01 January, 2019

I read Mein Kampf

(and maybe you should too)

A few explanations first…

I read Hitler’s memoir/manifesto so as to have an informed opinion. There are plenty of quotes attributed to this book and I wanted to know which were accurate. And I wanted to know how Nazis defined themselves at the time, as opposed to how historians define them (not that I question the accuracy of those definitions) or how present day pseudo-fascists perceive the doctrine. I wanted to know to what extent it is a ravings of a madman, to what extent true intentions were covered up, and how a nation could have been taken in by such a doctrine.

Put more simply: Know your enemy.

I took great care in sourcing a copy. There was no way I was going to purchase a copy in any way, shape or form. Since coming into public domain, the book has been made available to buy and I am given to understand that proceeds from sales are donated to charity, although some charities have refused to take such donations. I’ll have more to say about whether the book should be available at all later. In any case, I was not going to have my name, payment details or any digital profile associated with such a purchase.

I used a TOR browser and private search engine to find a free electronic copy. In doing so, I discovered that there is some controversy among neo-Nazi circles about the accuracy of translations and certain edits of the book. Apparently there are certain “unedited” manuscripts which are alleged to contain Hitler’s “true” feelings because certain official versions were cleaned up. I sense bullshit there, and who cares anyway? I settled on a version which had been sanctioned by the Nazi party in the 1940s with the intention of distribution in an occupied Britain. This electronic copy was clearly scanned from a print copy, which explains the errors in the screenshot. I will not covert quotes to text.

There has been chatter in recent months about whether Hitler was left wing or right wing. It is an irrelevant question. George Orwell described himself as both a patriot and as a socialist but would recognise neither term as they are commonly used today. Yes, Hitler called the party “National Socialists” and he certainly held economic theories which might be described as socialist, but on the whole, the Nazi party was socialist in the same way that North Korea is a “Democratic Republic.” Hitler saved his most vehement (although non-specific) criticism for Marxism, which he considered to be a part of the great Jewish conspiracy.

The fact is there are passages of Mein Kampf that could plausibly be attributed to any post-war political thinker from Margaret Thatcher to Michael Moore. Trying to describe Nazism in modern terms of left and right is a fool’s errand which helps no-one.

Having grown up in a household where war documentaries were a common thing, it was regularly pointed out that when film of Hitler’s speeches are shown, there are never any translations and sometimes his voice is distorted too. Having read his book, I can now see why. He is seductive. There were moments in the first volume where I actually found myself nodding in agreement with certain passages only to be taken aback when I turned the page and was reminded that I was reading the words of one of history’s most evil men when he blamed it all on “the Jew.”

In last year’s rage read, Atlas Shrugged, it’s obvious in every paragraph that it was written by a sociopath. Mein Kampf has moments that are surprisingly, disturbingly reasonable in amongst the bizarre asides on Aryan supremacy.

This is the biggest problem with selective quotes from this book. While Hitler is rightly seen as the embodiment of all evil, it does not mean that all his views or policies are equally evil. This opens the door for people with modern political motives to make the spurious assertion that (for example) nationalisation of industry will lead to mass genocide.

General themes:
  • Parliamentary representatives are cowards because their collective responsibility also gives them the option to deny responsibility. Better to have a single leader who Providence shall identify and who will be responsible to the angry masses if they fail.
  • Oratory is greater than writing.
  • Marxism is evil.
  • So is social democracy.
  • The masses are mostly stupid.
  • Economic dominance is no substitute for military power and expansionism.
  • It is right to forcibly expand territories to feed a growing population.
  • Germany only lost World War I because of traitors and a defeatist press.
  • Propaganda needs to consist of short, simple slogans repeated endlessly. (sound familiar?)
  • The press want to undermine the state and therefore must be controlled by the state.
  • All the press is controlled by the Jews.
  • Marriage is for procreation and the strengthening of the race and the state.
  • Modern art is rubbish.
  • So is modern architecture.
  • Aryans invented everything.
  • Subjugation of ‘inferior’ races is mutually beneficial.
  • Racial impurity is the cause of all downfall.
  • Might makes right.

There is no pandering to any point of view. There is absolutely no doubt Hitler believes everything he says here. He actually makes a partially reasonable case for dictatorship, reminding us of that great conservative saying that representative democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. His unashamed belief in racial supremacy and outright dictatorship are both shocking and, in a way, almost refreshing in an age where we are used to certain sectors making sly hints towards these views. If nothing else, Hitler was honest about it.

The words “master race” are never used but Hitler’s obsession with racial purity and paranoid belief that Jews control all aspects of finance, the media and (somehow) Marxism dominate every topic. In fact, his assertions on eugenics border on the comical but it’s important to think before you laugh. As patently absurd as much of this doctrine is, we must remember it eventually seduced a nation which went on to conquer most of a continent, murder 6 million people, and it took a world war to stop them.

This brings me back to why I wanted to read this book and whether it should be available. Mein Kampf is undoubtedly an extremely dangerous book. I do not believe it should be banned. I believe that to guard against racist nationalist dictatorship ever rising again, we need to know and recognise the doctrine in their own words as well the interpretation of historians. The subtitle of this essay is in no way a recommendation or an endorsement. I don’t think people should read this book out of idle curiosity. As tedious as the writing is, it has the power to seduce the weak minded or those who don’t read it in the context of what it led to. It should however be considered by anyone who wants to recognise Nazism in its own words and identify anything similar.



  
PS: I am open to suggestions for a rage-read in 2019 but please make it something shorter.  


08 December, 2018

The problem with Rudolph

Never mind Baby It’s Cold Outside or Fairytale of New York. If you want to talk about bad messages in Christmas songs, try Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

You see, Rudolph was born different. To wit: he had a very shiny nose. For this, all of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names. Furthermore, they excluded him from their reindeer games.

However, Santa sees the value in Rudolph's uniqueness and gives him a special job to which he is especially suited. And then how the reindeer loved him!

Now you might think Santa is being pretty cool promoting Rudolph to the most popular reindeer and making the other reindeer accept him, but that’s not really what happens. He could have stopped the rest of the team teasing him any time he wanted, but he didn’t until he had a use for Rudolph.

And did the reindeer really love him? I doubt it. They were never shown the error of their ways. They only accepted Rudolph because Santa made him special, so they were really just sucking up to the boss.

The moral of the story? Reindeer are dicks and Santa will stick up for you if he has a use for you. If I were Rudolph, I’d have led them all up a ditch.

 

17 November, 2018

Top Ten Awesome Babble Songs

I’m currently reading Hang the DJ, an Alternative Book of Music Lists. It goes beyond the typical Top Ten Guitar Solos and sticks to very specific criteria. The first chapter, written by Owen King, tells you everything you need to know about the type of lists in the book: Ten Essential Stutter songs (for example, Muh-muh-muh-My Sharona and Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes.)

In selecting Talking Heads’ Psycho Killer, Owen King admits it only works if the final syllable is actually ‘far’ and not merely another ‘fah’ which would make it “better suited for the Top 10 Awesome Babble Songs.” Which gives me an idea…

This does not include scat singing or anything similar, but only songs where the babble is an integral part of the song, and often even the title.

10: Doo Wah Diddy - Manfred Mann

It’s really just your typical boy-meets-girl and they fall in love song. Only in this one, they’re singing ‘Doo wah diddy, diddy dum, diddy do.’ As you do.


9: Tutti Frutti - Little Richard
Apart from Mr Penniman listing some of the gals he’s got, the song is almost all babble. Although the title may also be an ice cream flavour an ‘aw rooty’ is allegedly a slang term for ‘all right,’ it hardly enhances the meaning of the song, whatever it may be. Awopbopaloobop Alopbamboom’s meaning has only come since the song.



8: Be-Bop-a-Lula - Gene Vincent
Any song that commits the lyrical sin of rhyming ‘baby’ and ‘maybe’ ensures that even if all the other words are utter drivel, they still won’t be the worst thing about the song. Like Yabba-Dabba-Doo, Be-Bop-a-Lula has no particular meaning but you still know it means something good.



7: Da Do Ron Ron - The Crystals

Another piece of babble that you just know means… something! All the great innocent pop has a sexuality bubbling underneath and you have to figure out what it means for yourself. Bruce Springsteen made it obvious that when they kissed, fire! But in Phil Spector’s teen symphony, when he walked her home, Da do ron ron! If you know what I mean.



6: Hey Jude - The Beatles
Perhaps a controversial choice, but any song where over half of the single’s 7-minute length is: ‘Nah, nah, nah, nananah nah, nananah nah, Hey Jude!’ surely has to count.

If that doesn’t work for you try…

5:  Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da - The Beatles
Far from being a twee nursery rhyme that some people consider it to be, it’s far more political than that. It’s easy to forget this was the time of Enoch Powel and his ‘blood in the streets’ speech. Paul McCartney’s simple story of a multicultural family being just as ordinary as can be, set to a calypso beat, was a sly put-down to all that. While John Lennon might have been more likely to just say, “Don’t be racist, you pigs!” Paul was a bit more subtle than that. Almost too subtle.


4: The Boxer - Simon and Garfunkel
No-one said babble songs had light or fluffy. Paul Simon has admitted the ‘Li-la-li’ chorus was a simply a placeholder for lyrics that never came, and his embarrassment about it. He shouldn’t be so hard on himself. It works. What I never understood was why in the middle of the chorus of this most gentle and sensitive song, there’s a massive drum hit drenched in reverb that comes at you like a punch in the face. Like a punch in the… oh, right. The Boxer. Now I get it.



3: #9 Dream - John Lennon
John Lennon was a master of nonsense. This is quite a talent. A silly, off-the-cuff lyric from Paul McCartney sounds like a silly, off-the-cuff lyric but John could write about semolina pilchards climbing up the Eiffel Tower like it was the most profound thing you ever heard. You’ve either got it or you haven’t.

In its wider context, the chorus of ‘Ah! Bowakawa, pousse pousse’ sounds to the monolingual ear like it could be a message to Yoko in Japanese. In fact, they’re just the words John heard in the aforementioned dream. Yet his delivery assures you that there must be more to it than just that.



2: De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da - The Police
Even as a classically trained post-punk in the late 70s, Sting took himself rather seriously. It’s tempting to think the title and hook of this song might be yet another pretention. It was on an album called Zenyatta Mondatta, after all. Mercifully, there was no deeper meaning. It’s simply a song about being tongue-tied before the object of one’s affections, and who can’t relate to that? It’s meaningless and all that's true.



1: Sussudio - Phil Collins
It’s still a boy-meets-girl song with a babble title and chorus. This time, the narrator invites the listener to say the word because it makes him feel so good. Try it for yourself. Go on, say, “Su-Sussudio.” Does it make you feel so good? Of course it doesn’t!

Phil Collins is problematic on a few levels but there’s no denying he completely nailed it here. Every single line and lick is a hook, and if the first keyboard riff bears a striking resemblance to Prince’s 1999, it’s probably no accident. This is probably the most-mid 80s song ever. You couldn’t design one better if you tried. You want to hate it but you can’t. Admit it.




28 September, 2018

The presumption of innocence

I think it’s time we had a little chat about the presumption of innocence.

First and foremost: I’m all for it. Let’s get that out of the way right now.

A central pillar of justice in the civilised world (and you can take that any way you like) is that an accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Essentially, this means that you can’t be thrown in prison (or worse) just because someone says you did something. Of course, this is exactly what happened to untold thousands if not millions of people, but we don’t want to make the white men feel TOO uncomfortable, so we’ll stick to the present day for now.

The presumption of innocence does NOT mean ignoring all accusations and refusing to hear from the accusers.

Embed from Getty Images

Let’s imagine your car has been stolen, and you saw who did it. You report it to the police.

You: “My car has been stolen. I know who did it. I saw him. He is…”
Officer: “WHOA! Hold on a moment sir! This man has a right to the presumption of innocence! Do you expect us to believe he stole your car just because you come in here and say so? You haven’t presented any evidence!”
You: “But I know his name! I’ve seen him around before. He grabbed my keys when they fell out of my pocket. I have pictures here on my ’phone and that’s him over there!”
Suspect: “I didn’t do it.”
Officer: “It’s your word against his, sir. And you’ve admitted you gave him the keys.”
You: “I didn’t GIVE him the keys, he…”
Officer: “I am placing you under arrest for defaming this good man. Anything you say may be used against you.”

Yes, that does sound ridiculous, but it is essentially the premise of those who are defending Brett Kavanaugh. Of course he has the right to the presumption of innocence and I am making no comment on his innocence or otherwise. What I am saying is that the presumption of innocence does not say allegations should not be investigated. Allowing for the possibility he may be innocent of all charges does not mean he should just be appointed to one of the most powerful positions in the United States without due diligence.

My own job requires me to have a police check every year and a deeper check for working with children every five years. If I have a criminal record, the fact that I am free to work should prove I have paid any debt to society I may have, so why should I be treated to this extra scrutiny? The answers should be obvious. There are positions of responsibility where certain aspects of your past, however much you may have grown and changed since then, will forever preclude you from holding such a position. It may seem unfair, but at least you’ve never been hanged from a tree just because… oops, sorry. I said I wouldn’t go there, didn’t I?

The doctrine of innocent until proven guilty does not mean no evidence of guilt should be sought. Those who claim the presumption of innocence from the moment an accusation is made, are possibly doing it for want of a better defence. As for Mr Kavanaugh, I hope that justice is done, whatever that may involve.



15 July, 2018

Personality politics – a beginner’s guide

One of the latest buzzwords in political debate across the world wide wank is “personality politics.”

Now personality politics has been with us ever since we’ve had politics, or indeed personalities but it turns out in 2018 it’s a bad thing.

It’s probably easier to illustrate than to describe the phenomenon, so here are a couple of examples:

Turnbull and Morrison: Billion dollar Bill! Unbelieva-Bill! Electricity Bill! Impossi-Bill!
Labor: Isn’t it interesting how Malcolm Turnbull is exactly the type of person who stands to gain the most from his own tax policy?
Liberals: UM-AH! That’s personality politics! That’s not allowed! I’m dobbing!

Or perhaps try this example:

Trump: Crooked Hillary! Lyin’ Ted! Little Marco! Little Rocket Man! Angry Democrats! Pizza-gate! Bill Clinton is a rapist! Mexicans are rapists! Sloppy Steve!
Democrats: Here is a man who is a multiple bankrupt, has hundreds of lawsuits against him, over a dozen allegations of sexual assault, has bragged about being able to sexually assault women with impunity, in the same conversation he brags about cheating on his third wife (not that this should disqualify him from office, but Republicans seem to have had objections to marital infidelity in the past), there is credible evidence he has ties to organised crime in both New York and Moscow, he invited another country to commit espionage against the United States, he used a profanity at a campaign rally and doesn’t seem to know very much about anything other than what’s on television. Are you sure this is the type of person we want running the country?
Trump supporters: WAH! You’re playing personality politics! That’s not fair! Mom! They’re cheating!

Do you see a pattern emerging here?

If you’re a right winger telling lies about progressives, that’s free speech and must be defended at all costs because it’s the foundation of our political discourse.

If you’re a progressive telling the truth about the right wing, then that’s personality politics and is everything that’s wrong with modern political discourse.

I hope that helps.
  
 

01 July, 2018

On civility

In the wake of a private business invoking its right to refuse service on moral grounds – a right recently upheld by the US Supreme Court in a slightly different context – there has been much chatter from some unusual sources about the need for civility in public discourse.

It’s as if some people just woke up from a 25-year coma last week. To the people who have suddenly noticed the lack of civility, I have this to say:

We TRIED civil discourse. We WANTED civil discourse.
You gave us chants of “Lock her up!” “Drain the swamp!” and “Build the wall!”
You gave us Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Alex Jones, Stephen Miller and Pepe memes.
You called us snowflakes (among many other names) when we dared to suggest this was not productive.
And you have the gall to ask for civility now?

One of the first refuges of a bully is to accuse his target of his own worst behaviour.

We are playing by your rules now.
If you can’t take the heat, allow me to show you the kitchen door. And I don’t care if it hits you in the ass on your way out.

23 May, 2018

How to be a larrikin

G’day me ol’ chinas! It’s time for another lesson in How to be a Larrikin, or as we like to call it here at The Larrikin Institute:

Lift yer game, son!


Today we’re gunna talk about how to whinge about dealing with the government.

Now every bugger and his dog hates dealing with the government so ya might reckon this’ll be a lay down misere, but you’d be barkin’ up the wrong trouser leg.

Y’see, there’s this drongo in Queensland (which is where they breed all the best drongos) who had ta deal with a mob called MyGov, an’ they asked him if it was okay to identify him as male. Bit of a queer question fer sure, but there’s a right way and a wrong to go about sayin’ so if you’re gunna be a proper bloody Aussie larrikin about it.

Wrong:

Right:


Now a few proper larrikins got into him on the innernet, so he goes and makes a video reading out some of the sledging he got an’ tries to explain how he doesn’t want the Aussie larrikin nature hijacked by the left wing politically correct brigade, whatever the bloody hell that is when it’s at home.


Now look mate, no proper larrikin gives a piece of cold cocky poop about political correctness gone mad. A larrikin shrugs an’ says, “Well, that’s a bit a’ bullshit isn’t it?” and goes back to fishin’ or drinkin’ or rootin’ or whatever make him happy. That’s ’cos a proper larrikin doesn’t take himself too bloody seriously, ya mug!

While we’re here, larrikins don’t make sure their picture of the queen is visible in their picture. We know that game. That lark’s for toffs. Captain Cook means having a squiz but we’ll get to that later.

Finally, you’ll look a prize dill if you have a whinge about some stick you got when they’re all beating your arse at being a larrikin. So next time, get your hand off it. Nobody likes a sook.

That’ll do for now. Next week, I’ll show youse the difference between bein’ a knockabout larrikin and whingeing about some poor buggers dealt a tougher hand. ’Til then, last one out shouts! Seeyalater.