Grenzgänger des Geistes ist eine Sammlung von wie es im Klappentext heißt „verkannte und verfemte Schriftsteller“ geschrieben von Werner Olles. SämtliGrenzgänger des Geistes ist eine Sammlung von wie es im Klappentext heißt „verkannte und verfemte Schriftsteller“ geschrieben von Werner Olles. Sämtliche Aufsätze wurden schon in verschiedenen Publikationen, die meisten erst in der Junge Freiheit erschienen. Werner Olles ist im deutschen Sprachraum ein gut bekannter konservativer und katholischer Journalist und schriebt seit vielen Jahren Rezensionen für diverse meistens konservative Publikationen, vor allem Die Junge Freiheit..
Die viele Aufsätze hier sind alle sehr kurz und dienen als kurze Einleitung des jeweiligen Schriftstellers. Viele der hier beschriebenen Schriftstellern sind tatsächlich heute von der Öffentlichkeit vergessen, verkannt oder verfemt worden aber beileibe nicht alle. Albert Camus, Günter Grass, Samuel Huntington, TS Eliot, Evelyn Waugh genießen bis heute die größte Anerkennung und Bewunderung. Der Buchtitel ist insofern irreführend.
Mit einer Ausnahme schreibt Werner Olles mit großer Empathie und Enthusiasmus für jeden in diesem Buche thematisierten Verfasser. Die Ausnahme ist Günter Grass, für den Olles nichts übrig hat. Es wäre interessanter zu wissen was Olles denkt beziehungsweise über Heinrich Böll geschrieben hätte, da Heinrich Böll, der wie Günther Grass zu den „anti -nazi Pflichtlektor“ der Nachkriegsjahren der neuen Bundesrepublik gehörte, aber wie Olles und im Gegensatz zu Grass, ein überzeugter Römisch-Katholiker war.
Dieses Buch ist leicht zu lesen, informativ, und dient als Anreiz, jeden behandelten Schriftsteller zu entdecken. Dank dieses Buches entdeckte ich Herbert Reinecke, der geniale Drehbuch Autor der Fernsehen Serien „Der Kommissar“ und „Derrick“.
Diejenige die sich für europäische Belletristik interessieren, der deutschen Sprache mächtig sind und Empfehlungen in diesem Bereich der Literatur suchen, werden nicht von Grenzgänger des Geistes enttäuscht sein....more
The number of prominent people who commit suicide in the oh so democratic state of the Federal Republic of Germany is impressive. A few immediately coThe number of prominent people who commit suicide in the oh so democratic state of the Federal Republic of Germany is impressive. A few immediately come to this reviewer's mind. There was Ulrike Meinhof of course, who was apparently so depressed she hanged herself. The authorities later took off her skull for examination to prove to the world that she suffered from some version of bipolar disorder, a contributing factor presumably to her suicide. Ulrike Meinhof was followed a year later by her RAF comrades Gudrun Ensslin, Andreas Baader and Jan-Carl Raspe in the “high security” prison in Stammheim where they were held. Raspe and Baader reportedly shot themselves and Ensslin died by strangulation. They were depressed after hearing of the failure of an RAF hostage capture to work their release. This story is widely accepted by the German public. Another public figure whose depression led to suicide according to reports is the former president of the state of Schleswig Holstein Uwe Barschel. This gentleman apparently drowned himself in a hotel bath fully dressed, an eccentric way of ending one's own life, but accepted by the general public as just one of those things. Then there was Jürgen Möllermann, a member of the FDP party (free democrats) who had associated himself with the Arab cause against the official policy of his party and the government, who became “depressed” and “ostracised” to the point that he felt his life was not worth living. Möllermann intentionally failed to open his parachute while indulging his favourite sport of sky diving while depressed. The account of these sudden deaths as case of suicide are accepted by the great majority of a trusting German public. Only a few “conspiracy theorists” are sceptical of these official and state and media approved narratives. It is worth noting that the media financed by a mandatory tax on every citizen of over 200 euros a year in the German Federal Republic work in close collaboration with the political authorities. This has been increasingly evident in recent years.
One of the most implausible suicides of a prominent personality living under the jurisdiction of the West German puppet regime is Rudolf Hess. The account given here is by his son Rüdiger Hess. Rüdiger Hes sis convinced his father was murdered. Hess was interred by the Allies in 1941 for flying to Scotland in the hope of negotiating a peace settlement. He was condemned to life imprisonment with the only possibility of release in his later years if the four powers occupying Berlin (France, Britain, the USA and Russia) would unanimously agree to his release on compassionate grounds. Hess's release had been repeatedly rejected by Soviet authorities. However, President Gorbachev on behlaf of the Soviet Union consented to Hess's release. It was not to be. On Monday August 17th 1987 a “tired” 93 years old Rudolph Hess “with no strength left in his hands” (page 49) took advantage of the absence of his personal guard, who was conveniently called away by a telephone call which according to that same guard proved to have no one at the other end, in that moment the very frail old man, shocked at the prospect of being let free rushed back to his cell, got onto a chair and hanged himself with an electric cord which had been “accidentally” left behind by staff of an electric company, a company which never confirmed they had forgotten any cord.
In this sad book Rüdiger Hess explains the circumstances of his father's death and argues convincingly that Hess was murdered by British Intelligence with the connivance of course of the subservient little German state. Both Britain and Germany were frightened by the possibility that despite his advanced years Hess might act as a political magnet for opponents of the pro Western NATO state of Germany. The German Federal Republic remains then and now a vassal of the West. If this account is to be believed, the submissive little German state will look the other way if instructed to do so, when suicides take place.
This is a sad but necessary book for anyone who wishes to be familiar with the trajectory of the life of Rudolf Hess and what he sought for himself his country and the world or who seeks an insight into the hypocritical nature of “democratic” regimes which are loud in voicing outrage at the deaths of dissidents in other lands but ingenuously assure the world when their own dissidents die suddenly and unexpectedly, that it is because they have become “depressed” at their own failings, failures and shortcomings and for that reason put an end to their lives. Honit soit qui mal y pense....more
I think this play works dramatically and emotionally. Perhaps others will shortly feel they wish to support or challenge my view. The story is known. I think this play works dramatically and emotionally. Perhaps others will shortly feel they wish to support or challenge my view. The story is known. This is the first dramatic account of the event, so far as I am aware, since Stephen Phillips' play "Ulysses" was published in 1902. The events of the play take place then and now and anywhere. This story of the return of the King is also to be read as the tale of the return of valour and the turning of the eternal cycle. It is a story above all of restoration and renewal. The current edition has a number of typos (typical for POB books) and there some alterations which in my opinion should be made, including a certain amount of repetition. Those are my quibbles, the play, with obvious modern parallels, needs to be staged, although staging presents special problems. Although the play is partisan, in favour of a restoration of sovereignity and legitmacy over humanism, democracy and immigration, it is no way propaganda, that is to say, the protagonists convince us as plausible beings and in no way propaganda cut-outs. The play is a long one (4 hours just reading, probably 5 hours for a full length production) with 18 spoken male roles and only one female spoken role (not Penelope but Calypso, who attempts to prevent Odysseus from leaving an eternal haven of comfort in order to fulfill a doubtful destiny). In a recording recently made of this play, the part of the young bard Phemius was convincingly read by a woman....more
L'histoire des "Sept couleurs" est l'histoire d'un triangle éternel racontée en "sept couleurs" : récit, lettres, journal, réflexions, dialogue, docum L'histoire des "Sept couleurs" est l'histoire d'un triangle éternel racontée en "sept couleurs" : récit, lettres, journal, réflexions, dialogue, documents, discours. Les couleurs sont dépeints pendant les années vingt et trente du vingtième siècle. Patrice et Catherine se rencontrent. Ils sont des amies-étoiles, mais Catherine comme toute femme pour Brasillach, cherche la sécurité et son Patrice et ne le trouve pas tandis que Patrice lui crains "de découvrir en elle de la légèreté". Il écrit à elle "J'aime la légèreté des choses, des actes, de la vie. Je n'aime pas la légèreté des êtres". C'est bien ca! Les gens de notre monde bourgeois sont des êtres légères! Je crois pourtant que Patrice se trempe au sujet de Catherine. Patrice cherche l'aventure (la légèreté de sa vie?) et il le trouve en Allemagne national socialiste. Le mari de Catherine, François, faussement en croyant que sa femme est partie pour l'Allemagne avec Patrice, abandonne sa vie bourgeoise et il s'engage avec les volontaires de la Guerre Civile d’Espagne du côté des rebelles fascistes. Voila un compte bien lyrique, bien romantique et en effet je croyais souvent lire un poème plutôt qu'un roman. Brasillach nous offre des passages très lyriques très mouvantes, mais ce n'est pas réaliste de tout. Nous ne croyons pas au moins superficiellement être dans la vie vécu. Les trois parties du triangle me donnaient l'impression d'être non pas des êtres qu'on pourrait rencontrer mais des symboles, des représentants des tendances des volontés. Je me demande si n'est pas typiquement fascistes de contempler les êtres de cette façon. Nous sommes tous comme Catherine "livrés sans défense à toutes les images de la vie". Un roman non réussi, mais un très très beau récit, un poème romantique écrit en prose....more
Je l'ai bien appreciée une histoire avec cette fois une élément très écologiste, très consciente du fait que l'argent puisse être maline. Axel Borg joJe l'ai bien appreciée une histoire avec cette fois une élément très écologiste, très consciente du fait que l'argent puisse être maline. Axel Borg jou ici un role quelque peu ambigue. Une histoire frappante et actuelle. ...more
This book brings back memories. It has a clear message of peace, this story of the bull who did not want to fight. It was one of my favourite tales whThis book brings back memories. It has a clear message of peace, this story of the bull who did not want to fight. It was one of my favourite tales when I was small. The message is "do not play their game". From the point of view of the traditional gathering of the forces of power and destruction, this work is subversive and I suspect it does a good job. Ferdinand is a delightful fellow. I cannot remember who gave me the book nor what happened to it, which makes me a little sad....more
Ever listened to a seanchai? Here is one to tell you about the buried ogre of 1945 whose spirit slumbers among the true men of the West. Imagine someonEver listened to a seanchai? Here is one to tell you about the buried ogre of 1945 whose spirit slumbers among the true men of the West. Imagine someone with national socialist beliefs and Fenian temperament indulging in a violence fantasy romp and you will have some idea of what this book is about and trying to do. It is a very long rehash of William Pierce's "Turner Diaries" which is supposed to have inspired the Oklahoma bomb attck but the writer has more narrative skill than William Pierce who was no seanchai. Covington's much longer yarn is about a separatist rebellion in the North West of the USA, a successful and extremely violent uprising against what National Socialists call ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government). This is unashamedly a propaganda work and as such suffers from simplistic not to say crass characterisations. The rebels are all Stalinist era type Übermensch, flawless and admirable and somewhat tedious and hard to separate one from the other, since they are all extraordinarily brave, committed. efficient and frankly downright boring. Predictably, all Jews, Hispanics and Blacks are rotten to the core, and extremely foul mouthed. This makes for an unsubtle read. A small failing of the book is its dabble with contrafactual hsitory or what became so shortly after the book wa swritten, namely in positng the election of Hilary Clinton who passes the Office of Presidency on to her daughter, Chelsea, a woman only known becaus eof her paretns and now entirely forgotten by nearly everyone. A small point, but it could have been avoided and should have been, becuase being reminded of the fictitious nature of the tale by the Hilary and Chelasea presidencies, undermines a sense that this could happen.
The writer, who is a prolific propagandist for white racial separatism, presents us with some provoking paradoxes. He rightly notes in one of his news bulletins that the internet and publishing on demand (POD) systems has enabled writers who are blacklisted by the system from being able to publish, to have their say. Theargument runs roughly along these lines: ZOG will hate this book. 30 years ago ZOG would have ensured it would not be published. Today Jews/the system can still see to it that "Brigade" does not get reviewed in the establishment press but the establishment press is itself no longer the near-monopoly it once was now that the internet is here. There is a new and hitherto undreamend of freedom, from which this book itself benefits. Ironically, it is extremely doubtful that the man who died in the flames of Berlin in 1945 or the doctrine of national socialism which he founded would have approved of this freedom in any way.- does not Mr Covington's creed seek to replace one tyranny and Weltanschauung with another? There is something very hypocriticial about a national socialist criticising the lack of freed speech or infringements upon citizens rights or constittuional rights.
There is on the other hand, a deep honesty and frustration in this book, a sincerity, which struck a chord with me. I suspect it is Mr Covington's Irishness that gives him his sometimes poetic and certainly lucid and at times lyrical passion and probably his (I personally found tedious) fascination with guns and long descriptions of bomb placement and weapons systems. If you are planning some kind of ambush or bombing, this writer could give you a deal of useful "dos and don'ts"! Some of the novel reads more like an anarchist's bomb making handbook than a work of fiction. What seems to me a deep paradox and something with which I cannot empathise in any way, is the writer's sniping at environmentalists. For example, Mr Covington makes a snyd remark about loggers losing their jobs because a conservation order is put on woodland to save the lesser spotted fly catcher or some similarly obscure member of the avian world. It is ironical that this derogatory comment was first made to my knowledge by Ayn Rand née Alissa Rosenbaum in her "Anti-industrial Revolution"-so similar is the remark that Covington's sounds like plagiarism, subsequently Rand's remarks were echoed by another of the chosen race, the tireless neo-conservative Charles Krauthammer in an article in The Washington Post 20 years ago. They both, like many many other Jews, wholeheartedly share Mr Covington's contempt for environmentalists. Even worse, there is a bitter comment in the book on zoning ordinances which stop surburban sprawl. Covington apparently regards it all some kind of trendy yuppy plot against the white working class. This is an all American pulp fiction style and in case the reader misses the point, there are frequent references to the junk food which the heroes enjoy-instant coffee and diet coke. Somethings won't be changing after the revolution. Macdonalds is fine so long as it is run by Aryans and exclusively staffed and patronised by Aryans is the message here. The only thing wrong with Big Mac is the Mexican staff. Nothing wrong with Junk food so long as it is, er, racially kosher so to speak. Another small point which galled me is that there are several remarks about euthenasia which strongly suggest that for Mr Covington this is all part of a Jewish conspiracy too. Well it is convenient for the heroes of the book that their revolution is not held up by having to care with increasingly difficult increasingly sick family relatives hanging onto life thanks to the battery of modern medicine which science can now and does provide. All in all Mr Covington is mighty quick to make summary judgements about complex issues. At the end of the book, white families are pouring into the North West, whose beautiful scenery the writer also praises, apparently with no sense of self-contradiction, the contradiction being that given Covington's contempt for zoning ordinances and stopping suburban sprawl and the numbers pouring in, his beloved North West is likely to become overbuilt and thoroughly domesticated a few years after the revolution. But heck guys, urban sprawl is dandy so long as it is white urban sprawl and not black or dusky urban sprawl. Elsewhere, not in this book, Mr Covington praises the motorcar and shows his contempt for the Europeans' attachment to public transport. The message is that if there were no non-whites in society we would reach Utopia. Believe that if you will. The writer to give him his due, is however, extremely perceptive about two things: one is that a traitor, no matter if it is your traitor, my traitor, may well be a person acting because the enemy has a terrible hold over him/her (there is such a person in this book, the only time that a character in "The Brigade" is more than a cardboard cut out) and not necessarily for money or belief. Secondly, and this is the truth which the writer is extremely keen to stress and indeed is the essence of this book, at the end of the day politics is a matter of force. Scratch long enough at any system and it will have to show its teeth. Liberals who think that their system will stay benign under threat are deluding themselves and Mr Covington is completely right to harp on this hypocrisy (democrats good guys, right wingers and fascists bad guys)Hegemony is ultimately a matter of force and rebelling against an order which has become intolerable will one day be decided not by essays and argument but at the end of a gun barrel. An Irishman would know, wouldn't he? A tall tale this but like most Irishmen, this one has the gift of the gap. It makes for good reading and be careful for you never know with the "seanchai" where the borderline between fact and fiction has been fixed....more
ich fand den Roman gar nicht schlecht. Er war spannend und intelligent. Der Verfasser hat geschickt den unheimlichen an faschiste Verschwung und setztich fand den Roman gar nicht schlecht. Er war spannend und intelligent. Der Verfasser hat geschickt den unheimlichen an faschiste Verschwung und setzt dem Leser überzeugend in der spannenden 1920 Jahren. Der traditoneler Haftungsausschluss formulierte er in dieser Weise:
"Personen frei erfunden und Ähnlichkeiten rein zufällig, was den Leser jedoch nich zu der Annahme verleiten sollte, daß es nicht genauso geschen hätte können oder hete wieder möglich wäre. Gechichte ist weniger weit entfernt, als wir es zu wünschen können."...more
I have a very strong feeling of enthusiasm and at the same time of aversion for this book, which I read when I was 16. William Shirer wrote a no-holdsI have a very strong feeling of enthusiasm and at the same time of aversion for this book, which I read when I was 16. William Shirer wrote a no-holds barred account of the rise of Adolf Hitler from the perspective of a fanatical (in the full sense of the word) opponent of everything Hitler stood for. Shirer was also a journalist writing as though he were a historian, so his writing reads easily and persuasively but is not necessarily a font of historical accuracy. Whatever one's own position, this is far and away a more honest book than many of the cold cynical assessments made after the events by historians who also have a private agenda but who unlike Shirer do not make it obvious or claim to be objective when they are no such thing. Shirer is however in my opinion,right to stress more than is often stressed, the novelty of the Nuremburg Laws, which essentially disenfranchised a large section of the population on the basis of a postulated alien ethnicity. These laws undermined the fundamental principles of citizenship as understood in Europe since the American and French revolutions and were profound and potentially murderous in their implications. Shirer also laid stress on medical experimentation on human subjects, which in my humble opinion is as close to Hell as human beings are likely to get on earth. I do not think there are any medical experiment "deniers" : of course, medical experimentation on human beings is in no way something unique to the Hitler dictatorship, but Shirer is right to highlight it as a particularly pernicious abuse of power by politicians and doctors, one which should serve as a reminder to us, if we really need a reminder, of the arrogance and ever lethal potential of the notions of so many representatives of both. It is all very well talking about controlling decadence, crime or whatever, but who controls the controllers, is a question that should never be for a moment forgotten.
I give this two stars but the two stars award is misleading in the sense that I would give his work 4 or 5 stars for readability as a breathtaking introduction to the history of the Third Reich, and 4 or 5 stars for highlighting certain aspects of that history so full of suffering and desolation, but 1 star for reliability, balanced view, veracity, objectivity. Shirer will have no track with the notion that Polish fears of Russia could have been justified, that Churchill wanted war, that in a sense whatever one thinks of him, Hitler was right in claiming that the war was between a Jewish and anti-Jewish world view, that Roosevelt was deeply anti-German and pro-Jewish, that the Soviet Union was planning a preemptive strike on Germany, that the Poles had been put up to provoking Germany and did provoke Germany and that Hitler in this case as later, with the British bombing of civilian targets, fell into a trap and allowed himself to be provoked just in the way his enemies planned he should be provoked; Shirer says nothing as I recall, about the appalling condiitons which induced many to vote for the NSDAP, and there are plenty more imbalances in this work, and half-truths and untruths besides, for there is plenty of history that Shirer does not mention, but I do not have the book any more and I read it 40 years ago. Shirer's is a book to be read by anyone interested in the time, but to be read with rather more than the proverbial pinch of salt. I was going to award this book three stars but I'll put that down to 2 to counter-balance the wave of quasi psychophantic enthusiasm with which so many Goodreads readers have greeted it. It is a deeply flawed book after all, for readibility it is up there in the top rank, for historical balance, down far below....more
Michael Power was a pen name of the committed Roman Catholic writer David Walker (1907-1968). It was written from his experiences of visiting NationalMichael Power was a pen name of the committed Roman Catholic writer David Walker (1907-1968). It was written from his experiences of visiting National Socialist Germany and is an appeal to the people of Germany to remain true to the true faith of the Chruch in the face of the threat from what he seemed to believe was the anti-Christ. It is an extremely sincere book, very dated indeed but the sincerity in cynical times has its appeal....more
I need to look at this book again before I can comment at length-I read it so long ago. The essential thesis of the book is that the exclusivity of ZiI need to look at this book again before I can comment at length-I read it so long ago. The essential thesis of the book is that the exclusivity of Zionism and its ambitions arising from its separation from the rest of human kind has been a curse working down history and one likely perhaps destined to lead to Armaggedon. In contrast to Judaism, Reed offers the Christianity based on the New, not the Old, Testament (like Thomas Jefferson) and the qualities of the Redeemer. Here he follows Houston Stewart Chamberlain. The commentary on the parables in the New Testament are moving and haunting and strike with all the force of conviction and persuasion. The notion of a Zionist conspiracy in the murder of the Russian royal family is also vivid and harrowing. However, I feel that Reed plays down what does not suit his arguemnts, for example he has nothing to say about the rise of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. The essential thesis of the book is that Zionism is a form of racial exclusivism which is responsible for a great part of the Bible and the source of much of the world's suffering. It is a plea for the Redeemer Christ against Judaism and the religions of racial exclusiveness. Although admired by many persons themselves racialist, the book implicitly rejects racialism-Zionism is a “racial creed, the disruptive effect of which on subsequent human affairs may have exceeded that of explosives or epidemics.” Reed never developed the thesis that national socialism was a mirror image of Zionism but this is implicit in his beliefs. He has something in common with George Orwell, another left-wing patriot. Their support for the terror bombing of Germany greatly detracts from their persuasiveness in my eyes. It is hard to believe that the following by Douglas Reed issued from the pen of the man who was otherwise so forthright in condemning vengefulness: “The long delay in bombing Germany is already chief among the causes of the undue prolongation of the war.” (Douglas Reed, Lest We Regret, 1943, page 331). The bombing of German cities was not primarily an act of war but an act of vengeance, a Biblical act and as such Reed should have recognised it as thevery kind of vengefulness which he characterises as a characteristic of Zionism. As Nietzsche said, he who fights with demons should beware that he himself does not become like a demon (or words to that effect) and Douglas Reed became an agent of the very vengefulness he otherwise so skillfully denounces when he joins the Churchill war party (this in other books not here) I have great sympathy for much of that they said but feel that at the core of their patriotism there lies an unresolved dilemma: does patriotism not imply the kind of exclusivism which they otherwise and in other palces entirely rejected? Is Christ's message, or is it not, international and internationalist? The Times obituary noting that Reed was a "virulent anti-semite" shows that even "quality" papers like The Times cannot distinguish between racialist anti-semitism and political anti-Zionism. At least, I could find no anti-semitism in the sense of being opposed to Jews for racial reasons in "The Controversy of Zion". Quite the contrary. Be that as it may, this book should be read more often and discussed more often (that would not be difficult to achieve, for "The controversy of Zion" is ignored by nearly everyone today) in view of the hostility between Zionism and Islam, the rise of Islamic terorism and Zionist domination of much of Western policy, especially US, French and German foreign policy. This is a book which should be reprinted and reread....more
John Tyndall was a leading light of British nationalism for many years. He had some major faults and some major qualities. This book is an overview ofJohn Tyndall was a leading light of British nationalism for many years. He had some major faults and some major qualities. This book is an overview of the political situation as seen by a prominent nationalist activist interwoven with biographical reminiscences. It is neither fully satisfactory as biography nor poltiical statement. The great strength both of the book and of the man lies in the tenacity and coherence of the work and the life. John Tyndall was quite clear about where he wanted to go and why and there are no double standards and no prevaricating. A major weakness, it seems to me, and that emerges in the book as throughout his life and in what he wrote, is a failure to distinguish adequately between the ephemeral and the eternal. What I mean by that is that John Tyndall seems to me to attach far too much importance to political figures and political events who/which will and are forgotten in a short time. They are only shadows. Consequently effort and work is always conceived in a short term perspective, ditto such relatively unimportant events as democratic "general elections" which this man scorned in principle but attached a somewhat exaggerated importance to in real life. While the underlying worldview is one of pessimism, the day to day view is excessively optimistic and the danger of short term optimism is that when it is disappointed, the psychological effects on supporters are far worse than had they been hardened to a long struggle of the kind "you will never see victory in our lifetime". JT never said that, on the contrary, great success was always promised round the next corner, the NF or BNP or whatever his party was called was always about to breakthrough was always scaring the establsihment. Waiting for Godot can be lietrally dispiriting and John Tyndall should accept a good deal of responsibility for attenuating the fighting spirit through too much optimism, an optimism which resulted to a greta extent from his won over-estimation of his own abilities, an over-estimation unfortunately fuelled by sychophantic admirers. The entire British nationalist movement and not only British but movements of this kind around the world, chronically lack constructive criticism, to the extent that any criticism at all is automatically labelled as "factionalism" or direct opposition. The book is written with a striking lack of modesty. Everything is penned with a view to showing the writer in the best possible light and even admissions of error are presented in that way. There is not much humour in the book but one incident was really funny-Tyndall recounts that after his arrest for organizating a "summer camp" attended by Colin Jordan and Lincoln Rockwell, he was arrested. Other prisoners asked him where he had learnt such excellent English. The view was that only Germans could be national socialists and so John Tyndall must be German! What is left of his efforts? What are his achievements? In my opinion, not very much. To a considerable extent this may be seen as not his fault, since the democratic system is notoriously slanted against any movement which hints at racial segregation or nationalism. On the other hand I am convinced that any movement which charges at the system without having a long background of cultural and notional sympathy behind it, is doomed to fail. As a footnote, his sudden death was a surprise. I do not wish to hint at the usual conspiracy here but consider it another mark against modern medicine. JT believed in "common sense" regarding one's health, keeping fit, not smoking, having regular check ups. I am told he died of a heart attack soon after a checkup, which does make me wonder about the sense of a check up with doctors, who are all in the pay of the pharmaceutical industry. Another point: consipracies and probelms such as energy and medicine never reahced the top of this man's prioroty list when not clearly idenfiable as matters of specifically national concern. Thsi book and the man's career is a long history of separation of wanting to break out of a social and political ghetto but not changing focus in order to do so. Finally, whatever his many faults, John Tyndall is worth a good many of the career politicians and career journalists who have presided over their country's decline and sold such a decline as "inevitable" if not desriable too. In one respect he was surprisingly modest. He does not seem to have considered or cared much about his possible appeal to women but I think he could have made much more impression in that direction had he wanted to and that would have had very definite political cosnequences. Perhaps he was too honest and had too much integrity to be very successful in politics. Finally: I share John Tyndall's nostalgia for the British Empire. The world would be a better place today if it had survived but to have survived it would have required many more people of this man's mettle. He rests with an easy conscience. I am not sure that will be said about Vladimir Putin or Anthony Blair when they have passed on....more
I found this an entertaining and instructive read. It was chance (serendipity?) that I got to read it. My flight from San José to Frankfurt having beeI found this an entertaining and instructive read. It was chance (serendipity?) that I got to read it. My flight from San José to Frankfurt having been delayed by 24 hours (sic) I wondered over to the book stall at the airport to find something to read during the long wait. The selection of books was small and rather eccentric. Several copies of this book took up a considerable amount of the small space alloted to books. The introduction in which Hitch notes that someone prematurely referred to him as the "late Mr Hitchens" followed by reflections on death in view of a diagnosis of terminal cancer, made for poignnat reading as CH had become "late" only a few months before.
Reading the book I was struck by two things, one how very light-weight a thinker this man was and secondly how compassionate. Hitchens was an indefatigable journalist who positively relished rushing to scenes of conflict and then rushing out his views (he claims never to have missed a deadline). He followed the trajectory of rowdy lefty to "neocom" which many have followed, but so far as I know he is the only "neocom" to present readers with the story of what he calls growing awareness and others would call and indeed have called, a shift.
His book, which is a very selective autobiography that excludes all personal events which the writer does not consider relevant to his narrative, highlighted a number of very interesting points. He was born into an upper-middle class family, his father was a naval commander who faught with disctinction in the War. He attended Public School and Balliol College Oxford, where he became a fairly typical but especially committed student lefty. He was a student at the time of the anti-Vietnam war protests. He met someone who introduced him to the International Socialists (today the Socialist Workers' Party), later he joined the Labour Party. Like the majority of leftists and Labour party supporters hailing from the upper rungs of the social and economic ladder, he was from the beginning much more interested in notions of international causes, human rights, anti-racism than fair wages, education of the working classes, the ending of class society, parity of wealth. So far so usual. For many on the left he isregarded as a traitor because he later turned away from knee jerk left-wing causes, mnotably those involving the Middle East.
It is fascinating reading this book to read his references to the turning points which compelled him to reassess his positions on various issues. Most observant people are intelligent, most compassionate people have a rich imagination. Hitchens was unusual in being extremely observant (which made him a fine journalist) but not especially able to draw intelligent conclusions from what he observed and to be compassionate but singularly lacking in imagination.
These lines from John Whittier could refer to Hitch: "A hate of tyranny intense/And hearty in its vehemence,/As if my brother's pain and sorrow were my own" For some people his support of the war on Serbia and later Iraq was a change a regression, a shift to the right. It is true that there is an apparent lack of coherence-how can someone who opposed the US in Vietnam passionaltely supported Nelson Mandela be in favour of the invasion of Iraq. What is the difference? The difference is that this man, so much more heart than head, was there. In his own words he could smell the gas in Iraq which Sadam had used to wipe out Kurdish villages. He was in Argentina and met the victims of the junta. Having done so, having been made to see what the Argentian dictatorship had done, there could be no question for him that Britain should not be supported in the Argentian war. Prevarication on the left appalled him. Likewise Sadam Hussein. Likewise Salman Rushdie. When he wasclose enough to injustice, then no previous statement or commitment would impede him. He would defend what was right. I am convinced that had Hitch been taken in a time machine to Algeria at the time of the Algerian war and seen what the rebels did, had he been taken to see the victims of ANC "necklacing" and talk to the relatives, he would not have supported Nelson Mandela and he would not have supported the FLN had he witnessed their handiwork. Once he was convinced of the righteousness of a cause he was remorseless in pursuit of justice. His compassion was a burning fire. He was a political Peter Pan. He always cried for justice. He liked to provoke by using puerile words and making exagerrrated claims which he knew were exaggerated.
The second highly revealing elenment of this book is the fact that "blood will out". The son of a naval officer cannot contain his pride at the defeat of Argentina by the British army, cannot but feel for beleagured Israel once he has discovered (not rediscovered) his Jewish ancestry. Like it or not, there is an element of ethnic or national or religious (I am sure he would reject all these but there is something call it cultural if one will) fervour in his denunciation of Mohammedan potentates and dictators.
The man is naive but genuine and his naivity leads him to many a truth. His comment on deconstructivist and other theories of literature strikes at the core of the matter: what matters, he notes is not so much the theory, as a love of the writer and a love of literature. Only someone who is "pure" in the best sense of the word could think or write that. A simple but devestating truth which should be flung in the face of every weary cynical commentator and academic whose only interest is in the use of literature as the vehicle for an idea or worse, system theory. He was no friend of religion or a belief in the aftelife (what he could not see or observe he could not believe) but his commitment and compassion would or should put many a Christian to shame. Mohammedan too, come to think of it. ...more
I think that if I were asked to name the Shakespeare play which I least enjoyed, I would name this one. It is a piece of propaganda from beginning to I think that if I were asked to name the Shakespeare play which I least enjoyed, I would name this one. It is a piece of propaganda from beginning to end. It is not worthy of comparison with Shakespeare's far superior Richard II, whether in terms of poetry, psychology or dramatic quality. This is not to say that there are not memorable elements to the play, foremost of course, the opening solilloquoy, the epitome of the characteristic in English literature to create caricature and paint it up as psychological realism (Charles Dickens, Jane Austen). R.W. Chambers calls it "an attack on the non-moral statecraft of the sixteenth century" and it is true that this piece can certainly be understood, as Macbeth can (and the two plays have much in common) as an "anti-Machiavelli", but there seems to me little room for manoevre in this play, little opportunity of an alternative interpretation to the one which the writer forces down our throats. The presentation of the evil of despotism is however immensely powerful and as such perhaps I should fairly award the play 4 stars instead of 3 but the relentless presentation of "goodies" versus "big baddy" irritates me too much for me to do so. There was a film version with Ian McEwan starring as Richard III, a film remarkable above all for slowly deteriorating in quality as it progressed from a truly superb opening to mere persiflage and horseplay by the end. This play is propaganda however and quite possibly a slander on the name of a king whose historical record may not have been as dark as Shakespeare for his own political reasons, choses to portray it in his play....more
Henry V is an immense work of course and a play to be seen not merely read (but that is true of all Shakespeare plays). It is,in more ways than one, aHenry V is an immense work of course and a play to be seen not merely read (but that is true of all Shakespeare plays). It is,in more ways than one, an incomplete work. When I say "in more ways than one" I mean this: structurally, the play is lop-sided but also the play had the potential to offer a new political vision. The last scenes with the French queen seem to me to work bathetically and to be a poor end after the high point of the battlöe scenes of Agincourt. It seems likely to me that someone else other than Shakespeare had a hand in the last scenes, some of it is thrid rate writing (not that Sahkespeare was necessarily incapable of third-rate writing) The final scene desperately neeeds rewriting, (en passant, the punning on the word "foot versus French fouter" suggests that the writer really spoke French). What I mean by "new political vision" is foreshadowed in the lines of Act V Scene II, "Shall not thou and I, between Saint Denis and Saint George, compound a boy, half French half English, that shall go to Constantinople and take the Turk by the beard?" A Christian alliance against the Turk or more than an alliance, the restoration of the Angevan Empire, the return of France to England and England t France, this is monumental! It remains in this play however(and in history!), as nothing more than an ehco, an attenuated ideal, a piece of wishful thinking, a vision of a dreamer. In this play it is entirely overshadowed by the propagandas of the whole and the propaganda is one of nationalist heroics and a hard to justify attack on France by English kings whose far from disinterested lawyers interpret Salic law for their own aggressive ends. The use of Salic law as a pretext for war is a pretext of the kind beloved by tyrants down the ages. The Romans were past masters of the art. I confess that I am not uncomfortable with Shakespeare's history plays, or at least not with that part of them which cry out so very loudly against the French. It would interest me to know whether the account in this play of the French massacring the children at the back of the English army "expressly against the law of arms" is based in historical fact. Be that as it may, Shakespeare sees nothing wrong with cutting the throat of every Fremnch prisoner, which I should have thought was also "expressly against the law of arms". In Henry's rousing and well known speech, "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers.." there is promise of the comradship of arms "gentling the condition" of every English soldier on the battlefield "be he ne're so vile" but when the role call of the dead is made after the battle of Agincourt the herald announces, ""Edward Duke of York, the Earl of Suffolk,Sir Richard Ketley, Davy Gam esquire,; None else of name; and of all other men but five and twenty." In the Brannach film (I cannot recall how it is in the Olivier film) the mentioning of the cutting of the throats of the prisoners is cut out. Obviously the writer's inclusion of what today would be called an English "war crime" attenuated the propaganda effect, and this is propaganda and was used as such during the Second World War in the film Henry V starring Lawrence Olivier. One can almost be envious. In earlier times, people were convinced of the righteousness of their cause down to the marrow of their bones, none of the effeminite shillyshallying of today, that discomfort and misgiving which this writer feels confronted with Shakespearean nationalist propaganda. One last point relevant to the authorship debate-sofar as I know anyone who has been a soldier confirms if they know this piece, wheoever else Shakespeare was or was not, he must have gone to war in his time. He has an instinctive grasp of the military. This man served under colours and heard "the blast of war" blow in his ears, and, it must be said, seems to have relished the experience, all the horror, mayhem and suffering of war notwithstanding....more
This book is a classic and like all classics is full of faults and is very easy to criticise. Ayn Rand's blinding dogmatism leads her to make some judThis book is a classic and like all classics is full of faults and is very easy to criticise. Ayn Rand's blinding dogmatism leads her to make some judgements fulkl of paradox or which fly in the face of reason ro common sense. Her novels are propaganda and should be considered as such. However, the stories constitute some of the most effective and persuasive propaganda to have been ever written in the form of a novel. Her characters are little more than vehicles of her ideas and little else. Either one is capable or is not-one is a first class engineer and first class everything else or one is not. She seems to think there are only three classes of people: creators, drones and parasites. Is it necessary to point out that nature and human nature are more complex and subtle than anything dreamed of in her philsophy? Persons are not either supremely competent or failures; someone who is highly competent in one field may be feeble and inadequate in another. This obvious human truth seems to have escaped Ayn Rand completely. Her comment that Thomas Mann's "Zauberberg", a novel be it said incomparably greater than anything she could ever have hoped to have written, was not properly speaking a novel because it "told no story" constitutes in my opinion one of the most asinine comments ever made by one writer about another in the entire history of literary criticism. And yet, and yet, citations from her writing echo long after one has put her books down. "beware of anyone who asks you to make a sacrifice-he is laying the faggots for the fire he is going to burn you on." This sort of talk acted as a ray of light to this reviewer after years of being told to "make sacrifices for others" and I recall it fondly in the face of all the humanist whinge and sentimental pap which assault us from every corner. Her Nietzschean capitalist Ubermenschen are one dimensional figures, yes, but her writing was and is a necessary antidote to the socialist and humanist platitudes of her day and ours. And she brings one simple startling truth-what we call civilization, what we call achievement, what we call greatness, is not or not only, a light which falls from Heaven, but the fruit of immense striving and effort. Gratitude and appreciation are too easily cast aside or left to rust-but even such a view of that, "Randian" in some respects though it may be, would probably have struck the hard-nosed egoist and self-styled founder of "objectivism" that was Ayn Rand, née Rosenberg, as over sentimental. ...more
I think I have read this three times and I suppose if I had to name the greatest novel of all time, this would be the one that I would name. DostoyevsI think I have read this three times and I suppose if I had to name the greatest novel of all time, this would be the one that I would name. Dostoyevsky's s genius lies I think the ability to write a "potboiler" and classic at the same time. There is so much that can be said and probably has been said in Goodreads (I am not going to click through all the reviews) that I shall restrict myself to a few comments on the three English translations I have read-there are at least three English translations available. The Penguin classics version was by a Latvian for whom English was not a first language and who admitted in the preface to hostility towards Dostoyevsky's poltiics (which he advises us to ignore) and a distrust of Russians in general. The old 1920's Constant Garnett translation is full of very dated English expressions which give an inappropriate, distracting sort of PG Wodehouse colour to the tale, with the result that the atmosphere of the tale is a sort of pseudo-English gentry. The American translation (I think by MacDonald?) is very flawed too, with some Americanism (eg "you great Turkey!") which jar, but the American version has the great merit of bringing out the humour of the book, which the other translations seem to miss or play down. A significant part of "The Brothers Karamazov" is intentionally humorous, something readers of the other English translations are likely to miss. The novel itsself-where does one even begin? The book is a drama of the human soul, if that doesn't sound too pretentious. It is drama and exploration of three, no four, aspects of the writer's own personality, goodness and sinfulness as portrayed in four brothers. This is a crime and murder story, a love story, a parable a Christian tract, an exhortation and dramatic and at times hilarious account of the extravagence of the Russian property owning classes at the end of the century. It is enthused with a deep sense of Russia's supposed destiny as the Third Rome, a destiny which turned into gall and wormwood in the subsequent century. I think it should be on every bibliophile's first 100 books to read list....more
Is it Trotsky, the main protagonist, constantly reajusting his spectacles? It could be. It is a novel full of the piteous, unforgettable. For so many Is it Trotsky, the main protagonist, constantly reajusting his spectacles? It could be. It is a novel full of the piteous, unforgettable. For so many of us, gall and bitterness, another dream turned sour. The sophism of the inquisitor, from the Inquisition of the Holy Chruch to the Secret Police of the Wrokers' Paradise, all prying, interrogating and torutring and ultimately destroying ad majoriam gloriam Dei (or Caeseri)....more
This was an excellent read-I wonder if anyone has noticed that the end of the book recalls both Sartre's Chemins de la Liberté and Hemmingway's "For wThis was an excellent read-I wonder if anyone has noticed that the end of the book recalls both Sartre's Chemins de la Liberté and Hemmingway's "For whom the Bell Tolls"? Dès maintenant je me suis décider de faire des commentaires sur les livres dans la langue dans la-quelles ils etaient écrits. Si j'aurais le temps j'aurais beaucoup plus à dire à propos de ce livre. Peut-être bientôt.....more
Loading...
