Saturday Afternoon: A visit with Shoabloger
April 13, 2013
Hasso Castrup from Denmark, creator of the new website Shoabloger is Carolyn’s guest. Hasso’s special hobby is translating French and German revisionist texts into English and Polish. Currently he is featuring the 2007 Horst Mahler interview by the Jew Michael Friedman, posting it in parts because of it’s length. Among the main topics discussed are:
- Hasso’s mixed Polish-German family’s experience between the wars, and during & after WWII;
- The 1943 Jewish uprising in Warsaw vs the August ’44 Polish uprising there;
- How Poles were treated by the Germans and how German officials sought to identify ethnic-Germans or part-Germans;
- Soviet/communist treatment of Poles vs. German ‘Nazi’ treatment of Poles;
- The real Josef Beck and the real Jan T. Gross & the Jedwabne Affair;
- Poland’s Jewish Problem in it’s many ramifications;
- Are the present German-Polish borders set for all time or can there be a reconciliation that changes things;
- Horst Mahler’s spiritual perspective on opposition between Germans and Jews.
Bookmark/Search this post with
- 923 reads
Comments
Original comments on this program
7 Responses
Fred Wilson
April 14, 2013 at 1:50 am
@ Carolyn
RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON !
Anyone who thinks that there can be an accommodation with jews needs to have the vents on their furnace checked. They must not be getting enough oxygen and are overcome by fumes. You are so right, to doubt Horst Mahler’s concept of an eventual resolution with those ‘people’. Their nature, their very being is so alien to the character of good people that a concord will never be!
That dreamworld thinking has gotten White Folks into trouble for over 2,000 years. The Greeks, Romans, Spaniards, Germans, Poles, Russians have all tried it, to their ultimate sorrow.
We must learn from history.
Markus
April 15, 2013 at 3:45 am
I think Mahler uses the German Salutation (Hitlergruss) to establish jurisdiction. He is a Reichsgerman, meaning, he does not acknowledge the FRG occupation government.
In NS Germany, the German salute was the official way to approach one another, not an informal “secret handshake” between comrades. Furthermore, the salutation has deep roots in German history. As Hitler stated correctly, the German noblemen demostrated their peaceful objectives with the German salutation. He further states that it indicated, “See, I have no weapon” back in Luther’s time. It is therefore a request for peace talks. Something, Friedmann wasn’t capable of, and, as we know, Hitler’s prime directive!
Regarding dialectic, Mahler studied German philosophy quite a bit, and can call himself “A poet and thinker” of the German school of thought. One quote he uses a lot is,
“(Ich bin) Ein Teil von jener Kraft, // Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust I, Vers 1336 / Mephistopheles
“I am a part of that force that always wants the bad, and always creates the good” (describing the Jew)
So, the German thought of dialectic is almost omnipresent in German philosophy, as Goethe demonstrates.
I wouldn’t write off Mahler’s conclusions so fast, as it perfectly describes the duplicity of God in the Bible and humanity’s constant struggle against Satan, which leads us to God.
shoabloger
April 15, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Dear Markus,
you can’t establish any jurisdiction by saying “Heil Hitler”. The purpose of this gesture is not entirely clear to me but I think he maybe wanted to to make Friedman freak out in order to weaken him as an opponent. Or he wanted to remind people of this memorable greeting. I don’t know.
As to Mahler’s dialectic – I am not free of this kind of thinking myself. But most often I just think that Jews and Gentiles are simply too different to live together and no dialectic can make me change the view which is a fruit of many personal experiences and of reading on the subject. Full separation or the Byzantine solution. And no Satan necessary in the equation.
Burt
April 15, 2013 at 8:04 pm
Just because things are opposites doesn’t mean that they must be averaged.
Excellent points. This is the kind of interview that really should be on PBS. But of course, it isn’t.
Markus
April 16, 2013 at 11:03 am
Hi Shoabloger,
The German Salute is suspended by the occupation government. So what Mahler did was not accept this foreign judicial suspension of German law, passed by the Reichstag. Friedman’s emotional response was expected.
If you go to court and being asked to rise when the judge steps in, you acknowledge his jurisdiction also.
I am not aware that Mahler does not advocate separation. He philosophizes about the struggle between Jews and Germans in general, since there are really not many Jews nowadays in Germany, yet the issues between the two Volks remain.
Carolyn
April 18, 2013 at 11:37 am
You’re making generalizations. What I am saying is that Mahler keeps turning it into a Spiritual Question, or a Spiritual scenario, using the Bible as the basis of it. This sometimes becomes a bit disconcerting. But I want to wait for the completion of the interview translation … and I have another Mahler text from 2005 I’m now reading. Then I think we can speak with more definiteness about Mahler. Mostly he is right, and is one of the strongest, clearest minds expressing about Jewry’s war against Germans there is. He does, because of the Spiritual/Biblical angle, always bring in that their war is against humanity altogether, in the final analysis. But what I like about him is that he specifically gives his first loyalty to Germany and Germans, and that that is his battle. He is not trying to speak for others, or to speak for “humanity.” Unless I’m wrong.
April 19, 2013 at 11:26 pm
Markus and Shoabloger,
I’ve been studying Mahler again – some – and am getting closer to accepting his spiritual dichotomy in which he calls the Jew “the negative” that always creates, through a reaction, the good. Because, in 2005 or so, he said “This insight brings peace to us (Germans) regarding the Jews. But not in a way that we ignore their hostility, but that this [recognition] will even first put us into a position to deal with them as an enemy.”
He goes on to say, “This enemy must be recognized in Germany as the ruling impetus, as the foreign power in Germany over the German people.”
As to the first sentence above, it doesn’t mean to me that the Jew can ever be seen as responsible for “the good,” but that the creation of the good can come about through the reaction against him.