Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Hitler : The Rise Of Evil?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whiskers
    replied
    Thread Locked

    Moody's hate speech has become disgusting to me. Moody is a troll no longer welcome here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by LEtranger
    And now [the Germans have] even reconquered a vast territory without firing a single shot - for the first time in their history!
    To what are you referring here?
    Germany was far bigger under the First Reich [Chalemagne/HRE], the Second Reich [Bismarck] and the Third Reich, than it is today.

    and now you've finally unmasked yourself, Amateur-Goebbels!
    What are you talking about?
    Why is it when anyone attempts to make a mature assessment of the Hitler-mythos, certain people start getting hysterical?
    Why didn't you attack Michael Moorcock's post in this thread in the same way?
    You remind me of those who condemn Lemmy for collecting Nazi memorabilia; as he said, "my black girl-friend don't mind, so why should you?"

    In order to understand the great movements of history you must go to the SOURCES and SYMBOLS, rather than parrot the second-hand and ready-made views of the politically correct door keepers.

    What is YOUR agenda here?
    You don't have one? Then what do you have to add to the debate itself, on the question of the Jungian Shadow, for example?

    Leave a comment:


  • L'Etranger
    replied
    I knew all along you were a Hitlerian freak. You took your time at unfolding your crappy zealot mumbo-jumbo, didn't you?
    So, under Hitler, the brutal Austrian Hillbilly - orHinterwaelder , the Germans were at their most German? And now they're a decrepit lot? They never had so much fun being Germans before as Europeans, they even reconquered a vast territory without firing a single shot - for the first time in their history! They had the guts to withstand incredible pressure from the nآ° 1 power not to join in a war they find questionable. It is nearly absurd that I find myself going to the defense of the Germans.

    It is known what you Thule romantics and Aryan clowns are doing out there in the woods, practising guerrilla warfare and handing out phony Iron Crosses for defeating a couple of trees, but you've already lost. Go on worshipping the Fuehrer's chamber pot, you've wasted many a well-meaning person's time and now you've finally unmasked yourself, Amateur-Goebbels!

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill
    My point is simply that this argument seems to me to be a lot of text book terminology intended to paint a veneer of respectability to a partisan, rhetorical position.
    You would need to give some examples here [and review Michael Moorcock's post on the first page].

    I would say that the kind of 'Hitler' that we behold tends to be a projection of our own shadow - so thoroughly has 'Hitler' been re-mythologised.

    I use the Jungian term 'shadow' while thinking of Jung's very prescient essay of 1936 called 'Wotan', where he put forward the idea that the god Wotan was the true deity of the Germans, not Christ.

    Jung saw that Hitler unleashed this Wotan archetype in the Germans.
    Hitler was able to do this because of his genius at becoming an EMBODIMENT of the German people themselves at their mythic core.

    Under Hitler, the Germans were at their most German.

    Today, under alien 'Western' domination the Germans have become deculturated, enuchised, despiritualised and debased.

    But today's Hollywood Hitler myth has nothing to do with the real Hitler and his Wotan; it is rather the Shadow of the Western Judaeo-Christian mythos.

    There are those of us who are intrepid enough to enter the forbidden forests of Germania and discover the true Hitler and the true Wotan.

    "We strive for the forbidden".
    [Nietzsche]

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    "Term given to those who were orignally of the left, but have newly [neo-] come around to a form of market-based conservatism [while retaining a leftist social-engineering tendency]. "

    You missed - or are ignoring - the essence of my post. I was basically ragging on you the entire time. I know full well what a "neo-Con" is, and in fact have been (wrongly) called one more than once here on this board.

    My point is simply that this argument seems to me to be a lot of text book terminology intended to paint a veneer of respectability to a partisan, rhetorical position.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill
    Yeah, and what's your point?
    The point I made here was related to the subject of this thread.
    I have shown that fascism has much in common with modern corporate capitalism, and is therefore not its antithesis.

    "Neo-cons".
    Term given to those who were orignally of the left, but have newly [neo-] come around to a form of market-based conservatism [while retaining a leftist social-engineering tendency].

    the entire military-industrial complex mechanism was started, nutured, and perpetuated by DEMOCRATIC or left-leaning administrations
    See above definition of neo-cons; and anyway, the political distance between Republican and Democrat is negligible.

    We armed freedom fighters in a battle against Soviet imperialism.
    What are 'freedom fighters' to some, are terrorists to others [remember the IRA?].
    The fact that US regimes interfered in the affairs of many sovereign nations, as you list, makes the USA as imperialist as the soviets.

    What's your problem with the situation in Israel?
    Not my problem; it's the USA's problem of its own making - a bad case of double-standards when it comes to Israel; so much so that the USA is hated around the world for its duplicity here.
    Keep building that Wall Sharon!

    Hopefully you are using the term "concentration camp" without any of the baggage of 1939-1945.
    Concentration camps were invented before that by the British in the Boer War.
    Democratic government is defined by its adherence to the rule of law and the rights of man. The imprisoning of people without trial for years on end runs counter to this.
    Indeed, such detention is a definitive feature of fascism; ergo ....

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    "That the USA has a huge military budget, the biggest in the world, and that it is also the main military technology supplier today cannot be denied. Who is the main military power in the world today? "

    Yeah, and what's your point? Although, I would probably argue with you if there was reliable information to do so, since I would strongly suggest that in terms of cost of goods produced China probably has us beat (they just manufacture it themselves rather than contract for itm, making it harder to ascertain how much is spent in a way that is comparable). In other words, our spend is probably more a function of the type of system than actual expenditure.

    "That the Neocons have usedsimplistic rhetoric to demonise other nations is a matter of record; the truth is often offensive."

    Stop with the politico-babble. "Neo-cons". Like they popped out of the ground 4 years ago to foul an otherwise perfect planet. You are ignoring two HUGE facts: one, the "neo-cons" have no monopoly on simplistic rhetoric. I watched the DNC, too. Two, the entire military-industrial complex mechanism was started, nutured, and perpetuated by DEMOCRATIC or left-leaning administrations (Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson).

    "We can fault the US for provoking, creating and arming 'terrorism' [bin Laden in Afghanisatan?]; making a 'stand' after that is sheer hypocrisy.
    Deal fairly with the question of Israel FIRST; then see what happens."

    We didn't "arm terrorism". We armed freedom fighters in a battle against Soviet imperialism. That they turned their weapons on us (which they didn't; I didn't notice any Stinger missiles on the airliners that crashed into the World Trade Center) isn't an indictment on the process as much as it is an indictment on mercenary tendency of the kind of person that would embrace terrorism as a viable tool in world political discourse. Let's see who else has received aid from the US in their struggles for free will: the Vietnamese, the Laotians, the Nicaraguans, the Batistas, the Hungarians, the Czechs, the Kurds, Israel, the Yugoslavs (using the term in the broadest sense). I don't know off the top of my head, but I will google it to find out if any of them have subsequently used large passenger airliners to demolish our tallest sky-scrapers.

    I love this idea that everything has to be dissected in the cold light of hindsight before it can be explained. The idea of helping the Mujahadeen in the mid to late 80's was almost a no-brainer of a decision from the standpoint of policy and potential risk.

    What's your problem with the situation in Israel? With this fascination with Fascism, and the runes, and the poking at the Israeli issue like it is the root cause of all that ails us, maybe Etive is onto something.... good catch, ma'am.

    "Detention for years without trial in concentration camps [like Camp Delta] is a feature of fascist regimes." Oh right, I forgot. Please. Hopefully you are using the term "concentration camp" without any of the baggage of 1939-1945. Even so, that is a very subjective assessment of the situation, and kind of like saying "well, glove compartments are a feature of cars." Well, yes, but certainly not a defining feature nor a significant feature.

    By the way, honest question: how old are you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill
    Most large, government contractors have transitioned to a large degree to either the private sector or to a non-military provider for the government.
    That the USA has a huge military budget, the biggest in the world, and that it is also the main military technology supplier today cannot be denied. Who is the main military power in the world today?

    That the Neocons have usedsimplistic rhetoric to demonise other nations is a matter of record; the truth is often offensive.


    you cannot fault the US for taking a stand. But otherwise, you are implicitly saying that there is no answer for terrorism other than letting it happen and hoping it will go away.
    We can fault the US for provoking, creating and arming 'terrorism' [bin Laden in Afghanisatan?]; making a 'stand' after that is sheer hypocrisy.
    Deal fairly with the question of Israel FIRST; then see what happens.

    Detention for years without trial in concentration camps [like Camp Delta] is a feature of fascist regimes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Etive
    replied
    Moody,

    What is the significance of your avatar being the word "heil"?

    It's just something that's been bugging me, I get upset by runes frequently being used with Nazi connotations and am hoping it just means "hale" without the implication of Hitler.

    Cheers,

    Etive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill
    replied
    "So I meant to say that the USA's vast capitalistic productive powers are geared towards a militarisation of the globe under its hegemony.

    The term often used for this is 'military-industrial complex'.

    This may be an errant reading of events, though. "

    Yes it is errant. There is no doubt there was a "military-industrial complex", but don't overestimate it's importance or significance. Most large, government contractors (those that were - note the tense - big players in the cold war military buildup) have transitioned to a large degree to either the private sector or to a non-military provider for the government. Even the dreaded Halliburton does most of its work in the U.S. in a non-military role. Iraq is a small piece of that company's revenue.

    "It will even ENGINEER its own pet Satan to justify increased military spending. "

    This is simply nonsense. Just nonsense (and possibly even offensive).

    "So again, I think we can say that the US ethos is very much a military one; after all, hasn't it appointed itself the leader of the 'free-world' in its self-proclaimed 'war on terror'?"

    This is a blatant misreading/ignoring of the facts. Look at almost any other "victim" of terrorism. Are any capable of marshalling a response to the increase in terrorism in the world? Spain can't. France won't (they have oil contracts in Iraq to worry about). Now, you can and should certainly question the METHODS, fair enough, but you cannot fault the US for taking a stand. But otherwise, you are implicitly saying that there is no answer for terrorism other than letting it happen and hoping it will go away.

    This is like having the neighborhood punk try to beat you up, and your big brother comes by. You want he should stand there and watch you get your ass beat? Turn around and walk back home? I am not suggesting that the big brother has to fight; the big brother need not fight. Sometimes a strong word is enough, but still the big brother ought to do SOMETHING.

    "Look at the long-term detention without trial in Camp Delta - isn't that fascist by any other definition?"

    I suggest you look up the word "fascist" again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by Doc
    the military-industrial complex is a cold war product ...
    I won't disagree that war is an economic engine.
    Yes, and that 'military-industrial complex' has been looking for a new 'threat' after the 'collapse' of the USSR.
    This military behemoth has been casting around for a new Satan, rather than disarm at the evaporation of the Soviet 'threat'.
    It will even ENGINEER its own pet Satan to justify increased military spending.
    9/11 answered the US militarist's prayer - a new threat has arrived; even more dangerous than the Commies!
    Great news for the military budget.

    And notice how the Neocons like to denigrate European countries for spending 'too much' on welfare and 'not enough' on defence.
    And look at the massive US support for Israel.

    So again, I think we can say that the US ethos is very much a military one; after all, hasn't it appointed itself the leader of the 'free-world' in its self-proclaimed 'war on terror'?

    Look at the long-term detention without trial in Camp Delta - isn't that fascist by any other definition?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    I get your point, but I will add that the military-industrial complex is a cold war product, which has largely been replaced by a new class of capitalists. Having said this, I won't disagree that war is an economic engine, and I also believe that the US spends too much on the military, at least relative to its expendatures for public works, public health, and children's safety nets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Originally posted by Doc
    The US economy is built strictly on consumerism, not war.
    I'm glad you agree with most of what I said.
    While I'll not deny that America is a 'consumerist' society, it spends a far greater proportion of its national budget on the military sector than any other Western nation.

    It is also has military bases throughout the world and is militarily active in many conflict zones.

    So I meant to say that the USA's vast capitalistic productive powers are geared towards a militarisation of the globe under its hegemony.

    The term often used for this is 'military-industrial complex'.

    This may be an errant reading of events, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doc
    replied
    Originally posted by Moody
    Wouldn't it be true to say that the current US economy is predicated on war?

    And didn't the US at the time of WW2 actually have official racial segregation?
    And weren't her allies, the British Empire and the Communist USSR, oppressive regimes with scant respect for any democracy among their 'subjects'?

    The problem is that Hitler has been de-historicised and turned into a mythic monster by the Moral Media [hence the constant use of the term 'Evil'] of the 'Western World' [west of what?].

    When our present Western 'democrats' want to justify their genocidal greed, they usually compare their enemies to the Hitler-Myth that they have cultivated for so long.
    See King Bush II's speech-writer's 'Axis of Evil' for a prime example.

    Let's try to de-mythologise all these things.
    I agree with all of this, except for your first statement.

    The US economy is built strictly on consumerism, not war. Remember, W told us to spend, spend, spend after 9/11. That's how we could know that the terrorists won.

    More seriously, though, consumer goods are the bedrock of the US economy. Most indicative of this is that Wal-Mart has more impact on the general US economy than any other corporation. Even Haliburton.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moody
    replied
    Wouldn't it be true to say that the current US economy is predicated on war?

    And didn't the US at the time of WW2 actually have official racial segregation?
    And weren't her allies, the British Empire and the Communist USSR, oppressive regimes with scant respect for any democracy among their 'subjects'?

    The problem is that Hitler has been de-historicised and turned into a mythic monster by the Moral Media [hence the constant use of the term 'Evil'] of the 'Western World' [west of what?].

    When our present Western 'democrats' want to justify their genocidal greed, they usually compare their enemies to the Hitler-Myth that they have cultivated for so long.
    See King Bush II's speech-writer's 'Axis of Evil' for a prime example.

    Let's try to de-mythologise all these things.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X