Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Discussions on the propaganda, architecture and culture in the Third Reich.
George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 616
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 03 Mar 2021 18:37

Peter89 wrote:
03 Mar 2021 17:26
Something I've missed along the pages? Where were these hundreds of thousands killed - on purpose?
Huh? I was referring to the fact that the anti-semitism that can be found in the book is not unique and thousands of Jews had been killed in other countries.
His name was actually Tivadar, but anyway. He was an influential businessman, not the "father of zionism". One who proposed to establish an independent Jewish State, ie. Israel. He wasn't the first with that proposal either, József Natonek started to formalize the whole thing and applied to the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul to allow the Jews to settle in the Holy Land, about 50 years before Tivadar Herzl.
We're posting in the English language. In English his name is Theodor Herzl and in Hungarian his name is Herzl Tivadar.

Herzl is indeed known as the father of modern political Zionism. He's considered the founder of the Zionist movement and his book "The Jews' State" (Der Judenstaat) he envisioned the future independent Jewish state.
George L Gregory wrote: Peter Fritzsche in his book Germans into Nazis (1998) examined why ordinary Germans voted for the Nazis. He basically wrote that it wasn't just the Great Depression that caused so many Germans to flock to the Nazis, but rather than having many things in common they actually only had one thing in common which was resentment against the "system". Although anti-semitism wasn't really the key factor in why Germans voted for the Nazis, most Germans were anti-semitic to one degree or another.
This is so wrong in many ways.

First, the Great Depression hit the whole world, not just Germany. Somehow it did not lead everywhere to vote a party like the NSDAP into power.
I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you read what I wrote properly. I wrote precisely that the Great Depression was NOT the reason why Germans flocked to the Nazis. The Great Depression affected many countries, some harder than others, one of those that was hit the hardest was Germany.
Heck, we are in a great depression now as we speak. Even I myself lost a tremendous amount of income and perspective - not to mention rights - because of this current depression.

But, we are not going to build concentration camps for Jews or other minorities, just because our living standards have dropped. It's like: we are not going to reinstitute slavery, just because people - even if at some point of moral or economic depression would push the majority to want it - would vote for it. We're not doing it, even if it's momentarily against the majority's will.

I know that people nowadays equal the blunt, direct and raw political representation of the people's immediate will as democracy. But no, it's not democracy, it's the dark side of the democracy. It's a mindless rage that fills the most of the people at any given time, and only waits in us to come forth and kill, loot, rape and destroy. This is the beast in us, not the human. That's exactly what nazism brought to the surface, and it was clear from the beginnings.
Germans didn't vote for Jews to be put into concentration camps. Well considering a "majority" of Germans never actually voted for the Nazis, you are simply wrong.

No, it was not clear from the beginning of the Third Reich, that is your mistake. The Nazis were very good at concealing their true intentions. When Hitler first started out he tried to portray himself as a man of peace to the West. The Nazis didn't at first intend to exterminate the Jews and other peoples.
There's always a discrepancy between the "opinion of the people" and the good management of a state. The successful political communities bring the two in line. What I always hear is that the Germans themselves were no more Nazi than the rest of the world, which is not true. The Germans allowed a terrible regime to gain power. It is also not true that all the Germans were supporting the NSDAP ideology, because we have heroes with golden names amongst the children of the Vaterland. I also hear soci-economic arguments, but I don't believe them for a second because of the aforementioned reasons. What I believe is simply the fact that Holocaust did not happen for one single reason. It needed about a hundred of premises to happen, and we can deliberately pick one and say that "that was the cause of all that".
How did the Germans allow the Nazis to "gain power" when the Nazis never won a majority of votes to be elected to power? Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

You may chose to deny the socio-economic arguments, but you are therefore denying facts. The facts are that the Weimar Republic was a failed republic and most Germans shared one thing in common - they wanted a change and the Nazis for various reasons offered that change. The Nazis promised to make Germany prosper again and at the cost of planning a war by the late 1930s unemployment was almost non-existent.

Of course the Holocaust never happened because of "one single reason", it was a gradual process which saw the Nazi policy towards Jews go from expulsion to extermination.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9522
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 03 Mar 2021 19:05

Hi GLG,

You post, "Only an absolute moron would think that the Nazis came to power because they told people that they wanted to kill millions of Jews by shooting them, gassing them, starving them, etc."

I would suggest that no such "absolute moron" exists. He is just a straw man put up by yourself as a debating device.

If you have such an "absolute moron", please bring him forward so we can check it out.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6381
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by wm » 03 Mar 2021 19:24

Peter89 wrote:
03 Mar 2021 10:51
wm wrote:
02 Mar 2021 22:37
Peter89 wrote:
02 Mar 2021 20:17
Have you ever read the Mein Kampf?
Yes, I've read it many times.
I don't think the Germans cared much about Mein Kampf and its geopolitics although they probably liked the chapters describing his childhood and later years (after all it was an autobiography).

Mein Kampf wasn't especially aggressive by the standards of the era.
The Soviet Mein Kampf (Short Course) was something to behold - you could smell blood on every page.
You can't be serious.

What do you mean by "the standards of the era"? Erich Maria Remarque?
I meant that an everyday German wouldn't find (assuming he lasted to its end) anything wrong with Mein Kampf. Its language and content were seemingly comparable with similar books published at the same time.

An everyday German wasn't informed by Mein Kampf but by political propaganda pushed by the Nazis which wasn't based on Mein Kampf.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6381
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by wm » 03 Mar 2021 19:26

Max wrote:
03 Mar 2021 11:44
wm wrote:
02 Mar 2021 22:37

The Soviet Mein Kampf (Short Course) was something to behold - you could smell blood on every page.
What is The Soviet Mein Kampf (Short Course)?
Cheers
Max
It was a book, memorable for its brutal language, written under Stalin's supervision that more or less served the same purpose as Mein Kampf.
The_History_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union_(Bolsheviks)_title_page.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9522
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 03 Mar 2021 19:52

Hi wm,

Having got this far, I suppose we had better hear some of its "brutal language".

An expectant Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12053
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by ljadw » 03 Mar 2021 20:22

wm wrote:
03 Mar 2021 19:24
Peter89 wrote:
03 Mar 2021 10:51
wm wrote:
02 Mar 2021 22:37
Peter89 wrote:
02 Mar 2021 20:17
Have you ever read the Mein Kampf?
Yes, I've read it many times.
I don't think the Germans cared much about Mein Kampf and its geopolitics although they probably liked the chapters describing his childhood and later years (after all it was an autobiography).

Mein Kampf wasn't especially aggressive by the standards of the era.
The Soviet Mein Kampf (Short Course) was something to behold - you could smell blood on every page.
You can't be serious.

What do you mean by "the standards of the era"? Erich Maria Remarque?
I meant that an everyday German wouldn't find (assuming he lasted to its end) anything wrong with Mein Kampf. Its language and content were seemingly comparable with similar books published at the same time.

An everyday German wasn't informed by Mein Kampf but by political propaganda pushed by the Nazis which wasn't based on Mein Kampf.
:thumbsup:

User avatar
danebrog
Member
Posts: 367
Joined: 17 Nov 2008 15:59

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by danebrog » 03 Mar 2021 22:23

Sid Guttridge wrote:
03 Mar 2021 19:52
Having got this far, I suppose we had better hear some of its "brutal language".
History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /1939/x01/

I cannot say anything about the content.....

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by gebhk » 04 Mar 2021 10:25

Hi Peter 89
First, the Great Depression hit the whole world, not just Germany. Somehow it did not lead everywhere to vote a party like the NSDAP into power.
You may be a little too literal here. I don't think anyone suggests that bad times make people vote for (or even follow) a party exactly like the NSDAP and build concentration camps for Jews or other minorities. However, it is an observable historical trend that bad times make people more prone to follow charismatic snake-oil merchants who promise a better future, down various rabbit holes. It just so happened that this particular snake-oil merchant had a bee up his bum about the disabled, Jews, Gypsies and other minorities. He could just as easily have had one on the subject of elephants.

Also I would suggest comparing the present crisis to what the Germans experienced prior to the Nazi rise to power does not add up. For one thing for us its been barely a year. For the Germans it started in 1914 and carried on without much abatement until 1933 - so nearly 20 years! For another it's not about a relatively small loss of income but about millions dying prematurely of war, starvation and disease and/or living in starvation poverty with no end in sight (an analysis of the trends in population and wages tell their own grim story) and the body blow to prestige and self-worth of losing WW1.

I have little doubt, therefore, that while this whole traumatic experience (ie WW1 + 'Spanish Flu' + war reparations + great depression) did not make Germany Nazi or genocidal, it was one of the necessary prerequisites for the rise of Adolf Hitler who was. One of many, of course, as you quite rightly say.

I would also disagree that:
the Holocaust (-) was still unique because it was the lowest where humankind has arrived - yet.
If by 'the lowest' you mean the deliberate state-sponsored extermination of entire groups of people based on their genetic heritage, religion or class, then humanity has arrived that low many times before and since; both in terms of intent and relative scale and, on balance, probably lower. Depressingly enough.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 616
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 04 Mar 2021 11:25

The word 'neo' means 'new', but I fail to see how someone can be a 'new Nazi'. Nazism was a product of its time. In fact, it was so much that it was often referred to as 'Hitlerism' and there is no Hitlerism without Adolf Hitler.

One of the main reasons why people were drawn to Hitler was because of his charisma and oratory skills. It wasn't so much what he said, but how he said it. In his book Mein Kampf he showed a great understanding about crowd psychology. Hitler was a political genius and he had a serious message to the average German.

Similarly, Nazism would never have been so effective without the propagandist Joseph Goebbels who was arguably a genius of propaganda. He was the driving force behind many of the things that happened during the Third Reich.

Too many people seem to be forgetting that despite the fact that many Germans were attracted to the mixture of the ideas that the Nazis propagated, the Nazis were never able to gain a majority and Hitler was not elected as Chancellor. The Enabling Act was passed in the Reichstag, not by German citizens voting for it. It's not hyperbole to state that Germany was quickly transformed from a democratic country to a dictatorship and a one-party state in a very short period of time. Despite this transformation, during the early years of the Third Reich the Nazis were very careful to present themselves both to the German people and Western powers as simply only wanting to restore the so-called greatness of Germany. Although it's not an excuse and it's often just a stereotype, Germans were known for obeying orders. Some defendants at the Nuremberg Trials used that argument in their defence.

People often misuse the word 'Nazi' these days. Some people even use the word to describe people who are against mass immigration, etc. Some people seem to think 'fascist' is synonymous with 'Nazi' which is utter BS.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9522
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 04 Mar 2021 11:41

Hi GLG,

I agree with most of what you write in your last post.

However, I would suggest that it is possible to be a Neo-Nazi if one espouses most of what Hitler did and essentially think he was right. And the prefix "neo-" does give scope for something additional in the mix as well.

But essentially I think you are right, the word Nazi is widely misused, as is the word "socialist", among many others. When terms become simplistic insults they lose the precision of their original definitions and cease to have real meaning.

Cheers,

Sid.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by gebhk » 04 Mar 2021 12:20

To return to the subject in hand.

Sid: your definition related to a joint enterprise is an elegant one, but unfortunately closes this discussion rather abruptly. Since there is no Nazi state in the world today and no such 'enterprise' is up-and-running, therefore there are no Nazis in the world today (by that definition).

I would suggest a more useful approach might be to look at the various components over time and see if there are similarities today. For example do we have the equivalent of the storm-troopers? We probably do in the flag-waving tattooed fraternity, regularly ordering five beers with little real interest in or understanding of the politics or ideology of the 'party' and much more interest in pursuing their hobby of spreading mayhem. Membership gives them a sense of belonging and self-worth which society at large would not give them and would, therefore, otherwise be lacking from their lives. With a leavening of brighter (sometimes even very bright) individuals who get a kick out of controlling the yobs without the need for the hard work involved in becoming a democratic politician. Indeed, for some at least, it's an end in itself and they have little belief in the party 'faith'. Sound familiar?

This, I would suggest, is where the majority of it is these days.

However some movements have progressed beyond the 'stormtrooper stage' and have shaped up or are shaping up to strive for political power. Clearly any comparisons have to be made on a case-by-case basis - these parties start, split up and rejoin more frequently than I've had hot dinners. Here too one can see many similarities. For one thing, the 'manifesto' for the public at large is usually an altogether different beast to what the party might profess internally. In much the same way, the NSDAP's 25-point Program was, by the standards of the day relatively innocuous on the surface. Indeed, if you swap the EU for the Treaty of Versailes, if Tony Benn and Enoch Powell got married (and perhaps took speed) their offspring would probably have been not a million miles from the 25-point Program. While internally there is a seething pool of hatred, entitlement, blame and frustrated self-importance.

Finally what about the common man (or woman) in the street? Again, here there are worrying similarities. I think the point about the uniting factor among the German Nazi voters of the 1920s - 30's being frustration with 'the system' is right on the money. I can't help thinking that, without getting into a debate on the issues themselves, the reason for some recent election and referendum results were more about sticking two fingers up at the 'establishment', than they were about the relevant issues; with little or no comprehension of or care for the consequences. In much the same way, I doubt very much that the German voters of the 1920s/30s were voting for the Holocaust any more than they were voting for a catastrophic WW2 which too could be considered predictable from a careful analysis of the party faith and its 'bible'. They were just voting against the system and for the carefully crafted mirage of a better future for them, personally. I can see much evidence of this in the world today too, worryingly.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by gebhk » 04 Mar 2021 13:24

Although it's not an excuse and it's often just a stereotype, Germans were known for obeying orders.
I believe a replication of the Milgram experiment found them to be more obedient than most...

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 616
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 04 Mar 2021 13:42

gebhk wrote:
04 Mar 2021 12:20
I would suggest a more useful approach might be to look at the various components over time and see if there are similarities today. For example do we have the equivalent of the storm-troopers? We probably do in the flag-waving tattooed fraternity, regularly ordering five beers with little real interest in or understanding of the politics or ideology of the 'party' and much more interest in pursuing their hobby of spreading mayhem. Membership gives them a sense of belonging and self-worth which society at large would not give them and would, therefore, otherwise be lacking from their lives. With a leavening of brighter (sometimes even very bright) individuals who get a kick out of controlling the yobs without the need for the hard work involved in becoming a democratic politician. Indeed, for some at least, it's an end in itself and they have little belief in the party 'faith'. Sound familiar?

This, I would suggest, is where the majority of it is these days.
This reminds me of the National Front (NF) in the 1970s and somewhat in the 1980s. I spoke to many supporters and members of the NF who quite frankly couldn't even define 'British' to me but insisted they wanted 'Britain to be British'. Nevertheless, some of them were more educated and made what some people would consider some valid points.

If you compare John Tyndall and Nick Griffin then the comparison becomes apparent. Then you have the likes of Richard Edmond who is an admirer of the Nazis, a Holocaust denier and is quite open about being racist.

I even remember before the NF when the British Movement (BM) had some presence on the streets.

Most of the people you mention who just enjoy causing a bit of aggro and getting drink just jump from party to party as long as it has a visible street presence. The British National Party (BNP) consisted mainly of the old NF lot.

This type of presence isn't exclusive to the right. The left is the exact same. Anecdotally I've found that many on the left just seem to vote that way because they parents or grandparents or friends did. I remember anarchists, communists and socialists causing trouble during my further education years.

The same kind of mentality of belonging to some sort of group or organisation can be found amongst football hooligans. The people just want to get away from every day life and work and go to pubs and like to cause a bit of trouble. Those are not excuses, it is just the way it is really.
However some movements have progressed beyond the 'stormtrooper stage' and have shaped up or are shaping up to strive for political power. Clearly any comparisons have to be made on a case-by-case basis - these parties start, split up and rejoin more frequently than I've had hot dinners. Here too one can see many similarities. For one thing, the 'manifesto' for the public at large is usually an altogether different beast to what the party might profess internally. In much the same way, the NSDAP's 25-point Program was, by the standards of the day relatively innocuous on the surface. Indeed, if you swap the EU for the Treaty of Versailes, if Tony Benn and Enoch Powell got married (and perhaps took speed) they would probably have come up with something not a million miles from the 25-point Program. While internally there is a seething pool of hatred, entitlement, blame and frustrated self-importance.
I don't think so. Neither Tony Benn nor Enoch Powell viewed things from a racial point of view. Although they were friends, they were politically the complete opposite. The former thought that someone couldn't be a Labour member without regarding Karl Marx's Capital the same way as a Christian regards The Bible. The latter was often accused of being racist after his infamous Rivers of Blood speech but that was because people either didn't bother to read the speech and distinguish between what Powell himself said and what he quoted or the people accusing him regarded anyone to the right of socialism to be 'right-wing' or 'racist'. In fact, Powell in the early 1940s refused to enter a club because the people who worked there wouldn't allow the Indian General (later Field Marshal) K. M. Cariappa to enter the club. Powell in 1959 gave a speech about the Hola Massacre and spoke out against other MPs who regarded the eleven people who were killed as sub-humans and regarded such thoughts as awful - Denis Healey regarded it as the "greatest parliamentary speech" he had ever heard. Powell learnt Urdu and used to visit Indian restaurants and spoke to the people who worked there in Urdu. Powell never discriminated against people based on their background (in the early 1960s he said: "I have and always will set my face like flint against making any difference between one citizen of this country and another on grounds of his origins."). He even said that there would have been more of a problem if people of the same race e.g. Germans entered the country in such large numbers as Pakistanis, Indians, West Indians, etc, were entering the country in the 1960s. After his infamous speech he stated the following:
What I would take racialist to mean is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief. So the answer to your question of whether I am a racialist is 'No' – unless perhaps, in reverse. I regard many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects – intellectually for example, and in other respects – to Europeans. Perhaps that is over-reacting.
And, when David Frost asked him if he were a racialist or not, he replied:
It depends on how you define the word "racialist". If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically "No".
Hardly the words of a racist!

Powell's arguments in his infamous speech weren't even against what the Tories were arguing for in the 1960s. Powell simply scared Ted Heath with the latter quaking in his boots.

After his Rivers of Blood speech he was accused of being a 'Nazi' and replied:
All I will say is that for myself, in 1939 I voluntarily returned from Australia to this country, to serve as a private soldier against Germany and Nazism. I am the same man today.
When he gave a speech in Cardiff he responded to the student hecklers and said:
I hope those who shouted 'Fascist' and 'Nazi' are aware that before they were born I was fighting against Fascism and Nazism.
Those people you referred to earlier as not having a clue about politics were the exact same people who attended NF rallies with placards stating 'Enoch was/is right' or 'Enoch Powell was/is right' without ever even reading his infamous speech and actually looking at what views he held.

Powell was against nuclear weapons. Powell was one of the first Tories to vote to legalise homosexuality. Powell was against the death penalty. Etc, etc.

I was quite surprised to read that over half of the people in the audience during a BBC broadcast voted that Powell was not a racist.

If you really want to find out about Enoch Powell who was such a complex man then read Robert Shepherd's Enoch Powell: A Biography and Simon Heffer's Like the Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell. The latter is more sympathetic to Powell.

I would argue that Powell is one of the most misunderstood politicians. His achievements are often ignored and people just focus on his infamous speech. Powell was an intellectual genius who was able to run rings around those people who dared to debate him. He was able to read at the age of three and was known as "the Professor" because he used to tell visitors to his home descriptions of stuffed birds his grandfather had shot. He was a classic scholar and became a full professor of Ancient Greek at the age of 25 (this bugged him because he was one year later than Friedrich Nietzsche whom he greatly admired). He entered WW2 as the youngest professor of the Commonwealth and was only one of two people to rise from a private to brigadier.

I do believe that what Powell later said about his infamous speech has merit:
My prospect is that, politicians of all parties will say "Well Enoch Powell is right, we don't say that in public but we know it in private, Enoch Powell is right and it will no doubt develop as he says. But it's better for us to do nothing now, and let it happen perhaps after our time, than to seize the many poisonous nettles which we would have to seize if we were at this stage going to attempt to avert the outcome." So let it go on until a third of Central London, a third of Birmingham, Wolverhampton, are coloured, until the Civil War comes, let it go on. We won't be blamed, we'll either have gone or we'll slip out from under somehow.
Why do I say that? Well because politicians on both the left and the right are very populist orientated these days and they pretend to listen to what the people want. Time and time again immigration has come up as one of the major concerns of the people living in the UK. Both Labour and Conservative promise to control immigration but it's just empty words.

The only thing those two people had in common was opposition to the EU (then the EEC). They were very good friends away from politics though. They were both very decent and honest politicians which is something very rarely found these days.
Finally what about the common man (or woman) in the street? Again, here there are worrying similarities. I think the point about the uniting factor among the German Nazi voters of the 1920s - 30's being frustration with 'the system' is right on the money. I can't help thinking that, without getting into a debate on the issues themselves, the reason for some recent election and referendum results were more about sticking two fingers up at the 'establishment, than they were about the relevant issues with little or no comprehension of or care for the consequences. In much the same way, I doubt very much that the German voters of the 1920s/30s were voting for the Holocaust any more than they were voting for a catastrophic WW2 which too could be considered predictable from a careful analysis of the party faith and its 'bible'. They were just voting against the system and for the carefully crafted mirage of a better future. I can see much evidence of this in the world today too, worryingly.
Many of the people who voted for Brexit voted for a change. The reason why Nigel Farage and other populists were able to reach out to so many people is because people were and still are sick and tired of the way the country is run. People work hours and hours every week and struggle to make ends meet and there are some people who don't have to do any physical work and earn hundreds of thousands of pounds every year. Inequality has increased drastically since the 1980s. The divide between the North and the South is greater than ever.

But, just like Farage was able to reach out to many voters, especially those sitting on the fence, left-wing populists also do the same when promising this and that for free and promising to tax the rich more and so forth. Those people who don't earn that much or don't even work at all it sounds lovely to their ears, but to those people earning a decent salary I think the last thing they want to do is be taxed even more. The crux of the dilemma is to try and find a balance.

I don't believe there are that many decent politicians out there these days. At least back in the day you knew what you were getting if you voted for Labour or Conservative, that has not been the case since Labour's victory in 1997.
Last edited by George L Gregory on 04 Mar 2021 21:33, edited 1 time in total.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by gebhk » 04 Mar 2021 16:06

Neither Tony Benn nor Enoch Powell views things from a racial point of view.
Hmm, one then wonders why Enoch Powell felt the need to quote someone he allegedly spoke to who says: "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man". But I suggest that is somewhat besides the point. My point is that none of the 25 points addresses the 'Jewish question' directly and the Jews are mentioned in only one point (Point 4) as an illustrative example.

Of course we all know who AH had in mind when he spoke of profiteers, unearned income, usurers, those whose activities clashed with the benefit of the whole and whatnot. The point is that it was being carefully clothed as seemingly reasonable, non-specific argument for the protection of German interests. There is plenty of similar thinly veiled references to other cultures ion EPs speech. I don't think he would have had much problem with the vast majority of the 25 points that addressed immigration, preservation of German values and such like. In short, that the 25 points are, at face value, pretty anodyne and attempt to be all things to all men (hence my inclusion of Tony Benn in my humoresque) - like most other political 'stalls' and attempt to hide more than they reveal.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by gebhk » 04 Mar 2021 16:11

I don't believe there are that many decent politicians out there these days. At least back in the day you knew what you were getting if you voted for Labour or Conservative, that has not been the case since Labour's victory in 1997.
That would be because if you did, people wouldn't vote for them :wink: . Do you remember what happened when the Libs said the bleedin obvious truth that if we want our kids to have a better education we will have to pay for it?

Return to “Propaganda, Culture & Architecture”