Monday, January 15, 2007

Meanwhile, back at the farm

"In an age characterized by the Jewish-Capitalistic illusions of gold, rank and class, the National Socialist People’s State stands as an everlasting monument of social justice and clarity of reason. It will survive not only this war, but the coming millennium!"
(Adolf Hitler, tea-leaf reader)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

which program is sara watching?

8:43 am  
Anonymous børvis said...

Why Germany supported a madman

11:32 am  
Blogger Mikkel said...

A little program called SHÄDY ÄCRES. It's coming to a computer near you.

12:10 pm  
Blogger Mikkel said...

If yuo explain WWII by pointing to WWI, you'll have to explain WWI by pointing to WW0, World War Zero. That was really the worst one when you think about it.

12:12 pm  
Anonymous børvis said...

now you're being silly

it's an interesting article, and it explains to me very clearly a theory that makes sense as to why a whole country chose to believe utter insanity.

especially interesting is the information about schwarze pedagogik

1:10 pm  
Blogger Mikkel said...

First of all I think explaining Nazism as “insanity” is a convenient simplification. Within that specific historical context German expansionism made a bit more sense. If you look at a map of 1939 (I have a huge one you can borrow), the first thing you’ll notice is how much of the earth’s surface is NOT Germany. Two thirds of it is British, the rest is divided neatly between France, the USA and the Soviet Union. Tiny Germany is squeezed in between these powers, prohibited by political blockade from sharing in their unashamed looting of the world. She can choose to join either the gold bloc (France, USA), the sterling bloc (UK), or be sucked into the Communist planned economy. All these great powers, however, are former enemies of Germany, responsible for the humiliating defeat of half a generation earlier. So Germany decides to take them all on instead. Stupid, maybe, and clearly criminal, but not insane.

Secondly, I think I make a valid point when I say that explaining the violence of WWII by pointing to WWI does not make sense. From that standpoint, WWI actually makes less sense than WWII, being a clearer break with European military tradition, at least in the sum of the slaughter. On a political level this break can be explained with the democratization of warfare, where peoples, instead of armies, fight each other to the death (On a military level one could point to the static warfare that follows the invention of the machine gun combined with the use of barbed wire, a stasis that is broken only by the invention of the tank, the fighter plane and the wireless). WWI and WWII are not as I see them two separate wars; they are one continuous war with a brief intermission. First Western Capitalism combines forces with Russian Communism to defeat Fascism, and then Capitalism and Communism fight it out in the Cold War. All one continuous process which lasts from 1814 to 1990 – what the British historian Eric Hobsbawm calls the short twentieth century. Two wars and a long blockade fought by the same powers, for the same reasons, see above. And what came before WWI? Peace.

Thirdly, I think I speak for all of us when I say that violence is inherent in man, and if any of you monkeys disagree I’ll punch you in the nose. But seriously, I think it is.

Fourthly, I didn’t actually read the article, but I’m going to now.

1:50 pm  
Blogger Mikkel said...

OK, I've read it. I think it's hogwash, but I could be wrong.

1:56 pm  
Anonymous ungovernable said...
what the fuck is this now!?

1:29 am  
Blogger Mikkel said...

It's that darn democracy.

2:18 am  
Anonymous Lena said...

blablabla so howe about some babypictures?

6:59 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home