Triumph of the Will - incredible!!
casioc...@gmail.com
Watched Triumph of the Will yesterday, what an incredible movie. More
incredible was the performance of Adolf Hitler; what an incredible
public speaker he was, whether reading a speech from his notes or, even
more incredibly, just facing the crowd and appearing to speak either
from memory or in spontaneity... his voice, his gestures, the things he
said as tranlated in the subtitles (and I'm sure they were far more
eloquent in German), and so on... indeed, he seemed the personification
of a passion-for-a-cause and immense-charisma. Even if his speeches
were completely scripted and thoroughly rehearsed, his delivery was
absolutely astounding.
This is especially so when the current leader of the world, despite all
modern stage management and spin, appears as a "downright moron" and is
infamous for his hediously stupid public utterances (Bushisms,
anyone?).
The rest of the movie was equally spellbinding; the crowds, the hymns,
the chants, the cinematography. Amazing. Just amazing.
David
>The rest of the movie was equally spellbinding; the crowds, the hymns,
>the chants, the cinematography. Amazing. Just amazing.
I'm on a documentary bender & "Will" is in my queue. I've seen
"Olympiad" but never "Will."
I recommend two docs: "Carmen Miranda -- Bananas Is My Business" &
"The Eyes of Tammy Faye." These aren't great films like the
Riefenstahl documentaries, but they're both entertainingly absurd &
just off-kilter enough to lock you in.
Your Pal Brian
> Watched Triumph of the Will yesterday, what an incredible movie. More
> incredible was the performance of Adolf Hitler; what an incredible
> public speaker he was, whether reading a speech from his notes or, even
> more incredibly, just facing the crowd and appearing to speak either
> from memory or in spontaneity... his voice, his gestures, the things he
> said as tranlated in the subtitles (and I'm sure they were far more
> eloquent in German), and so on... indeed, he seemed the personification
> of a passion-for-a-cause and immense-charisma. Even if his speeches
> were completely scripted and thoroughly rehearsed, his delivery was
> absolutely astounding.
>
If it's playing in your neighborhood, do check out Downfall:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/
Sort of a before-and-after double feature.
Brian
casioc...@gmail.com
I'm aware of Downfall. I have no plans to watch it; it isn't real. In
these days of the "politics of evil", I was really sickened today by
reading film reviews for the Triumph of the Will online; it seems hard
for most people to speak of Hitler or Nazi Germany without seeming to
express a need to be profusely attesting to their "pure evil". What
nonsense. It's a truly miserable state of affairs when people have to
wax lyrically over how "evil" Hitler or the Nazis were when reviewing a
movie lest they stand accused of political heresy.
theresa
A nurse who was down in the bunker in the last days said the film was
pretty true to life.
Lincoln Spector
> these days of the "politics of evil", I was really sickened today by
> reading film reviews for the Triumph of the Will online; it seems hard
> for most people to speak of Hitler or Nazi Germany without seeming to
> express a need to be profusely attesting to their "pure evil". What
> nonsense. It's a truly miserable state of affairs when people have to
> wax lyrically over how "evil" Hitler or the Nazis were when reviewing a
> movie lest they stand accused of political heresy.
unusual opinion.
Lincoln
John Harkness
>
>Your Pal Brian wrote:
>> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Watched Triumph of the Will yesterday, what an incredible movie.
>More
>> > incredible was the performance of Adolf Hitler; what an incredible
>> > public speaker he was, whether reading a speech from his notes or,
>even
>> > more incredibly, just facing the crowd and appearing to speak
>either
>> > from memory or in spontaneity... his voice, his gestures, the
>things he
>> > said as tranlated in the subtitles (and I'm sure they were far more
>> > eloquent in German), and so on... indeed, he seemed the
>personification
>> > of a passion-for-a-cause and immense-charisma. Even if his speeches
>> > were completely scripted and thoroughly rehearsed, his delivery was
>> > absolutely astounding.
>> >
>>
>> If it's playing in your neighborhood, do check out Downfall:
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/
>>
>> Sort of a before-and-after double feature.
>>
>> Brian
>
>
>I'm aware of Downfall. I have no plans to watch it; it isn't real.
Triumph of the Will is REAL?
Triumph of the Will was staged for Reifenstahl's cameras.
John Harkness
casioc...@gmail.com
I doubt it. Maybe they did, but what was most obvious to me is the
impression of an obligation to sing to a public tune. Evil, itself, is
a word that I deride. The term has been prostituted to a zealously
promiscuous extent. I think it's a public idiocy to speak of evil, and
in particular, those who organizedly publicise its use are often the
current propagators of "evil". I have not lived in those times or had
first-hand experience, but I have lived in my times and have first-hand
experience of the present; nevermind the evils of the past, it's the
rabid vilification that is the scourge of our days.
David
>I doubt it. Maybe they did, but what was most obvious to me is the
>impression of an obligation to sing to a public tune. Evil, itself, is
>a word that I deride. The term has been prostituted to a zealously
>promiscuous extent. I think it's a public idiocy to speak of evil, and
>in particular, those who organizedly publicise its use are often the
>current propagators of "evil". I have not lived in those times or had
>first-hand experience, but I have lived in my times and have first-hand
>experience of the present; nevermind the evils of the past, it's the
>rabid vilification that is the scourge of our days.
Would we be remiss if we perhaps acknowledged the possibility that
Adolph was a tad disgruntled with large groups of Jews?
George Peatty
>I'm aware of Downfall. I have no plans to watch it; it isn't real. In
>these days of the "politics of evil", I was really sickened today by
>reading film reviews for the Triumph of the Will online; it seems hard
>for most people to speak of Hitler or Nazi Germany without seeming to
>express a need to be profusely attesting to their "pure evil". What
>nonsense. It's a truly miserable state of affairs when people have to
>wax lyrically over how "evil" Hitler or the Nazis were when reviewing a
>movie lest they stand accused of political heresy.
You walk a very fine line here. I can't say that I altogether disagree with
some of your arguments. I remember being very upset reading all the
politically-correct ad hominems on Leni Riefenstahl when she died. She
deserved to be judged by the political climate of her times, not ours. That
said, national socialism still to this day exerts a profound influence on
modern affairs, if nowhere else in the memory of the millions still alive
who suffered under it. You might wish to step outside history and consider
the Nazis the same way we consider the crusades, or the inquisition today.
I'm not sure that's possible. Or wise.
StormChaser
"David" <dobe...@fields.com> wrote in message
news:dp2d71pf2cio9u8hv...@4ax.com...
> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
Incredible is correct!
Will Smith did wallop them with the blockbuster "Hitch".
His sidekick Kevin James wasn't bad either.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
of the greatest films ever made.
Of the two, OLYMPIAD is politically safer -- hitler is overseeing the
Olympics, but the focus is on the celebration of the human
form/athletics, rather than politics. And, to her credit, Riefenstahl
includes the triumph of Jesse Owens in spite of the fact that his
victory was an embarrassment to Hitler. The diving sequence in
OLYMPIAD includes one of the most breathtaking montages in the history
of cinema -- Riefenstahl increases the speed of the cuts btw divers,
leaving out the beginning and the end of each dive, until we're left
with an almost abstract portrait of the human body gloriously flying
weightlessly through the air.
I've seen two different prints of TRIUMPH: one cut down to an hour's
length, but with English subtitles; and one that runs for two hours
without subtitles. There's probably a subtitled two-hour version out
on dvd (I haven't checked), but I recommend staying away from the one
hour print.
TRIUMPH was partly staged for Riefenstahl's cameras, but the rallies
were real -- and, like any political event, also staged to some degree.
The images of the rallies, with their geometrically arranged armies (a
German Expressionist motif borrowed from the theater of Max Rienhardt
and Fritz Lang's NIEBELUNGENLIED) are almost electrically powerful.
They remain so today, whether taken in their original context, or
viewed as an object of horror (Frank Capra would use footage from
TRIUMPH to show Americans how terrifying the Nazis were in his WHY WE
FIGHT series, produced for the US Gov't).
But along with all of the military pageantry (and contrasted with it
for great effect) are the early scenes of the German people: waking
from their tents, washing up, cooking breakfast, tossing each other on
blankets, etc. There's a stirringly Spartan spirit to it all, and an
almost innocent beauty.
Of course, when you think that these beautiful young people are
applauding the speeches of various Nazi leaders (which, I'm told
contain their share of vicious, anti-Jewish sentiment), the problems
concerning both the film, and Riefenstahl, arise.
Riefenstahl has said that she was unaware of the Holocaust, and that
she paid little attention to politics in general. And for those of us
who can distance ourselves far enough from the messages expressed in
TRIUMPH, it stands as a powerful -- and frightening -- document of the
spirit that existed in Nazi Germany -- the spirit that allowed a nation
to the sort of atrocities that the Nazis did.
No other films -- regardless of their anti-Nazi stance -- so clearly
convey this spirit.
Riefenstahl's fiction films that I've seen (TIEFLAND, THE BLUE LIGHT)
don't measure up to her documentaries -- although they certainly have
their moments. I think it's one of the great tragedies of motion
picture history that an immensely talented artist like Leni Riefenstahl
should have been successfully shut out of a post-WWII filmmaking
career.
The question remains (and will probably remain) as to how responsible a
filmmaker like Riefenstahl should be held for having directed pro-Nazi
films under the Nazi regime. Certainly many Germans believed in the
message of Adolph Hitler, and were, at least to the extent of its
genocidal nature, oblivious to the Holocaust.
In JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBURG, Stanley Kramer extends the blame not only to
the German people, but to the world as well -- for every other country
(The United States included) turned a blind eye to the Holocaust
despite more than enough rumors that it was happening.
I judge Riefenstahl solely on her talent, and based on that, she's one
of the greats.
Mike O'Sullivan
>
>
> Riefenstahl has said that she was unaware of the Holocaust, and that
> she paid little attention to politics in general. And for those of us
> who can distance ourselves far enough from the messages expressed in
> TRIUMPH, it stands as a powerful -- and frightening -- document of the
> spirit that existed in Nazi Germany -- the spirit that allowed a nation
> to the sort of atrocities that the Nazis did.
Worth getting it into context. In 1934 when the Triumph was made and
1936 the year of the Berlin Olympics, there had not been a Holocaust.
herr blob
it's very impressive, sometimes even great. i'd say it has two great
moments. the troop rally in the stadium prior to hitler's speech. and
the final segment of the street march.
but, too much of the movie is repetitious, heavy, and teutonic. yes,
that was the intention, the essence of of nazi aesthetic--just look at
arno breker's sculptures--but it's not enough to sustain 2 hrs of
interest.
as great as riefenstahl was, she was all eye and not much brains.
eisenstein could impress with ideas as well as images. with
riefenstahl, what you see is what you get. it's great but in a
superficial way.
and yes, hitler was a great rock star before there was such a thing.
but, hitler was all hard rock. mussolini had the groove.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
made and
1936 the year of the Berlin Olympics, there had not been a Holocaust
Scarlotti: The first Concentration Camp (then called a Work Camp),
Dachau, opened in 1933. Let's say that the Holocaust was definitely
underway.
John Harkness
<del...@spammindspringnot.com> wrote:
>In article <1115100403.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Scar...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
>
>> Riefenstahl has said that she was unaware of the Holocaust, and that
>> she paid little attention to politics in general.
>
>It's amazing how many people who later were unaware of the Holocaust.
It's even more amazing how many people are willing to believe Hitler's
publicist.
John Harkness
how...@brazee.net
On 3-May-2005, "herr blob" <fatsg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> as great as riefenstahl was, she was all eye and not much brains.
> eisenstein could impress with ideas as well as images. with
> riefenstahl, what you see is what you get. it's great but in a
> superficial way.
But superficial ways get despots elected. And don't think it can't happen
here.
how...@brazee.net
On 2-May-2005, casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
> More
> incredible was the performance of Adolf Hitler; what an incredible
> public speaker he was, whether reading a speech from his notes or, even
> more incredibly, just facing the crowd and appearing to speak either
> from memory or in spontaneity... his voice, his gestures, the things he
> said as tranlated in the subtitles (and I'm sure they were far more
> eloquent in German), and so on... indeed, he seemed the personification
> of a passion-for-a-cause and immense-charisma. Even if his speeches
> were completely scripted and thoroughly rehearsed, his delivery was
> absolutely astounding.
Movies making Hitler out to be a clown act as though we will never be in
danger of falling beneath the spell of someone so dangerous. That is a
bad message. The reason the German people (not to mention its enemies)
suffered so much is because Hitler was seductive.
how...@brazee.net
On 3-May-2005, John Harkness <jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It's even more amazing how many people are willing to believe Hitler's
> publicist.
Don't be amazed. Recognize that publicists are skilled today and that we
can still be seduced by the dark side today.
Sawfish
Yes. When thinking of Mussolini, that was the term I was searching for...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
Richard Schultz
And its name is spelled S-P-I-E-L-B-E-R-G.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Sawfish
>On 2-May-2005, casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
That's *exactly* right.
I get really worried when I see Hitler labeled as "evil". This is a
relatively meaningless term outside of your own personal morality. Had
Germany won the war, and if by some miracle you and I were here today,
discussing the topic of evil war criminals, we'd be smugly discussing what
an evil crude manupulator Churchill was, before his execution, and what
immoral criminals Truman, LeMay, and Harris were. BUt Patton was an
honorable man who was misled, etc.
Cripes! To argue that Hitler was evil is to argue that the majority of
German people were, if not evil, at least an ethically fertile planting
ground for evil ideas. I mean, they *loved* Hitler. He appealed to
instincts that are generously explained as anachronistic. Maybe this has
been bled out of them.
I wonder who's next?
Lincoln Spector
brilliant artist who was interested in very little except physical beauty.
And thus she created beautiful but, in the end, shallow works of art.
That would have been fine, except that her esthetic nature blinded her to
the fact that she was cooperating with, and helping to glorify, a leader and
government that were unquestionably evil. She paid for that mistake (which
she never acknowledged as a mistake) for the rest of her life.
One interesting question is: Did she deserve to be effectively banned from
making films. She certainly wasn't the only filmmaker who made fascist
propaganda (or Communist propaganda, for that matter). In fact, my all-time
favorite, Akira Kurosawa, started his directing career making movies that
had to pass Japan's military censors. But to my knowledge, Riefenstahl was
the only one who was never able to make another movie.
Why? Perhaps sexism had something to do with it. Or perhaps she was so good
at making propaganda. Then again, the fact that she never acknowledged that
there was anything wrong with what she did may have had a lot to do with it.
Lincoln
<Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115100403.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Your Pal Brian
> "herr blob" <fatsg...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> >and yes, hitler was a great rock star before there was such a thing.
> >but, hitler was all hard rock. mussolini had the groove.
>
> Yes. When thinking of Mussolini, that was the term I was searching for...
After the war, Mussolini's son became a jazz pianist and tried to keep a low
profile. One night he was playing a gig behind Chet Baker. They found
themselves alone together after the show and Chet, trying to make conversation,
said: "It's a real drag what they did to your dad, man."
Good old hipster understatement.
Brian
Lincoln Spector
And what you have below is EXACTLY wrong.
>
> I get really worried when I see Hitler labeled as "evil". This is a
> relatively meaningless term outside of your own personal morality.
My own personal morality says that it's evil to turn an ethnic, religious,
or racial minority into a scapegoat for your country's problems, to give the
government control of media, to lock up, torture, and kill people for their
beliefs, to practice genocide, to attack and conquer other countries because
you are better than them and deserve their land and riches, and to kill tens
of millions of people to establish your imagined superiority. I do not
believe I am unique in this opinion. I can therefore say Hitler was evil.
> Had
> Germany won the war, and if by some miracle you and I were here today,
> discussing the topic of evil war criminals, we'd be smugly discussing what
> an evil crude manupulator Churchill was, before his execution, and what
> immoral criminals Truman, LeMay, and Harris were. BUt Patton was an
> honorable man who was misled, etc.
If Hitler had won and I was here today, I'd be in hiding, since my very
birth would have been a capital crime. And it's hard to say what we would
have believed. Conquered people don't always believe the propaganda of their
conquerers. And what we believed wouldn't neccisarily be the truth.
>
> Cripes! To argue that Hitler was evil is to argue that the majority of
> German people were, if not evil, at least an ethically fertile planting
> ground for evil ideas. I mean, they *loved* Hitler. He appealed to
> instincts that are generously explained as anachronistic. Maybe this has
> been bled out of them.
Any nation can be, under the right conditions (perhaps I should way "under
the wrong conditions") fertile ground for evil ideas. It's a dangerous
world, out there.
Lincoln
John Harkness
<Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
>To me, Riefenstahl represents the danger of pure esthetics. She was a
>brilliant artist who was interested in very little except physical beauty.
>And thus she created beautiful but, in the end, shallow works of art.
>
>That would have been fine, except that her esthetic nature blinded her to
>the fact that she was cooperating with, and helping to glorify, a leader and
>government that were unquestionably evil. She paid for that mistake (which
>she never acknowledged as a mistake) for the rest of her life.
>
>One interesting question is: Did she deserve to be effectively banned from
>making films. She certainly wasn't the only filmmaker who made fascist
>propaganda (or Communist propaganda, for that matter). In fact, my all-time
>favorite, Akira Kurosawa, started his directing career making movies that
>had to pass Japan's military censors.
False analogy.
"Having to pass military censors"
is not the same as
"Was Hirohito's publicist promoting the glory of the empire"
John Harkness
Sawfish
>> That's *exactly* right.
>And what you have below is EXACTLY wrong.
>>
>> I get really worried when I see Hitler labeled as "evil". This is a
>> relatively meaningless term outside of your own personal morality.
>My own personal morality says that it's evil to turn an ethnic, religious,
>or racial minority into a scapegoat for your country's problems, to give the
>government control of media, to lock up, torture, and kill people for their
>beliefs, to practice genocide, to attack and conquer other countries because
>you are better than them and deserve their land and riches, and to kill tens
>of millions of people to establish your imagined superiority. I do not
>believe I am unique in this opinion. I can therefore say Hitler was evil.
I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, adn tend to share it as a basis for
personal morality, but sometime I find myself thinking that maybe it's a
luxury for me to be able to think this way.
We can look back thru redent recorded history and see pretty much what
you're describing having happened to the American Indian tribes. You can
see it in any region that was formerly occupied by by one ethnic group,
but no longer--and there being no remnant population availbale.
It almost looks like genocide is inherent in the human population as some
kind of evolutionary mechanism, ugly as it is. Maybe, just maybe, it's
getting bled out of us in a series of wars that cull off the most
agressive.
Who knows?
>> Had
>> Germany won the war, and if by some miracle you and I were here today,
>> discussing the topic of evil war criminals, we'd be smugly discussing what
>> an evil crude manupulator Churchill was, before his execution, and what
>> immoral criminals Truman, LeMay, and Harris were. BUt Patton was an
>> honorable man who was misled, etc.
>If Hitler had won and I was here today, I'd be in hiding, since my very
>birth would have been a capital crime. And it's hard to say what we would
>have believed. Conquered people don't always believe the propaganda of their
>conquerers. And what we believed wouldn't neccisarily be the truth.
Me, too, and I again symapthize, but you can look at the complacent, if
not enthusiastic participation of Ukranians as prison camp guards in the
death camps. Their birth, too, marked them for extinction in the 3rd
Reich, but...
>>
>> Cripes! To argue that Hitler was evil is to argue that the majority of
>> German people were, if not evil, at least an ethically fertile planting
>> ground for evil ideas. I mean, they *loved* Hitler. He appealed to
>> instincts that are generously explained as anachronistic. Maybe this has
>> been bled out of them.
>Any nation can be, under the right conditions (perhaps I should way "under
>the wrong conditions") fertile ground for evil ideas. It's a dangerous
>world, out there.
Agreed. On must keep one's nose clean, and a sharp eye out for trouble
brewing.
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com
effectively banned from
making films. She certainly wasn't the only filmmaker who made fascist
propaganda (or Communist propaganda, for that matter). In fact, my
all-time
favorite, Akira Kurosawa, started his directing career making movies
that
had to pass Japan's military censors. But to my knowledge, Riefenstahl
was
the only one who was never able to make another movie.
Why? Perhaps sexism had something to do with it. Or perhaps she was so
good
at making propaganda. Then again, the fact that she never acknowledged
that
there was anything wrong with what she did may have had a lot to do
with it.
Scarlotti: I certainly don't think that Riefenstahl should have been
banned. And have always suspected the reason was as you'd noted --
that TRIUMPH was so unbelieveably powerful. That and the fact that it
presented Hitler as a god (descending out of the skies with his plane
casting the shadow of a german eagle symbol upon the town).
Unfortunately, too many people had suffered/been killed at the hands of
the Nazis for most to be able to accept any future films by
Riefenstahl. Approx. 15 years ago, we screened the butcherec one hour
version in a film class. After the film ended the professor commented
"Phew! That was like a bad half time show at a football game."
Suffice to say, he and I immediately became arch enemies.
The point being that even 55 years after the film had been made, it can
still produce such blindly negative reactions -- and in an academic
setting, where you'd expect a dispassionate, analytical approach to be
the order of the day.
****
And while I agree that Riefenstahl's is about pure aesthetics, I don't
believe her work is as shallow as you suggest. Her aesthetics and
message/substance are derived in part from the Mountain Film "school"
-- and she had been a popular star and sometime director of several
Mountain Films in the 20s and early 30s. The mountain films glorify
nature and physical fitness/the human body, enveloping both in an air
of sexual longing and mystical revelation. In the gothic tradition (a
la WUTHERING HEIGHTS) nature and the human spirit become mystically
fused with the calm/turmoil of the former reflecting that of the
latter. The Mountain Film aesthetic has many superficial similarities
with the Nazi ideals of the "Master Race," which is why Riefenstahl's
visual poetry works so well with Nazi documentaries.
David
>To me, Riefenstahl represents the danger of pure esthetics. She was a
>brilliant artist who was interested in very little except physical beauty.
I don't see the danger inherent in the aesthetic. Instead, I always
see the danger in the psyche of the aesthete -- & only some aesthetes
at that. Wilde & the Art for Art's Sake group didn't all turn into
fascists & werewolves.
Lincoln Spector
"John Harkness" <jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:quaf71dl5jooso372...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:31:21 GMT, "Lincoln Spector"
> <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>To me, Riefenstahl represents the danger of pure esthetics. She was a
>>brilliant artist who was interested in very little except physical beauty.
>>And thus she created beautiful but, in the end, shallow works of art.
>>
>>That would have been fine, except that her esthetic nature blinded her to
>>the fact that she was cooperating with, and helping to glorify, a leader
>>and
>>government that were unquestionably evil. She paid for that mistake (which
>>she never acknowledged as a mistake) for the rest of her life.
>>
>>One interesting question is: Did she deserve to be effectively banned from
>>making films. She certainly wasn't the only filmmaker who made fascist
>>propaganda (or Communist propaganda, for that matter). In fact, my
>>all-time
>>favorite, Akira Kurosawa, started his directing career making movies that
>>had to pass Japan's military censors.
>
> False analogy.
>
> "Having to pass military censors"
>
> is not the same as
>
> "Was Hirohito's publicist promoting the glory of the empire"
>
> John Harkness
films, "The Most Beautiful," is generally considered war propaganda (I
haven't seen it, and can go only on reputation).
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
the psyche of the aesthete." Could you explain. Certainly, not all aesthetes
become fascists, and I'm a strong believer in art for art's sake. But if you
close your eyes to every other consideration in your quest for
art--especially if your art is one that requires major financing--you open
yourself up to manipulation.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:11151424...@q7.q7.com...
> "Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> writes:
>
>>> That's *exactly* right.
>>And what you have below is EXACTLY wrong.
>
>>>
>>> I get really worried when I see Hitler labeled as "evil". This is a
>>> relatively meaningless term outside of your own personal morality.
>>My own personal morality says that it's evil to turn an ethnic, religious,
>>or racial minority into a scapegoat for your country's problems, to give
>>the
>>government control of media, to lock up, torture, and kill people for
>>their
>>beliefs, to practice genocide, to attack and conquer other countries
>>because
>>you are better than them and deserve their land and riches, and to kill
>>tens
>>of millions of people to establish your imagined superiority. I do not
>>believe I am unique in this opinion. I can therefore say Hitler was evil.
>
> I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, adn tend to share it as a basis for
> personal morality, but sometime I find myself thinking that maybe it's a
> luxury for me to be able to think this way.
neccisity to recognize evil.
<snip>
>>Any nation can be, under the right conditions (perhaps I should way "under
>>the wrong conditions") fertile ground for evil ideas. It's a dangerous
>>world, out there.
>
> Agreed. On must keep one's nose clean, and a sharp eye out for trouble
> brewing.
Precisely why it's not a luxury. If we don't study the evils in the past, we
won't recognize them in the present.
Lincoln
Kingo Gondo
censors. That doesn't make them Riefenstahls, I think. If Kurosawa had made
pre-war films that attempted to glorify Japanese expansionism, racism and
militarism, well, maybe you'd have a case. A nationalistic film made during
the most bitter years of a world war is not in the same ballpark, IMO.
(caveat: I haven't seen The Most Beautiful either).
"Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:XiPde.750$X21...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
John Harkness
<Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
Well, The Most Beautiful is an odd film to base one's case on == I
have seen it (there's a poor quality Ah Mei DVD that I got for $5 at
HKFLIX
It's the story of a group of women laboring heroically in an munitions
plant, a sort of Japanese Rosie The Rivetter, combined, rather poorly,
with a tender "coming of age" story.
John Harkness
Sawfish
>"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:11151424...@q7.q7.com...
>> "Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> writes:
>>
>>>> That's *exactly* right.
>>>And what you have below is EXACTLY wrong.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I get really worried when I see Hitler labeled as "evil". This is a
>>>> relatively meaningless term outside of your own personal morality.
>>>My own personal morality says that it's evil to turn an ethnic, religious,
>>>or racial minority into a scapegoat for your country's problems, to give
>>>the
>>>government control of media, to lock up, torture, and kill people for
>>>their
>>>beliefs, to practice genocide, to attack and conquer other countries
>>>because
>>>you are better than them and deserve their land and riches, and to kill
>>>tens
>>>of millions of people to establish your imagined superiority. I do not
>>>believe I am unique in this opinion. I can therefore say Hitler was evil.
>>
>> I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint, adn tend to share it as a basis for
>> personal morality, but sometime I find myself thinking that maybe it's a
>> luxury for me to be able to think this way.
>No, it's not a luxury. Quite the opposite. It's a responsibility and a
>neccisity to recognize evil.
I can see where you are coming from, but let's consider infanticide.
Generally considered "evil". But this has been practiced extensive in
diverse cultural millieux, and it is usually (although by no means
exclusively) associated with extremely marginal environmental conditions.
We live in a time--quite a "luxurious" time, by general standards--where
we can call the practice unequivocally "evil". Were we facing starvation,
with our wife and three other marginally nourished offspring, I'm not so
sure we could say that with the same degree of confidence.
This holds true for cannibalism, as well.
><snip>
>>>Any nation can be, under the right conditions (perhaps I should way "under
>>>the wrong conditions") fertile ground for evil ideas. It's a dangerous
>>>world, out there.
>>
>> Agreed. On must keep one's nose clean, and a sharp eye out for trouble
>> brewing.
>Precisely why it's not a luxury. If we don't study the evils in the past, we
>won't recognize them in the present.
Ah, that's not contrary to the idea that it's a luxury. Speaking out, in
this case, would be a luxury. You can think about it all you want.
We live in remarlably enlightened times, in a remarkably enlightened
social structure. It was seldom thus, as near as I can tell.
Sawfish
>John Ford and Frank Capra made "war propaganda" that had to pass military
>censors. That doesn't make them Riefenstahls, I think.
It might if the Axis had won...
Stephen Cooke
I'll say this for Hitler: he was great in cartoons.
swac
casioc...@gmail.com
Diane L. Schirf wrote:
> In article <1115079188.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The term has been prostituted to a zealously
> > promiscuous extent.
>
> Yes, how could someone responsible for a mere 20 million deaths be
evil?
> C'mon, people, perspective here!
>
> </sarcasm>
And that is exactly the reason I deride this personification of "evil"
and my gut turns with disgust at those who use it; Hitler, the coat
hanger of all of our responsibilities and... umm, "evils".
>
> --
> http://www.slywy.com/
casioc...@gmail.com
John Harkness wrote:
> On 2 May 2005 15:22:38 -0700, casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Your Pal Brian wrote:
> >> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Watched Triumph of the Will yesterday, what an incredible movie.
> >> > incredible was the performance of Adolf Hitler; what an
incredible
> >> > public speaker he was, whether reading a speech from his notes
or,
> >even
> >> > more incredibly, just facing the crowd and appearing to speak
> >either
> >> > from memory or in spontaneity... his voice, his gestures, the
> >things he
> >> > said as tranlated in the subtitles (and I'm sure they were far
more
> >> > eloquent in German), and so on... indeed, he seemed the
> >personification
> >> > of a passion-for-a-cause and immense-charisma. Even if his
speeches
> >> > were completely scripted and thoroughly rehearsed, his delivery
was
> >> > absolutely astounding.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/
> >>
> >> Sort of a before-and-after double feature.
> >>
> >> Brian
> >
> >
> >I'm aware of Downfall. I have no plans to watch it; it isn't real.
>
> Triumph of the Will is REAL?
>
> Triumph of the Will was staged for Reifenstahl's cameras.
>
> John Harkness
The individuals are real, and playing their part in a real historical
event.
Martin Koolhoven
> Watched Triumph of the Will yesterday, what an incredible movie. More
> incredible was the performance of Adolf Hitler;
Just saw a documentary with some footage of Hitler at the olympic games
that didn't make it into Riefenstahl's Olympiade. Rocking about like a
person who has Down syndrome.
>This is especially so when the current leader of the world, despite all
modern stage management and spin, appears as a "downright moron"
Not half as bad as Hitler...
--
Martin Koolhoven
casioc...@gmail.com
Let's not forget that "publicity" was utilized on both sides and still
is today, that the "publicity" of the victors is what shaped current
common conception of that era, and it's been a treacherously one-sided
account. In the West as they'd extol virtues of bravery, you'd hardly
hear mention of the Soviets' role in winning the war, although they
fought 4/5th of it and the allies mostly snuck in through the backdoor
pretty late in the game. It also it disgusts me everytime a current US
Republican draws inspiration from Winston Churchill and the reason is
obvious; you would never hear them draw inspiration from FDR Roosevelt.
I think it's a travesty that the public history of this significant and
very recent era was shaped by politicians and propagandists, and I,
honestly, have little trust in either. It is a travesty that in too
many democratic countries the key elements of vilification, such as the
narrative of the holocaust, are beyond critical inquiry. It is a
narrative that acquired a frenzy of sacred scripture protected by the
law despite secularism and questioning it is analogous to a crime
befitting prosecution to a devastating extent; hardly a reason for
trust in its unquestionable truth.
casioc...@gmail.com
Sawfish wrote:
> "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@zor.org> writes:
>
> >John Ford and Frank Capra made "war propaganda" that had to pass
military
> >censors. That doesn't make them Riefenstahls, I think.
>
> It might if the Axis had won...
And if the Axis had won events like the bombing of Dresden, the burning
of Tokyo, the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and perhaps much else
that escaped public propagation, would've been deservedly considered
war crimes and crimes against humanity. But no, we're all good and
they're "evil".
casioc...@gmail.com
Much of the significant past is difficult to study or find credible
sources to. But look at the current situation in the US, where the
self-righteous politics of "evil" and the practice of vilification are
rabid, and yet the commanders of a war crime like the 1991 genocide of
tens of thousands of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers have been elected twice
to office now, second of which after they did it yet again, and if you
thought that "shock and awe" footage from Baghdad was horrific, you'd
really have to wonder about what was happening in the desert to scores
and scores of young Iraqi men surrounded and bombarded mercilessly from
the skies, whereby afterwards a gloating US commander would proudly
announce that divisions of the republican guards and Iraqi army had
been completely "destroyed", as if they weren't humans. To this day
you'd listen to them and you'd think no more than a thousand and some
Americans died, and a report that tens or hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis died is dismissed because it's not politically expedient. I am
still in disgust over the Ward Churchill issue and how the mere mention
that the US kept a country under sanctions till half a million of its
children died and littered its land with depleted Uranium that'll
persist for a long time to come, just the mere mention of what everyone
should know already, is considered heretical.
Milgram's experiments showed the Americans would've committed cruelty
just as heniously as anyone else; I really think it's too obvious for
anyone who's willing to witness public politics and its morality of
convenience.
Kingo Gondo
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:11151564...@q7.q7.com...
> "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@zor.org> writes:
>
> >John Ford and Frank Capra made "war propaganda" that had to pass military
> >censors. That doesn't make them Riefenstahls, I think.
>
> It might if the Axis had won...
I guess if one wanted to adopt the "standards" of the Nazis, perhaps. It's
not a viewpoint that really convinces me, however (the consequence of not
being a Nazi, I guess).
The Axis LOST but still no one considers Kurosawa ("Axis filmmaker") in the
same moral category as Riefenstahl ("Axis filmmaker"). The condemnation of
Riefenstahl arises from something more than being just a loyal subject of
the losing side who practiced her art at a high level. She, knowingly and
willingly, helped mass murderers achieve and consolidate absolute
power--which they immediately used to achieve the murderous ends they had
previously announced as their intention all along. And she seemed to get off
on hobnobbing with these monsters--not all great German film artists made
such a choice (e.g. Marlene Dietrich). It was, I reiterate, A CHOICE. And
choices made invite (indeed, are the necessary prerequisite to) moral
judgments such as "Riefenstahl was a fucking Nazi bitch." Now if somebody
wants to argue that she was an immensely talented fucking Nazi bitch, it's
OK with me.
Artistic considerations aside, the moral case against Riefenstahl is so
clear-cut that my "what the fuck is THEIR agenda?" radar goes off whenever
somebody tries to "nuance" it with me (not referring to you here).
monsie...@hotmail.com
David wrote:
> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >The rest of the movie was equally spellbinding; the crowds, the
hymns,
> >the chants, the cinematography. Amazing. Just amazing.
>
> "Olympiad" but never "Will."
>
> I recommend two docs: "Carmen Miranda -- Bananas Is My Business" &
> "The Eyes of Tammy Faye." These aren't great films like the
> Riefenstahl documentaries, but they're both entertainingly absurd &
> just off-kilter enough to lock you in.
looool... is that the one by alison anders?
monsie...@hotmail.com
seen it.
Kingo Gondo
<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115177533.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sawfish wrote:
> > "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@zor.org> writes:
> >
> > >John Ford and Frank Capra made "war propaganda" that had to pass
> military
> > >censors. That doesn't make them Riefenstahls, I think.
> >
> > It might if the Axis had won...
>
> And if the Axis had won events like the bombing of Dresden, the burning
> of Tokyo, the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and perhaps much else
> that escaped public propagation, would've been deservedly considered
> war crimes and crimes against humanity.
As would, say, hiding Jews. What's your point? I know you think you have
one, and I even know what it is--do you?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are debatable historical events from a moral
perspective, if you know the first thing about the plans to invade Japan,
and the projected casualties (both American and Japanese). Now Auschwitz,
Treblinka, Nanking and Bataan--do you have any moral arguments for these?
>But no, we're all good and
they're "evil".
Bad, cartoonish moral relativism is really embarrassing to see in the wild.
And more than anything, it serves as ready kindling for the absolutists
assholes I truly despise (even more than you do, trust me). Just stop.
Sawfish
>In article <11151365...@q7.q7.com>, Sawfish <m...@q7.com> wrote:
>> I get really worried when I see Hitler labeled as "evil".
>Man, you do need to find some real issues to worry about. Can we help?
Yes. You can start by trying not editing my point quite so much.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!"
--Sawfish
Sawfish
>In article <1115174750.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>Could you explain, this time making sense?
I can't speak for him, but I sense that the concern is somethiing like
this:
"For God's sake! Look at Hilter, that fucking monster! He's so obviously
evil!"
"What's that? You say that a very large proportion of Germans voted for
him, and for all intents and purposes *liked* him? This obviously evil
man?"
(Thinking..."Hmmm. Perhaps Germans, themselves are evil, or maybe more
susceptible to evil than I am.
"Well, no matter! I'm not German, so I should be good to go...")
"How do I know that Hilter was evil? Well, for christsake, buddy! He was
responsible for having about 10 million people killed in concentration
camps. Gen-o-cide, my friend."
"Where are all the North American Indians? How the fuck should I know?
All I know is that I'm not as susceptible to evil as a German."
This "evil" shit is real murky, if you want to be objective about it...
Richard Schultz
: "For God's sake! Look at Hilter, that fucking monster! He's so obviously
: evil!"
I've always been more suspicious of Ron Vibbentrop. And I'm not sure
that I like this idea of Boncentration Bamps. . .
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
Kingo Gondo
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:d5anjs$2os$6...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In article <11152103...@q7.q7.com>, Sawfish <m...@q7.com> wrote:
>
> : "For God's sake! Look at Hilter, that fucking monster! He's so obviously
> : evil!"
>
> I've always been more suspicious of Ron Vibbentrop. And I'm not sure
> that I like this idea of Boncentration Bamps. . .
Well, I gave him my baby to kiss and he bit it on the head.
David
>"How do I know that Hilter was evil? Well, for christsake, buddy! He was
>responsible for having about 10 million people killed in concentration
>camps. Gen-o-cide, my friend."
>
>"Where are all the North American Indians? How the fuck should I know?
>All I know is that I'm not as susceptible to evil as a German."
>
>This "evil" shit is real murky, if you want to be objective about it...
But where in the statement "Hitler is evil" is the widespread
slaughter of the American Indians whitewashed?
If the U.S. political powers today engage in a double standard of
vilification, as casioculture says, how does that make evil murky? It
just makes those politicians liars or deluded fools.
This popular argument of the subjectivity of morality seems not quite
settled: mostly a series of assertions & counter-assertions. Is it
because nobody is quite sure what "evil" means? or, more exactly,
"evil" means whatever anyone says it means (unlike, say, "fish" or
"computer")? Still, I can't think of any culture, at any time or in
any place, in which buying a verdict from a judge was a virtue,
Sawfish
>Sawfish <m...@q7.com> wrote:
>>"How do I know that Hilter was evil? Well, for christsake, buddy! He was
>>responsible for having about 10 million people killed in concentration
>>camps. Gen-o-cide, my friend."
>>
>>"Where are all the North American Indians? How the fuck should I know?
>>All I know is that I'm not as susceptible to evil as a German."
>>
>>This "evil" shit is real murky, if you want to be objective about it...
>But where in the statement "Hitler is evil" is the widespread
>slaughter of the American Indians whitewashed?
It isn't, nor should it be. And maybe it shouldn't be blindly villified,
either.
This sort of behavior happens all the time, and appears to have happened
in the past, as well. Why?
When one examines why it's apparently fairly easy to motivate a fairly
homogeneous culture to annihilate another, identifiably distict culture.
I'd suppose that in archaic times it would not take much of a rhetocial
argument to motivate a slaughter of a neighboring tribe. It could be that
there are sound evolutionary reasons for this. Eliminating competition for
resources. Can you spell "lebensraum"?
This is no longer either necessary of acceptable, but the urge to this
archaic behavior is still lurking within--dare I venture a guess?--a large
majority of the humans on the planet, today. It seems as though the
unscrupulous leader (or one who honestly believes his own rhetoric) finds
it fairly easy to arouse a murderous passion in a large number of people,
simultaneously. And they go out and either kill entire groups of
ethnically distinct others, or cheerfully stand by while it's done for
them.
This would mean that most of humanity is evil, or has a very fertile
potential for being swayed toward evil. Or, they're not evil, but instead
are easily stimulated to murderous action by appeals to near-reflex
instinctual urges. You know, like a male lion killing the offspring of his
predecessor. Why is this different?
Either explanation would fit the facts. Which of the two do you prefer, or
do you have one you'd like to share here? If we go with my explanation
(not evil, but an atavistic social response) we can easily see it in
ourselves ***AND TAKE STEPS TO WILLFULLY OPPOSE IT IN OURSELVES***. For
shit's sake, I'm better than to give in to this overworn reflex, whose
time is long-gone--or should be.
But if it's "evil", we find that very few people will own up to being
"evil" or containing the potential for "evil" and hence they smugly point
to Hitler (or David Koresh, or Manson, or Stalin, or Saddam, etc...) as
entities separate from themselves, with this inexplicable taint *that
they, themselves do not share*. Heavens, no!
That's why it's important not to view Hitler as "evil"; or, if you insist
that he's evil, you need to recognise that the same taint exists in us
all, and it's waiting to come to the forefront unless we recognise it and
actively resist it. Hilter and the others I mentioned aren't any different
in potential from you and I, they just gave in, and persuaded others to do
so, as well. And it was fairly easy, it looks like.
Why resist it? There's no external moral authority that I can see. For
the sake of my own self-esteem, that's why. I'm BETTER than that: that's
why. For myself. Period.
For those with less concern with their self-esteem, there are legal
sanctions to help them out, a little. We should be glad of these, ah,
"external aids", and support their consistent application.
>If the U.S. political powers today engage in a double standard of
>vilification, as casioculture says, how does that make evil murky? It
>just makes those politicians liars or deluded fools.
Fine.
>This popular argument of the subjectivity of morality seems not quite
>settled: mostly a series of assertions & counter-assertions. Is it
>because nobody is quite sure what "evil" means? or, more exactly,
>"evil" means whatever anyone says it means (unlike, say, "fish" or
>"computer")? Still, I can't think of any culture, at any time or in
>any place, in which buying a verdict from a judge was a virtue,
How about stealing from a stranger? How about slavery? How about
homosexuality? Cripes, you don't have to look very far to find behavior
that today is considered positively heinous, perfectly acceptable to
entire *groups*, no fuckin' questions asked.
Circumcision, anyone?
herr blob
whenever one reviews triumph of the will or some such.
one speaks with awe and reverence about the holocaust. george will
called 'shoah' the greatest use of film ever. i guess a holocaust
museum is the greatest use of museum ever. holocaust sculpture is the
greatest use of sculpture ever. holocaust literature is the greatest
use of literature ever.
now, no one is obligated to mention the evil of communism, the mass
murder of the clergy, the gulags when one reviews potemkin or earth.
and, indeed, movie scholars all being on the left don't bother with
such details.
some yrs back, film center in chicago had a retrospective on nazi era
films and called it 'cinema of deception'. they also had
retrospectives of soviet films but it was called something nice like
revolutionary this or that or utopian visions, etc.
now, of course, nazi cinema deceived. but, then all cinemas do.
bollywood don't present reality. hollywood didn't either. and soviet
cinema certainly not. yet, only nazi cinema is derided as telling
lies.
we must always always discuss the nazi era in evil negative terms as
though EVERYTHING associated with it was extra evil or demented.
if someone wants to make a claim that not everything within nazi
germany was evil, he has to go at length about how he personally hates
nazism to make sure that he's not, in any way, apologizing for the nazi
regime.
i have no doubt that nazism was very evil and sick and venal. but,
even scholars lose their objectivity when discussing nazi stuff. they
act as they must first qualify that they are totally repelled nazi
regime, consider it the greatest evil of all time, and feel queasy and
nauseaous and nervous even discussing it, and furthermore distressed
that there were talented men working with the regime.
when people try to explain why the russian revolution happened, most
people are cool-headed about it. but, try to explain why the germans
were drawn to nazism, and you are likely to be accused of trying to
defend the nazi rise to power. one german dude in the parliament got in
big trouble for going in that direction.
Warchild
"Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@zor.org> wrote in message
news:%V5ee.51444$4J5.1576@fe04!news.easynews.com...
He will be good for the stock exchange....
Warchild
<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115175067....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Playing their part - there you said it yourself. You begin to stink of
Nazi apologist....
Warchild
<casioc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115177166.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Aha - our friend shows his true intent. He is a very reasonable and erudite
Holocaust Denier. Tell us your real name and tell us what you really think,
you little scumbag.
herr blob
David wrote:
> "Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
>
> >To me, Riefenstahl represents the danger of pure esthetics. She was
a
> >brilliant artist who was interested in very little except physical
beauty.
no, it was impure aesthetics cuz she lent her talent to a political
ideology.
there are many great photographers of the human body working today for
magazines and advertising, etc. they are into pure aesthetics. the
problem is when such person opts to work for someone for whom
aesthetics isn't limited to art but extends to the world. hitler saw
the world as his canvas. he wanted to create and remove entire peoples
based on his aesthetic vision.
now, i believe riefenstahl didn't agree. she was a romantic artist and
a moderate german patriot. she didn't want to kill millions or have
germany embroiled in wars. she might have been happy as a pure
aesthete. but, she lent her 'pure aesthetics' to worldly affairs. in
wordly affairs, nothing remains pure. it becomes soiled and impure.
the danger inherent in the trimph of the will is not pure aesthetics
but believing that the world can or must conform to pure
aesthetics(hitler) and an artist selling her pure talent to the world
and expecting it to remain pure.
for example, alot of makers of commercials are highly talented pure
aesthetes. when they use their talent to sell make-up, perfume, ideals
of beauty, that's one thing. however, if they decided to work for
gaddaffi, idi amin, etc and make propaganda films for them, they would
be foolish to defend their work on the basis of pure aesthetics. by
taking their art into politics, they've become impure.
one can take a beautiful photograph of anyone for an art gallery, but
if one is hired by some dictator to make him look good, we can't
emphasize ONLY the aesthetics.
>
> I don't see the danger inherent in the aesthetic. Instead, I always
> see the danger in the psyche of the aesthete -- & only some aesthetes
> at that. Wilde & the Art for Art's Sake group didn't all turn into
> fascists & werewolves.
but, aesthetics carry, encourage, reinforce certain views of the
world. in fact, all aesthetics inspire some degree of intolerance,
exclusivity, contempt, rigidity, and/or snobbery.
all aesthetic declare its superiority over others even without
intending such. it promotes a certain correctness. a culture steeped
in a certain aesthetic will likely be hostile to other aesthetics. for
example, the aesthetics of an aristocratic society will find the
aesthetics of democratic art hostile, boorish, low, and threatening.
someone steeped in rock music will find classical music stuffy, lame,
effete, and 'faggoty'.
blacks steeped in gangsta rap think country music culture is white boy
lameass.
country music crowd find rap culture jiggerish.
to become steeped in one aesthetic is to judge the world thru those
aesthetics; art, for better or worse, shapes the way we
see/feel/experience the world and what we expect of it.
in a pluralist society with so many aesthetics and schools and tastes,
no single aesthetic can take absolute control. and, there are many
eclecticists who are capable of appreciating various things.
but, aesthetics are generally the product of a certain well-defined
vision and as such they champion their visions over those of others.
as far as i'm concerned, the real evil of nazi aesthetics was its
alliance with nazi power. nazis only permitted the 'correct'
aesthetics.
nazi art and socialist realism, in and of themselves, aren't
necessarily more evil than any other form.
indeed, if a bunch of avant-gardists took over society and forbade all
representational art and only allowed abstract art, that policy would
be just as evil and unacceptable as nazi policy.
indeed, before stalin's rise to power, many of the soviet
avant-gardists--later victims of stalin--relished the destruction of
traditional russian art, architecture, etc, in the name of creating a
new culture. though these artists are often romanticized by the left,
they were just as intolerant and destructive in their own way. but,
since their target was traditional art, leftists who monopolize
cultural community don't much care and simply portray them as tragic
victims of stalin.
in a pluralist society such as ours, because no single aesthetic can
monopolize culture nothing really deserves the evil label. indeed, much
of hollywood spectacle is pure riefenstahlism. but, since it is not
the ONLY or official aesthetic, we can enjoy it without much worry.
still, there is something dangerous about nazi aesthetics even minus
the politics. it's a vision of the world without ambiguity, of man's
ambition to be like gods, of militant conformity, of germfree
sterility... the world as a neo-classical lab experiment.
similarly, there are problems in all aesthetics. in jazz, there is the
element of cynicism, irreverence, arrogance, and conmanship.
in rock, there is the teen age indulgence, mindless hedonism, etc.
in some classical, there is the overbearing, snobby, pompous, etc.
in modern, there is the tendency toward solipsism, self-indulgence,
morbidity, etc.
while all aesthetics are dangerous, i guess some aesthetics are
potentially more dangerous. some aesthetics promote the self while
other encourage unity.
the danger of nazi aesthetics was it made every german wanna share in
the same exact vibe.
if nazi aesthetics had been hippie-like, despite hitler's ideology the
pothead germans couldn't have organized into such a fearsome killing
machine.
on the other hand, maybe i'm wrong. in rwanda, everyone was beating on
drums and dancing but still managed to slaughter 800,000 in a few
months.
unglued
Kingo Gondo wrote:
> <snip>
>It was, I reiterate, A CHOICE. And
> choices made invite (indeed, are the necessary prerequisite to) moral
> judgments such as "Riefenstahl was a fucking Nazi bitch." Now if
somebody
> wants to argue that she was an immensely talented fucking Nazi bitch,
it's
> OK with me.
Well, was she or wasn't she ? Personaly I think "fucking Nazi bitch" is
a bit over the top. She had what nowadays whould be considered fascist
aestetics but a quick look though her book on the Nubians shows there
was no rascist component which is a prerequisit for being stamped a
Nazi. Be that as it may the interesting question from the r.a.m.p point
of view is can a person with an inpopular or even evil outlook be
considered a genious film maker ? Some people insist Wagners music
sucks because he was anti-semitic, is that a reasonable point of view ?
unglued
Sawfish wrote:
> how...@brazee.net writes:
>
>
> >On 2-May-2005, casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> More
> >> incredible was the performance of Adolf Hitler; what an incredible
> >> public speaker he was, whether reading a speech from his notes or,
even
> >> more incredibly, just facing the crowd and appearing to speak
either
> >> from memory or in spontaneity... his voice, his gestures, the
things he
> >> said as tranlated in the subtitles (and I'm sure they were far
more
> >> eloquent in German), and so on... indeed, he seemed the
personification
> >> of a passion-for-a-cause and immense-charisma. Even if his
speeches
> >> were completely scripted and thoroughly rehearsed, his delivery
was
> >> absolutely astounding.
>
be in
> >danger of falling beneath the spell of someone so dangerous. That
is a
> >bad message. The reason the German people (not to mention its
enemies)
> >suffered so much is because Hitler was seductive.
>
> That's *exactly* right.
>
> I get really worried when I see Hitler labeled as "evil". This is a
> relatively meaningless term outside of your own personal morality.
Just curious, are you suggesting that the term evil is superfluous ?
Under what circumstances would you use it ?
>Had
> Germany won the war, and if by some miracle you and I were here
today,
> discussing the topic of evil war criminals, we'd be smugly discussing
what
> an evil crude manupulator Churchill was, before his execution, and
what
> immoral criminals Truman, LeMay, and Harris were. BUt Patton was an
> honorable man who was misled, etc.
>
> Cripes! To argue that Hitler was evil is to argue that the majority
of
> German people were, if not evil, at least an ethically fertile
planting
> ground for evil ideas. I mean, they *loved* Hitler. He appealed to
> instincts that are generously explained as anachronistic. Maybe this
has
> been bled out of them.
>
> I wonder who's next?
herr blob
casiocult...@gmail.com wrote:
> John Harkness wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:47:26 GMT, "Diane L. Schirf"
> > <del...@spammindspringnot.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article
<1115100403.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Scar...@searchhawkmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Riefenstahl has said that she was unaware of the Holocaust, and
> that
> > >> she paid little attention to politics in general.
> > >
> > >It's amazing how many people who later were unaware of the
> Holocaust.
> >
> > It's even more amazing how many people are willing to believe
> Hitler's
> > publicist.
> >
> > John Harkness
>
> Let's not forget that "publicity" was utilized on both sides and
still
> is today, that the "publicity" of the victors is what shaped current
> common conception of that era, and it's been a treacherously
one-sided
> account.
the west doesn't have official historians. in past societies,
historians worked for the state and wrote official histories.
in the west, we have various schools of history, and so the idea that
the winning side necessarily shapes history to its advantage isn't
true. most historians are liberal to leftist and highly critical of
their own government.
> In the West as they'd extol virtues of bravery, you'd hardly
> hear mention of the Soviets' role in winning the war, although they
> fought 4/5th of it and the allies mostly snuck in through the
backdoor
> pretty late in the game.
it's in the history books, but it's true that normandy receives more
attenion than stalingrad. also, the cold war certainly cast USSR as the
enemy.
but, let's also recall the soviets were also largely responsible for
the war. WWII was started jointly by hitler and stalin when germany and
USSR agreed to invade and divide poland together. stalin didn't fight
germany out of some noblemindedness but because hitler cheated on the
deal and invaded russia; stalin deeply admired hitler and looked
forward to selling arms and material to germans so that hitler could
wage war on the west. stalin supported hitler during the latter's
invasion of france.
also, soviet union, even prior to WWII, had killed tens of millions of
people in purges and gulags.
also, while the americans liberated the west, soviets oppressed all of
eastern europe.
west vs nazism was a case of good vs evil. ussr vs nazi germany was
evil vs evil.
the central fact of american involvment in WWII is US really saved
europe from communism, not nazism. i agree with you that even without
US entry, russia would have won the war. but, stalin wouldn't have
stopped at germany but would have swept thru all of europe. this is
what americans prevented but do historians ever talk about it?
> It also it disgusts me everytime a current US
> Republican draws inspiration from Winston Churchill and the reason is
> obvious; you would never hear them draw inspiration from FDR
Roosevelt.
roosevelt was a fool. he trusted stalin, handing over all of eastern
europe to uncle joe on a silver platter.
roosevelt and his liberal and leftist friends also sent over 100,000
japanese americans into concentration camps. these same leftists--many
of them jews--bitched and whined about how they couldn't write
screenplays because of mccarthyism.
you wanna talk about lopsided history? how come we hear far more about
wimpy mccarthyism and its impact on a bunch of commie-sympathizers
while almost nothing about the far greater crime of sending 120,000
japper-americans into concentration camps?
is it more evil to blacklist some lowlife leftwingjew folksinger for
several yrs than dispossess entire families and herd them like cattle?
> It is a travesty that in too
> many democratic countries the key elements of vilification, such as
the
> narrative of the holocaust, are beyond critical inquiry. It is a
> narrative that acquired a frenzy of sacred scripture protected by the
> law despite secularism and questioning it is analogous to a crime
> befitting prosecution to a devastating extent; hardly a reason for
> trust in its unquestionable truth.
holocaust has turned into a religion, an industry, and institution.
so has martin luther king for whom we must speak with the utmost
reverence as DOCTOR martin luther king JUNIOR.
but, holocaust deniers are really beyond the pale. their arguments are
totally bogus pseudo-science/history.
we need to look at the holocaust with greater objectivity but be wary
of charltans like david irving.
John Harkness
wrote:
Not in Russia it doesn't.
Hell, nobody pays any attention to the most important battle in the
Pacific Theatre at all, Midway.
John Harkness
herr blob
David wrote:
> Sawfish <m...@q7.com> wrote:
>
> >"How do I know that Hilter was evil? Well, for christsake, buddy! He
was
> >responsible for having about 10 million people killed in
concentration
> >camps. Gen-o-cide, my friend."
> >
> >"Where are all the North American Indians? How the fuck should I
know?
> >All I know is that I'm not as susceptible to evil as a German."
> >
> >This "evil" shit is real murky, if you want to be objective about
it...
>
> But where in the statement "Hitler is evil" is the widespread
> slaughter of the American Indians whitewashed?
it's not whitewashed but it assumes that americans are better than
germans.
now, i believe americans have been better than nazi germans, but no
people are exactly innocent. so, for one group of people to pass
judgment on another group of people may seem pompous, presumptious, and
hypocritical.
for instance, if a murderer called another murderer evil, he would be
correct. but, does he have the right to pass judgment when he himself
is a murderer?
do americans have the right to judge germans when americans have killed
off indians? when americans also practiced racial bigotry against
others?
if nazi germans had condemned stalin's mass murders as evil, they would
have been correct. but, considering their own policies, would nazi
germans have had the right to pass judgment?
i say americans of today have the right to pass judgment because 1)
indians, while noble savages, were still savages and standing in the
way of progress and hardly peaceful themselves. also, white man didn't
have a policy of exterminating the red man. 2) americans have redeemed
themselves thru progress and reassessing their history and being
self-critical. 3) while there is no absolute good vs absolute evil,
there is better and worse. so, americans, cuz they were better than
nazi germans, have the moral right to shi* on nazism. for this reason,
i believe germans of today also have the right and even obligation to
condemn evil acts occuring throughout the world. by democratizing
their own society and upholding human rights, germans have earned the
right to piss on nations using brutality and such to oppress people.
but, i say china has no right to shi* on japan when it goes on
oppressing tibetans, etc. if china wants japan to face up to its past
evils, chinese must also do so.
americans can shi* on others cuz americans have had the guts to shi* on
itself and clean its own mess.
>
> If the U.S. political powers today engage in a double standard of
> vilification, as casioculture says, how does that make evil murky? It
> just makes those politicians liars or deluded fools.
evil is murky cuz it's always defined by people, and all people are
partial or total fools. now, in the case of nazism evil was pretty
obvious. but, even there, hitler saw jews as subhuman subversive rat
parasites. many germans agreed with him. heck, many frenchmen agreed
with him in vichy france. because people can only judge the world thru
their own lenses, evil is always defined by the lens. and there is no
such thing as the all-encompassing clear lens. heck, i think chantal
ackerman is genuinely evil.
while there is obvious evil and obvious good, sometimes it's hard to
tell as some things are good from one perspective while evil from
another perspective.
>
> This popular argument of the subjectivity of morality seems not quite
> settled: mostly a series of assertions & counter-assertions. Is it
> because nobody is quite sure what "evil" means? or, more exactly,
> "evil" means whatever anyone says it means (unlike, say, "fish" or
> "computer")? Still, I can't think of any culture, at any time or in
> any place, in which buying a verdict from a judge was a virtue.
yes, there are obvious cases of what most cultures would define as
evil.
but, traditional chinese society didn't necessarily look down on
bribery. in fact, it was expected for people to reward bureaucrats
thru gifts, as expressions of friendship and gratitude. how do you draw
the line between sincere gratitude and bribery? a problem plaguing
china to this very day.
if you pay off officials, you're corrupt; if you don't, you lack
culture and manners.
in traditional sicily, everyone expected a man in power to favor his
family members or friends; he was a man of honor if he took care of his
own. now, this is clearly corruption and nepotism in our eyes. but,
even poor sicilians thought it was honorable for a powerful sicilian to
favor his own over others, meaning the poor sicilians; no wonder it's
such hopeless place.
and in our age of the OJ trial and tupac shakur as saintly martyr, what
is and isn't evil?
it only makes sense to speak of more evil vs less evil, or more good vs
less good. the idea of good vs evil is hard to sustain.
herr blob
the fighting to defeat nazi germany.
they should also be told that stalin was a fellow scumbag, and so the
war between nazism and soviet union was evil vs evil.
however, because nazis invaded first and had a policy of extermination,
russians had the moral right to defend their motherland and kick
hitler's butt.
David
>> But where in the statement "Hitler is evil" is the widespread
>> slaughter of the American Indians whitewashed?
>
>for instance, if a murderer called another murderer evil, he would be
>correct. but, does he have the right to pass judgment when he himself
>is a murderer?
>do americans have the right to judge germans when americans have killed
>off indians? when americans also practiced racial bigotry against
>others?
Again, back to grammar. Grammar is extremely important in philosophy.
I think of it as attending to words & defining terms. Who is
"Americans"? Some Americans -- I have never killed a single Indian. I
look at the deeds of Hitler, of Stalin, of John Chivington, & I do
presume to say: They are evil.
I saw an ad in a newsletter the other day: It takes a whole community
to raise a child. I stared at it, read it over & over, but I couldn't
figure out just what the hell it meant.
>i say americans of today have the right to pass judgment because 1)
>indians, while noble savages, were still savages and standing in the
>way of progress and hardly peaceful themselves. also, white man didn't
>have a policy of exterminating the red man. 2) americans have redeemed
>themselves thru progress and reassessing their history and being
>self-critical.
"Americans have redeemed themselves"? Some have, & some haven't. I
generalize (I was almost going to say "We generalize") because it's a
manner of speaking, a way of advancing my understanding or my argument
without proving every last facet of data implied in my diction. But if
I jump from using the generalization as a rhetorical tool to investing
it with absolute truth or descriptive force, I'm up to no good. I'm
darkening counsel with verbiage & twaddle.
herr blob
in the case of hitler, it works cuz he was really really really evil.
the man was mass-murderous and had no conscience about killing even
babies and grannies. of course, one could argue that hitler saw jews as
we see cattle and he honestly didn't think of it as evil.
but, hitler had an evil personality. he just didn't have human emotions
about anything. he was megalomaniacal and self-righteous to the
extreme. he brought germany to ruin but even in his final days, he
blamed EVERYONE but himself.
had hitler grown up in russia as a commie, he would still have been
evil. he has no self-doubt, no self-reflection. what he felt and
thought was 100% true as far as he was concerned.
john brown was also evil in this sense. his anti-slavery stance was
noble but the man himself was a blind, rage-filled, murderous lout like
jim jones. jim jones was a christian marxist and very evil. some
people just have evil personalities. all such personalities cannot
understand the world thru other people's eyes and hearts. ONLY they are
right. they have the radical personality.
> Had
> Germany won the war, and if by some miracle you and I were here
today,
> discussing the topic of evil war criminals, we'd be smugly discussing
what
> an evil crude manupulator Churchill was, before his execution, and
what
> immoral criminals Truman, LeMay, and Harris were. BUt Patton was an
> honorable man who was misled, etc.
only if we lived under the german regime. in a free society, history is
determined by individual scholars, not scribes hired by the state. in
nazi germany and soviet union, there was ONLY official history.
in pluralist west, there has been various schools of history:
patriotic, conservative, liberal, marxist, anti-american, afrocentric,
feminist, whackass, etc.
also, even had germany won the war, US and britain would certainly have
remained independent states and democracies; german victory would have
meant the defeat of russia; hitler had no means of conquering
britain--especially after investing everything in the eastern front--,
let alone america.
and, historians in the US and britain would not be praising hitler.
after all, USSR won WWII but many american historians have been highly
hostile and skeptical to soviet power and claims. why would american
historians have been kind with nazi germany had it defeated USSR?
there would have been SOME american historians who would have
championed victorious nazi germany like some historians apologized for
the soviet union. eric hobsbawn of england, for instance. but, then
historian david irving defended hitler despite the fact that germany
lost.
at any rate, nazi germany has been an easy moral target cuz nazis held
so much of humanity in utter contempt. hitler made it easy for the rest
of the world to hate him.
also, even if by some chance US had been taken over by nazis, there
would still be individuals--like smith in 1984--who would secretly,
privately wonder what is the truth? no empire lasts forever and
eventually, official history would come under scrutiny by truth
seekers.
while all regimes in every period prop up their own histories, there
have always been free thinkers who've sought truth beyond officialdom.
herr blob
how many do you think died?
some recent estimates say 5 million, not 6. some say 7 million, not 6.
at any rate, most people would say several millions. besides, numbers
are secondary to the intent which has been well-documented and clearly
evil.
even if hitler didn't get to implement his mass murder policies, would
you regard the idea of genocide as evil?
David
>of course, one could argue that hitler saw jews as
>we see cattle and he honestly didn't think of it as evil.
I think you've (maybe inadvertently) touched on something absolutely
essential here. Let's see whether you or someone else can pick up the
ball & run with it.
Sawfish
I would expect it to be used by an individual to describe something that
that individual found morally repugnant. If individuals with similar moral
outlooks tended to brand the same morally repugnant something as "evil", I
would expect that that group (or culture) would find it evil.
When that culture met another culture whose views on this "something" was
the oposite, I would expect that they might find aspects of that culture
"evil". It then becomes a might-makes-right situation as to whether the
practice was to be considered "evil" by the two cultures. The conquest of
Mexico by Spain is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.
Ugly stuff, huh? AS I've said, this appears to have happened *all the
time*. It would be damned nice to get past that point, wouldn't it?
>>Had
>> Germany won the war, and if by some miracle you and I were here
>today,
>> discussing the topic of evil war criminals, we'd be smugly discussing
>what
>> an evil crude manupulator Churchill was, before his execution, and
>what
>> immoral criminals Truman, LeMay, and Harris were. BUt Patton was an
>> honorable man who was misled, etc.
>>
>> Cripes! To argue that Hitler was evil is to argue that the majority
>of
>> German people were, if not evil, at least an ethically fertile
>planting
>> ground for evil ideas. I mean, they *loved* Hitler. He appealed to
>> instincts that are generously explained as anachronistic. Maybe this
>has
>> been bled out of them.
>>
>> I wonder who's next?
>> --
>>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a
>boat,
>> a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
--
Sawfish
>"herr blob" <fatsg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> But where in the statement "Hitler is evil" is the widespread
>>> slaughter of the American Indians whitewashed?
>>
>>for instance, if a murderer called another murderer evil, he would be
>>correct. but, does he have the right to pass judgment when he himself
>>is a murderer?
>>do americans have the right to judge germans when americans have killed
>>off indians? when americans also practiced racial bigotry against
>>others?
>Again, back to grammar. Grammar is extremely important in philosophy.
>I think of it as attending to words & defining terms. Who is
>"Americans"? Some Americans -- I have never killed a single Indian.
Same here. Nor have I ever held any slaves, but in the policy of AA, this
doesn't matter.
> I
>look at the deeds of Hitler, of Stalin, of John Chivington, & I do
>presume to say: They are evil.
Bad dudes, that's for sure.
>I saw an ad in a newsletter the other day: It takes a whole community
>to raise a child. I stared at it, read it over & over, but I couldn't
>figure out just what the hell it meant.
Fuckin' A....
>>i say americans of today have the right to pass judgment because 1)
>>indians, while noble savages, were still savages and standing in the
>>way of progress and hardly peaceful themselves. also, white man didn't
>>have a policy of exterminating the red man. 2) americans have redeemed
>>themselves thru progress and reassessing their history and being
>>self-critical.
>"Americans have redeemed themselves"? Some have, & some haven't.
But then the problem becomes: to whom? Who/what is the ajudicator here?
> I
>generalize (I was almost going to say "We generalize") because it's a
>manner of speaking, a way of advancing my understanding or my argument
>without proving every last facet of data implied in my diction. But if
>I jump from using the generalization as a rhetorical tool to investing
>it with absolute truth or descriptive force, I'm up to no good. I'm
>darkening counsel with verbiage & twaddle.
There is nothing more evil than the misuse of inductive logic, that's for
sure...
John Harkness
That ball's been run with several times. It's the essential dividing
point in Hitler historiography.
(Rosenbaum's Understanding Hitler covers most of these arguments at
considerable length)
John Harkness
Lincoln Spector
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> wrote in message news:11152103...@q7.q7.com...
caricature of evil. And I agree that that's a dangerous road to go down.
Once he's no longer seen as human, it's obvious that we are not evil, and
that our leaders are not evil, because they are clearly human.
That's why films like Max and Downfall are so worthwhile. They show him as a
human, without letting him off the hook.
Lincoln
how...@brazee.net
On 4-May-2005, "unglued" <drago...@spray.se> wrote:
> > I get really worried when I see Hitler labeled as "evil". This is a
> > relatively meaningless term outside of your own personal morality.
>
> Just curious, are you suggesting that the term evil is superfluous ?
> Under what circumstances would you use it ?
I'm suggesting that it can be dangerous to label someone as either good or
evil. Too often all we see is the label, which leaves us vulnerable when
something comes around and doesn't fit so obviously under that label.
Movies like to make evil obvious. Heck, with Disney ugly is evil,
beautiful is good. Kids all know who the bad guy is by hearing the cartoon
characters voices.
As much as we criticize the recent Star Wars movies, at least their Hitler
looks somewhat like a good guy.
The early Hitler was charming. If we forget that, we forget it at great
risk.
John Harkness
He was BEYOND charming -- he had amazing charisma -- Albert Speer, a
highly educated, intelligent man, nobody's idea of a beerswilling
brownshirt, thought he might be Christ returned.
John Harkness
David
>> I think you've (maybe inadvertently) touched on something absolutely
>> essential here. Let's see whether you or someone else can pick up the
>> ball & run with it.
>
>Read Ron Rosenbaum's book Explaining Hitler. He talks about Hitler's
>tendency to describe Jews as germs, etc., and covers the possibility
>that Hitler didn't think of what he was doing as evil (and pretty
>convincingly counters it with, why hide it then?).
I will -- thank you both!
Epictetus deals with this issue, too -- although only in principle,
not in detail.
how...@brazee.net
On 4-May-2005, "Diane L. Schirf" <del...@spammindspringnot.com> wrote:
> Read Ron Rosenbaum's book Explaining Hitler. He talks about Hitler's
> tendency to describe Jews as germs, etc., and covers the possibility
> that Hitler didn't think of what he was doing as evil (and pretty
> convincingly counters it with, why hide it then?).
Sometimes people will follow a ruler they fear. But love works better.
Fantasies need to have evil kings who are loved by their people, making them
more difficult foes.
David
>I'm suggesting that it can be dangerous to label someone as either good or
>evil. Too often all we see is the label, which leaves us vulnerable when
>something comes around and doesn't fit so obviously under that label.
This means something to me, too. I wish I could adequately verbalize
it. "It can be dangerous to label someone as either good or evil." And
.. and? Can anybody help me?
>The early Hitler was charming. If we forget that, we forget it at great
>risk.
The Earth looks flat. If we forget that, we forget it at great risk. I
know that sounds inscrutable or nonsensical, but it's the best I can
do at the moment.
Sawfish
>On 4-May-2005, "Diane L. Schirf" <del...@spammindspringnot.com> wrote:
>> Read Ron Rosenbaum's book Explaining Hitler. He talks about Hitler's
>> tendency to describe Jews as germs, etc., and covers the possibility
>> that Hitler didn't think of what he was doing as evil (and pretty
>> convincingly counters it with, why hide it then?).
>Sometimes people will follow a ruler they fear. But love works better.
That's not the way Machiavelli saw it.
No kiddin'; there's another guy with a bad rap. Basically, in an attempt
to get in good with Lorenzo Medici he wrote an amazingly insightful and
detached political manual. This is doubly interesting since he had been an
avowed republican in the previous political establishment of Florence.
"Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Better to be Loved
than Feared
"Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared
or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both,
but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer
to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.
...
"...and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who
is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to
the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage;
but fear preserved you by a dread of punishment which never fails."
So, apparently, if you say shit like this aloud, this makes you a bad
guy.
Sort of a "kill the messenger" scenario.
>Fantasies need to have evil kings who are loved by their people, making them
>more difficult foes.
Yo.
unglued
Sawfish wrote:
> "unglued" <drago...@spray.se> writes:
>
>
>
>
> >Just curious, are you suggesting that the term evil is superfluous ?
> >Under what circumstances would you use it ?
>
> I would expect it to be used by an individual to describe something
that
> that individual found morally repugnant. If individuals with similar
moral
> outlooks tended to brand the same morally repugnant something as
"evil", I
> would expect that that group (or culture) would find it evil.
>
> When that culture met another culture whose views on this "something"
was
> the oposite, I would expect that they might find aspects of that
culture
> "evil". It then becomes a might-makes-right situation as to whether
the
> practice was to be considered "evil" by the two cultures. The
conquest of
> Mexico by Spain is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.
>
> Ugly stuff, huh? AS I've said, this appears to have happened *all the
> time*. It would be damned nice to get past that point, wouldn't it?
Your statement about getting "past that point" has no meaning to me. We
share the same cultural upbringing and anyone one who does not feel
that what went on during the 3rd reich was evil and a low point in
human civilization is a psychopath. Whether or not others have acted
better or worse has no bearing on the case. Obviously it has no bearing
on whether a film is good or bad from the artistic point of view.
unglued
Psychopaths are usually charming, that doesn't make them less evil. To
suggest there is a moral relativity when it comes to good and evil,
ignoring propaganda here, I'm pretty sure everyone with a normal
upbringing deep down inside knows what is right and what is wrong, to
deny that is to deny the values that make us civilized beings.
unglued
You will note that he makes no moral judgements, just advises as to
what works and what doesn't, but that doesn't invalidate the cultural
values inherent in any civilized society.
Sawfish
But it makes them much harder to spot.
> To
>suggest there is a moral relativity when it comes to good and evil,
>ignoring propaganda here, I'm pretty sure everyone with a normal
>upbringing deep down inside knows what is right and what is wrong, to
>deny that is to deny the values that make us civilized beings.
Ok. Quick quiz.
Female circumcision, as practiced in areas like Sudan.
Right/wrong?
If right, you have no beef if people do it here; if wrong, well then those
muthahf*****' Sudanese are evil.
Simple as that.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish
Right! RIGHT YOU ARE!!!
That's because there are no valid moral judgements to be made on stuff
like this.
For the sort of morality you espouse to work, there has to be a clear
higher authority. It needs to be very clear what falls within the moral
scope--not just a fuzzy notion of what "civilized" people do/don't do.
It wouldn't take long to find a "civilized" culture that regularly and
cheerfully practices behaviors that other "civilized" cultures revile. And
vice-versa. How do you reconcile this? Is one culture therefore
uncivilized? Which culture? The one that can make it stick?
David
>Hitler was not Christ, but Anti-Christ. Not *the* Anti-christ, but *a*
>Anti-Christ. Speer's comparison is apt, especially in view of a statement by
>Martin Luther: "If Anti-Christ is like Christ, then, yes, Christ must be like
>Anti-Christ." And, Hitler, I believe, is a pale forerunner of one who will even
>more fully embody this charisma, this power, and this evil.
Oh my god! Barry Humphries?!?!
David
>Ok. Quick quiz.
>
>Female circumcision, as practiced in areas like Sudan.
>Right/wrong?
>If right, you have no beef if people do it here; if wrong, well then those
>muthahf*****' Sudanese are evil.
>
>Simple as that.
When something appears at the outset to be unresolvable, it is always
necessarily so? But aren't we just asserting & counter-asserting about
the allegedly relative nature of good & bad? It may not be as "simple
as that." It may take a lifetime of questioning rather than answering
even to get the faintest glimpse of a truth. Until then, I'm unwilling
to put aside the possibility that the Examined Life & the Moral Life
are correlative.
Isn't there anything -- anything at all -- that we can identify as
being universally desirable that might prove a rational foundation for
distinguishing good from bad, at least in one small corner? For
example, why do the Libertarians (& others) consider the very act of
government an act of interference, even of force?
John Harkness
wrote:
>In article <bbpi715ahg6k58ut9...@4ax.com>, John Harkness says...
>
>>>The early Hitler was charming. If we forget that, we forget it at great
>>>risk.
>
>>He was BEYOND charming -- he had amazing charisma -- Albert Speer, a
>>highly educated, intelligent man, nobody's idea of a beerswilling
>>brownshirt, thought he might be Christ returned.
>
>
>Hitler was not Christ, but Anti-Christ. Not *the* Anti-christ, but *a*
>Anti-Christ. Speer's comparison is apt, especially in view of a statement by
>Martin Luther: "If Anti-Christ is like Christ, then, yes, Christ must be like
>Anti-Christ." And, Hitler, I believe, is a pale forerunner of one who will even
>more fully embody this charisma, this power, and this evil.
God is an imaginary friend for grown=ups.
(pace, Elmore Leonard)
John Harkness
Sawfish
>Sawfish <m...@q7.com> wrote:
For the above example, it is that simple. If the act is, itself,
reprehensible, then those condoning the act are, for as long as they
condone it, sanctioning the reprehensible.
Like WWII Germans, right?
I agree that there are lots of additional considerations, but the terms
"good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong" have no actual external meaning
beyond "culturally accepted" and "culturally unaccepted".
Internal meanings, private to the individual, do find some intrinsic
meaning because they can be ultimately enforced by the individual, upon
the individual, and without cynicism.
herr blob
> >> slaughter of the American Indians whitewashed?
> >
> >for instance, if a murderer called another murderer evil, he would
be
> >correct. but, does he have the right to pass judgment when he
himself
> >is a murderer?
> >do americans have the right to judge germans when americans have
killed
> >off indians? when americans also practiced racial bigotry against
> >others?
>
> Again, back to grammar. Grammar is extremely important in philosophy.
then how come philosophy is usually unreadable? often, philosophers
create their own grammar/vocabulary rules.
> I think of it as attending to words & defining terms. Who is
> "Americans"? Some Americans -- I have never killed a single Indian.
every american is an american. and each american be different.
american simply means anyone with american citizenship or those stuck
here with nowhere to go--virtual americans. as individual americans,
we all differ. but, the general meaning of americanism describes the
predominant forces and ideas and movements that shaped this nation
throughout its history. while there may have been individual monarchist
americans, american politics has been predominantly democratic so we
equate americanism with democracy. there have been american communists
but predominant american economic philosophy and system has been
capitalist. now, the meaning of america--racially, religiously,
culturally, economically, etc--has changed thru its history, but there
are common threads running throughout.
in some histories, there is a clear break between periods. ancient
egypt was completely lost when muslims raiders took over.
some histories have changed drastically but managed to preserve much of
essence of national cultureness. china, for instance, when thru
countless dynasties, foreign invasions(mongols, manchus, japanese,
etc), drastic political systems(traditionalism, republicanism,
communism, copy-singapore-ism, etc), but the language, values, and
sense of chinese-ness remain intact, more or less.
while american history has been topsy-turvy and seen much change, there
are american values and ideas and expressions that have been so
powerful, successful, and productive that there remains a strong sense
of americanness.
as for american deeds, there have been much that went against the grain
of american values. even here, we must distinguish the deeds of
individuals from general trends. for example, not all americans wanted
independence from england. not all northerners wanted to fight the
civil war. not all southerners wanted to secede. but, we must judge
america by what ultimately happened as the result of the choice of the
majority or by the actions of the leaders with widespread support.
because america was a democracy, the people in general deserve both
more credit and more blame for what happened. in a dictatorship, people
have little or no choice.
anyway, not every southerner owned slaves. but, even many non-slave
onwers in the south didn't oppose slavery and they might have owned
slaves if they owned land and money to buy slaves. not all americans
killed indians, but americans, by and large, believed in the westward
expansion and that inevitably meant bad news for the injuns. so, even
an easterner who didn't move out west and personally kill indians, by
embracing the notion of manifest destiny, was responsible for
americanism, for better and for worse. at any rate, let's not
romanticize indians. i honor them but they had to go to make way for
the great new world. besides, the white man's new order established a
world where everyone--white, indian, black, asian, hispanic, democrats,
republicans, secularites, religiousites, etc--could live in peace
throughout the entire continent whereas the tribal world of the indians
was where one tribe was always fighting other tribes. white man waged
war to create longlasting peace, a society of farmers, businessmen, and
citizens. indians lived to wage constant war as theirs was a society
of warriors and being a proud brave meant whupping ass.
> I
> look at the deeds of Hitler, of Stalin, of John Chivington, & I do
> presume to say: They are evil.
they are evil, but maybe their evilness was not the main problem.
there are plenty of hitlers, maos, stalins, etc in the world but most
of them are bus drivers, waiters, shoe repairman, etc.
what makes hitler and co. seem so evil was their attainment of power.
if hitler had become a painter, he would have had the same beliefs but
most people listening to his rant would have found him amusing at best.
alot of kids admire rappers, but suppose rappers gained political power
and ruled entire societies; it'd be like idi amin's uganda. then, the
rapper would be deemed evil, but since rappers just make alot of noise
we don't call them evil though their ideas and values certainly are.
if mao had somehow come to america, he'd probably have become an owner
of a chinese restaurant. he might have had the same prejudices but
what's a chinese restaurant owner gonna do except serve chop suey?
the key to social peace is making sure people like mao and hitler do
not attain absolute power. but there will always be hitlers and maos
and eichmanns and stalins living all around us.
che is an interesting case. had he attained power, he would have been
the mao of south america, killing millions. but he failed so people
romanticize him as a hero martyr.
ayatollah was admired as a fighter against tyranny during shah's reign
by many in the west--the usual morons--but when he took over iran it
was obvious the man was demented.
>
> I saw an ad in a newsletter the other day: It takes a whole community
> to raise a child. I stared at it, read it over & over, but I couldn't
> figure out just what the hell it meant.
it's a silly liberal notion with just a little bit of validity. it's
like hillary clinton's book 'it takes a village'. the idea is based on
african tribal culture where every adult acts as a parent to all the
kids. it's shared parenting, shared responsibilities, shared
obligations. it's a warm, fuzzy quasi- or proto- socialist model. the
idea is that modern society should think likewise. we should all uphold
a kind of communitarianism. now, i say this has some validity. just
look at the success of singapore.
but, the problem is that tribal society and modern society are two
different animals. in a tribal society, you can intimately know
everyone within the tribe. so every child can be like your child, not
only metaphorically but literally. also, in a tribal community, kids
are raised to follow customs and traditions and obey elders. in this
state of affairs, the village can raise a child.
but, in our modern society that champions individuality, freedom, and
personal life-styles--and made up of millions of people, most of them
strangers even unto their neighbors--the notion of 'village
childrearing' is metaphorical at best; literally, it's nonsense. it's
also hypocritical of liberals since they say everyone should be left
alone to do whatever he wants. if that's the case, how can the
community enforce its values on people who deviate from the norm? in a
tribal community, because everyone is a member of the tribe before he
is an individual there is a strong punishment of shame for deviants. if
someone is a bad parent, the entire community can meet together and
castigate the bad parent. but, in our society where the community or
government has no right to tell a parent that he should make his kid
study more and listen to dumb music less and not to get a tattoo on his
arse, this fuzzy sense of 'community' just doesn't work.
liberals send mixed signals by saying we should all do more but then we
shouldn't interfere with individual matters. some liberals say even
parents shouldn't interfere with their teen daughter's decison to get
an abortion. yet, these same liberals say we should foot the bill for
the abortion and/or pay for welfare to support the teen and her kid and
more and more kids if she chooses to have them.
in tribal society, the communitarianism is conditional. community is
involved with individuals but individuals must also conform to some of
community's demands. liberalism's village-ism is unconditional.
despite all the fuzzy feelings, it simply comes down to do productive
members footing the bill for the lazy and shiftless who show zero
gratitude, no sense of obligation, no sense of shame, no will for
self-improvement, and always under the spell of demagogues who empower
themselves by spreading dependency, hopelessness, rage, and resentment.
what works for a village doesn't work for modern society. it worked
for singapore but then singapore is not a democratic society but a
traditional one with modern trappings. americans want freedom, not
'asian values', and so there's no way we can accept singaporeanism.
well, what about sweden, holland, and germany with strong
socialist/community centered models. but, those nations have strong
national character, a widespread and shared work-ethic and discipline
as well as large population of shared blood, culture, tradition,
heritage, pride. when a swede pays high taxes, he knows its going to
help other swedes who share the same values, same interests. they know
it's not going to some lazy shiftless ungrateful welfare mother having
15 kids out of wedlock which would be totally demoralizing.
nevertheless, socialist policies have eroded some of those germanic
people's strong national character, a pity. also, their idiotic
immigration policies have attracted many foreigners who simply want
free lunch. the rise of ingrate, hostile, arrogant musliim population
in sweden is a case in point.
>
> >i say americans of today have the right to pass judgment because 1)
> >indians, while noble savages, were still savages and standing in the
> >way of progress and hardly peaceful themselves. also, white man
didn't
> >have a policy of exterminating the red man. 2) americans have
redeemed
> >themselves thru progress and reassessing their history and being
> >self-critical.
>
> "Americans have redeemed themselves"? Some have, & some haven't.
we're talking by and large.
i'd say postwar germany has redeemed itself. of course, there are still
nazi-apologists in germany. but, by and large, germans have confronted
the evil of nazism and seriously and sincerely made amends and have
done much to remind themselves that it mustn't happen again.
now, i'm not talking of collective guilt. not all germans were nazi
sympathizers or supporters and these people need feel no guilt.
also, i totally detest the german practice of instilling holocaust
guilt amongst kindergarteners who are simply too young to understand
such complex matters. though for a good cause, the psychology behind
this is no different than hitler-youthism. it's brainwashing kids who
are too young to know.
still, germans have by and large faced up to historical truth.
in the case of japan, they haven't yet faced up to what it has done in
WWII. now, i don't blame all japanese--and certainly not those who grew
up in postwar era--for WWII atrocities. but, i do blame alot of
japanese--majority, in fact--for not honestly facing up to their
history. but, i also blame the japanese left for exploiting WWII to
undermine any sense of japanese pride and alliance with the west(with
USA as the new imperialist baddie); japanese left has made it easy for
japanese right to reject historical truth since facing up to it in
japan means kowtowing to leftist demagoguery.
> I
> generalize (I was almost going to say "We generalize") because it's a
> manner of speaking, a way of advancing my understanding or my
argument
> without proving every last facet of data implied in my diction. But
if
> I jump from using the generalization as a rhetorical tool to
investing
> it with absolute truth or descriptive force, I'm up to no good. I'm
> darkening counsel with verbiage & twaddle.
i'd like to see you go against don king.
herr blob
you mean evil as intention vs evil as consequence.
the average hollywood villain knows he's evil. he knows he's the bad
guy and relishes it.
but, many of those we label as villains in real life don't think of
themselves as evil. of course, many do--the sadistic types. they are
not james bond villains who wanna blow up the world for the fun of it,
though one can argue that they are subconscious sadists covering up
their evil with grand sounding justifications.
so the question is did hitler think he was committing evil? or, did he
commit evil though he thought he was doing good.
i think the general or public impression of hitler is that he relished
being evil though historians think otherwise but would rather have the
public think of hitler as totally evil cuz if we started to understand
hitler, we might be tempted to agree with him on some counts; like one
starts on soft drugs and is tempted to go for harder stuff, we might go
from understanding hitler to agreeing with hitler... which is why
anti-drug campaigns draw a b/w picture.
anyway, this is contrasted with communists who are said to have done
evil things with good intentions.
with hitler, both means and end were evil.
with stalin, means were evil for a good end.
so, we can say there is evil/evil and good/evil. evil evil is the
james bond villain evil. someone who knows he's doing evil and does it
anyway.
good/evil is someone who thinks he's doing good but does evil instead.
we can say this for many christians. jim jones, for instance, probably
thought he was doing god's work.
osama bin laden probably thought he was carrying out the will of allah.
and, i would argue hitler thought he was doing good as well.
now, can we call those who think they are doing good as purveyors of
pure evil?
think of general jack d. ripper in dr. strangelove.
think of harry truman with dropping of the nukes on japan.
think of japanese militarists with their notion of saving asia from
western imperialists.
now, we can let truman off the hook because the alternative wasn't much
better. besides, US didn't start the war and its aims for postwar japan
was rather benign.
but, what of general ripper? he really believed the soviets were out
to take over the world and it was either us or them.
the strike against him and against hitler is they thought they knew
everything, that everyone who disagreed was a liar or dupe; they
presumed to have the wisdom of god; such arrogance invariably leads to
evil deeds cuz no man is god unless his parents named him such. such
closed personalities are inherently/latently evil cuz they can't
understand that different people have different ideas, beliefs, values,
feelings. for hitler and ripper, their subjective reality IS the
reality or MUST be the reality. what they deem as good is good enough
for the world and all that stands in their concept of the good must be
blown away. when these types take power, we in big trouble.
and, japanese seemed sincere enough, but one must say japanese were not
trying to liberate asia from western imperialism but to replace western
imperialism with nastier japanese imperialism.
but, could one argue like general macarthur that japan was like a 'boy
of 13' and can't be held responsible in the same way as germany which
was a more advanced nation? after all, we can understand, even
forgive, the bigoted attitudes and actions of 19th century americans
but we can't condone those things now among present americans cuz we
know better or think we know better. indeed, we are more angry with
germans than with cambodians and rwandans cuz we believe the latter
were like boys of 13. too backward, primitive, etc to know the true
meaing of political evil. one can argue that is a kind of 'racism'
unfair to both germans and cambodians/rwandans.
anyway, could one argue that japan was politically, morally, and
culturally behind the west, and therefore its evil--though grisly and
awful--wasn't of the same degree of evil as those perpetrated by more
advanced germans and russians and leftwing jews?
and, in a way, knowledge is key to defining evil.
an animal killing another animal is not called murder, even if not done
for food. animals follow their instincts.
but, what about humans? we have different standards for kids who
commit murder cuz we say they are too young to know. same applies to
mentally retarded or insane cuz they seem to be acting under a
delusion. we say john gacy was evil cuz he was a sane serial killer...
though one may argue, what sane person would do such a thing? could
one argue that one could be pragmatically sane but psychologically
insane? but, that would let gacy and hitler off the hook. jim jones
too.
anyway, most of us agree that more somoene knows, more he should be
held accountable for his actions.
because germans knew better than the japanese, they were more guilty...
at least according to mccarthur.
i think we would be more shocked by a learned professor killing someone
than some street-trash negro or backwoods redneck killing someone.
but, what if the learned person says, nietzsche/napoleon-like, that his
morality is higher than that of us regular mopes. hitchcock's rope
scenario.
hannibal lecter was so smart and brilliant that he saw us as food as we
see lamb as food.
if someone is so smart, visionary, advanced, and learned that he thinks
himself better than the rest of us, should be be judged by our moral
standards? should mopes judge napoleon? should mopes judge hitler? or
lecter? or dr. strangelove?
after all, we find it acceptable to slaughter cattle for food. and when
foot/mouth disease spread, we killed millions of animals purely out of
economic concern. do higher animals have the right to kill lower
animals? buddhists would say this is evil!(and in a way, it is. man,
unlike animals, has the power to understand his animal aggressions and
meanness. animals cannot liberate themselves from the instinct of tooth
and claw but we can. so when we choose not to do so, we're consciously
choosing to act animalish. so, buddhists and christians have tried to
repress the animalness out of humanity altogether, but then this leads
to all sorts of complexes like priests boofing young uns, so we've
tried to find a balance between animalism and humannessism. we kill
animals for food but we at least believe in killing them humanely, with
least amount of pain and suffering for the beask. of course, one may
argue that nazis did the same with the jews by killing them off like
cattle instead of cruelly butchering them like what happened in rwanda.
but is it less evil to commit mass murder humanely than barbarically?
or, does the pretense of humane efficiency make the deed even more
outrageous?).
anyway, if higher animals do have the right to kill lower animals, do
higher humans have the right to kill lower humans? what if we cloned
some superhuman race. should that race have the right to lord over our
race? well, whether it's right or not, they probably will.
anyway, there seems to be two problems with the higher being argument.
who is to determine who is the higher being? hitler thought aryans
were the highest but based on what notion, what science? as it turned
out, on false bogus theories. and, what is this creature called the
'great man'? does intelligence itself make some people better than the
rest? or is intelligence merely one facet of humanness? one can be
extremely brilliant and smart and a total punk. i heard newton was a
total shi*. and ingmar bergman, though obviously a genius, have often
been an arsehole. orson welles was highly intelligent but very
childish and irresponsible in his lifestyle. norman mailer stabbed his
wife. so did althusser, i hear.
leftwing jews are smart but some of the biggest arseholes in the world.
i think time magazine chose einstein as man of the century was because
he had both supreme intellect and a deep sense of humanity, great power
of thought and profound humility. he was the atom heart mother of
mankind. unlike marx, hitler, lenin, mussolini, mao, etc, einstein
didn't get carried off with notions of superiority of intellect, race,
style, vision, etc. he pondered the universe but also kept his ear
close to his heart. he's impossible to pigeonhole. was he a guru like
gandhi? no, guru-ism is bogus and pretentious. was he a rebel with
that wild hairstyle? no, he was too unassuming and serious for empty
posturing. was he a respectable academic? too stuffy. he was just
hisself.
or, maybe, einstein's goodness/greatness was simply the matter of
biochemicals. maybe, he was born with the right temprament. maybe, he
didn't try to be good but was good.
in this case, is evil largely a matter of biochemistry or early
childrearing? in the case of hitler and co., maybe. hitler probably
inherited a screwy mix of genes from his pa and ma.
also, his early childhood was a strange combo of sternness and
softness. his father was all sternness and seriousness and sobriety and
hardness. his ma was all softness, warmth, forgivingness, lovingness,
and adoringness.
if hitler had been purely like his pa, he would have been content as a
civil servant or some such. had he been purely like his ma, he would
have been happy as a farmer, family man, regular joe. but, he had this
strong yingen and yangen in his heart driving him nuts. on the one
hand, though he hated his pa, his pa's personality was seared into his
soul. hitler was externally stern, hard, tough, arrogant, and stubborn.
but, inside, there as the softness, the mama's boy, the poetic heart
drawn to pretty lovely things. his pa-nature made him feel ashamed of
his ma-nature. his ma-nature rebelled against his pa-nature. so he
became an artist. his pa thought art was wimpy, fluffy-duffy. his ma
wanted hitler to settle down and find peace with himself. as much as he
loved his ma, he couldn't just settle down and be regular; it was too
wimpy and pussy. art was the ticket to greatness. thru art, he could
express the finer qualities of man against the bourgeois sterness of
pa. but, thru art, he could also play masterful god in envisioning the
new world.
it's no wonder that hitler combined art with teutonism; though he
probably identified with wotan, he was more like one of those giants
carrying slabs of rocks. he wanted the beauty of art(feminine
quality) with the hardness of militarism(masculin quality). he wanted
to eat the cake and have it too. he wanted to be both pa-boy and
ma-boy, or the pama's boy. inside his heart was a love for animals,
pure innocent and beautiful creatures, his ma-nature. outside, there
was the stern man of business and no-nonsense worldly affairs.
this probably explains why hitler had a strange tension-filled
personality. he was constanly rebelling against his pa-nature yet also
ashamed of his weak ma-nature(his final break with ma-nature came when
his ma died after a terrible illness. hitler was deeply shaken but
probably a shame of wimpiness for feeling so helpless, and so he turned
his heart into stone and turned into a hard man thereafter... but
inside his soul was this everlasting search for the finer softer things
which could only be attained and preserved for eternity thru art, a
hardened art that fused beauty with steel, the fusion of ma petal and
pa mettle).
this is the both the great problem and inspiration in german and
japanese culture: the
hard/militaristic/masculin/samurai/discipline/spartan aspect VS. the
soft/romantic/refined/sensual aspect. the hessian/heian crisis. it's
all there in 'merry x-mas mr. lawrence' and 'gohatto' by oshima.
and hitler went nuts.
now, hitler's pathology was not the only one plaguing europe. the other
great pathology was the leftwingjew pathology or the subversive
exceptionalism/universalism crisis.
jews have traditionally seen themselves as the chosen people, special
from all other peoples. this conceit was hardly unique among cultures
but jews had lasting power so their exceptionalism gained gravity and
significance. it was the jewish ideal to be the eternal outsider, to go
into goy land, live amongst goyim, but also to remain apart; deal
goyim, profit from trading with goyim, but always to remain jewish.
yet, there was a great contradiction in jewish thought: it said there
was one god that ruled all yet this god favored the jews over all
others. jews came up with universalism yet practiced exceptionalism.
then jesus came along and said no more of that. however, jews
maintained their jewishness and suffered from christians as a result.
through centuries, jews began to subconsciously feel jealous of
christians cuz christians had a religion/philosophy/morality that was
consistent: univeral god and universal man. in contrast, the jewish
religion seemed stingy: universal god for the jews only and screw the
goyuim.
in the 19th century, many jews decided to do something about this. some
simply converted to christianity. but, some decided to outdo
christianity. they came up with the secular universalism of communism.
now, the secularized jews had a force and weapon to outdo even
christianity. it would eliminate not only the classes but nations and
cultures and traditions and superstitious customs and relgions until
nothing was left but universal man. BUT... just like the contradiction
within hitler, there was the pathological contradiction within the
leftwing jew. though he preached universalism, the exceptionalism of
jewish was still imprinted in his psyche--structural thing. so, the
leftwing jew began to relish the notion of the eternal subversive, or
the subversive for subversive sake. the leftwing jew, because he was
smarter, brighter, more brilliant, knowledgable, advanced, etc, felt he
had the right and the obligation to undermine the status quo and values
of the mainstream goyim society(not only aristocracies but
democracies--think of emma goldman the anarchist in america). and if
by chance the leftwing jew took over that society, he would belong in
the advanced guard, the intellectual political class, guiding the
dimwit goyim toward salvation. that was the trajectory until stalin
came along and said enough of this cocky, arrogant, leftwing jew shi*;
he figured, he could outjew the leftwing jew and he did since leftwing
jews, though the smartest and most capable, were outnumbered by goyim.
still, as the book 'jewish century' shows, stalin only got rid of jews
in the higher echelons while leftwing jews greatly prospered under
stalin and served him most loyally in destroying countless ukrainians
and kazakhis, etc. in fact, stalin's so-called anti-semitism was wimpy
stuff compared to what he did to other ethnic groups with full
participation of leftwing jews. the leftwing jews who later complained
of stalin's anti-semitism had no problem doing stalin's bidding in
destroying the cultures of kazahkis, uzbekhis, ukrainians, and
countless other ethnic groups.
anyway, because of the holocaust and stalinization of russia, we
completely let leftwing jews off the hook, and as a result scum like
noam chomsky and katha pollit keep promoting radicalism in america,
brainwashing countless dimwit goyim who can't think for themselves.
anyway... back to personality.. some people have evil personalities.
no one can know the complete truth, as einstein well undestood. but,
some people think they know everything. marx and lenin thought they
figured it all out. so did hitler. radicals think they are so corret
that they have the right to subvert the rest of us.
now, someone like darwin wasn't trying to be a radical or a subversive.
he was trying to be truthful. if many people found it radical or
subversive, it couldn't be helped. darwin wasn't going for
subversiveness for subversivness-sake.
but, leftwing jews are subversive-for-subversive-sake. they sometimes
defend the most outrageous lunatics for subversiveness sake. take
william kunstler, superscumbag.
take jonathan rosenbaum who often likes to write something just to piss
people off and be the odd-man-out. he takes pride in the
jewish-exceptionalism thing.
or, katha pollitt who never hesitates to tell us how radical and
subversive she is: her parents too, by the way(if she's so rebellious,
how some she's such an obedient daddy's girl, a red diaper baby?)
in a way, intellectual subversives fear taking real power since that
would mean losing the subsersive privelege and having to roll up the
sleeves and creating a real society.
it's no wonder that the rulers of russia and china ended up to be
people like mao and stalin, who despite their leftist ideology, were
highly tactical in their political machinations. while trotsky wrote
articles and made pompous speeches--still acting the subversive when he
had the power!--, stalin played pragmatic big city politics. but,
intellectual radicals kinda relish stalin's triumph since it gives them
yet another opportunity to play the subversive; soviet union failed
because of goyim traitor stalin.. only if trotsky and his pals had won
out!
now, hitler was not a subversive radical. a subversive radical
undermines society to create a wholly new society. hitler was a
radical rightist who wanted to undermine elements of social order to
strengthen certain aspects of german culture and nation. he wanted
those elements to gain total supremacy over all other elements. but,
hitler was largely molding the past and history into a future fiction
or myth, his sci-fi utopia.
hitler based his actions on science, but it went beyond science.
also, even if it had been based on correct science, would it still have
been justified? let's say nazi science was 100% correct. aryans are the
highest humans and jews are the lowest. also, jews have it in their
genes to be rat-like and parasitic. let's say this had been
irrefutably scientifically proven. would it then have justified the
holocaust? even here, one can make a strong argument that it was evil
cuz it was such a momumental act of cruelty and barbarity.
after all, we have humane ways of dealing with animals who pose a
threat to humanity. we kill them as a last resort; usually, we catch
them and release them back in the wild.
yet, what if a nazi argues that the alternative is to have the jews
interbreed and infect the rest of society and ruin civilization?
if nazi science is indeed true, what is less evil? killing off the
jews or letting jews live and contaminate mankind like a plague and
destroy civilization forever?
or, one can argue that the nazis should have exiled the jews to other
nations. but, what if a nazi argues that would have been like sending
diseases to other nations. we must remember that hitler thought he was
doing all of mankind(french, hungarians, romananians, italians, greeks,
etc) a favor by killing the jews(also, keep in mind most people didn't
care about the jews just as few cared about the ukrainians under stalin
or armenians under the turks or chinese under the japanese). though
hitler was at war with US and britain, he didn't want to contaminate
even his enemies with the jews(also, despite his debunking of jewish
science, one suspects hitler feared jewish intelligence, that jews
might help his enemies to build better weapons which jews certainly
did; indeed, the fear of jewish intelligence has been prevalent in
european history cuz though jews started out by serving goyim, they
were soon challenging goyim power and then even rising above it. in
america where anything goes with a mix of different ethnicities, who
cares if jews are richest or not? but, in europe with its long
traditions and definition of what is german, french, polish, or russian
or whatever, the idea of a group of 'foreign' people rising above the
well-defined native population and its elite was troubling stuff).
that was a worse war crime than using poison gas as far as hitler was
concerned. now, what if hitler had sent jews off to live in an
enclosed commune in the east. this may have been an option. if the war
against russia had gone really well, hitler might just have felt
magnanimous enough to make set up a kind of jewish state in siberia.
but, when the tide of war began to turn, hitler figured.. 'if i'm gonna
lose this war, the least i can do while i'm alive is to rid the world
of jewitis'.
anyway, nazi science turned out to be false science. and that makes
hitler's actions doubly evil. evil for its ruthlessness and evil for
its falsity. but, then falseness can also be cause of much goodness.
suppose a false science had deemed jews as the superior race, and some
nation treated jews well based on that science. it would have been
kind and good-hearted...but based on false science.
christianity is based on falseness of jesus as god's son(and the
existence of god) but many people are inspired to do good as a result.
today's liberalism is based on false racial science that all races are
equal. yet, pretending equality can sometimes defuse tensions, and we
may argue that focusing on bogus equality makes for more harmonious
society than focusing on real differences.
on the other hand, is allowing US to deteriorate into brazil a good
thing? isn't that evil by inaction?
but, one may argue true evil is aggressive, not passive. passivity may
be shi**y but it's not truly evil. for instance, a soldier who's
ordered to kill innocents and does it out of fear of his own life can't
be labeled as evil in the same way as someone who proactively decides
to slaughtere innocents. the world doing nothing about yugoslavia or
the rwandan genocide may be accused of inaction but is inaction evil?
but, where was i? yeah, back to hitler. anyway, with hitler, it was
more than science of race but art of race. i think even if you had
convinced hitler beyond a doubt that nazi race theories were false, he
would have been a nazi anyway because his sense of art, his sense of
beauty, his sense of sacredness was deeply wedded to aryanness.
hitler, like john simon, found the jewish look ugly as hell. now, there
are many beautiful and handsome jews, but you gotta admit there is a
certain jewish look that is truly repulsive--streisand, midler,
dworkin, friedan, and curly haired hooknosers; jesus! worse, when this
ugliness is combined with certain vulgar jewish mannerism, you wanna
puke; it's a kind of aggressive ugliness--physical and
behavioral--outdone only by koreans, gypsies, and punkass negroes.
this doesn't make them bad people, and besides beauty and goodness are
not the same.
but, hitler was a beauty cultist, an artist, someone who turned beauty
into an ideology. mishima too called himself the kamikaze for beauty.
hitler was the blitzkrieg for beauty. now, different things are
beautiful and beauty is in the eye of the beholder--to an extent(i'd
have serious reservations about the sanity of somoeone who says rosanne
barr is beautiful). but, hitler's vision of beauty was linked to
aryanness. and, it's understandable to an extent cuz germanic peoples
do have a certain strong beauty that is unique and incomparable in many
ways. even when germanic peoples were barbaric, romans and later arabs
had great admiration for their beauty.
today, many flabby whites worship the strong negro beauty, and many
negroes see white boys as a bunch of faggotyass dorks.
anyway, though hitler was into race science, his ideology was really
about biological art. he wanted to save the flower from the weeds. he
saw people not in terms of soul--vanquished by modern science
anyway--but by their material manifestation.
does this make hitler a kind of pure aesthete for whom beauty and art
justified everything? if beauty was all that mattered, so what if you
kill off the ugly--jews, gypsies, retards, etc--to make the world
beautiful? why not extend art into the real world? why limit it to
the galleries? aren't animals beautiful because only the healthy and
strong survive? isn't nature god's artwork. civilization made the sick
and parasitic survive alongside the healthy, strong, and beautiful. so
mankind has to artificially re-beautify man and destroy the weeds.
besides, don't jews get nosejobs? isn't this a kind of superficial
eradication of jewishness, a noseocaust? don't chinese get their eyes
aryanized and eliminate the 'chinkiness' from their face? don't blacks
straighten their hair and unnap the nappiness from the squiggly growth?
don't white brazilians surgically alter their butts to africanize it?
if people go to such length for beauty, why not go all the way to the
genetic level? why not turn the world beautiful at its very root by
uprooting genetic ugliness and preserving genetic beauty?
in fact, with genetic science, we might be able to do this without
using 'evil' means. parents will commit selective 'genocide' within the
womb, giving birth to superbaby.
and, perhaps, one could explain marxism as the leftwingjewish attempt
to rid the world of beauty and turn everyone into an overall wearing
prole(the dworkin paradise); was marxism a subconsicous expression of
jewish resentment and envy of the beauty of the goyim; after all, the
bible often tells of jewish leaders and prophets condemning jews for
succumbing to the color and beauty of goyim tribes and their skanky
shikse women.
anyway, hitlerism and leftwingjewism were both pathologies deeply
rooted in the traditions of two great peoples.
now, back to evil. what is the dividing line between evil and mere
badness. lying is bad. stealing is bad. but, when does it become evil?
is it mainly quantitative or qualitative?
is someone who steals $10 million from a mafia chief less evil than
someone who steals $10 from a charity?
is a gangbanger who kills 20 other gangbangers less evil than someone
who kills an old lady?
is a child stealing candy not evil? but, is it evil for a CEO to steal
millions from his company, possbily ruining the lives of his employees?
must one murder to be evil? can one commit no crime and still be evil?
what about people who take special delight in psychologically
tormenting people?
or, how about somoeone who's totally law-abiding but doesn't care one
way or another if his child dies? evil?
i dunno and i'm confused to where this argument stands so i quit.
herr blob
evil in the simplest form--and can be agreed universally--is someone
doing something he knows is terrible, though what is terrible may vary
culture to culture.
for instance, if i kill someone though i know killing is wrong, then
i'm evil. indeed, all cultures would agree on this definition of evil
though what they define as evil may be different.
of course, this can get kooky. according to orthodox christianity,
even imagining adultery is evil, or at least wicked. while the
christian who has trangressed in this manner may feel guilty, most of
us would consider this silly.
but, there is something to the christian definition of evil. it first
resides in the heart. you think adultery before you commit adultery.
you think rape before you rape. you think murder before you commit
murder. so, evil must be dealt with not only physically but
psychologically/spiritually. before hitler committed genocide, he
thought genocide. of course, this can go to far as with the communists
who wanted to create the new man cleansed internally of all his
feudal/bourgeois/capitalist/nationalist tendencies.
another way to define evil is the hammer-shin experiment. suppose i
take a hammer and strike you on the shin for my pleasure. you'd be in
pain and screaming for mercy. but, i smile and smash you in the shin
again. all cultures would say this is certainly evil. it's cruelty for
the sake of cruelty. it's sadism and utter lack of compassion or
redeeming quality.
this is why i would say idi amin was more evil than hitler and stalin.
of course, amin, being tyrant of a weak nation, didn't kill as many.
but, while hitler and stalin killed in the name of something, idi amin
just liked to kill and be badass. this is why i think gangsta rap
afro-savage culture is evil at its worst. as these louts are too
disorganized to form into a formidable force, they usually do less harm
than organized powers; heck, they are too busy killing one another. but
they have no REDEEMING qualities whatsoever.
if hitler had gotten his wish, he would killed off jews and maybe the
slavs. but, there would have a been proud germanic civilization with
peace and harmony and appreciation for greek culture, renaissance art,
and beethoven, and an 'aryan' society governed by law and order.
hitler was very evil but not totally evil.
same with stalin and communism. there was some redeedming quality.
i see none in idi amin and afro-savagery. traditional tribal african
culture have certain norms of community and morality. not modern
afro-savagery. it's idi amin and gangsta-rap. now, it's appealing to
many people cuz people are naturally drawn to power and nihilism--and
what is more totally nihilistic than gangsta rap and who be more
powerfulbadass than the negro?(just look at how ken burns whanks off to
jack johnson; liberals being pussyboys seek malehoodedness by rubbing
skin with the negro)--promises unlimited freedom for stupid youths;
they fail to understand, however, that this freedom leads to a world
tyrannized by young brutes and thugs, like the animal world where the
young males destroy and kill all competitors and treat females like sex
objects. hardly surprising that the predominant black conception of the
woman is the 'ho'.
but, ho'hood is now bigger than feminism. because of liberal racial
favoritism, blacks have been beyond criticism and seen as everything
noble and good; so feminists never criticized black culture and guess
what? white girls now all wanna be bump-grind skankass ho's, and
feminism, if it exists at all, has turned into naomi wolf/camille
paglia show. even to this day, feminists who will trash WWF and NASCAR
are afraid to say anything critical of the main force responsible for
their downfall: the rise of afrosavage groin bumping/grinding
monkeygorilla animal act which idolizes the animal stud as male ideal
and skankass slut ho as the female ideal. GOP didn't defeat feminism;
madonna, paglia, and aguilera did.
anyway, cultural differences are mostly not about evil. for example,
vaginal mutilation within its cultural context is not evil. it's just
sick. we know that those committing this act think it's the right
thing to do. we know that they are not sadists out to torture women.
similarly, we know that chinese footbinding wasn't done to cause pain
to women but because chinese--women included--believed it was beautiful
to ugly feet.
now, feminists may argue--with some validity--that there is a
subconscious element in these practices of the male controlling the
female; to put the women in her place. and, we can argue that women who
accept these practices have internalized their sense of inferiority.
actually, this is one area where i somewhat agree with feminist gorks.
nevertheless, one can make a case of cruelty and ugliness and
stupidity--if not exactly 'evil'--when we consider how terribly painful
these practices are. it's one thing to expect girls to wear skirts.
it's another to lop off their clits or slowly deform their feet.
and, there must be some appeal of universal morality because chinese
have now accepted the 'evil' of footbinding. even before the chinese
communist revolution, most chinese turned away from footbinding. the
west did NOT force the chinese to give it up. chinese went from a
purely cultural defintion of chinese man to a more universal definition
of man. they broke out of their cultural shell, began to compare
chinese ways with western ways and had to admit certain
western--universal--ways were more just, sane, healthy.
now, are some moral notions more appealing across cultures than others?
suppose there's a culture that has been isolated from rest of the
world. they have their practices and customs. now, what outside
influence would be appealing to these people? christianity or amazonian
indian cosmology/morality or african pussycutting morality?
i don't think the appeal of the west has been merely about power.
mongols ruled over nearly all of asia, large chunks of arabia, and
europe for centuries but during their rule, mongolism didn't spread nor
was it admired by those living under mongol rule.
why did westernism spread? cuz the west--especially greeks and
christians(via the jews who only went halfway)--were the first to truly
define man as a creature freed from culture and custom and such.
we gotta give credit to buddha too; born a prince but rejectionary of
cultures, customs, classes, etc. even granted that this universal man
theory grew out of particular cultures, universalism helped man see the
world as an individual, a free soul with freedom of thought and action.
while different cultures have different notions of what is right and
wrong, evil or non-evil, universal man is likely to agree more than
disagree with fellow universal man. and, i mean universal man whether
in UK, germany, israel, russia, china, australia, egypt. they may
national biases and loyalties, but they have a generally common value
system of right and wrong, evil and good.
in this sense, we can say 'evil' was truly born with the rise of
freedom. in an unfree society where people are raised to follow the
custom and ask no questions, to do as told is the right thing. you can
only do right or wrong, not good or evil. in japan, a good samurai did
as he was told by his lord; he didn't aks questions(though all humans
must surely feel some sense--no matter how flickering--of higher
rightness over rightness set by superior or traditon).
but, free man--defined by sartre as 'condemned to be free'--must
personally think and decide what is right and wrong. he can't rely on
culture for the answer nor can be excuse himself thru culture. he may
seek advice and counsel from culture, friends, family, books, school
learning, but he is expected to make HIS own choice. he can choose to
do good or evil.
evil was born with freedom and self-awareness. it's like when adam ate
the apple. before he done that, there was only what god said to do and
not to do. when he gained knowledge, he had to decide for himself. he
chose freedom. when he first disobeyed god, he was not being evil but
just foolish and ignorant. but, once he gained the knowledge of his
freedom, his future actions were HIS choice. when his son cain killed
abel, it was cain's choice to do evil out of jealousy. if god told adam
what to do/not to do before the fall, cain murdered out of his own
volition. it was evil.
modern man has truly truly bitten the fruit. we have done away with
religion altogether so we have no excuse. we have put traditional
dictates behind so we must take individual responsibility.
this is why general macarthur blamed germans more than japanese.
japanese had never become free thinking people. but, germans had
gained freedom, especially after WWI but still chose nazism and blind
obedience for man-as-god. of course, one can argue that germans too
had never become totally freed from feudal mindset despite it being a
european nation.
anyway, we hold japan to higher standard than china because we feel the
rich, well-educated, and democratic japanese to have more sense and
higher morality than the poor, backward chinese living in an unfree
nation and brainwashed by maoism thru the 70s. evil grows
proportionally with knowledge.
now, what is evil vs good to universal--or liberated--man?
well, let's start with the hammer on the shin. that would be evil.
a non-universal man who strikes someone on the shin cuz his religion
required him to do so--like human sacrifice--might be let off the hook.
but, universal man is free of such superstitious idiocies. if he
strikes someone on the shin, he did it out of his own volition. he must
take responsiblity. and what good reason is there for hurting someone
like that? none! so, that's evil.
also, basic morality goes back to both confucius and jesus who said the
same thing. don't kick his ass if you don't your ass whupped.
now, we know that getting hammered on a shin is a terrible thing. we
know this. we know it's godawful. yet, to do it another is inexcusable
and evil, especially since humans have the power to empathize--and even
sympathize--with other humans.
so someone who wants no one to hammer his shin but then hammers someone
else's shin is evil.
in the case of a sado-masochist, this gets complicated cuz he wants to
hammer someone's shin and wants someone to hammer his. but, SM is a
lunatic beyond sane discussion.
now, there are bad things that aren't exactly evil, at least to most
people.
and, there are things that are implicitly evil.
few things in the world are totally good, and few things are totally
evil. and even goodness can lead to evil.
if you raise your kid in a totally normal--good--environment, he might
take everything for granted and laugh at disgusting quentin tarantino
movies and think cruelty and mayhem don't occur in the real world but
exist just for our amusement. i think alot of americans felt this way
before 9-11, that tragedies only happened in distant lands or in the
movies. recall the countless morons in movie theaters who cheered at
the image of white house blowing up in 'independence day'.
people who experienced the horror of war couldn't be so stupid.
holocaust was evil but many of its effects have been good by making the
world more aware of what man is capable of.
communism was hellish but at least there are fewer diehard commies now
than in decades past. sometimes, the world has to see and experience
evil to realize with seriousness how evil something is.
so evil has good consequences cuz man needs a good asswhupping once in
awhile.
it's like that segment of twilight zone with pamela dean's favorite
actor. he was loutish but he got his comeuppance. he learned the
hardway.
eldridge cleaver who worshipped mao went to china and felt nostalgic
for the oakland police and came back and turned republican.
do not unto others what you would not have done unto you but may
everyone have something done to them they don't want done to them so
they may be less stupid, deluded, and naive.