What was Hitler's personality like?

Just about everything we hear about Hitler casts him in a bad light. But is that all? Did he have a "good" side? Was he in any way likeable? We are unlikely to get a full and fair answer to that question, as anything favourable to him would most likely have long ago been censored out of existence. Political censorship is an evil, however, so I have looked for whatever accounts still exist. And my finding is that he did indeed have a pleasant personality on at least some occasions.

The person who knew Hitler best was undoubtedly Albert Speer, his architect.. So I read right through his "Inside the Third Reich" to see what I could find. And I did find an account of Hitler being friendly and comradely towards his building workers. But that was apparently in the 1930s. What becomes clear in the book is that Hitler's mood steadily deteriorated over time. He steadily became a more difficult companion due to the stresses he was under.

There is however another remaining nugget of information about what Hitler was like in his earlier days. Two short 1936 home movies of him have survived. One "reveals a remarkably "friendly" and "modest" side of Adolf Hitler at the Bayreuth Festival". It was taken when he was a welcome guest in the Wagner family. The scenes show Hitler in conversation with a "beaming" Winifred Wagner. The films show the Nazi leader in civilian clothing, "listening, smiling, an astonishingly modest and even submissive Hitler" We also read that . "One sees a completely different side of Hitler, not the statesman, but quite a relaxed and friendly person"

I submit that these accounts portray Hitler's basic personality. To have influence you have to get on with people and his influence was immense. He came across as a nice guy. There might be a warning in that. Famous grinners like Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden have done a lot of damage too

My source for the home movie contents:

https://www.dw.com/en/rediscovered-films-show-a-friendly-hitler-in-bayreuth/a-19434123

I have kept a copy of it and will post it in various places

It might also be of some interest that there is an article by an historian here which looks at the Nazi policies that would be well-regarded today

********************************************

Actor Richard Dreyfuss Slams Woke Hollywood Inclusion Standards: ‘They Make Me Vomit’

During an interview on PBS’s “Firing Line with Margaret Hoover,” veteran actor Richard Dreyfuss criticized Hollywood’s new inclusion standards, calling them “patronizing” and claiming they treat people like children.

Known for his roles in films such as “What About Bob?,” “American Graffiti,” “Jaws,” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” Dreyfuss discussed the decline of civics education in the U.S. before addressing Hollywood’s inclusion standards.

Hoover brought up the new standards, which will require films to meet specific inclusion criteria to be eligible for the Academy Award for Best Picture starting next year. She explained that a certain percentage of actors or crew members must be from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.

When asked for his thoughts on the matter, Dreyfuss did not hold back, saying, “They make me vomit.”

Dreyfuss emphasized that film is an art form and a form of commerce, and no one should dictate the latest moral concepts to an artist.

He questioned whether the new standards were really about protecting people’s feelings and stressed that life should be allowed to take its course without legislating such matters.

The actor expressed his disapproval of catering to specific groups, pointing out that Laurence Olivier, the last white actor to play Othello, did so in 1965 in blackface and brilliantly portrayed the character.

Dreyfuss argued that he should not be told he can never play a black man, nor should a non-Jewish actor be told they cannot play the Merchant of Venice.

He emphasized the importance of recognizing that art is art and decried the new inclusion standards as “patronizing,” “thoughtless,” and treating people like children.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/actor-richard-dreyfuss-slams-woke-hollywood-inclusion-standards-make-vomit

******************************************************

The Left's War on Imaginary Nazis Blinds Them

Is the media trying to sell the white nationalist Hispanic line again? It appears they are in the aftermath of the tragic mass shooting in Texas.

Mauricio Garcia, 33, killed eight people at the Allen Premium Outlets. He was killed by a police officer responding to an unrelated emergency call. The images are heinous, but now that we’ve identified the shooter, we’ve learned more about his personal history, which included racist and antisemitic posts. He reportedly had neo-Nazi sympathies, so the media is trolling, hoping to hook the public into this pseudo-intellectual narrative about nonwhites being white supremacists.

The first vestiges of this nonsense stem back to the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. The shooter, George Zimmerman, was charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter but was acquitted. The incident became a national spectacle, with then-President Obama weighing in, which only magnified the shooting. Zimmerman was described as a “white Hispanic,” coupled with multiple instances of journalistic malpractice, including MSNBC editing the 911 tapes to make Zimmerman appear racist.

The media hasn’t learned, as they’re now trying to frame Garcia as a neo-Nazi despite the obvious reasons why this is a fallacy. Nonwhites can’t be Nazis, nor can they ever be. Did Garcia post some awful social media posts? Sure, but is this because he’s a Nazi (in his mind), or is the mental illness shining through? Garcia confessed that no mental health professional could help him. In 2008, he was discharged from the US Army over mental health concerns.

What’s more commonly seen with mass shooters: mental illness or neo-Nazism? It’s not the latter, not even close. Most mass shooters, especially the ones that nabbed the headlines, exhibited severe mental health problems before their rampages. Others have the tragic happenstance of being preventable, as we saw in Highland Park, Illinois, Sutherland Springs, Texas, and Parkland, Florida.

Robert Eugene Crimo III, the Highland Park shooter in 2022, obtained his weapons after his father co-signed his firearm owner identification card (FOID), which was after multiple visits by police, including one where his knives were confiscated after he made threats against his family; he threatened to kill them. His parents didn’t press charges, so no red flags were raised during the FOID process.

Devin Patrick Kelley, who committed the Sutherland Spring shooting in 2017, obtained his AR-15 rifle because nothing came up during his background check. Kelley, a US Air Force veteran, who had served a year in jail for domestic abuse, would have been prohibited from purchasing the firearm if the military filed the proper paperwork. Instead, Kelley’s charges, court-martial, and jail sentence were omitted.

Nikolas Cruz, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter in 2018, had red flags and mental health issues abound, but state, local, and federal agencies failed to reel him in. Of all the recent mass shootings, Parkland is probably the most glaring regarding preventability.

And what’s the left’s evidence for the rise of white nationalist Hispanics? Nothing other than the ramblings of a mentally ill man in Allen, Texas, and the founder of the Proud Boys, whose profile has been greatly assaulted by the liberal media who thinks they’re some fifth-column group capable of toppling the government — not even close.

Talking about the glaring deficiencies in our mental health system is hard, so the left doesn’t want to debate that. Pervasive hyperbole about Latino white nationalists is easier because the former topic is loaded with nuance and rewriting procedures, ensuring that rights aren’t trampled. It’s a long process, whereas firing the racism flares is a quick and easy rating bump. The left feigned supporting an overhaul but ran too quickly on red flag laws, which are ripe for abuse as written in most states.

Until half the country sees that addressing mental illness and bolstering the FBI’s Instant Criminal Background Check System to accommodate changes to incorporate one’s mental health history without trampling on a host of privacy laws, we’ll never get there.

There must be a better way to shore up this system vis-à-vis mental health; we owe the public to at least try. We’re at the table. We’ve been sitting here for years, but Democrats would instead use the NICS system to establish a national registry as the basis to execute confiscatory measures, and that’s a deal breaker.

What happened in Allen, Texas, remains a mental health issue, which is the real dilemma, not fake Hispanic Nazis, which are figments of academia’s imagination.

https://townhall.com/columnists/mattvespa/2023/05/09/the-lefts-war-against-imaginary-nazis-blinds-them-to-the-real-debate-about-mass-shootings-n2622990

**************************************************

Red revenge: the violence of intangible power in China

Simon Tonkin

China’s recent military exercises over Taiwan have inspired a volley of ‘cannonball counting’ articles by the Western media. Dare I say another round of them? But, what if their weapons were invisible? How could you quantify the unseen? Indeed, their most dangerous weapon remains hidden… It is China’s victim mentality. This is the notion that, because China has been oppressed by other nations for centuries, it may now avenge itself on the international stage – in whatever manner it may deem necessary for restoring justice and global position.

A victim mentality justifies the mercilessness and brutality of its adherents, because their evil oppressors cease to be human in their eyes. As sub-humans, these oppressors are no longer seen to have rights. Furthermore, as those who define themselves as harshly and unjustly oppressed, the victims cease to recognise a moral obligation to conduct themselves in a manner that is either humane or civil.

Yet, two wrongs cannot make a right. Self-defence is one thing, revenge is another.

Today, China harbours a potent and persuasive victim mentality. Since 1991, the Communist Party has mandated, from kindergarten onwards, the teaching of a questionable version of Chinese history that encourages an oppressed psychology and a desire for revenge, as payback for China’s humiliation at the hands of other nations over the 189 years prior to the Communist Party’s inception in 1949. This worldview encourages the Chinese nation to salve their shame by bullying other countries as their scapegoats. Add the fact that China is a military giant, an economic powerhouse, and an aggressor in international affairs, and you’ve got stiff liquor.

In his 2012 book No Enemies, No Hatred, the now-deceased 2008 Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo asserted that China’s supremacist ideology is built on an historical self-image of vanity arising from the conviction that China once ruled all under heaven, a concept known as Tianxia. Additionally, many Chinese people are driven by a hidden fear of their own inferiority – one that can only be quenched by the submission of the rest of the world. Xiaobo noted that feelings of inferiority and blame are producing pent-up hatred and the worship of violence in the service of autocratic goals. But, Westerners only talk about China’s tangible threats. We never talk about its most dangerous weapon – its intangible power, the dangerous ideas that it plants into the minds of its citizens.

Since 1994, the Chinese government has decreed that an understanding of its national victim mentality ideology becomes a requirement for passing school and university year levels. It was taught to every student. It still is. Additionally, it was declared that public servants, the military, and teachers, amongst other occupations, would be required to regularly attend refresher courses on this subject. They still are.

What’s the biggest problem with all of this?

The problem is that ideas residing in the minds of people are not completely controllable. Once they are ‘out’, the state loses a certain amount of influence over what people do with them. It is very difficult to manipulate directly and precisely what people ultimately decide to think, feel, and believe in the hidden and inaccessible vault of their hearts. For some, the unaccountable rage of a victim mentality may only grow to the size of a pot plant. For others, it will become a whole forest.

Where have we seen this dangerous mix of victim mentality and power in the recent past?

Napoleon and Hitler headed up the greatest expansionist threats witnessed in the modern era. Furthermore, the supporters of each were fuelled by a victim mentality. Napoleon’s supporters burned with a hatred of the conservatives of France, whom they regarded as the morally subhuman despots of the common man. Hitler’s were maddened by a fanatical suspicion of the Jews, whom they accused of doing everything from robbing the German economy blind to causing the nation’s defeat in the first world war.

Fast forward to 2050. China has not yet achieved its pledge of 2049 world dominance, to the degree that many of its people demand. Meanwhile, innumerable silent yet fertile victim mentality resentments have been growing in the minds of most of its citizens for over 25 years. Perhaps underground organisations are forming to discuss how to employ ‘swifter’ methods to attain China’s desperately desired position in the world: the one they’ve toiled and strained for during such a long struggle, the one they were repeatedly promised, the one they trained their children to sacrifice their working lives for. Perhaps there is a tinder box atmosphere in the country, as hundreds of millions secretly gnash their teeth at the chance to snatch up this proximate nirvana. Perhaps the Chinese skies are charged with the dry expectancy of an imminent lightning bolt of explosive impulsiveness, such that their famous ‘infinite supply of Chinese patience’ becomes finally ready to crack open.

All that it would take is just one extremist ‘pied piper’ who could unite these salivators into a tight mob; who could run just a step ahead of them as he lead them ever onwards and into a delusion that, by imperceptibly slight degrees, extended them further and further into brutality than they ever thought they would go; who could seem so controllable to his political puppet masters, yet turn on and overthrow them to put himself in charge. See Napoleon and Hitler.

Amongst a population that will approach two billion by 2050, is it utterly impossible that such a person could exist? Inconceivable? Dismissible?

Hardly.

Yet, despite all of this, we only talk of the tangible dangers. It may one day be too late to stop the powerful tide of revenge lust in the Middle Kingdom. Therefore, now is the time to attack, by written argument and political activism, the very idea of a morally unaccountable victim mentality, in all its forms and wherever it may exist, and to make sure that this message is ‘Voiced’ to as many as possible – even those in China.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/05/red-revenge-the-violence-of-intangible-power/

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************