2,318 words

Part 2 of 2 (Read Part 1 here.)

Does it really matter? Is it even worth it? When it comes to redressing the official World War Two narrative—what I call the Steven Spielberg version of history—these are questions we all have asked ourselves at some point or another. For my part, I wholeheartedly wish we could just move on from WWII. I wish it were treated as any other war from history and that we needn’t waste so much time and energy dismantling that Steven Spielberg recounting of events.

But the fact of the matter is that the narrative surrounding the Second World War and the 1930s Germans and Italians is used as a cudgel to beat all Europeans into submission, self-doubt, and self-punishment. The official narrative and cartoonish Nazi villains are used as a blockade to prevent all of us from protecting our nations and taking our own side. That’s why we can’t move on from it until we have dismantled it.

Consider Ireland. For entire year, the Irish have been mobilizing against the second and far more destructive Plantation of their island home. In November of last year, ordinary Dubliners fed up with watching their neighborhoods be treated as dumping grounds for large quantities of suspicious foreign men, decided to block an attempt to turn an office building into an “asylum centre.”  This sparked a grassroots resistance across the country to the State-sanctioned invasion of Ireland—a resistance which has carried on for 12 months. During these months there were moments in which the world did gaze in deep amaze, such as when Irish youngsters in Westmeath stood in front of a bus full of so-called migrants, refusing to let its human cargo descend upon their community, until the bus was turned around. Then there was the Battle of Pearse Street in Dublin, wherein 100 or so tracksuit-wearing youngfellas dismantled a “refugee” commune which was harboring, amongst other riffraff, a Turk wanted for terrorism charges. There were various marches through the city streets, all well-behaved and featuring the “optics” of mothers pushing prams demanding safety for their children.

What was the opposition’s response to these Irish patriots? To label them “fah roight” Nazis and fascists, of course. Obviously, this is absurd. First of all, apart from Hitler liking Irish folk music and Mussolini declaring in 1920 that “[T]he Italians cannot deny their solidarity with the Irish. Ireland has a right to live independent and Republican.”, I don’t think that German National Socialism or Italian fascism was very much concerned with Ireland. And as for the Irish, it isn’t Hitler or Mussolini to whom they look for inspiration or ideological instruction. Why would they? Ireland has its own 20th century icons in men like Pádraig Pearse, James Connolly, Michael Collins, and Bobby Sands. All those men fought and died for, to paraphrase Pearse, an Ireland that was free and Gaelic. Are we to believe that that makes them equivalent to villainous Nazis? According to liberal progressives in politics, academia, and media, the answer is yes.

If you are reading this, you are probably familiar with the meme “everyone I don’t like is a Nazi” which was particularly popular throughout 2016 as way to mock social justice warriors. It is true enough that the modern liberal progressive can conceive of no other “bad guy” than a 1930s German (and perhaps Voldemort) but there is a deeper reason why they always call their political opponents Nazis. It isn’t merely a knee-jerk reflex on the part of Irish progressives to call concerned mothers “fascists.” The Steven Spielberg version of history and the Nuremberg narrative have taught multiple generations that nationalism is evil because the Nazis were nationalists, and the Nazis did the holocaust, therefore nationalism paves the way to the gas chamber. This is why European peoples, even peoples who had nothing to do with the Nazis, or even fought against the Nazis, cannot display any racial in-group preference or object to their countries becoming multiracial and multicultural abominations. In this paradigm, then, it is essential that we demolish the Nuremberg narrative.

It’s not that people must become National Socialists. Just having a sober, adult understanding of WWII without all the Hollywood melodrama would be a step in the direction of sanity. As the X user we met in Part One demonstrated, public opinion about the war and all the nuances around it could be changed in a matter of days. Instead of millions of minds being taught that two mad men, one an Austrian painter and another a fez-wearing Italian, whipped up their nations into a senseless frenzy and embarked on a crazy quest for world domination, what would the discourse be like if they were taught what it was the 1930s Germans and their allies were actually fighting for? Reading the contemporaneous works of Italian philosopher Julius Evola, one discovers that the fascism of that transalpine nation-state was profoundly concerned with the dying, demoralized Western soul. It’s a bitter pill to swallow: even in the 1920s and ’30s, the West was already on its deathbed. The men who tried to revive her were thwarted, and thus we today are condemned to live beside a rotting cadaver.

Over in the Reich, sentiments similar to those of Evola and the Italian fascists were commonplace too, and both regimes were acutely aware of the threat posed by Bolshevism. Consider these words from a 1942 speech by Hitler in Berlin:

Thus the home-front need not be warned, and the prayer of this priest of the devil, the wish that Europe may be punished with Bolshevism, will not be fulfilled, but rather that the prayer may be fulfilled: “Lord God, give us the strength that we may retain our liberty for our children, and our children’s children, not only for ourselves but also for the other peoples of Europe. For this is a war which we all wage, this time, not for our German people alone, it is a war for al of Europe and with it, in the long run, for all of mankind.”

Again, if you are reading this it is unlikely that you need much convincing that the 1930s Germans and Italians were not, in fact, roving lunatics bent on world destruction. But for those readers who may be under the spell of the Spielbergian mythmakers, let us for a moment consider the motivations of the nation-states which fought against the Axis Powers. Americans and Britons have been taught that their grandads and great-grandads fought for freedom, to protect the world from tyranny, that they went to war in Europe to save the Jews and defend the civil rights of other oppressed people. Indeed, today’s leftists like to argue that the men who stormed the beaches of Normandy were the original Antifa.

Is this really the case? As Millennial Woes explained in his recommendable essay Aryan Blues, the vast majority of American soldiers had views on race that would have made the average German say, “well now, that’s a bit extreme.” Winston Churchill expressed views on the “barbaric” races of the world that put to shame anything the supposed racial supremacist Hitler ever said.

To this day, people still believe that black Olympian Jesse Owens was despised by both Hitler and the German public at large, that he was slighted by a Führer who refused to shake a black man’s hand. The real story couldn’t be more different. Owens was treated with cordiality and respect, was applauded by the German crowd, and in reality Hitler didn’t shake hands with any athlete in order to maintain the appearance of a neutral observer. In fact, it was back in the good ol’ freedom lovin’ and civil liberties defendin’ United States where Owens was willfully snubbed by Franklin Roosevelt who never invited him to the White House nor even sent him a congratulatory message.

Even after the war, American and British society remained rather indistinguishable from “white supremacist,” “racial purity” obsessed Nazi Germany. Up until about five minutes ago, all the films, adverts, pop songs, fashion shows, and television series featured stunning blonde blue-eyed beauties and handsome white men as the main protagonists. And yet, even in 1938 the mythmakers were already at work constructing ideological narratives for why Hitler and the National Socialists were evil. That was the year in which TIME magazine made Hitler its “Man of the Year.”  Many of the self-proclaimed Truth Seekers whom we analyzed in Part One often refer to this edition of TIME magazine as proof that even in America, the sheeple fell for Hitler’s tricks. “You know TIME named Hitler “Man of the Year? Harumpf!” scoffs the Truth Seeker, adjusting his MAGA cap and turning up the volume of his favorite Infowars episode. “Says everything you need to know.’

Does it though? Did TIME name Hitler “Man of the Year” in order to praise him? What did the magazine actually say about the German leader? For starters, it describes him thusly:

[A] moody, brooding, unprepossessing, 49-year-old Austrian-born ascetic with a Charlie Chaplin mustache. The son of an Austrian petty customs official, Adolf Hitler was raised as a spoiled child by a doting mother. Consistently failing to pass even the most elementary studies, he grew up a half-educated young man, untrained for any trade or profession, seemingly doomed to failure.

Later in the article, TIME’s writer goes on to say of the man who fought in the trenches of World War One with the works of Schopenhauer in his rucksack, that his “reading has always been very limited.” It shall remain unknown just how exactly TIME’s hacks made this rather personal assessment of Hitler, and one would be excused for thinking that the American magazine’s portrayal of him was riddled with bias and propaganda.

The ’38 “Man of the Year” piece can’t help but acknowledge that this supposedly mediocre and uneducated man did indeed resurrect a moribund Germany and transformed it into a force to be reckoned with, but even before war with Germany had even started, the attempt to paint the painter as a dangerous despot was well underway. The article hints at a coming conflict between “civilized liberty” and “barbaric authoritarianism.”  It laments a supposed loss of artistic output from Germany, claims that in Nazi Germany “[T]he genius of free wills has been so stifled by oppression of dicatorship,” and terrifies TIME’s readers with reports that women in Germany “are regarded as breeding machines.” Hitler is described as “the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.” Eighty-four years later and the liberal hymn sheet has not changed much.

The irony of all ironies comes when TIME’s writer says, “[F]ascism has discovered that freedom—of press, speech, assembly—is a potential danger to its own security.” For those of us living today, during the time when so-called free and democratic regimes are putting protestors in solitary confinement and using every tactic possible, including bald-faced authoritarianism, to suppress criticism and opposition, we can only read TIME’s piece with a wry smile and shake our heads. It turns out unfettered freedom of speech and assembly poses a danger not just to supposedly evil dictatorships, but to any and every form of authority and government which has ever existed, including the sacrosanct liberal democracy.

But in the world the Spielbergs have constructed for us, we are not allowed to notice these things.

The Fog of War and Forgotten History

The Second World War was recorded on film and in countless written documents, yet sometimes it seems that despite these modern methods of archiving history, or perhaps because of them, there are more biased perspectives and lies surrounding that war than any other. It could be argued that we have a more honest and accurate account of the Peloponnesian War than we do of World War Two.

Photography allowed us to record history in new ways, but also opened a portal to a whole new world of propaganda and fake reality. Staged photos and edited photos have been passed down as real moments caught on film. In the 21st century, we have to contend with even more sophisticated methods of manipulating images. Moral melodrama impedes us from engaging proper analysis of the Second World War. We can question and investigate the number of Gauls Julius Caesar’s legions killed, but we cannot question or investigate the number of Jews killed according to the Nuremberg narrative.

Despite dropping two nuclear bombs on an already the civilians of a defeated Japan, despite the fire-bombing of Dresden and the use of chemical weapons, we are expected to believe in the nobility and righteousness of the liberal democracies of Britain and the United States. The very nations who felt the full force of the Allies” military might and cruelty back then, today nod along in solemnity as the mythmakers tell them the story of how they sinned against “humanity.”

The case of Jesse Owens illustrates just how easy it is to lie utterly about events that thousands of people saw with their own eyes, how easy it is to create a myth and spread it around the world and through generation after generation. As we get further and further away from World War Two and as the people who lived through it become fewer and fewer, we can expect that the network of entertainment, news media, politics, and academia will redouble its efforts to make sure that no generation goes without getting its dose of Steven Spielberg’s version of history. We are probably stuck with this burden in perpetuity. Like Sisyphus, all we can do is strive to push the weight up to the hilltop, and push we must. So long as we live in a paradigm which insists that the defence of European peoples is akin to the most unconscionable evils, our very existence will be nothing more than a negotiable item on the liberal agenda.