Outlaw History #32
Night before last I watched the first two installments of Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State (we get PBS in Baja). Three matters caught my attention.
First, I was truly surprised by how utterly conventional the film is. I suppose I had expected something new. Foolish me. There are claims that new documents are referenced here and there, but the absolute ordinariness of the film is breathtaking. It has exactly the same perspective as that promoted by the Holocaust Industry for half a century now. It has the same moral tone as that promoted by the Industry. And it expresses the same contempt for Germans that the Industry and the tag-along professorial class have expressed since the beginning.
Second, I expected the press yesterday to be full of articles discussing this allegedly important documentary. There was very little. The "critical" reviews of the material were written in the days before the film was shown. It was as if our pundit-journalists, being a good deal smarter that I am, knew what to write about this Hollywood film before they saw it, wrote it, and had done with it. I appear to still be learning how this works when it comes to Holocaust movies.
But three, I was reminded once again of the truly horrible outcome of the German decision to clear the Jews out of eastern and central Europe, against their will. When you work with revisionism, over a period of time your understanding of the Holocaust story becomes so saturated with Holocaust fraud, Holocaust lying, and the intentional, hypocritical charges of "unique monstrosity" against the Germans, exploited by so many Jews for the benefit of so many Jews, that you are at risk, not of forgetting exactly, but of ignoring, what did happen to Europe's Jews.
Hollywood has no interest in "documenting," even in the ethically stupid manner it so often "documents" the crimes of the Germans, the crimes of others. Not the Soviets, for example (too many Jews involved with that one). Or the Americans (too many Jews involved with that one). Or the Israelis (too many Jews involved with that one). It's always the Germans. Follow the money. Follow the politics, follow the land grabbing. Most of all, follow the immense amount of money.
What the Germans and the German Nazis did is a problem for the Germans to sort out. Hollywood is a town, a business, in America. Most of those who work in Hollywood are Americans. If you are going to document the fact that Germans intentionally killed unarmed civilians, and you believe that that is not right, you are responsible as an artist to turn your attention once in a while to how your own people intentionally killed civilians.
Of course, that's not where the money is. I understand that. But does a community of artists, the community which is at the heart of Hollywood, always have to address the intentional killing of civilians from the perspective of money? Always? Does it always have to be for the benefit of its own people at the cost of the other? Isn't it the responsibility of the community of artists to address human life without always putting your own life above all else?
The great majority of "classic" American films, from the 1930s on through to today, were created and produced by Hollywood Jews. Those who claim that Hollywood is run largely by Jews are noting the obvious. Living in Baja I am privileged to be able to watch the Mexican soaps. I can watch Mexican movies. With the exception of news and sports broadcasts, American (largely Jewish) television is so superior to Mexican television that they can't even be compared. G-d bless Hollywood.
One problem with success is that it tends to lead to even more success, as Winston once pointed out. Jewish Zionists, other Jewish politicos, Jewish writers, Jewish movie makers, were so successful with their Holocaust story, it earns them so much political clout, so much land, so much cultural influence, so much money, that they just can't give it up. They don't have to give it up. They only have to begin to be honest with themselves, and generous toward others, when they produce their Jewish Holocaust movies.
The Jews who were torn from their homes and put into camps were only human, not angels. The Germans who created the camps and put the Jews into them were only human, not monsters. The men who fought for the administrations of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler were only human. The men who served the British and American administrations were only human when they coolly bombed innocent, unarmed German civilians.
One irony here is that Americans were intentionally killing innocent, unarmed German and Japanese civilians via mass terror bombings at the very moment that Germans were (allegedly) intentionally killing innocent, unarmed Jewish civilians. No one questions the weapons of mass destruction used by the Americans and their allies, great fleets of heavy bombers. Everyone with good sense and a little relevant information questions the German weapons of mass destruction (the "gas chambers").
We're all in this together. It isn't the Jews, and it isn't the Germans. Real artists know that. Hollywood understands the concept, but has traded it in for money and clout. When you watch Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State, look for the Germans who are only human, like the Jews in this make-believe, computer generated film, are only human. When you find one, drop me a line and tell me who he is.
The artists who work in Hollywood do understand the concept of what it is to be human. A great part of their artistic output proves that. But the Hollywood community of artists makes exceptions for Germans and for Jews. And for Americans. That's one reason why Hollywood, which produces wonderful work on the one hand, is so spiritually (forgive my use of the term in this vulgar context) corrupt on the other. Hollywood artists are unable, and are not brave enough, to see Jews and Germans and Americans as just folk.
Americans who intentionally participated in the mass killings of innocent, unarmed civilians, are our "greatest generation." If there is anyone who should address the – very human – irony here, should it not be the "community of artists" that for sixty years has devoted itself to promoting the real, deeply human, qualities of these folk? Our folk?
Or how about one Hollywood artist, one Hollywood producer? Is that too much to ask?
Additional information about this document
|Author(s):||Bradley R. Smith|
|Title:||Outlaw History #32, Inside the Nazi State: A Community of Artists. A Review|
|First posted on CODOH:||July 7, 2012, 7 p.m.|