultimate goal as the London Times once put it to create a replacement race for the peoples of the world which is ‘more mixed, more docile, and ‘which can submit to a master’. [From a very multi-cultural 1851 editorial on mass immigration, ‘cheap labor’, and the description of the new Irish which were to repopulate Ireland and replace the Irish]

    I think they could very well be planning to deliberately push this ‘mass immigration’ thing until a Russian style (Red October) Civil War breaks out and a ‘Fall of Capitalism’ takes place with the economic and political collapse of the Anglosphere countries. Somewhere in this it looks like they also want to set off WWIII.

    I don’t know about yourself but I accept that they have long standing plans to create a world state/empire. As things are, unless there’s a radical change in direction, the people at the very top will be unreformed slavers, most everyone else that’s left alive will be atomized individuals living in an Orwellian police state.

    Hopefully I’m mistaken.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  443. S says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    Not everybody does.

    I’d not suggest everybody was.

    I’ve had more than one opportunity to plug into ‘government benefits’ but refused because in general I think it’s unhealthy and can easily create dependence. I’ve personally observed plenty of abuse including a well paid postal employee (my former mail carrier!) in uniform using food stamps (openly acknowledged he was abusing the present day way over generous system) and advise I should do the same.

    At the same time, my suspicion is that if the stalwart Cuban you described was literally starving, he might deign to accept a balogni sandwich and a cup of water from the local Salvation Army, till he quickly got himself a job.

    If he chose instead to starve to death, that’s his affair, but then there is something known as misplaced pride.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  444. Anounder says:
    @dfordoom

    Funny enough, even Genghis Khan gets the Neocon treatment. Jack Weatherford wrote an entire book thanking him for the modern world. Trotted out “religious freedom” and apparently muh democracy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan_and_the_Making_of_the_Modern_World

    That same book even admitted the Mongol’s empire fell to garbage once the bribe money and ultraviolence ran out.

  445. S says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    While the Jewish establishment is important, it is not weakly god-like (whatever it and its enemies may say or believe), nor is it alone, and there have been similar instances of attempts to “change America” in the past, back before that Ashkenazim’s migration to the US.

    You strike upon a most excellent point.

    It’s not healthy if one’s own people (Or a people close to one’s own) have been involved in a significant way in something problematic, and not to acknowledge this, and highlight only or predominately other people(s) who might have been involved to varying degrees. Certainly they should not wallow in it, but as a general principle they should speak of their own first in regards to such a situation, and then the other(s).

    I recall reading one of Nesta Webster’s intriguing books, and she explores in depth the situation regarding the Jewish people, but then would wax lyrically about the wonders of the British Empire (which made me just about gag) without acknowledging that that Empire was a very big part of the problem, and that Anglo-Saxons had played quite a role in creating it.

    That not to knock Anglo-Saxons in general. Every people seems to have a problem when dealing with such blindspots, including all too many amongst the Jewish people who figuratively speak of ‘Goy this’ and ‘Goy that’ as the root of all their problems.

    If that blind spot is not watched and worked on it’s very easy to acquire a sense of powerlessness, and then fall into a spiral of blaming someone else for all your ills.

    the present factory system of industrialization is not suitable for a literate population, and that at present the West has not alternative to the factory system

    As mentioned, I’ve worked in factories as have others I’ve known, and I like to think that they (and I) are literate. 😉 Yes, imperfect, but we got by okay.

    Is there a chance you might be over analyzing the situation, just a tad?

    Anyhow, I’ve greatly enjoyed our lengthy conversation. Certain things we’ll just have to ‘agree to disagree’ on.

    Like yourself probably, I’ve got to be getting out and doing certain things, therefore I’ll leave the conversation here as it stands.

    Adieu, and have a great week Counterinsurgency!

  446. @Anonymous

    At any rate, I agree that Cabaret does in fact present the beginnings of national Socilism in an accurate light, in that they were a reasonble reaction to Antifa and communism given the circumstances.

    The irony is the Nazis played the role of today’s Antifa.
    Antifa is now the thuggish strongarm of Big Capital. Current Antifa is not communist despite its pretensions of radical leftism. It does the bidding of Big Capital and Big Jews. Antifa doesn’t attack Hollywood or Wall Street. It attacks those who speak out against global capital.

    Nazis in their heyday played that very role. That was why Big Industry funded the Nazis. Even though the conservative business class didn’t like the Nazis, it regarded them as useful against the communists who were for abolition of private property. Being anti-communist, Nazis were willing to work for the bourgeoisie.

  447. @S

    I don’t know, I’ve both owned a business and worked in factories. It seemed to work out okay for both myself and others I’ve known as workers and or owners.

    I went over this in previous posts. In the long term, the workers stop working and the managers stop managing and _nobody notices_. Example: the auto industry back in the 1970s. Example: The steel workers, same time. Book: _Innovator’s Dilemma_. Things change, the business doesn’t, and things end.
    Example: once the impoverished states of East Asia managed to get stable government, their evolutionary history of gardening, which required meticulous supervision and considerable hand work, plus their very long history of civilized (most of the time) government. coupled with automated equipment (CNC machine tools and the like) made Western factories obsolete because the American workers quite literally couldn’t exist on East Asian pay. Even gross theft and covert hostility by East Asian management and governments couldn’t quite negate that fundamental advantage (Book: _Poorly made in China_). To date, American industry’s only counter is to suggest high tariff walls and increased automation applied to the same factory system. Which automation will be applied in East Asia, marginal advantage remaining with East Asia. Tariff walls might or might not succeed by exploiting US autarky made possible by fracking.
    Is there an alternative? Nobody is even looking for it (again, see _Innovator’s Dilemma_ about management’s inability to think past current business, and the DNC debates of late 2019/06 to see politician’s inability to think past their non-functional cities model.).

    Of course the 1924 immigration restrictions was far more than just about the political system, it was about an attempt by northwest Euros to preserve their race, and why shouldn’t they have?

    Nope. There was a lot of propaganda about race, but the actual decision makers (the American Establishment) had ignored actual honest to God immigration riots since the 1840s. The American Establishment of the time thought of immigration as cheap factory (and construction) labor, a “golden stream”, and ignored the riots. It wasn’t until McKinley got himself assassinated, the Wall Street dynamite bomb detonated, and the Red Scare that the American Establishment realized that it’s own rear ends were in danger. At that point it acted decisively — far too late. FDR was just over the horizon, voted into office by the descendants of the Golden Stream.

    You have to remember that most people, even (or especially) in leadership positions _just aren’t very good_. They don’t even have _weakly_ god-like powers. They do _really_ stupid things. They work as does evolution seeking local maxima like people in a flood seeking high ground which the flood may eventually cover. It’s the nature of games theory operating in chaotic systems that this is the most survival promoting behavior, but note that it doesn’t favor foresight.
    Hindsight, yes, at which point (when it’s too late) I and others start talking about “_really_ stupid things”.

    Counterinsurgency

  448. @S

    The Cuban was risking both death from his heart condition and starvation from his break with IBM, and he knew it. He thought that working at IBM was worse than death.

    He might have been right.

    Have you noticed that the white population back in the 1950s, the same population that kept the American system going, has not grown all that much, while the POC population will equal the white population by 2040 (if not major changes are made)? Any association with the American system (including employment) severely reduces reproductive capacity. Only those peripherally associated have many offspring.

    One could make a case that the post WW II white population has been effectively enslaved, and their work has been used to support POC children instead of their own. Working as a slave might be considered worse than death.

    Heck, the Old South might be looked at the same way. The population descended from the Old South slaves is much larger than the number of slaves imported, and has grown since WW II, but the non-Hispanic white population of the South has (since WW II) has remained about constant.

    Systems produce strange output, and you can really fool yourself about what they are doing.

    Counterinsurgency

  449. @Sean

    I’m sorry, 50’s Chicago?

    Generally agree with your sentiments though.

  450. Sam J. says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    “…Nobody knows how to run an economy. There are several proofs that it can’t be done:…”

    I’m in some, slight, agreement with this. My understanding of your comment is that there’s no use in trying. I reject this.

    “…* The difficulty in gathering data on demand and supply makes a control system impossible…”

    It’s possible to do this for basic humans needs right now with modern computer processing.

    “…* Given data, processing it is an NP complete problem. To put it mildly the control system would be slower than real time….”

    Depends on what you are trying achieve. As you noted it’s difficult to do everything but what if you’re goal is basic health care, housing, food and transportation??? I suppest this is doable.

    “…* Revealed preferences (actual acquisitions) aren’t mental preferences. If nothing else, actual acquisitions say nothing about the desirability of new products. They also say little about relative preferences (e.g. in a famine people might eat many potatoes, but still prefer beef).
    * Nobody knows how to correct for falsified information

    That Western economies run, however imperfectly, even under massive government intervention, is sort of like the applicability of mathematics to reality: it’s a gift from an unknown source that we neither understand or deserve. Attempts to radically remake it are more apt to stop it then improve it….”

    These points stand but I refer you back to my point that by not trying to solve all problems you side step both these issues.

    Part of the problem is that no matter how much you say it can’t be done there are people, as we speak, that are very active running the economy for their own benefit.

    As a “mild” White National Socialist, except when it comes to Jews, I suspect that there is some set of different rules to run the country under that would promote White people’s interest to a far greater extent than the ones at present without necessarily radically impeding on other races rights, (except the Jews). As for the Jews there’s seems to be no way to run any sort of government historically with them around without dramatically curtailing the Jews actions. Doing so without curtailing their rights has been proven over and over to fail. I suspect that Whites are not racist or cohesive enough as a group to deal with a highly cohesive and racist group like the Jews in our societies who hijack the government for their own purposes. That this is true today can be proven easily by looking at 9-11 and the wars in the middle east we’re presently in which are of no use strategically or tactically to the USA. The wars are for the Jews proving they run the government. The Jews did 9-11.

    The only society I know of that has been 100% proven to deal with the Jews has been the Byzantines, who vastly curtailed all their rights, or those countries that have thrown them out of the country. My favorite remedy is to just throw them out so we don’t have to listen to them anymore. I’ve heard enough of there lies.

    “…To get some idea of the problem in the USSR during Kruschev’s attempts at reform see: Spufford, _Red Plenty_…”

    This is not an accurate guide. Example. Sweden is socialist but it’s not the USSR. Saying a little socialism is just like total commie socialism is not accurate.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  451. Sam J. says:
    @dfordoom

    “…That’s my point. Many cultures have done this. Including us…”
    Other than the American Indian, due to disease not deliberate genocide as I mentioned, when did we do this? I disagree. We’ve never done anything like the Jews.

    There’s a difference between committing war and atrocities against a people for control of the government as opposed deliberate genocide to wipe a people out.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  452. @Sam J.

    Sorry if I gave the impression that economies can be left completely alone. They can’t. Even during the Bronze Age there were laws that kept the peasants in possession of their land and kept businessmen from feeding meat animals with food that could be used to support people. If nothing else, a base population was needed to fight off intruders, either directly (as troops) or indirectly (providing logistic support for professional chariot troops and the like).
    Surprisingly enough, the most notorious case of a group failing to do this was the Judeans, see: Josephus, _The Jewish Wars_. The government of Judea kept its pre-acquisition tax rates unchanged when willed to the Roman Empire, so Roman taxes were added to Judean taxes. This dispossessed very many small farmers, who went North, to the same highly defensible terrain David had used, to be bandits after seeing their families sold into slavery. Not a happy bunch.
    When the Romans got tired of various tumults and invaded, the Judean government then invited these Northern bandits in to Jerusalem to man the walls. The bandits, still a bit resentful, decided to take out the Judean government first, and _then_ man the walls. Didn’t work out — the Judean government personnel were slaughtered, then the bandits started in on the general Judean population and each other. Everything was destroyed, and according to Josephus even the Roman troops surrounding Jerusalem were appalled by the what they could see events from outside Jerusalem’s walls. I’ll spare you the stories.
    Point being that if you don’t manage things correctly (including tax policies) and push the primary producers too hard, bad things can happen and usually do.

    But managing things correctly can be difficult, which brings up NP-complete problems [1]. Very roughly, NP-complete problems let determine when you have a solution, but don’t have any known way of telling what that solution may be except for methods that require 2^n operations for a problem with n inputs. “Traveling salesman” involves n towns, for example. Five towns are easy, but get a few thousand towns and the effort is prohibitive.
    Now, through another undeserved gift we have, there are often approximations to the solution, rules of thumb, and usually then have some estimator of just how close their solutions are. The problem is that (a) there is no known heuristic algorithm for running an economy through mathematical approximations, and (b) if there were, there are no known ways of keeping the inputs reliable, given the enormous incentives for criminals to falsify them. Heck, we can’t even run a factory that has the capabilities of an economy to respond to demand.
    Actually, there obviously is a way to run economies, the one we have now. It’s a distributed system that involves exchanges of a symbol for value (money) for goods and a sort of reckoning that tends to balance the productivity of each person with the consumption of each person. Trouble is that quite a few people aren’t productive (anybody with an IQ under 85 can’t do anything productive in an industrialized economy. That’s about 16% for a population with mean IQ of 100, s.d. of 15, and about 50% for a population with a mean IQ of 85 and s.d. of 12 to 15), and everybody gets upset if the ruling group just let them die; in fact, the population tends to destabilize the political order.

    So something has to be done. As Pol Pot found out, that “something” can be quite destructive. Even Lenin/Stalin, who tried a quite conventional “make the country into an arsenal, then invade the neighbors” approach, crippled their country, which completely reorganized itself in c.a. AD 1990.

    It’s a hard problem. Even the US approach of playing whack a mole with social problems (charities, institutional charities, the welfare state) has found its approach (even with an empire to tax) to have transmogrified into a crusade against “whiteness”, which is attempted genocide by definition.

    Again, Spufford’s _Red Plenty_ is a very entertaining book that is, at least ostensibly, about the UK under N. Khrushchev, but was intended (says the author) to apply to the UK also.

    Wish I had a better solution, and I do have some solutions, but none for the fundamental problem Josephus described so vividly: how do you tell a real solution (such as keeping the peasants on the land and downsizing the priesthood and the governing class) from a real stinker (such as prioritizing keeping the Temple staffed and operational, thus keeping promises to Jehovah, and keeping the governing class stable, thus avoiding an obvious civil war). Nobody knows, and we just get to blunder our way through. Each generation that makes out well describes the blunders of its precedesors as “those fortunate events that brought about our present dominance”, so at least we get to feel good about our history (or used to, anyway).

    We do our best, and hope.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] “What is an NP-complete in computer science?”, answer (4)
    https://stackoverflow.com/questions/210829/what-is-an-np-complete-in-computer-science

    I have heard an explanation, that is:” NP-Completeness is probably one of the more enigmatic ideas in the study of algorithms. “NP” stands for “nondeterministic polynomial time,” and is the name for what is called a complexity class to which problems can belong. The important thing about the NP complexity class is that problems within that class can be verified by a polynomial time algorithm. As an example, consider the problem of counting stuff. Suppose there are a bunch of apples on a table. The problem is “How many apples are there?” You are provided with a possible answer, 8. You can verify this answer in polynomial time by using the algorithm of, duh, counting the apples. Counting the apples happens in O(n) (that’s Big-oh notation) time, because it takes one step to count each apple. For n apples, you need n steps. This problem is in the NP complexity class.

    A problem is classified as NP-complete if it can be shown that it is both NP-Hard and verifiable in polynomial time. Without going too deeply into the discussion of NP-Hard, suffice it to say that there are certain problems to which polynomial time solutions have not been found. That is, it takes something like n! (n factorial) steps to solve them. However, if you’re given a solution to an NP-Complete problem, you can verify it in polynomial time.

    An NP-Complete problem that shows just how much effort it takes to solve NP-complete problems exactly is The Traveling Salesman Problem.”

    Another example, simpler game (and with an animation), is “Tower of Hanoi”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Hanoi
    which takes 2^n-1 moves to solve, and puts you into “grains of rice and chessboard” territory, https://amiracarluccio.com/2018/02/27/ancient-indian-legend-the-rice-and-the-chessboard-storylearning-about-mathematics/

  453. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sam J.

    Other than the American Indian, due to disease not deliberate genocide as I mentioned, when did we do this? I disagree. We’ve never done anything like the Jews.

    We (western civilisation) have carried out butchery on an industrial scale. The two world wars – tens of millions slaughtered. In the case of the First World War, slaughtered to no purpose whatsoever. Horrific atrocities carried out by white people on both sides. Enormous civilian casualties. Women and children slaughtered by Allied bombing raids. The firebombing of Tokyo. The use of nuclear weapons against civilian targets.

    Hundreds of thousands of German civilians starved to death as a result of the British naval blockade in WW1. Hundreds of thousands of German civilian casualties after the end of WW2.

    Maybe half a million Iraqi children dead as a result of American sanctions. If that wasn’t genocide what the hell was it?

    Immense civilian casualties in American wars in Korea and Vietnam.

    Immense civilian casualties in America’s imperialist wars in the Middle East.

    When it comes to carrying out atrocities against civilians then white people, Germans, Americans, the British, all have been guilty.

    Yes, other cultures have carried out similar atrocities. That’s my point. We have been no better than any other culture.

  454. @Bukowski

    And yet no evidence of preparations or plans have ever surfaced.

    Mosier, the smartest of the bunch, mentions it in one unreferenced sentence.

    I am a big fan of Mosier and to me it is the strangest sentence he has ever written.

    That Stalin had intentions that Hitler knew about and therefore Barbarossa was a pre-emptive attack is the biggest load of horseshit ever in the history of history.

    All the evidence that the attack was Hitler’s stated intention goes back to AT LEAST 1924.

    And throwing Irving in there is a self-defeating argument. He is definitely a great writer. Or, at least, Hitler’s War is great – The Rommel biography and some other stuff I’ve read is mediocre. But more of a novelist of the alternate history variety, kind of a cross between Philip K.Dick and Gore Vidal.

    Be serious.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  455. @Johnny Rico

    “And yet no evidence of preparations or plans have ever surfaced”

    You’re talking about the Holocaust?

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  456. @Beefcake the Mighty

    Give it a rest. It was mildly amusing the first dozen times. But you are starting to sound like Wally.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  457. eah says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    …with a riveting performance by Bruno Ganz. I am not sure I have anything more to say about it than that, though.

    Do you have anything to say about the numerous Youtube parodies of the “Der Angriff Steiners war ein Befehl!” scene? — “LOL”

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 Trevor Lynch Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?