Kenn Gividen: Why antisemitism is wrong

DAILYKENN.com -- At the age of 15, Adolf Hitler failed his exams and dropped out of school. The teen found himself playing with younger children due his unpopularity among his own peers.

As an army recruit, Hitler served in World War I and earned praise as a dispatch-runner and was cited for his bravery. His coveted awards included the Iron Cross First Class. In spite of his patriotic zeal, the young soldier never advanced above the rank of corporal. The reason? His superiors agreed that the future Führer lacked leadership skills.

"[H]is posture was sloppy and when he was asked a question his answer would be anything but short in a soldier-like fashion. He didn't hold his head straight - it was usually sloping towards his left shoulder," noted Fritz Wiedemann, Hitler's regimental adjutant.

The young Adolf Hitler was neither bright nor charismatic.

Fast forward to 1934. 700,000 Nazi Party sympathizers were mesmerized as Adolf Hitler, the corporal who lacked leadership ability, crossed his arms in steadfast defiance, then gestured with authority as he roundly condemned "der Juden" to thunderous applause amidst unprecedented pageantry.

So what happened? What transformed Hitler from boring dullard to, arguably, history's most charismatic speaker?

• The answer can be found in the name Erik Jan Hanussen. Hanussen was a noted performer known for his uncanny ability to entrance audiences with his stage presence. He literally billed himself as a hypnotist.

Hitler recruited Hanussen to become his personal speech coach. It was Hanussen who reputedly taught Hitler the power of performance. When we watch and listen to the dynamic speeches of Hitler at the Nuremberg rallies, we are watching the handiwork of Hanussen.

Though Hanussen (born Hermann Steinschneider) pretended to be a Dutch aristocrat he was, in fact, a Moravian Jew.

Hanussen was assassinated in 1933, ostensibly by order of Hermann Göring or Joseph Goebbels who objected to the competition for Hitler's attention.

The point: Adolf Hitler had no qualms with a Jew playing a pivotal role in his inner circle of advisers.

• Upon the formation of the notorious SS (Sturmstaffel), Adolf Hitler became member no. 1. Member no. 2 was the lesser known Emil Maurice. Maurice remained a close confident of Hitler from the time the two met in 1919 to end of Hitler's life. When Hitler was sentenced to Landsberg Prison after the famed Beer Hall Putsch, Maurice was incarcerated along with him. It was there that Maurice dictated portions of Hitler's Mein Kampf and, upon their release, it was Maurice who smuggled the manuscript out of the prison.

The loyalty of Maurice to Hitler earned the former the trusted role of the Führer's personal driver. He was one of two men to hold that position. When Hitler allegedly committed suicide in his bunker at the end of World War II, Maurice was there. Maurice was assigned the task of retrieving gasoline to pour over the bodies of Hitler and his newly wed spouse Eva Braun moments after their suicides.

Like Hanussen, Maurice was a Jew.

The point, again, is that Hitler trusted Jews within his inner circle.

• What's more there were at least thirty high-ranking officers with Jewish heritage who served in the Third Reich's Wehrmacht, or 'armed forces'.

• Hitler's National Socialist Party advocated the formation of the Israeli state.

On August 25, 1933 the Haavara Agreement was signed between Germany's National Socialist government and the Jewish Agency. The agreement allowed Jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine. That is, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were instrumental in the creation of the modern state of Israel.

• Haim Arlosoroff, who negotiated the Haavara Agreement on behalf of the Jews, once dated Johanna Maria Magdalena Ritschel who later married Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and was colloquially known as "Magda" Goebbels.

Arlosoroff was, of course, a Jew.

• Between 1929 and 1938 250,000 Jews emigrated to Palestine. Most were from Europe including a massive number of professionals, doctors, lawyers and professors from Germany who migrated with the blessings and support of Hitler's government. The migration resulted in Palestine having the highest per-capita percentage of doctors in the world. Those highly educated, highly skilled professionals added significantly to the cultural and economic foundation of what would become the nation of Israel.

• As the war neared its end, Goebbels lamented in his diary that Hitler had allowed too many Jews to live in Berlin.

• In fact, the Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland (Reich Association of Jews in Germany) was formed in 1939 and survived until June, 1943. Membership was compulsory for ethnic Jews.

What we know about Adolf Hitler is:

• His speech coach, Erik Jan Hanussen, was a Jew.
• His close friend, confidant, and inner-circle member, Emil Maurice, was a Jew.
• He openly negotiated with international Zionist leaders.
• He actively advocated the formation of a Jewish state.
• He actively assisted Jewish emigration to Palestine.
• His close inner circle socialized with Jews.
• He tolerated Jewish communities in Germany.
• A significant number of his top military officials were at least part Jewish.

The conclusion?

By "adding two-and-two" we could conclude that Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich were instruments of Zionism; a part of a vast international Jewish conspiracy to solicit empathy for the plight of Jews and create a Jewish state.

Sound silly? Of course it does. Why? Because it's absurd. Hitler was certainly no puppet of an international Zionist conspiracy.

Nonetheless, some actually believe that he was. By stitching together a patchwork of data points, conspiracy theorists concoct believable scenarios. If the case can be made that Hitler and the National Socialists were a Zionist conspiracy, most anything can be woven into a convincing but woefully incorrect theory.

While all the above history is true, it leaves proverbial untied strings that demand explanations. Therefore, as in all conspiracy theories, one must retrofit one's world view to conform to dogmatically held theories.

• For example, were Hitler and the Third Reich a Zionist conspiracy, how does one explain the Jewish Holocaust? Why would Jewish conspirators allow six-million Jews to be murdered?

Some, of course, simply deny the Jewish Holocaust occurred. Others contend the Jewish Holocaust was part of the Zionist plot in which millions of Jews were unwittingly sacrificed by greedy Jewish bankers to affect their plan for world empathy.

They would note that, during the Peel Commission (1937-1938), Jewish leader Chaim Weizmann testified that "There are in Europe 6,000,000 people ... for whom the world is divided into places where they cannot live and places where they cannot enter."

They would argue that the Jewish holocaust would have decimated the entire European Jewish population and, therefore, could not have occurred. There would have been none to emigrate to Palestine and no survivors to testify against Hitler and his National Socialist government.

The notion that large, round estimates are almost always incorrect never occurs to them.

• To accept the Zionist conspiracy theory view, one would necessarily have to explain why non-Jews -- such as Barack Obama -- maintain high profile and influential positions. Also requiring explanation are the vociferous anti-globalist and conservative Jews such as Pamela Geller, Paul Gottfried, and Ben Stein. To retrofit those 'loose strings,' arguments could be made that the likes of Obama are Zionist puppets and conservative Jews are controlled opposition.

If Jews held an ironclad grip on Hollywood (and they nearly do), one would have to explain how producers such as Mel Gibson and other conservatives managed to thrive for decades. Given enough thought, any scenario can be forced to fit the conspiracy theory. Incontrovertible and empirical evidence is seldom forthcoming.

If Zionism controlled Washington as some contend via a Zionist Occupational Government (ZOG), why would Israel have commissioned Jonathan Pollard to spy on us? Wouldn't Israel have been effectively spying on itself?

• That's not to deny the leftward trend of most Jews; nor does it excuse or dismiss the anti-Western rants of the likes of Barbara Lerner Spectre, Tim Wise preying on the obtuse, or the misleading of Morris Dees. Nor is it to deny the existence of any Zionist conspiracies: Virtually every government and political social movement are constantly conspiring; they are perpetually up to something.

It is to affirm that the human mind is perennially gullible and prone to accept bizarre belief systems, the international Jewish conspiracy theory being among them.

• So what's wrong with believing the Zionist conspiracy theory?

The problem is: We act out what we believe.

If we believe Zionism is the culprit behind every evil from hiccoughs to illegal immigration, our short-sighted conclusions will compel us to ignore genuine causes. We will blame every social ill on der Juden and ignore the broader conspiracy of consensus of Marxism and other flawed social and political philosophies. In fact, I have encountered individuals so enraptured with antisemitism that every Jew is deemed evil by virtue of their Jewishness.

Again, we act out what we believe. If our belief system is flawed, our actions will reflect that flaw.

Attributed to the Apostle Paul is this affirming observation: "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners."

Were I a Jewish conspirator hell-bent on world Zionist domination, I would intentionally propagate the Zionist conspiracy theory for the express purpose of making the opposition look dumb.

Voltaire observed, Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. 

To paraphrase the Apostle Paul and Voltaire, The person who convinces you to believe dumb things has the power to make you do dumb things. 

Please report typos...

......

Click on image to share on Facebook






More racist hate crime reports at AbateTheHate.com [click here]





Please do not submit comments containing obscene, racist, or otherwise offensive language. Although comments are not routinely monitored, offending comments will be summarily zapped if discovered to be unduly gauche.

Comment ▼▼▼






DailyKenn.com is a family-friendly web site.
If you see advertisements that are inappropriate, please notify us via Facebook messaging here ►




Permission is granted to use the material in this article providing (1) the byline is included in an obvious manner crediting DailyKenn.com as the author, (2) a link to this page is included and (3) no changes are made either by deletion, addition or annotation. Original compositions at DailyKenn.com are sometimes seeded with decoy data, such as hidden acronyms, to detect unauthorized use and plagiarism.

Comments at DailyKenn.com are unmoderated. Comments containing obscenities, pejoratives, slurs, etc., do not constitute an endorsement of this site, its contributors or its advertisors. Offensive comments may be deleted without notice.
Comment ▼

Kenn Gividen: What's wrong with white nationalism

I'm a nationalist.

By nationalist, however, I don't refer to goose-stepping goons parading with red flags emblazoned with swastikas held aloft . Rather, I am a nationalist as opposed to a globalist.

With few exceptions those are the only two choices: If you're not a globalist, you're a nationalist and vice versa.

There are, however, some who believe that white people should carve out an exclusive eco-bubble society in which non-whites are forbidden to enter; let alone participate.

Granted, freedom of association is, in my opinion, the foundation of true civil rights. If white folks wish to hang out with other whites, the government has no moral right or obligation to prevent that association. What is true of white people is true of all people. If black lawyers, for example, wish to form a professional affinity group, that is their right. If black people wish to form their own exclusive nation, they have a moral right to do so as well.

If people named Bob who are left-handed wish to form a professional affinity group or nation, there is no moral ground to prevent them. Likewise if Robert's Bakery wishes to serve only customers name Robert and Roberta without fear of government intrusion, that is their moral right.

The problem arises when nationalists -- white or otherwise -- create an 'us-vs-them' culture that presumes their members hold a innate superiority above all others.

Oddly, if not hypocritically, it is the predatory left that presumes to segregate us into two distinct groups: Whites and people of color. Cultural Marxism presents white people as a privileged class of bourgeois oppressors and people of color as the under-privileged proletariat class of the oppressed. Even as the so-called 'progressives' create the racist construct of privileged oppressive whites versus underprivileged oppressed people of color, they pretend to staunchly oppose racism. (It's as hypocritical as ostensibly opposing homophobia while opening our nation's borders to millions of gay-hating Muslims.)

Enter the cry-baby movement.

That is my term for the current wave of student protests spreading across our nation's colleges and universities. The protesters imagine racial discrimination where none exists. They concoct absurd notions of white privilege, trans-generational trauma caused by slavery, critical race theory, micro-aggressions, and other nonsensical astroturf offenses to justify segmenting society between 'us and them'. They imagine that white people possess some pathological, innate advantage over others which whites exploit to their advantage.

To escape the oppressive white bourgeois, the cry-baby movement creates "safe spaces" where people-of-color may segregate themselves in true Jim Crow fashion. In other words, the prevailing college-campus cry-baby movement is effectively validating white supremacy and white nationalism as legitimate.

If students-of-color wish to isolate themselves in campus eco-bubbles where white people are rejected, they have a right to do so. However, they should be mindful that they are necessarily creating another eco-bubble that is exclusively white. That is, their withdrawal marches in tandem with white nationalists who are quite happy to see themselves excluded.

Again, it's their right. But having right doesn't make it right.

Similarly, if white people wish to open a bakery that serves only white people, they have the inalienable moral right to do so. And I have the right to shop elsewhere. And I will.