Friday, 23 September 2011


Remember, Similar posters do not equal similar ideologies!

Thursday, 22 September 2011

Two Steps from Hell - new album

TSFH's new album will be released officially on 1st October 2011. I cannot wait! :-)


Also does anyone know the violin style being played here?

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

JJ Ray: Hitler was a socialist debunked. Part 15, "The Conservatives and Hitler" "Hitler's Magic Mix" (plus "nationalism" and "music")

The Conservatives and Hitler

And what about the conservatives of Hitler's day? Both in Germany and Britain he despised them and they despised him.
Indeed some Conservatives and Monarchists did despise Hitler and indeed it was the more outspoken ones that could be dispensed with, the ones who Hitler felt were threatening his leadership they that were the ones who were victims on Hitler's "Night of the Long knives" Hitler was aware that he could not act directly against the Vice Chancellor without offending the conservative elite. Instead he had his speechwriter [who was expediant to get rid of] shot instead. And Hitler as i've said already may not have been a conservative in the strictest sense but the Nazis certainly had some conservative backing (even the Kaiser in his last years supported Hitler) as their philosophies certainly overlapped (ideas of "Lebensraum" and "nationalism" and in the Kaiser's case "Antisemitism" for example). He was an Anti-conservative to the extent he was much more of an extreme rightist than what the conventional Centre-right conseratives were. Interesting to note that some reacted to Hitler's appointment like this:

"Hitler is reich chancellor! And What a cabinet!!! One such as we did not dare to dream of in July [1932]. Hitler, Hugenburg, seldte, Papen!!! A large part of my German hopes are attached to each. National Socialist drive, German national reason, the non-political Stahlhelm, and - not forgotten by us - Papen. It is so unimaginably wonderful ... What an achievement by Hindenburg!" - Louise Solmitz, A Conservative Schoolteacher from Hamburg; reacting to Hitler's appointment to the chancellorship on 30 january 1933. Quoted in Ian Kershaw, "Hitler" (abridged), p260.

As regards to nationalism, Ray notes in the next segment

"The great difference between Hitler's nationalism and Anglo-Saxon nationalism was, of course, that Hitler['s] was much more aggressive."
which is true but only because out of Geo-political circumstances. That's all there is of substance there.
Hitler's Magic Mix

Here i'll offer the last paragraph as it offers us the most succinct summary of this segment itself
In summary, Hitler saw from the outset (Bullock, 1964) that a combination of socialist and whole-hearted nationalist appeals could be emotionally successful among the masses, no matter what he personally believed. If the basic message of the Left was "We will look after you" and the message of the Right was "We are the greatest", then Hitler saw no reason why he could not offer both nostrums for sale. He did not trouble either himself or the masses with details of how such offers could be delivered.
And Bullock puts it like this:
"What Hitler meant by socialism can be illustrated by a speech he made on 28 July 1922. 'who ever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland Uber alles, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land, land and people - that man is a socialist.'" - Bullock, "Adolf Hitler", p 75 -76.
So for Hitler, his 'Socialism' is nothing more than an extreme nationalism and elitism. That's not socialism! As matter of fact it is the opposite of socialism.

To make any sort of claim that the Nazis were socialist, especially because of the name they chose or the propaganda they espoused [Music included which is his next segment (which i shall skip simply because im making the point here)], is just a shallow and extremely simplistic talking point that would not stand up in any real history class. It makes the user of it look foolish in any educated person's eyes.

Tuesday, 13 September 2011

Just a thought.

Stemming from the longer quote i gave from the "Red Fascism" article i cited here, in particular this,

"After the entry of the United States into World War II Americans focused on the differences between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia in order to help cement the wartime alliance among Russia, the United States, and Great Britain. It was popular to stress that indeed Russia and the United States were similar; both were anti-imperialist, and both had a revolutionary past. Collier's in 1943 could conclude that Russia was "evolving from a sort of Fascism ... toward something resembling our own and Great Britain's democracy.""

Who else finds it amusing in retrospect that the Russians were depicted by American propaganda for a short time as "freedom fighters" during the War just like the American soldiers were even though we all know otherwise?

Monday, 12 September 2011

"basically National Socialism and Marxism are NOT the same." (draft)

Those that have been actively following my youtube channel as of late know that i've made a good use of an excellent article from the peer reviewed literature titled "Red Fascism: The merger of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the american image of totalitarianism". It's from The American Historical review, vol 75, no4 (apr., 1970) and is written by les K. Adler and Thomas G. Paterson. It makes the point that, much like today with Beck and friends, a number of comparisons between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were attempted, often by propagandists before, during and even well into the Cold war. These comparsions were very silly and very superficial and deliberately so. Marshall D. Shulman is quoted in the aforementioned article for admitting the comparisons made were "often misleading ....".
This is one quote from the article that i have used in two of my videos now:
"Americans both before and after the second world war casualy and deliberately articulated distorted similarities between nazi and communist ideologies, german and soviet foreign policies, authoritarian controls and trade practices, and Hitler and Stalin. This popular analogy was a potent and pervasive notion that significantly shaped American of world events in the cold war. Once russia was designated the "enemy" by american leaders, americans transferred their hatred of Hitler's germany to Stalin's russia with considerable ease and persuasion."

But to give you a better feel of the article in case you cannot acsess it yourself, i shall present two more quotations, The first is quite poignant with Glenn Beck in mind, the latter effectively describing what American propaganda was doing during the war itself.
"Yet it is nevertheless true that, because the outward appearances of the two systems seemed to be more similar to each other than either seemed to be to any previous political system in the world, the real differences between fascist and Communist systems have been obscured. It was, in essence, easier for Americans to recognize their similarities than their differences, and though the intensity and scope of the analogy have varied greatly since the 1930's, the characteristic of similarity has remained constant in the American perception of totalitarian systems. Ignoring the widely diverse origins, ideologies, goals, and practices of totalitarian regimes, Americans have tended to focus only on the seemingly similar methods employed by such regimes and to assume that these methods are the basic immutable characteristics of totalitarianism anywhere."

"Russia's unprovoked attack on Finland in 1939 aroused American indignation; it was, in fact, clear that both Germany and Russia were aggressors in Europe. War relief crusades for the Finns gained an ecstatic national response. Robert Sherwood responded with his well-received drama, There Shall Be No Night, condemning the German and Soviet aggressive conspiracy against world democracy. Frederick Hazlitt Brennan invented the phrase "Commu-Nazi" in a five-part story in early 1940 called "Let Me Call You Comrade." Thus, on the eve of World War II, many Americans linked fascist and Communist ideologies as denials of human freedom and tolerance, saw Germany and Russia as international aggressors, and pictured Hitler and Stalin as evil comrades. Shortly after the sudden German invasion of Russia in June 1941, the Wall Street Journal indicated its ambivalent position on the outcome of the new war: "The American people know that the principal difference between Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin is the size of their respective mustaches."Former Ambassador to Russia William C. Bullitt saw the contest as one between "Satan and Lucifer." Some American isolationists denounced the power politics of both Germany and Russia and adopted a plague-on-both-your-houses attitude. Yet after the invasion President Roosevelt, against ardent opposition, promised and extended to Russia lend-lease aid. The opinion of most interventionists was that, though Russia was evil, it at least was not an immediate threat to the United States; Germany, on the other hand, was both evil and threatening. After the entry of the United States into World War II Americans focused on the differences between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia in order to help cement the wartime alliance among Russia, the United States, and Great Britain. It was popular to stress that indeed Russia and the United States were similar; both were anti-imperialist, and both had a revolutionary past. Collier's in 1943 could conclude that Russia was "evolving from a sort of Fascism ... toward something resembling our own and Great Britain's democracy." But the stress on differences was a temporary facade a reaction to Soviet war efforts rather than a reappraisal, and the Nazi-Communist analogy appeared publicly again as Soviet-American tensions increased near the close of the war."
Here's one example of an American outlet conjuring up "distorted similarities". Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. Within the article they wrote of him, they had this to say....
"The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Increasing Governmental control and interference in business is deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."
 The trouble with this quote? While Certainly Gov't spending was major factor during re-armament, something conservatives then and now love, but the Nazis did NOT collectivize agriculture. The Nazis actually passed laws that ensured that farms would remain in private hands and not be broken up into too many untenable pieces that were unviable, upon inheritance. That does not constitute collectivization of the land in Nazi Germany. The large estates and small farms were protected, the Nazi party and Hitler opposed the exportation referendum of 25/26. So when they had a chance to act in a real socialist manner they consistently failed to do so.

"The Nazis lowered the taxes imposed on most business: "The government...eased the capital position of private business. Agriculture [and particularly the large land holders, the 'agrobusiness'] was given a tax relief and a reduction of the burden of debt, while industry gained subsidies and tax relief for new investment and employment." - RJ Overy "War and Economy in the Third Reich", p55.

"The combination of domestic demand, an end to foreign competition, rising prices and relatively static wages created a context in which it was not hard to make healthy profits. Indeed, be 1934 the bonuses being paid to the boards of some firms were so spectacular that they were causing acute embarrassment to Hitler's government." - Adam Tooze, "The Wages of Destruction", p108.

"Though it is important to justice to the shift in power relations between the state and business that undoubtedly occurred in the early 1930s, we must be careful to avoid falling into the trap of viewing German business as a passive object in the regimes new system of regulation. [...] profits were rising rapidly after 1933 and this opened attractive future prospects for German corporate management." - Tooze, "Ibid", p114.

The other thing to note about Time was it's editor-in-chief of Time after 1929, Henry Luce, who was also one of the magazine's founders maintained a position as an member of the Republican Party and held anti-communist sentiments which ended up being permeated through his publications. As we can see that paticular piece of propaganda falls flat on its face.
But i want to suggest an idea of my own. The British too were indulging in such activities as "casualy and deliberately articulated distorted similarities between nazi and communist ideologies, german and soviet foreign policies, authoritarian controls and trade practices, and Hitler and Stalin". I certainly think i have at least one piece of evidence for this courtesy of a piece titled "Herr Hitler’s Speech of February 24," from the "Bulletin of International News (published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs), vol. 18, March 8, 1941, p. 269". It has Hitler quoted simply as saying "basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same."
But lo and behold, we have that speech of Hitler right in front of us.

It was a customary speech on the foundation of the party in the festival hall of the Munich HofbrÀuhaus. And surprise surprise there is nothing even remotely resembeling the phrase given by the Bulletin of International News. The common revolution he is speaking of is Italy's not Russia's. Furthermore even when he states that "It is today no longer possible to build up a state on a capitalistic basis." he makes it clear that he is only referring to international capital, his policy really only differs because it is a nationalist capitalist one "Therefore we will not establish our economic policy to suit the conceptions or desires of bankers in New York or London". If you want a more detailed analysis of the speech, see Max Domarus' four volume work "Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations (p2372 - 2376)".

Now why was that quote in the bulletin? Well there was this little thing we British like to call the "Blitz" which was still ongoing, and there was alot of Anti-german propaganda being circulated at the time for the obvious reason that they were the ones bombing our cities. The "quote" the bulletin gave is just a piece of wartime propaganda and nothing more. I cannot see at present another source that would verify that Hitler really did say it. so im tempted to say the bulletin fabricated the quote in order to make the Germans even more "scary" and adding it to the images of "Scary Communism"

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

JJ Ray: Hitler was a socialist debunked. Part 14, "A Democratic leftist?", "post election manoeuvres" and "Hitler's socialist deeds"

A democratic Leftist! 

Well a half-hearted democratic Rightist, so again Ray misses the point. His appointment was legal and democratic but at the same time arguably the biggest mistake made in the Weimar Republic. Prior to "the legal chancellor marching irresistibly into the legal dictator" Hitler did promise he would "destroy democracy with the weapons of democracy". In Mein Kampf he actually labelled social democracy as being a "pestilential whore" as you have already seen. Yes he did use left wing methods in order to deliever the masses to the right, but that is part and parcel of his appeal to the widest spectrum possible.

Only one paragraph here is worthy of note:
The fact that Hitler appealed to the German voter as basically a rather extreme social democrat is also shown by the fact that the German Social Democrats (orthodox democratic Leftists who controlled the unions as well as a large Reichstag deputation) at all times refused appeals from the German Communist party for co-operation against the Nazis. They evidently felt more affinity with Hitler than with the Communists. Hitler's eventual setting up of a one-party State and his adoption of a "four year plan", however, showed who had most affinity with the Communists. Hitler was more extreme than the Social Democrats foresaw.

The Four year plan only stepped in where the existing companies would not. It was concerned with re-armament and there have been other capitalist countries that have used the same method to build up selected sectors, South Korea being probably the most prominent. Nazi planning had nothing to with bettering the overall state of the people as the, at least professed goals were in the USSR [though in reality the USSR plans were really related to the overseeing of the economy], but just to build up the military. Just because there is an outward superficial appearance does not mean there is any real similarity. Again property and profits remained private in Nazi Germany. The Four Year Plan was just a Right Wing Military building program that did a lot to enrich the large private corporations along the way.

(Another thing as well, I've been told in private the whitlam era in Australia is seen as one of great social change, secondly Ray's link with nationalism is bullshit and the historical record does not reflect the "evidence" he presented. Whitlam presided over a government which introduced free uni, universal healthcare etc and was dismissed by the "governor general" at the request of the unelected opposition who set up the method for dismissal by using the constitutional rules to their advantage and breaking with tradition. [Tip o' the hat to my friend Franks])

Hitler's Post-election Manoeuvres.

Apparantly Hitler's consolidating of his power can be compared to "The post-war Liberal Democratic (conservative) government of Japan" and "Mintoff and Mifsud-Bonnici" on the left So really what is admitted here is that consolidation of power via some not so democratic means, can be found on both the left and the right, so this is meaningless.

Hitler's Socialist Deeds.

When in power Hitler also implemented a quite socialist programme. Like F.D. Roosevelt, he provided employment by a much expanded programme of public works (including roadworks) and his Kraft durch Freude ("power through joy") movement was notable for such benefits as providing workers with subsidized holidays at a standard that only the rich could formerly afford.

The truth of the matter is not as clear cut as that:
"Many of the policies, including 'work creation' projects, control of forigen exchange, government intervention in banking and agricultural protection, were the products of the Weimar period and were not uniquely Nazi policies at all. The German economy had always enjoyed a higher degree of state involvement than the more liberal western economies." - Richard Overy, "The Nazi economic recovery, 1932-1938", p10.

So all Hitler did was implement policies of the Weimar republic out of political expediency, Programmes like the "strength through joy" were little more than a propaganda carrot in effect, Nothing more. And as Richard Evans will tell you, in reality Nazi ideology opposed the welfare state and in fact cut back on it. And as to Poland, what Ray wont tell you is that after the second World War, Communist Poland nationalized all enterprises with over 50 employees without compensation. These are the rules, not the exceptions and to suggest that this was the case in Nazi germany too is to be very superficial indeed. And Mises, well all he does is comment on the Dirigisme capitalism the Nazis had and calls it "socialism", unfortunately for him as i've already demonstrated Japan also practices dirigisme economics, in fact as do alot of the "Tiger economies" in the east like Singapore, So sorry there is still no socialism in Nazi Germany regardless of what his poor, biased hack sources says.

Friday, 5 August 2011

JJ Ray: Hitler was a socialist debunked. Part 13, "So how did Hitler gain so much influence"

So how did Hitler gain so much influence?

I will submit the radically simple thesis that Hitler's appeal to Germans was much as the name of his political party would suggest -- a heady brew of rather extreme Leftism (socialism) combined with equally extreme nationalism -- with Hitler's obsession with the Jews being a relatively minor aspect of Nazism's popular appeal, as Dietrich (1988) shows.

That point on it's own, actually is a valid one if one remembers that the socialistic elements of his propaganda, was just propaganda to win over the masses and nothing more.

"like all demagouges, Hitler appealed to the masses. Unlike other demagouges who sought to carry out Left policies, Hitler dominated the masses by leftwing methods in order to deliver them to the Right. This is why the Right let him in." - AJP Taylor, "The origins of the second world war", p23.
Now here's a radically simple way to look at the politics of the 20's and 30's. The divisions at the time did not concern traditional party-political or left/right boundries like in the way they may do in the USA today, but rather the division was between those who wanted to look forward, those who wanted a more organised and efficient world in which things like unemployment and perhaps other percieved social ills could be banished via this means. Versus those who wanted to look back, often with a sense of nostalgia, those who wanted to take the nation-state back to a "more golden time" in order to solve the said percieved social ills of the day, the ones who were stuck with some old ideas. And touted solutions to the supposed social ills such as Eugenics to get rid of those Society didn't need, or those who wanted a more efficent state very much darted across traditional party-political or left/right boundries. To show you what i mean, George Bernard Shaw was an admirer of dictators on the grounds that he felt "they got things done" right?. well here then is an interesting quote by conservative peer "Charles Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry. [Lord Londonderry for short]" 

"Whatever the regime, if it creates efficient organisation, I feel a certain amount of admiration for it, and that is why I respect Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin [However, i wouldn't] like to live under those regimes myself."
In this way we can see the whole "progressive" thing he spouts in this segment into a better context and it can help explain why Hitler ended up with both left and right wing admirers, from G.B Shaw to Henry Ford. It being the way he presented himself.

So his "Ein Volk" dogma in effect very cleverly substituted the usual leftist dogma with "All GERMANS are equal" -- and also, of course, superior to non-Germans.

Haha no, that is not what his Ein Volk dogma entailed. Although he makes it clear in Mein Kampf that some races are better than others, but also that some individuals are superior to others WITHIN THE SAME RACE. 

"It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality." - Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Chapter 4.
Now as to welfare?
...the loyalty of Germans to Hitler cannot have been primarily economic. Hitler's socialist provisions for ordinary Germans were important but primarily functioned as evidence to them of how much Hitler cared for his Volk. It was primarily emotional satisfaction that Hitler gave to Germans.
Strangely enough this would be another valid point, if it didn't miss the point of why Hitler enacted certain programmes in the first place. ultimately Nazi ideology did not favour a Welfare state and indeed as documented by Richard Evans in his book "The Third Reich in power" they ended up cutting back on welfare. The programes that the Nazis did enact were merely something in order to win over the masses

"Faced with ten million people in receipt of welfare assistance at the height of the Depression, however, it would have been political suicide for the Nazis to have written off the mass of the unemployed and destitute as not worth helping." - Evans, "The Third Reich in power", p484

So their programmes were politically driven -- politically necessary -- not ideologically driven. And given the motives of why the Nazis enacted some programmes, is it any little surprise that the Nazis were returned back with "love"?

Moving on...

horrible and massive though the Nazi crimes were, they were anything but unique. For a start, government by tyranny is, if anything, normal in human history. And both antisemitism and eugenic theories were normal in prewar Europe. Further back in history, even Martin Luther wrote a most vicious and well-known attack on the Jews.

First of all, if govt by tyranny is normal how can it be inherently leftist? Secondly, Well we finally get him to acknowledge both antisemitism and eugenic theories were normal in prewar Europe, but it's a terribly weak admission as i have demonstrated that both existed on the left AND on the  right. Of course he'll never admit that it was.

As to Luther, see here for how his ideas helped influence Nazi ones! though of course, Hitler's Anti-semitism was bound up with German Nationalism too.

"A line of anti-Semitic descent from Martin Luther to Adolf Hitler is easy to draw. Both Luther and Hitler were obsessed by a demonologized universe inhabited by Jews. 'Know, Christian,' wrote Luther, 'that next to the devil thou hast no enemy more cruel, more venomous and violent than a true Jew .' Hitler himself, in that early dialogue with Dietrich Eckhart, asserted that the later Luther - that is, the violently anti-Semitic Luther - was the genuine Luther. Luther's protective authority was invoked by the Nazis when they came to power, and his anti-Semitic writings enjoyed a revival of popularity. To be sure, the similarities of Luther's anti-Jewish exhortations with modern racial anti-Semitism and even with Hitler's racial policies are not merely coincidental. They all derive from a common historic tradition of Jew-hatred, whose provenance can be traced back to Haman's advice to Ahasuerus. But modern German anti-Semitism had more recent roots than Luther and grew out of a different soil - not that German anti-Semitism was new; it drew part of its sustenance from Christian anti-Semitism, whose foundation had been laid by the Catholic Church and upon which Luther built. It was equally a product of German nationalism. Modern German anti-Semitism was the bastard child of the union of Christian anti-Semitism with German nationalism." - Lucy Dawidowicz, "The war against the jews", p23.
and Nazi theories of German racial superiority differed from then-customary British beliefs in British racial superiority mainly in that the British views were implemented with typical conservative moderation whereas the Nazi views were implemented with typical Leftist fanaticism and brutality

Er no, the fact that Hitler managed to carry out what some of the more millitant conservatives before him could only dream of doing is testament to his Rightism, not any leftism

And another aspect of Hitler's "normality" is that, as he came closer to power, he did reject the outright nationalization of industry as too Marxist. As long as the State could enforce its policies on industry, Hitler considered it wisest to leave the nominal ownership and day to day running of industry in the hands of those who had already shown themselves as capable of running and controlling it. This policy is broadly similar to the once much acclaimed Swedish model of socialism in more recent times so it is amusing that it has often been this policy which has underpinned the common claim that Hitler was Rightist. What is Leftist in Sweden was apparently Rightist in Hitler! There are of course many differences between postwar Sweden and Hitler's Germany but the point remains that Hitler's perfectly reasonable skepticism about the virtues of nationalizing all industry is far from sufficient to disqualify him as a Leftist.

Differences? The post war Swedish model,was built on Free unions bargaining on wages, not preparing for a full out war via militaristic planning programs as was the case in Nazi Germany. It is not in anyway leftist to propare for imperial war.The Swedish model was a peacuful way to create jobs and rise wages to keep up aggregate demand in depression and implement modest democracy at workplace etc. Not build a military for the purposes of imperialistic wars and putting people in horror camps. So no, Post war Sweden saw a political economy partially geared towards the betterment of the lower classes through democratic means. A centre-left political economy. Nazi germany was none of that and all the evidence therfore still points to it having an extreme Right wing political economy. So all we see from Ray here is just superficial nonsense.

Now as to hegel, what exactly was this "conservative liberal's" stance on Christianity?

"Hegel is a Christian, but not an orthodox one by the Nicene Creed. He denies the precedence of the Father, from whom the Son and the Spirit proceed. He denies that lordship is the meaning of divinity, so that Christ manifests divinity only as the risen Lord. The true definition of divinity is Spirit. But Hegel is not an ancient Gnostic like Marcion or Valentinus. He does not denigrate the body as the kingdom of the devil. He affirms the incarnation and construes natures as the logos made flesh, as spirit, i.e., the infinite Christ. He is a modern, Joachimite Gnostic: world history is the story of the logos making itself flesh in the rational state and human rights... [Hegelian philosophy] is still Christian even if not orthodox. To be a heretic one must after all first be a Christian" - Clark Butler in "New Perspectives on Hegel's Philosophy of Religion" ed by David Kolb, p139-141.
So more meaningless nonsense by Ray, as to his document, well it's been refuted by richard steigmann-gall's book "The Holy reich", and given the arguments in there, if one wishes to make the argument that Hitler was a socialist, than one has to accept that he was a Christian. Period!