Humor Nazis – 23


Episode #23 –
Beetlejuice in Auschwitz

January 27, 1945. Auschwitz.
The Red Army finally arrives…

50 years later…


Posted in humor | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Starship Troopers: The Merits of Militarism

“I know people who read interminably, book after book, from page to page, and yet I should not call them ‘well-read people.’ Of course they ‘know’ an immense amount; but their brain seems incapable of assorting and classifying the material, which they have gathered from books. They have not the faculty of distinguishing between what is useful and useless in a book.” ~Adolf Hitler

In the 1959 novel Starship Troopers, American author Robert A. Heinlein did, perhaps, what many would consider unthinkable at the time: he outlined in great detail his rationale for the merits of militarism as a key component of government, and partially also social, structure. He did this as an American at a time when the mortal enemy of the USA was the USSR, a country with – however crudely approximate – such a system. However, Heinlein was careful to distinguish his ideas from Soviet Communism and, in fact, wrote the book so as to give American society a vision of a powerful alternative to its then (and still) current mode of government, which was facing a very organized and dangerous foe. Critically, Heinlein’s vision does not call for an all around militarization of society, as some would think, rather it is militarism, according to Heinlein, that is best suited for shaping leaders and decision makers. Lastly, while Heinlein’s book is clearly from a bygone era, it was very forward thinking for its time and thus has aged quite well.

Introduction & Background
Starship Troopers was written at the height of the Cold War and, in fact, directly in response to US military policy. The US Government decided to support limited nuclear weapons testing in what eventually became the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 that was signed in the USSR. Heinlein, a dedicated anti-Communist, must have been closely following the political developments of this time, as this book was conceived and written in 1959 or within a year of when the notions that would go on to became the aforementioned treaty were first publicly discussed. The many political references in the book clearly place its creation middle of the 20th Century, however that was unavoidable. It also remains lightly amusing that characters do not discuss much beyond that period when they themselves are well into the 22nd Century!

Quirks aside, Heinlein makes his point and mainstream conservatism and liberalism aren’t too happy. He seems to please conservatives by calling Communism a “magnificent fraud” while calling Karl Marx a “pompous fraud,” seemingly keeping the same tone. Though he then launches six whole adjectives for Marx’s Das Kapital calling it “turgid, tortured, confused, and neurotic, unscientific, illogical” while conceding that it had a “glimmering of a very important truth” since it tried to discuss the concept of value, which is important. Heinlein just defines it much differently, yet still in rigid detail.

Conversely, Heinlein seems to please liberals by stating that “citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotive conviction that the whole is greater than the part… and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live.” An apparently collectivist statement, however, as we shall see, what Heinlein really has in mind here is heroism, not an argument for a higher tax rate on the wealthy.

Finally, Heinlein implies that Communism is essentially bug-like in nature. The Terran Federation, the author’s imagined World State (another “liberal” thing), is fighting a war against a bug species and the book’s narrator laments that even if one Terran infantryman kills one thousand bugs before his own death, it’s a net victory for bugs since the “Bug commissars” use soldiers like the humans do ammo. He even, in a way, praises “just how efficient a total communism can be when used by a people actually adapted to it by evolution.” This mirrors a quote of Hitler’s as it was recalled in Memoirs of a Confidant by Otto Wagener: Communism results in a welfare state where the standards are averaged downward.” [1] Here it’s downward the evolutionary path into an organism of pure survivalist function and lacking greater virtues and ideals.

Not quite conservative, not quite liberal, and a decent attempt at a wholesome imagining of a Third Way state. So how does Heinlein’s imagined society actually look? Let’s see.

Society & Economy
Perhaps contrary to popular notions, Heinlein’s Terran Federation is not a militarized society. He talks in depth about the military and it’s values, however the majority of people either don’t sign up for the military, and many that do opt out without a fuss – more on that later.

First things first, according to Terran Federation law, at 18 years of age a person is eligible for Federal Service and no one, not even traditionalist parents who have raised their kids on total obedience, can legally prevent them from signing up. Discouragement, however, is legal and protagonist and narrator Johnnie Rico’s father tries his best with this when his son raises interest in the military. First rather bluntly, “Son, are you out of your mind?” and then going to recall some childhood mischief of Johnnie’s – breaking an antique vase and then stealing a cigar; an expensive misdeed and then one that made Johnnie sick, the juxtaposition with military service tacitly states that is just a continuation, though now the potential ill effects are severe. Second via traditionalist appeal, Johnnie’s father states that “this family has stayed out of politics and cultivated its own garden for over a hundred years” and Johnnie has no reason to change that. Third by denouncing the Federal Service as a whole: “parasitism, pure and simple. A functionless organ, utterly obsolete, living on the taxpayers. A decidedly expensive way for inferior people who would otherwise be unemployed to live at public expense…” The military bashing can be loosely seen as “liberal” while the rest is seemingly “conservative” with its family values appeal and low view of taxes.

What’s more interesting, however, is the background information. Johnnie’s family hasn’t had a member who served in the military for more than a century, yet they are not out of favor with the government and ruling elite. They live an affluent life with a successful family business. There is no mention of them being coerced to run that business in a certain way, no mention of property being seized as a result of their anti-military stance or anything else, simply put they have been as free as they can hope to be. They may have paid more than desired in taxes, yet this hasn’t taken away from their affluence. In fact, as Johnnie’s officers’ academy instructor Major Reid later states, “many complain, but none rebel… laws are few, taxes are low” thereby echoing Johnnie’s father, who’s not entirely happy, yet also not totally unhappy – he complains about taxes, yet still pays them. Thereby, strongly suggesting that while life isn’t perfect, there is no oppression. This is right along Machiavelli’s tip to his proverbial Prince: the only thing people want from government is to not be oppressed.

Average voter turnouts in many democracies are often very low – well under 50% – even in elections for a president or prime minister. Thus, the Terran Federation’s strict limit on ballot box franchise is more of a difference on paper than in practice. And the opportunity to become a voter or office holder is open to all starting at the age of 18, just after “voluntary and difficult service so that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.” Once, again we see a Third Way position with the “liberal” idea of group welfare mixed with the “conservative” virtue of military service and a “soldierly” attitude. That latter point is important as, according to Heinlein, “a soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member” and is ready to defend it with his life unlike the civilian. Heinlein also classes this as a “moral difference” thus suggesting that citizenship is not just a perk, nor is it a birthright. It is something else altogether – “citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part” – and this is only possible by those who have demonstrated, willingly, that they do not achieve goals solely for personal gain. Military service is difficult, however it may be quit at any time. Even before a combat drop during wartime. However, upon doing so, all authority that citizenship grants is not earned, since the subject has not demonstrated the ability to perform its duties. “Authority and responsibility must be equal” and thus permitting “irresponsible authority is to sow disaster,” aptly worded with an agrarian metaphor to boot.

Heinlein’s view of economics in this not ideal, but workable state of the Terran Federation also bears mention. He once again formulates a Third Position in a way that praises skillful work not stock market surges. Simply stated, “the Marxian [sic] definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into a tart,” which has no real value. Likewise, poor quality work can turn something good, such as “wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess” also with no value. On the flip side, those same ingredients via skillful work can be turned into “a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart” with the same amount of effort as for a regular or mediocre tart. Thus, more skillful – and more efficient – work produces things of better use for the individual and for the community. The key is that the products are better not by simply the amount of work that went into them, rather also the quality and efficiency of that work.

Right on the next page, Heinlein (via his characters) states, “‘value’ has no meaning other than in relation to living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person” and by extension we could say to a particular community. Perhaps the most radical statement here is that “‘market value’ is a fiction, merely a rough guess at the average of personal values” and by our extension, also of community values if a whole state or realm is being considered. Essentially, if something has no use it has no value. Work that doesn’t create something useful is worthless (and unethical) work.

There is also a passionate take down of the saying “the best things in life are free,” which is called “utterly false” and “the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century” since people believed voting will give them all they need.

This is Heinlein’s most direct statement against the society of his time (which continues until today) and aptly demonstrates that his ideas, as with most of this type, cannot be legislated into being. They required a whole new worldview – or Weltanschauung – and the realization that it starts very early, since “even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping and pain.” Thus, our first experience in this world is really a struggle. With the collapse of liberal democracy (as the back story explains), the new society gasped into being and was made sure to never forget how it came to be and the fact that it had earned that position, it was not simply given. And the work put into it wasn’t simply hard and persistent toil, rather it was goal-oriented and purposeful, thus resulting in a stable and functioning state.

“It is out of the moral virtues of the people and not from their economic circumstances that a State is formed.” ~Adolf Hitler

State & Government
All of the public office holders and major decision makers in the Terran Federation have been through a voluntary and tough military service. The purpose of this is so that the decisions they make are for the many and not the few. The seed of that is in military philosophy where recruits are told, “your life belongs to your men and is not yours to throw away in a suicidal reach for glory.” Conversely, a soldier’s life isn’t their own to save either and must be expended if “the situation requires it,” which can only mean achieving a critical and greater goal, or saving more lives than one’s own. This very clearly is the source of the subsequent reflection “welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.” It bears repeating that this is purely voluntary service with plenty of ways to legally get out of it. A soldier can “quit thirty seconds before a drop, lose his nerve and not get in the capsule and all that happens is that he is paid off and can never vote.” Heinlein states that higher virtues such as devotion and loyalty, if they are to be above the usual level of family or tribe requires “imagination that a man must develop himself; if he has them forced down him, he will vomit them out.”

The point of this is that if someone is given a lot of authority, they must have previously demonstrated, willingly, a high level of responsibility – “authority and responsibility must be equal” and this is explicitly stated as being for “moral reasons” in addition to practical implementation. Further according to Heinlein, authority and especially political authority, including the democratic franchise, is force. Since political authority is supreme, only those with equivalent responsibility must be allowed to wield its force. Anything else and there is imbalance and subsequent abuse of force, which essentially sums up human history and its war-prone tendencies where “violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor” and those who have not learned “this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”

This last point is essentially echoing the old Roman adage sic vis pacem para bellum – if you want peace prepare for war – Heinlein provides what was by his time, and definitely is now, a counter-intuitive solution to statehood and justice. In such a just state those who can declare war have been through the same trials as those who will go fight that war, thus will make decisions with more intuition and compassion and not for mercantile and materialistic means. In the Terran Federation, war is declared, at best, for moral reasons or, at the very least, is guided by those principles. Again speaking through one of his characters, Heinlein states that “war is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence to support your government’s decisions by force” and he explicitly adds that war is not just killing the enemy but making him “do what you want him to do” thereby strongly suggesting that the primary intended goal is a balance of force with an enemy and not their destruction, thereby the prevention of total destruction. And who can make such decisions? He who has gone through “voluntary and difficult service so that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.” Heinlein uses the somewhat antiquated general “he” throughout much of the book, yet he clearly doesn’t exclude women from positions of authority as will be seen later.

Staying on the issue of power, yet stepping out of the military sphere, we can see a corresponding version of this idea in Heinlein’s view of technology; “the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue” and it is stated that those heavily involved with technological development often lack social responsibility. Mainly due to the fact that civilians are able to pursue science for their own ends, including profitable business, however this is then checked by the fact that these same civilians cannot wield political authority. Thus, the development and implementation of technology in the Terran Federation is suggested to be careful and purposeful, beyond mere profit. There are many cool sounding passages describing the military technology that the Mobile Infantry use, however each and everyone of these is then used in combat, there is a shortage of officers in the military (despite there being a war), and a general frugality and efficiency permeating through the Mobile Infantry and Navy is clearly conveyed – nothing is just there, useless things have been repurposed or recycled and the military is lean and very cohesive.

The human race in the world of Starship Troopers spans many planets beyond Earth. One of these planets, named Sanctuary, has a significant amount of wheat fields, and the native flora and fauna are fairly weak and under-developed from a lack of natural variety. This is explained by a lack of radiation as compared to Earth and so the primitive environment doesn’t offer many challenges to immune systems, which develop adequate for the planet, but stunted in comparison to other life-bearing planets. While certain Earth diseases are unheard of on Sanctuary, the people and whole environment, on there are at a biological standstill. Since evolutionary progress is slow and unseen day-to-day, and since the population is at an economic advantage due to very simple and high yield agriculture, they have slipped into complacence. The Earth wheat they plant easily pushes aside any native flora, thereby making it a low-labor/high-yield crop and thus very profitable – this could very well be Heinlein’s sly metaphor of colonialism. However, he also offers an interesting solution: “new blood added by immigration” as this will strengthen the people living there, and the implication is that this could also be done to the environment, so as to make a more solid stock of farmers in a healthier environment. This is a racialist and world-building endeavor and one that’s decidedly not for monetary profit, thus the humans are not easily motivated to do it, thereby dooming their subsequent generations to immune system frailty. Thus, the implication is that this group of people needs some of the aforementioned “higher virtues,” not just to survive, but to prevent the pain their subsequent generations will surely face.

Here we come to Heinlein’s view of ethnicity. As we have just seen, he gave an example of total isolationism, ethnic and even biological, with the flora and fauna of Sanctuary being of too few strands to develop like Earth. It seems to be an insular shtetl of a planet, and this in contrast to Earth. An early hint of Heinlein’s view is the main character’s name, which isn’t an Anglophone name as is common in Western fiction. Also, while only revealed roughly 4 pages before the end, Johnnie’s native language is Tagalog and this has implications for several scenes in the rest of the book; namely Johnnie’s interactions with his father must have been in Tagalog. Additionally, Johnnie’s hard as nails drill instructor, Sergeant Zim, states he didn’t speak much English when he first arrived at boot camp and adds that this is common for new recruits. Throughout the book, a very wide variety of names can be seen and while Heinlein doesn’t state it outright, however a multi-ethnic, mono-cultural, unitary, authoritarian realm with militarist tendencies has many precedents in the past.

Imperial China

Persian Akhaimenid Empire

Roman Empire

German III Reich with Unit Patches of German & Foreign Volunteer Units

A particular episode from chapter 5, which takes up most of the chapter, is often used to denounce the book and its message. In it, a soldier gets publicly whipped and then discharged from the army. Yet, going step by the step, it is apparent that the reason the soldier gets very harsh disciplinary action resulting in a discharge (therefore no chance to obtain citizenship) is because he talked himself into it. An officer only convenes a field court-martial after Hendrick, the soldier in question, freely admits to striking a superior – in fact, Hendrick was insisting on getting the Captain to “hear my side of it” during which he talked himself into a bind. The situation wouldn’t even have gone to the Captain if Hendrick hadn’t insisted on seeing an officer and it was then that he volunteered the information, thus effectively forcing the Captain to act on it, since enforcing rules of conduct is a big part of his job. And so what should have been a minor altercation between recruit and sergeant is taken to the most expedient conclusion higher up the chain of command, and it’s one that specifically prevented Hendrick from being executed. In the end, Captain Frankel essentially saved Hendrick’s life by only arranging a field court martial and not a general court martial. This episode takes up about 14 pages and Heinlein made it so elaborate in order to demonstrate the full range of motions pertaining to one incident that can occur in his fictional world. The scene echoes later when Johnnie also experiences a disciplining episode. Thus, far from being some sort of “fascist sadism,” it’s a key scene that shows Heinlein wasn’t just writing a rosy story – the harshness of a logical reality is there.

The corresponding scene to the military discipline episode is actually earlier, where we get some unexpected ease. In the Terran Federation military, mealtime is totally laid back. From the one scene, which takes place in a cafeteria we get the sense that the only rule is that meals have a time limit, however whatever is done during that time is up to the individual – eating, smoking, refilling on coffee or food – and that latter bit seems like the meal hall is a buffet with unlimited refills. And this is during boot camp where there’s “none of that nonsense some boarding schools have of making your life miserable at the table.” The point that both these scenes make is that Heinlein wasn’t interested in presented an idealized world, at least not totally idealized. He idealizes its philosophy and organization, however the way it’s shown to work is merely satisfactory – and it is this, which makes it so tangible and coldly logical.

“Unlimited possibilities are not suited to man; if they existed, his life would only dissolve in the boundless. To become strong, a man’s life needs the limitations ordained by duty and voluntarily accepted. The individual attains significance as a free spirit only by surrounding himself with these limitations and by determining for himself what his duty is.”
—————————————————————~I Ching, the Book of Changes

Between Realism and Idealism
According to Hitler, an ideal nation “represents a triumph over individualism, but not in the sense that the individual aptitude is stifled or the initiative of the individual is paralyzed; only in the sense that common interests stand above individual freedom and all individual initiative” [2] and this strongly reflects Heinlein’s statement (via his book’s characters) that the person who is fit for leadership is one who “places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.” It is doubtful that Heinlein knew just how closely his ideals matched Hitler’s since it was Heinlein himself who created the “Space Nazis” canard with 1947’s Rocket Ship Galileo, thus he was as firmly aboard the propaganda train as most Americans of his time. That said, this is perhaps a strong indicator of Hitler’s universal ideals as someone totally separate from Hitler in everyway came to match those same ideals in what can only be a very compelling case of synchronicity. In Starship Troopers, Hitler gets one passing mention, a fairly neutral one, with juxtaposition next to Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington early in chapter 2.

Heinlein, while writing what is in many ways a bold story, is also severely weighed down by traditionalism and some contradictions. For example, the opening quote to chapter 3, where Johnnie Rico’s military training starts, reads: “He shall rule them with a rod of iron.” ~Revelations 2:25 (it’s actually Rev 2:27). On top of that, some translations of this verse read “shepherd them with an iron rod” where the verb difference reveals the very traditionalist roots of this mentality. A better version needs a few tweaks; perhaps, “He shall inspire them with a Cross of Iron.” There, much better! Throughout the book, there are many references to the Old Testament or Tanakh here and there, such as a commanding officer’s stateroom being called the “Holy of Holies,” as well as chapters 4 and 8 having traditionalist opening quotes.

In one scene this traditionalism goes so far that Heinlein apparently contradicts his own militarist stance by stating that officers’ mess hall etiquette demands that male officers seat the female officers – by pulling their chair out – and this in spite of the fact that women captain many Terran Federation Space Navy vessels. Thus, Heinlein gives women high-level military positions and even explains his reasoning with the science of reaction time (women thus make better pilots), yet at the same time places them in their traditional role of “ladies” to be escorted by “gentlemen.” The whole scene feels more part of a Victorian era drama than bold and forward thinking science fiction at a time when high-level command positions for women were almost unheard of.

This also indicates that while Heinlein was writing a daring book – pro-militarism, explicated Third Position, and overtly anti-racist in a time when “the land of the free” had traditionalist segregation across all strata of society – he is still anchored, at least partly, in a traditionalist reality and thus should be considered carefully.

Wrap Up
Overall, the book Starship Troopers is hardly the images, situations, and ideas we’d expect from a militarist state considering how they are typically portrayed in the politically correct media. Firstly, we get conspicuous portrayals such as the Galactic Empire in Star Wars or the Helghan in the Killzone series, or autocratic states as just token evil bad guys, and though the expanded universe of each sheds some light on the “bad guy’s” perspective it still remains comfortably pro-democracy. Secondly, we have the politically correct, though fairly interesting, Star Trek that makes use of some of the same ideas as Heinlein (“the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”), yet heavily tones down the militarism to a please a democracy-satiated audience. And finally, there are portrayals that ridicule or satirize and the movie version of Starship Troopers went according to this route. Oddly, Paul Verhoeven, the director of the 1997 film adaption of Starship Troopers, stated back in 2016 that the book was “fascistic and militaristic” and that a new film version going back to the novel would fit very much in a Trump Presidency.” [3] Yet, the obvious question is how could Trump, who had no prior experience or desire for civil service, ever pass the rigorous military training requirement? How could someone so hedonistic not quit boot camp, especially since in the book quitting is explicitly said to be easy so as to root out the not truly willing? In the movie version, military service is also a requirement for citizenship and therefore state leadership positions, thus it remains hard to imagine a flesh lump like Trump passing through successfully. The thing is, Trump would fit into the world of Starship Troopers, but as a civilian who runs a business, therefore can satisfy his urge for conspicuous wealth, though he would never get close to holding office and would be under the scrutiny of a militarist state, thus not likely to get very far in his shady endeavors and numerous corrupt business projects.

Verhoeven just bashes militarism as the rest of the politically correct media and everyone he finds too conservative for his tastes is a “fascist,” much like conservatives who call all those too liberal for their tastes “socialists.” It’s an endless loop of dogs each barking at and chasing a tail.

Heinlein actually grappled to present a rounded and applicable presentation of militarism. He tried to make it applicable to not just his then current American society, but also to a future and evolved America where previously divisive conventional boundaries have been largely overcome and an updated set of ideas that weeds out selfish profiteering from leadership has been implemented. And he did this by criticizing – heavily criticizing – the one thing both mainstream Right & Left are terrified of speaking out against: democracy. It is that which leads to problems; it is that which needs reform – according to Heinlein. Some would go even farther, however that discussion can be found in other writings. Starship Troopers is not perfect, however it’s well worth a closer and honest look from Third Position proponents.

“Only when the idealistic longing for independence is organized in such a way that it can fight for its ideal with military force, only then can the urgent wish of a people be transformed into a potent reality.” ~Adolf Hitler

Related Information
Starship Troopers: Spaced Out Fascists – review of the 1997 movie


Notes
[1]
 Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant (1985) by Otto Wagener, p. 115

[2] Hitler’s Revolution (2014) by Richard Tedor, p. 24
Translated from Der grossdeutsche Freiheitskampf Band II by Philipp Bouhler

[3] IndieWire, Paul Verhoeven Slams ‘Starship Troopers’ Remake, Says It’ll Be a Fascist Update Perfect for a Trump Presidency (November 16, 2016)

Posted in Kampf, literature | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Faces in Film I: First Blood

Sword of Elysium: An examination of an interesting and under-explored aspect of film casting from the blog Aryan Anthropology.


Many film-watchers are aware of the artistic techniques and aesthetic choices such as camera angles, music, and lighting which are used in film, but less are consciously aware of the deliberate aesthetic choices regarding the appearance (specifically the face shape) of the actors. Perhaps this is because the archetypical differences in face shapes are often intuitively understood, unlike camera angles for instance which are often consciously studied.

Let us examine the face shapes in a classic American movie.

In First Blood, John Rambo (played by Sylvester Stallone) is a Vietnam veteran who drifts into a small town where he is immediately harassed by the town’s sheriff Will Teasle (played by Brian Dennehy). Teasle tells Rambo that a vagrant like him, especially one with a flag on his Army jacket, is not welcome in his town. The sheriff drives Rambo out of town, but Rambo soon turns around and begins to walk back rather than continue walking 30 miles to the next town. Furious at Rambo’s defiance and indifference towards his “authority,” Teasle arrests Rambo.

At the police station, the officers are seen wearing uniforms with American flag patches of the same size that Rambo has on his jacket, revealing the absurd hypocrisy of Teasle’s earlier statement. Rambo refuses to speak and cooperate, but does not act out against the police until the sadistic officer Art Galt (played by Jack Starrett) triggers flash backs of Rambo’s time being tortured as a POW.

Rambo becomes enraged and escapes the police station with little effort, shattering the illusion of power that the police hold. A manhunt ensues and Teasle orders that Rambo is to be captured alive, but Galt is bent on killing Rambo and later falls to his death after recklessly pursuing him. Rambo comes out to surrender after Galt dies, because he wants no further blood to be shed. Teasle, who is angered by the death of Galt, ends up shooting at Rambo (again revealing his hypocrisy since he told Galt he wanted to capture Rambo alive a few seconds ago).

Teasle’s arrogance is further illustrated when the state police, National Guard, and Rambo’s former Army commander, Colonel Trautman (played by Richard Crenna), are brought into the manhunt. Teasle insists on doing things his way, but the viewer is keenly aware by now that Rambo’s skills are superior to Teasle’s. He demands that the National Guardsmen hunting Rambo do not shoot, but the film immediately cuts to a shootout scene between Rambo and the Guardsmen. The shooting stops when Rambo fires back and the Guardsmen are too afraid to return fire–unambiguously showing us who is really in control.

Later, Teasle admits his desire to kill Rambo to Trautman, showing that his earlier commands to take Rambo alive were presumably so Teasle would have the personal “honor” of killing him.

The differences in personality between the characters are mirrored by their differences in physical appearance, most notably their face shapes. Stallone has an Oblong-leaning face while Dennehy, the other police officers, and most of the National Guardesmen have Round or Square-leaning faces. The officers also appear to be at least a generation older than Rambo, although in real life Dennehy is just 8 years older than Stallone!

Stallone and Dennehy

At the police station, Rambo appears calm and reserved, which is juxtaposed with the officers’ chitchat among themselves and their hot-tempered orders directed towards Rambo. Rambo’s steely demeanor matches up well with his long, chiseled face and provides an excellent contrast towards the officers’ soft-featured, wide faces.

The officers wind up abusing Rambo due to his refusal to cooperate; however, recall that Rambo’s defiance is caused by the officers’ unjust arrogance in the first place. The only officer who appears disturbed by the sadistic treatment is the young officer, whose face is more Oval-leaning than any of the other policemen.

Rambo and the young officer, Mitch (played by David Caruso)

Sadists hosing Rambo (Note: Mitch is the only one not smiling)

Officer Galt to Rambo: “You got about three seconds before I break your face in.”

The police decide to hold Rambo down and give him a dry shave.
This triggers flashbacks of being tortured in Vietnam.

Rambo just wanted directions to a diner, yet
the officers act maliciously towards him for no justified reason.

Later in the film we meet the State Police/National Guard leader and Rambo’s former commander, Colonel Trautman. The State Police Commander has a Square face, which complements officer Teasle’s round face, as well as the wide-faced Guardsmen under his command. Trautman on the other hand appears to have an Oval-leaning face, and although his skin has sagged and wrinkled from age he stands our in stark contrast to the other two men. His face also complements Rambo’s long face.

Personality-wise, Trautman is portrayed as calm and rational. This is contrary to Teasle who has a short temper and orders the manhunt to proceed recklessly despite being warned, and contrary to the State Policeman who acquiesces to Teasle, despite the fact that the manhunt may have gone out of Teasle’s jurisdiction.

State Police Commander Dave Kern (played by Bill McKinney)

Colonel Trautman (played by Richard Crenna)

After the National Guardsmen trap Rambo in an abandoned mine, they become petrified in fear when he returns fire. Too cowardly to advance into the mine and capture him, they decide to blow the mine up. They mistakenly believe this kills Rambo, and proceed to celebrate by posing for a “heroic” photo, which they hope will be featured in newspapers and magazines.

I ain’t going in there!

They are “posers” indeed; Rambo is the real soldier.

While Teasle and the State Police commander are willing to sacrifice the lives of their troops to capture Rambo (recall that he was originally arrested for vagrancy and was willing to surrender without bloodshed earlier!), Trautman comes alone, and offers his personal assistance as an individual. Empathetically viewing Rambo as an individual, rather than a fugitive who needs to be destroyed, an unarmed Trautman eventually walks right in front of the machine-gun-wielding Rambo and convinces him to surrender. This is just moments after the assault-rifle-wielding Teasle is pitifully gunned down.

Teasle’s arrogance manages to escalate the situation from Rambo merely asking for directions to Rambo destroying the whole town, but Trautman is able to stop Rambo.

Rambo is one of the most famous examples of a ‘freedom fighter’ character defying a corrupt system. We should ask ourselves: would Rambo have been as convincing of a hero had Dennehy, or any of the other policemen, switched roles with Stallone? If so, is it because certain face shapes correlate more strongly with the heroic archetype than others?


Originally posted by JJ on Aryan Anthropology.

Related Information: The Aryan Phenotype

Posted in film | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Humor Nazis – 22


Episode #22 – Red vs. Blue, part 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Posted in humor | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Shadows of the Demiurge II – Court History, Tribalism, & the Rotten Root

“Research must remain free and unfettered by any State restriction. The facts, which it establishes represent Truth, and Truth is never evil. It is the duty of the State to support and further the efforts of research in every way, even when its activities hold no promise of immediate, or even early, advantage from the material or economic point of view. It may well be that its results will be of value, or indeed will represent tremendous progress, only to the generation of the future.” ~Adolf Hitler, Table Talk

That quote, by its very existence, pretty much makes the point of this essay. The man deemed to have been the worst human of all time, was more open and friendly towards the issue of research, historical or otherwise, than his vanquishers have permitted be allowed concerning him. This distortion is not merely retrospective. The powers that be, High Finance in London and New York, sensed from the start that Adolf Hitler was not just another autocrat with whom they could stage a war or two and then rake in the results of carefully controlled financial bets. Thus, the distortion started right when Hitler first started to make the news and kicked into full steam when he was elected into office.

George Orwell’s take on Mein Kampf

A case study of this distortion can be seen in the form of George Orwell’s review of the English translation of Mein Kampf. [1] Orwell was passionately against tyranny, yet as with so many others, he was too shocked by Hitler’s radicalism to understand it and demonstrated some epistemic arrogance, both of which are common when taking the popular view of Hitler. For instance, Orwell mentions almost right away, “the obvious intention of the translator’s preface and notes is to tone down the book’s ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light as possible.” However, at the start of the next column he states that the writing of the book in question is “clumsy.” A very exemplary contradiction, which demonstrates how Hitler has been treated: he is whatever the mainstream historian needs him to be in a given moment – monster, fool, or evil genius – even within the span of one short essay. Additionally, Mein Kampf is hardly ferocious, it’s a long train of thought dictation that was typed out and this was before Hitler had achieved his now famous levels of speech mastery. Thus, it is closer to clumsy than ferocious, though really it’s just one man’s worldview at one point in time, and written out as to appeal to a wide voting demographic. Things get repeated and over-explained more than once, yet it’s still more bearable in its 640 pages than 18 months of mudslinging of a typical presidential election campaign.

Orwell than states that “both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism.” They did agree to that, however that doesn’t make it true and only shows the aforementioned epistemic arrogance – they thought that they knew, they assumed after making some comfortable generalizations. This is then reinforced by Orwell’s claim that internal evidence from the text of Mein Kampf gives proof that Hitler has “rigidity of his mind, the way in which his worldview doesn’t develop” thereby making Hitler seemingly a conservative, especially when he later states, “he [Hitler] was financed by the heavy industrialists, who saw him as the main who would smash the Socialists and Communists.” What’s wrong with that assertion? The fact that Hitler was a radical Socialist, thus he challenged the rules of mainstream Socialism brought about by Marx (who advocated class warfare and a dictatorship of the proletariat) as much as he stood up to his own state’s establishment. In the end, Hitler enacted a wide-ranging revolution that united German citizens of various classes, thus creating a folk. Rich industrialists were still Germans, thus Hitler valued their potential loyalty and when he got it, he made sure they could continue their trades, albeit in a new context. Marx and Trotsky would have just killed them, yet they remain the “people’s heroes” of the mainstream Left.

Lastly, as recalled by Otto Wagener, Hitler eventually wanted Mein Kampf pulled from wide circulation as he felt it was archaic and would have written it differently at that point, or not at all. To this effect, even before attaining power, he compiled many of his speeches into Zweites Buch, which updates many things from Mein Kampf and there is further evolution of thought in Hitler’s Table Talk, however that wasn’t available in 1940. Zweites Buch wasn’t either, though the speeches it is based on were available to be heard and they received press coverage, yet it looks like Orwell missed them. Ironically, this means he is treating Hitler’s first book with the same dogged and dogmatic approach as is typical of neo-Nazis. Epistemic arrogance – being sure that you know more than you actually do – par excellence.

It only gets worse when Orwell proclaims that what Hitler envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of “living room” (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or thereabouts), a horrible brainless empire in which, essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young men for war and the endless breeding of fresh cannon-fodder.” Operation Barbarossa, the Axis attack on the USSR, never had a final goal of anywhere near Afghanistan, and even the vaguely and ominously presented Generalplanost was also never claimed to have such a goal. [2]

Finally, Orwell claims, “Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.” Given the amount of sensational information available, many would be quick to take this at face value. Many web pages with Orwell’s article contain the quote and some frame it as an apt paraphrase. Hitler would have certainly meant the first, struggle, given that Germany was in dire straits when he took office, yet Orwell couldn’t resist the typical morbid spin that’s pinned onto any picture of Hitler. About two months after this Mein Kampf review, it would be Winston Churchill who would much more accurately live up to Orwell’s proclamation when he said “I have nothing to offer, but blood, toil, tears, and sweat” on May 13, 1940 to the House of Commons.

The rest of the two-column article is much in the same vein. Some would excuse it as “just wartime propaganda” and a morale booster the side producing it, which could be seen as fair, however only if the other monstrous exaggerations about Hitler and the Axis are also seen (finally) as just that.

Court History – An Old Trend

Orwell’s short article represents a broader trend in British and Western historiography, one where sensational trends are normalized and then accepted at face value. One of the most famous examples of court history is William Shakespeare’s Richard III, which was written to appease the then ruling dynasty that had won a bitter civil war before ascending to power. This was the culmination of a trend that began shortly after the king’s death and the famous Bard “was merely completing, with typical embellishment, a job already started by artists and historians – immortalising Richard III as a crookback Machiavel and implicitly championing his vanquisher, Henry VII, as founder of a heroic new dynasty: the Tudors.” However, historians who wanted a comfortable place under the new dynasts wasted no time and “portrayed Richard as an anti-Christ: born with fully grown teeth and hair, as well as uneven shoulders, the right higher [than] the left.’” For the sake of sensationalism, King Richard III’s abnormal shoulder was subsequently switched to the left “presumably to play up Richard’s sinister side (sinister being Latin for left).” This appearance “would thereafter become the norm in pictures of him, Richard has uneven shoulders, villainously thin lips and malevolently narrow eyes.[3]

Despite this sensationalism on page and stage, King Richard III’s more objective descriptions, in documents among others, show him to be “a brave and astute military leader, who also introduced the nation’s first form of legal aid[3] and that “King Richard III was more of a handsome surf dude than a hideous misfit.’”[4] Many stage productions have starred actors with large noses, performing with an intentionally poor posture, and relishing his orders to have people murdered or sent to the infamous Tower of London.

Looking at the greater context, we can see that “England was largely unstable during the reign of the Tudors, which explains the continued need for pro-Tudor, anti-Plantagenet propaganda… Throughout the Tudor era, there is a correlation of instability and anti-Yorkist propaganda. A major component of this propaganda was the attempt to sale the Renaissance image of the Tudors as the rightful monarchs who saved England from the “dark ages” and the brutality of the Plantagenets… Because Henry Tudor’s claim to the English throne was weak and the Tudor dynasty was challenged for nearly its entirety, anti-Plantagenet propaganda was heavily relied upon. While the Tudors were immortalized by William Shakespeare as the saviors who vanquished a hunchbacked, Machiavellian tyrant…Tudor propaganda vilified Richard III with the notion that malformed bodies house twisted minds.” [5] And thus, the Tower of London, for its association with Richard III has had a corresponding demonization. A place with a clear function, that changed notably overtime, has been re-imagined into a death trap of a megalomaniac to please the political needs of the establishment.

Interestingly, author Jane Austen expressed her support for revisionism about Richard III and wrote, “The character of the prince has been in general very severely treated by historians, but as he was York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a very respectable man.” She refused to accept the idea that Richard III killed his nephews. [6]

Court History – Still Relevant

“We apply to the behavior of our own governments a generosity of interpretation which we do not extend to others. People regard Hitler as wicked; and then find proofs of his wickedness in evidence, which they would not use against others. Why do they apply this double standard? Only because they assume Hitler’s wickedness in the first place.”
————————————~A.J.P Taylor, Origins of the Second World War

Much like Richard III in his time (though mostly after), Adolf Hitler has been imagined, re-imagined, and revised every which way to make him into the model evil that the post-WW2 establishment desires. George Orwell’s review of Mein Kampf is at the beginning of that still relevant trend. Orwell resorts to rather simplistic accusations of calling Hitler mad and vicious, while missing the greater picture of how the NSDAP transformed life in a chaotic and broken Germany. This last part cannot all be his fault, as the British press and government tightly controlled information about Germany. They point at Goebbels’s propaganda yet miss their own. The above A.J.P. Taylor quote really applies to all members of the NSDAP, not just Hitler. Additionally, Goebbels spent most of his time on domestic enemies and only published crude portrayals of Churchill (and others) as reactions to incidents. For instance after a Jewish drifter with little to know apparent connections or social standing, gunned down a German diplomat and than magically found himself with a defense lawyer, Goebbels suspected a greater plot, thus published a piece in the NSDAP newspaper calling several British politicians, including Churchill, “Jewish murderers.” [7]

Yet, as early as 1933, right after the NSDAP was elected into office, former German Chancellor Brüning (who was not and never became an NSDAP member) wrote that, “foreign correspondents reported that the River Spree was covered with the corpses of murdered Jews.” Yet this was an obvious (and absurd) exaggeration as Brüning also noted that, “At that time, he pointed out, hardly any Jews had suffered except for the leaders of the Communist Party.” [7] Despite not being an ally of Hitler (more of a pragmatic collaborator), Brüning was outraged at these press lies that were making Germany’s situation difficult from abroad, despite the fact that the domestic situation was beginning to calm down at that time.

This press attack continued until 1945 and the propaganda lasts to this day. It’s even come full circle back to King Richard III due to the 1995 film version of Shakespeare’s play.

Coming full circle: Richard III Reich!

The House of York is represented as with comic book fascist aesthetic, while the House of Lancaster is shown with more traditional Anglo aesthetic. Thus, many English seem to be steadily retconning their own history so much that that now they’ve apparently “defeated the Nazis” well before “the Nazis” even existed.

A much smaller example of this is the “traditional” meal called “the ploughman’s lunch,” which is a pub meal usually consisting of bread, pickles, cheese, onion, and served with a beer. The truth is that it is nothing more than a marketing gimmick that was meant to increase the sales of cheese, yet by now the notion that it’s an old part of English culture is taken as self-evident by many. There is a British film from 1983 called The Ploughman’s Lunch that actually criticizes this, since it uses the title to convey a theme of “the way countries and people re-write their own history to suit the needs of the present.” [8] The historiography surrounding King Richard III and Adolf Hitler most definitely fall into this category.

Hitler, even more so than Richard III, has been promoted as the standard for “evil psycho” so much so that we get movie quotes like this in the 1993 film The Last Action Hero:

Benedict (the film’s satirical villain):
“Since you are about to die anyway, I may as well tell you the entire plot. Think of villains, Jack. You want Dracula? Dra-cool-la? Hang on.”
[takes out the magic ticket that can summon movie characters]
“I’ll fetch him. Dracula, huh? I can get King Kong! We’ll have a nightmare with Freddy Krueger, have a surprise party for Adolf Hitler, Hannibal Lecter can do the catering, and then we’ll have a christening for Rosemary’s Baby! All I have to do is snap my fingers and they’ll be here. They’re lining up to get here and do you know why, Jack? Should I tell you why? Hmm? Because here, in this world, the bad guys can win!”

Note that Hitler is the only historical personality mentioned and all others are fictional. Interestingly, this is entirely what Hitler’s image has been reduced to and its current mainstream worth is just as much: an over-the-top fictional villain. Not enough people bother to understand him and take him in context.

Jewish filmmaker Claude Lanzmann even stated that trying to understand Hitler would be an obscenity and further stated in an interview with Le Monde on June 12, 1997 that “not understanding has been my iron law.” [9] Lanzmann’s over 8-hour film, simply titled Shoah, made no use of archival materials, just face-to-face interviews (sometimes with a hidden camera), and digging into people’s memories and emotions thus, crafting something more along the lines of a dark fairy tale, oddly one that perfectly fits into the Jewish religion, thereby making it an “aggadah” (a Jewish-told story that is recognized as Jewish canon) and not a research piece. Lanzmann proudly admitted that Shoah contains “not one second of archival material.” [9] And so, just as Judeo-Christian traditionalism before it, this “documentary’s” information is taken as sacred truth, all else is heresy. What followed was everything from Schindler’s List to the Wolfenstein series, all taken at face value.

The retrospective distortion and narrative discipline surrounding traditional Western WW2 mythos has been frighteningly impressive. People are seemingly unaware of just how many times the story has actually been reverse engineered due to new revelations, yet still presented as self-evident truth.

The Orwellian Memory Hole & Doublethink in Action

This is a form of gas-lighting and it’s clearly a part of Zionist doctrine and narrative discipline. They recreate the past and then act as if nothing’s ever changed. Orwell also addressed this, albeit after the war, in the anti-Soviet book 1984 with the following passage: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” The Potemkin villages, architectural follies, and highly stylized presentations at camp museums such as Auschwitz and Majdanek are all part of this phenomenon.

Mainstream and politically correct historiography focus only through this artificial prism and thus only ever see atrocity, repression, resistance, dissent, and never the genuine social situation and considerably raised living standards brought about by the NSDAP, the diplomatic efforts by Hitler to secure allies, and the struggle against Materialism and Consumerism, Communism and Capitalism.

George Orwell would be terrified of the mythos he participated in creating if he knew just was he involved in at the time of his Mein Kampf review.

The Rotten Root of the Western Mind

Numbers 33-52Israel’s viciousness explained
“Drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places.”

Deuteronomy 7-5Israel’s viciousness further explained
“This is what you are to do them: Break down their altar, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire.”

Deuteronomy 7-6the “chosen people” idea
“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.”

Deuteronomy 9-14Only Islam has violent fanatics?
“Let me alone, so that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven.”

Deuteronomy 20-16Zionist plan for the Middle East
“For in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes.”

A religion that bases itself around such ideas cannot be regarded as peaceful. While Christianity and Islam also embrace, to a degree, the same book, for those religions it is only a part – a historically contested one, at that – of their canon. People like the Cathars have interpreted Christianity solely around the charismatic personality of Jesus, as did Thomas Jefferson with The Jefferson Bible. [10] Yet, these efforts were regarded as heresy and killed off (in spirit of the above quotes) or forgotten. For all the fuss about Islam, less than one percent of Muslims are supporters of fanatical interpretations of their faith, as with Christians. With over a billion believing members (of all stripes) that 1% is numerically enough people to give the sensationalism-seeking media a lot of fuel.

The problem is that, per capita a great number of Jews are openly supportive, defensive about, or willfully ignorant (thereby tacitly complicit) in the violence that their religion breeds and spreads. Ku Klux Klan Christians members and ISIS Islamist fighters (perfectly capturing the spirit of the Old Book) are violent, though mostly honest about their actions and intentions.

Fanatical Jews are not. They hold professorships, positions in finance and government, the media, and the whole swath of influential fields. Thus, with a religion that views and openly professes its members to be an exclusive inner-circle to the deity that created everything, it is no surprise they interpret everything and continually act through that prism. One dead Palestinian (or any-non Jew) is almost always brushed off as “at the wrong place at the wrong time” or “a possible terrorist” while a dead Jew is always a “victim of ever present anti-Semitism and hate.”

Judaism is the ultimate example of “us vs. them.” The entire religion is built around this premise. And so, the Jewish religion always needs an Amalek to compare goyim to. The Amalekites were a tribe massacred by the Ancient Hebrews (according to their canon) and this is seen as a good thing, since YHWH commanded the Hebrews to do it.

Deuteronomy 25:17-19
“Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!”

That story, Jewish religious canon, has been taken at the word of rabbis and priests and imams for centuries. One could argue that it is one of the corner stones of what is commonly dubbed “Western Civilization.” The modern American notion of rooting for the underdog can even be seen as a distant echo of this and other originally Jewish stories, such as David and Goliath. Yet modern research and rationalism (often dubbed “hate speech”) has largely disproven this, or rather proven it to be simply a story. There is not only no historical veracity for the Book of Exodus, there is even substantial reason to believe that labor in Ancient Egypt [11] was far different from the toils of slavery typically presented. [12]

Think about it: the Tanakh, along with all the clerics who support it and claim it to be a foundational element of the modern word are totally lying. This is far beyond things such as fan-based cosplay (really a form of religion) that seemingly takes story characters too seriously. No one has launched a war in the name of Samus Aran or Aragorn, however in the name of the Covenant with YHWH millions have perished throughout history and continue to do so today. Those claiming to be the moral base of Western Civilization are rotten and so is their biggest creation.

The echoes of fallacy ring abundantly in Jewish tribal mythology.

Daniel 3:19-23the original “Holocaust” tale?
“Then Nebuchadnezzar was furious with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and his attitude toward them changed. He ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than usual and commanded some of the strongest soldiers in his army to tie up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and throw them into the blazing furnace. So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace. The king’s command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace.”

If that bears any resemblance to any “Holocaust” stories you may have heard before, it’s no coincidence. The echoes of fallacy ring abundant in Judaism. One over-the-top and martyr-obsessed story follows another and each time shock value covers up the stupid. These days, many Jews are conceding that those morbid old stories are just stories and legends, yet the core of Judaism remains the same and it still needs an Amalek, a Pharoah, a Nebuchadnezzar, a Hitler – a singular image to satisfy its masochistic need for the endless suffering of their ancestors that has given Jews their purpose since the inception of their cult. These tales are the “aggadahs” (Jewish stories that are recognized as Jewish canon) and provide a great deal of slithery maneuverability for the ever evolving and self-serving Jewish tribal mythology.

“They presume to be God’s only people, to condemn all the world, and they expect that their arrogance and boasting will please God, that he should repay them with a Messiah of their own choosing and prescription.”
——————————————-~Martin Luther, On the Jews & Their Lies

Hitler is the latest incarnation of Amalek; therefore any and every bit of information about him, which conflicts with the YHWH cult’s purpose is to be effaced from record and replaced with the lurid and false. Oddly, the Jews accuse Amalek (in all of his incarnations) of trying to do just that and thus the villains in their tales often act like this:

Xerxes (in a very fictionalized rendition):
There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories! Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned. Every Greek historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Sparta, or Leonidas, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!

Zionist Correctness and censorship seem to be on the way of perfectly resembling their own version of the ultimate villain! Yet, in the 300, the Persian Empire is said to consist “of a thousand nations” (with one absolute monarch) and it is attacking a small, ethnic enclave – this rings “Israeli fantasy” more than anything and the sequel, 300: Rise of an Empire even had an Israeli director. It’s no coincidence that Iran, Israel’s biggest geopolitical rival, was depicted with Israeli and Western approval as so vicious. Just imagine is Iran released a fictionalized account of the past, however one that favor’s Iran’s image at the expense of Israel: the Zionist outcry would be deafening, “it’s not free speech, it’s hate speech,” etc.

Rays of Hope – Old & New

Despite all of Western Civilization’s retrospective distortion & narrative discipline about Hitler, Islam, and everything “non-Western,” one can find within that mass many positive things that could very well lead to the reformation of or total revolution within Western Civilization. For example, little do most people know, the image of Ancient Israel (as depicted in Jewish canon) was reviled in the early United States:

“Could we permit ourselves to suppose that the Almighty would distinguish any nation of people by the name of His chosen people, we must suppose that people to have been an example to all the rest of the world of the purest piety and humanity, and not such a nation of ruffians and cut-throats as the ancient Jews were; a people who, corrupted by and copying after such monsters and impostors as Moses and Aaron, Joshua, Samuel and David, had distinguished themselves above all others on the face of the known earth for barbarity and wickedness. If we will not stubbornly shut our eyes and steel our hearts, it is impossible not to see, in spite of all that long-established superstition imposes upon the mind, that the flattering appellation of His chosen people is no other than a lie which the priests and leaders of the Jews had invented to cover the baseness of their own characters, and which Christian priests, sometimes as corrupt and often as cruel, have professed to believe.” ~Thomas Paine (US Founder) The Age of Reason

This distrust and outright disgust with the Jewish religion and its related concepts should have become the norm for the new and transforming American culture. The culture and ideas to originally develop in the Americas were also ones in philosophical opposition to the Demiurge YHWH of the Jews. As noted above, Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the Bible by putting together just the story of Jesus and his parables. [10] Another good example of this can be seen in Chief Seattle’s words to the Federal Government, which requested permission to buy some of the Chief’s people’s lands. [13]

“Your God is not our God! Your God loves your people and hates mine!”

“The white man’s God cannot love our people or He would protect them.”

“The Red Man has ever fled the approach of the White Man, as the morning mist flees before the morning sun. However, your proposition seems fair and I think that my people will accept it and will retire to the reservation you offer them. Then we will dwell apart in peace, for the words of the Great White Chief seem to be the words of nature speaking to my people out of dense darkness.”

“Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come, for even the White Man whose God walked and talked with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We will see.

Joseph Campbell, in his book, The Power of Myth, presents an idealized version of Chief Seattle’s words – ones that more perfectly fit his over all message – yet their underlying theme is strikingly similar. The Chief points out the that the “white man’s” god is exclusive and not universal, while Campbell points out the hypocrisy intrinsic to the Tanakh or Old Testament.

“The Ten Commandments say, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Then the next chapter says, ‘Go into Canaan and kill everybody in it.’ This is a bounded field. The myths of participation and love only pertain to the in-group, and the out-group is totally other. This is the sense of the word ‘gentile’ – the person is not of the same order.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth, p.28 [14]

Both of their descriptions (one tacit, the other direct) of YHWH, also imply a need for cooperation across conventional (e.g. tribal) boundaries, which is essentially folkism, a common future. This is in stark contrast to how Judeo-Christian-inspired colonialism treated the new peoples that it happened upon, seeing them as objects of exploitation instead the call for unity and cooperation, which is what Chief Seattle condemns and warns about. The Chief even announces that he still holds trust in, and thus potential cooperation with, European-Americans despite his people having suffered; again stark contrast to the Judaic nature of “war-cry in the struggle with other nations” as Schopenhauer put it. Similarly, Campbell, despite being raised in a traditional Catholic home, realizes the nature of that religion. He spends much of The Power of Myth discussing how universal heroic myths are and, in fact, should be seen, so as to unite across conventional lines.

“We need myths that will identify the individual not with his local group but with the planet.” – p. 30

“Is the hero of a given state or people what we need today, when the whole planet should be our field of concern?” – p. 155

“Today there is no out-group anymore on the planet. And the problem of modern religions is to have such compassion work for the whole of humanity.” – p. 215 [14]

Campbell also goes so far as to say that the Founders of the USA “did not believe in the Fall” along with the fact that the motto “In God We Trust” doesn’t refer to “the god of the Bible” (YHWH), rather a universal transcendence to which all people can connect, thus outright saying that the founding principles of the Unites States of America were Gnostic, not Judeo-Christian. [14]

American architecture – all that’s missing is a Swastika!

Not surprisingly, Campbell has been accused of “anti-Semitism” despite only criticizing the Jewish religion (and even that, rather indirectly), yet the Tribe always seek to nip in the bud anything that could threaten their hegemony of accepted ideas, aka Western Civilization. Thus, it is even less of a surprise that a work exalting a universal heroic myth for the new century, a myth across conventional lines of ethnicity (thus no room for a “chosen people”), was instantly targeted by those who would lose out from it. In fact, what has commonly been called “European anti-Semitism” with the likes of Luther, Goethe, Fichte, Schopenhauer, and others can be seen in Paine’s and Campbell’s words in their refusal to exalt the Tanakh/Old Testament and in fact call it outright vicious. Even more interesting is that ideas directly compatible with those thinkers and philosophers were present in the Americas and they were the norm before Western Traditionalists stamped them out.

Despite the insistent narrative discipline of America being Judeo-Christian – only the dominant and currently most corrupt faction is – there are other viewpoints that, in varying degrees, wean towards idealistic folkism, or ones that can be seen as stepping stones towards that ideal. These must be rallied to rebuild a new American Folk, one more along the lines of what Chief Seattle tacitly suggested and Campbell outright said.

We can start this by a less dogmatic and much more intuitive approach to the current foundations of morality and history. The big thing here is redefining who and what is good and who and what is bad. Given who owns the press, it is not difficult to figure out why we’re bashed over the head with “evil Hitler messages” on a regular and frequent basis.

One’s real, the other’s fake – which one do you see?

Nevertheless, even in this mainstream morass there are some glowing embers worth noting. One of these is RHS Stolfi’s 2011 biography titled, Hitler: Beyond Evil & Tyranny, which is the first major work on Adolf Hitler to not hold pre-existing antipathy towards its monumental subject. AJP Taylor, as quote above, was the first to present this idea, however Stolfi has based his entire examination with this in mind, noting that, “the conventional wisdom fails us on both fronts. With stubborn uniformity, it presents Hitler as a one-sidedly shabby, wicked figure who coveted power, and it presents the historical situation as one in which a legally bedecked European status quo of 1919 had come under attack by a German leader with the qualities of an international criminal.” And also more succinctly with, “The point of such a critique is that the biographers feel compelled to take liberties with Hitler that are unheard of in virtually any other similarly important historical figure.[15]

Basically, the entire Western, and largely also World, understanding of Hitler has been wrong and very obviously influenced by Judaism’s selective ethics and morality that are the rotten root of Western Civilization. “The hunt for Hitler has been for the wrong man in the wrong historical background” and with the wrong expectations. Hitler was against Western Civilization, or at the very least, at what it had become, therefore applying Western standards in judging and analyzing him can’t work. Hitler was outside of the corrupt Western power structures that his contemporaries – Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, DeGaulle, and others – were all an intrinsic part of. “It would be tempting to argue that Hitler had become dictator and, like all dictators in all times and places, had become subject to the influence of cabals and court favorites in making high political policy. Perhaps uniquely in history, Hitler escaped this universal condition. He was under the influence of no other man and cannot be said to have been constrained either by democratic constitution or Communist-style central committee.[15]

This very obvious example of supreme individualism in Hitler is then used to denigrate him. “In a word, the biographers handle Hitler as if he should have been a well-educated lawyer, social scientist, or aristocrat bred for imperial leadership rather than the informally educated but intense, willful, imaginative artist and messianic personality that he was.” [15]

And as far as Americanism is concerned: “The writers in these established democracies and others like the United States denigrate Hitler for his lack of formal education, his rude family environment, and his exaggerated dreams of success. Ironically, these characteristics read like the semi-mythical “American dream” wherein the young man with limited formal education, rude background, and dreams of success triumphs.” And then we can examine Hitler’s implementation of a new – totally new – regime based on the ideas of idealistic nationalism and the folk community, which is also denounced as vicious and unfair, yet, as Stolfi rightfully points out (the rather obvious): “The Russian Revolution as directed by Lenin, notwithstanding, or perhaps as proven by, its final consolidation under Josef Stalin, stands as clumsy, brutal, and misdirected (i.e., at the wrong time and place, but nevertheless bloodily pushed through). Hitler intended a similarly fulsome revolution and has been interpreted as a one-dimensional crude and brutal propagandist, but his seizure of power stands as a monumental address to practical reality and historical continuity. And in contrast to the Communist revolution in Russia and the Communist attempts at revolution in Germany from 1918 through 1923, Hitler’s were virtually bloodless. This is then compounded by the fact that in 1933 when Hitler finally entered the ranks of the German government, charisma and all, he would “proceed later in the year to seize power with the bloodless yet revolutionary synchronization of much of German affairs with the party.” [15]

Diving right into such a nuanced and much more realistic picture of Hitler, that commends his military service in WW1; his tastes and knowledge of art, opera, and architecture; his unusual, yet remarkable work discipline; as well as his general respectful attitude toward everyone may be a bit much for people who have been force fed the usual. Thus, as a soft starter to revisionism, the curious reader can watch the excellent episode on CorbettReport titled, History Is Written By The Winners. [16] This concerns the First World War, yet it goes well with the second section of this essay concerning the fact that court history is an old trend.

For those looking to dive into the deep end, I would recommend the excellent book, Lectures on the Holocaust – Controversial Issues Cross Examined by Germar Rudolf, which details the flaws in the way the Holocaust phenomenon is taught with its selective and highly subjective views akin to what is done with studies on Hitler.

“The fact is that Langbein, as a communist and a long-time Chairman of the Auschwitz Committee, played a central role in terms of Auschwitz propaganda not just during the war, but afterwards as well. It is also interesting that the Auschwitz Committee was first headquartered in Polish – i.e., Stalinist-ruled – Krakow: it was therefore clearly a Stalinist organization.” [17]

To be clear (and fair to them), the aforementioned researchers, the late R.H.S. Stolfi, James Corbett, and Germar Rudolf (despite the latter’s incarceration for his work) are not supporters of National Socialism. Nevertheless, all of their work challenges the rotten root of Western Civilization in much the way Hitler’s did and this only speaks to National Socialism’s universal nature, as opposed to tribal and/or cult exclusivity.

A loyal soldier of National Socialism had this to say: [18]
A true National Socialist and idealist, not a neo-Nazi parroting Jewish tribalism.

Concluding Remarks

The issue with revisionism, and it’s always been the case throughout history, is that it negatively affects those in power and the masses do not perceive the good that they can get out of it. Thus, the problems it tries to address are largely unnoticed or misunderstood. And when it comes to addressing problems, be they historical, environmental, or traffic statistics, if there isn’t some catastrophic example it remains difficult to grab people’s attention. The problem with revisionism concerning the greatest personality of the 20th Century is that the problems stemming from his defeat are much of the fabric of the current world system – Communism and post-Communist regimes (cosmetic changes only) in much of the world, Zionism in the Eastern Mediterranean that serves as model for tribalists everywhere, the continued shadow hegemony of world finance – and thus never seen as having one root. The necks of the hydra are visible, while the body they share remains unseen. The greatest power of this hydra is silencing discussions on the fact that it is, in fact, a hydra and not a mishmash of random or maybe related serpents.


Notes:

[1] From The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Volume 2 (1968) OR an online text version here.

[2] Inconvenient History, Three Aspects of the German Deportation of European Jews into the Occupied Eastern Territories, 1941-1944 (July 7, 2013)

[3] The Telegraph, Richard III: Visions of a Villain? (Jan 20, 2013)

[4] Daily Mail, King Richard III was not a grotesque hunchback but actually a handsome gentleman with a ‘surf dude’ vibe, expert says (Nov 21, 2018)

[5] Recreating Richard III: The Power of Propaganda (2016), pp. 45-46

[6] Jane Austen, The History of England (1791)

[7] David Irving, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, (1994), pp. 419, 293

[8] BFI Screen Online: Ploughman’s Lunch The (1983)

[9] The Journal of Historical Review, “The Dictatorship of Imbecility” – Nov.-Dec. 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 6), pages 8-10.

[10] Thomas Jefferson, The Jefferson Bible (1820)

[11] Exodus Debunked: Slave trade was not common in Ancient Egypt (June 2, 2017)

[12] Reuters, Egypt tombs suggest pyramids not built by slaves (January 11, 2010)

[13] Chief Seattle’s Treaty Oration (1854), translated & published in Seattle paper in 1887

    • Version 1 – first translation, most authentic version from 1887
    • Version 2 – purported to be from 1855, published 1983
    • Version 3 – purported to be from 1885

[14] Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth (1988)

[15] R.H.S. Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil & Tyranny (2011)

[16] Corbett Report, Episode 350 – History Is Written By The Winners (December 14, 2018)

[17] Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust – Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, p. 314 (2nd Ed. 2010), p. 379 (3rd Ed. 2017)

[18] Radio Islam, Interview with General Otto-Ernst Remer with Al-Shaab (July 1993)

Posted in history, Kampf | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

House Cleaning – aka updates

There have been several updates all around the blog.

Updated Pages:
Media 1 & Media 2, the former of which includes a new video.
An update of an old NS activism classic.

Also new pages that were put up without announcement, so here it is belated.

Posted in update | Tagged ,

Humor Nazis – 21


Episode #21 – Memery Lane

Big Papa Bearaboo★☭ is appalled at his brood

The Bearaboo’s★☭ basis for its Worldview has unraveled.

Paradoxically, the Bearaboo’s★☭ sworn enemy, yet spiritual twin.

One of these two guys is the daddy of the Right Wing Fatass above.


Posted in propaganda | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment