Was Germny one of these capitalist regimes that was afraid of the new competing ideology? Hitler's party was the Something Somethg Socialist party. How did they get to be fascist?

Back up to pre-WWI. Russia had its own revolution that was anti-aristocratic, anti-feudalism, yes? A really late version of the French Revolution? Aaaa!! The people are starving!!! "Mwaah ha ha haaa...let them eat cake." "UNCOOL!! We're protesting!" (Shooting the protesters.) (Shooting the Czar and his family.) (Aaaa!! Everyone with money run away!!) (AAA!!! Anyone with no money looting.) So then, what? European countries who were close by to this were afraid they would get political cooties? Exposure to these new ideas? Too much change too fast. Yeah, I bet they weren't so much afraid of "new ideas" as they were afraid of new methods being tried without proper caution. The People (whoever THEY are) don't know what they're doing, because they haven't been in practice governing and managing, and they're going to screw things up, and there aren't any checks and balances in place to curb them, and they're drunk on the thrill of newly-acquired power. They're dangerous. So then what? Did surrounding countries take preventative action against the Russians?

Oh, I wish I had paid more attention in high school history class. We just brushed over this stuff so fast. I remember reading The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. That's about the extent of my big memories. The danger of letting people be free to acquire and manage on their own without any kind of government regulation or counter-force to prevent selfishness of factory owners.

Again, why was Hitler's party both Socialist (in name) and Fascist? And did the Germans invade those Eastern European countries first because those were the poisonous ones that were likely to spread those dangerous competing ideologies? Oh my, Poland and Czechoslovakia...right there just yards away...and filled with Grasshoppers...Grasshoppers with violent ideas...going to take over the ants and then just try to suck up all of the wealth but they don't have any notion of how to make any, so it will be a disaster.

I know that History says that Nazi Germany grew out of frustration caused by the badly wrapped-up aftermath of WWI, and that Germany was punished for its role in WWI, so to trace the problem, we really have to go back to the start of WWI.

I can answer some of these questions Otto's World without resorting to hitting the books, but a few I may have to refer you to others. I'll start with National Socialism, i.e. Nazism, which was socialist in name only. The name Hitler used to galvanize the support of the German workers. The Weimar Republic of Germany post WW1 was experiencing the same economic collapse that caused the Great Depression in the USA. Hitler and the Capitalist Classes saw a need tojumpstart the economy and coopt the various socialist groups and workers unions. Once Hitler assumed power he supported and was supported by the corporations. He brutally suppressed the Brownshirts which he had used to gain power. In Italy, Mussolini himself, defined Fascism as the confluence of the Corporate State. The Depression was a general Crisis of Capitalism much like the one we are currently experiencing, but even worse. WW2 fulfilled a number of goals for all the wastern powers. It is likely you would have learned little beyond America good, Germany bad in High School or even college history classes, unless you had a teacher with leftist leanings.

One of the main goals of WW2 was to save Capitalism from itself, i.e. the global economic collapse of the 1930s. Indeed this had been brewing since WW1. prior to WW1 there had been an attempt to create the League of Nations, a precursor to the United Nations. The Weatern capitalist powers and Japan had been trying to build a global economic system to allow the investor classes to more readily suck up the resources of the "third world". Prior to this Colonialism was done through occupying sections of other countries and supporting the collaborating ruling classes in return for low wage workers and vital resources, like OIL. A lot of WW1 and WW2 was about who would have the most access to those resources. So the wars were about competition between the various Capitalist nations and yet at the same time they were trying to establish Global Capitalism and put down popular resistance of the workers unions and collectives.

Post WW2 a strong international monetary system was put in place with the victor, the USA at the top of the heap, and the war machine had staunched the Deppression. Because there was the competing ideology of communism and socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe it was necessary for Capitalists to allow a strengthening of the middle classes. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Global Capitalists have been breaking unions and rolling back all of the democratic gains people had struggled for. Only the advent of the current Economic Crisis has convinced the Capitalists that maybe we should have a few regulations to stop the system from devouring itself. Every time these crises happen though, the right wing of the ruling classes tries to use the crisis to say: "Workers make too much, Oh No ...how can we compete". The less right wing of the ruling class (centrists and "liberals") know they have to give alittle back to the rest of us in order to keep us complacent.

Germany seems to have been at the center of both wars, but I think there was a lot of provocation by other countries. The various leaders of the different countries seemed to have no real personal quarrels. Hitler wined and dined with various Royal figures of other European countries even as they were blasting each others peoples to bits. US bombers were ordered not to bomb Ford plants in Germany, so during bombing runs Germans used them as Air raid shelters. Prescott Bush (W's Grampa) was known by the sobriquet Hitler's Banker. Was indicted on Trading With The Enemy charges and got a slap on the wrist. The British Government alone among the Capitalist powers, seems to have been truly at war with Hitler (though even a few of Britain's Royal family expressed admiration for Hitler). Britain, despite several centuries of Colonial Rule and Empire, at least could be moved by appeals to conscience (especially when news of atrocities got out). This is why peace loving Ghandi was eventually able to end British rule of India. The Brits like to believe themselves to be the height of civilised society (as do the French, hence the competitiveness between them). So Lewis and Tolkien--coming from this tradition,and despite being conservative Oxford Dons-- would be seen as very liberal; even by todays American standards. And so is Rowling.

Anyway, this is a sort of broad brush approach to modern history. For details like: Why did the First World War begin in Serbia? -- I am afraid I will have to refer you to the History Books or a Google Search. Just remember, when researching online for answers to detailed questions like that, try to get answers from competing sources to compare. Get answers from University websites, mainstream and marxist. If they both agree, the answer is probably right. I wish my memory was better on those sorts of details but I have to return to the books myself for reminders. Glad I can help a bit. Remember Michael Parenti and Howard Zinn; they are my favourites. Also use your own excellent instincts. Don't just take my word for it.

I Hope you have a Wonderful New Year Otto's World, also to Beren, Ady, Show and everyone else

Gandalfs Beard

P.S. We really need to change the title of this thread now. How about Feminism and Politcs?

Thank you, GB, for all of those leads. I've got a political science professor pal and an economist I can call to ask for more.

Yes, one has to be a discerning reader to search the internet for information. Whew! I'm a big fan of trying hard to understand the sincere beliefs of both (or all) sides, and I am also glad that nobody is YELLING on this forum. Not only is yelling unpleasant and stress-inducing, but it is really hard to get to understand the different positions when that happens.

Well, getting back to Tolkien topics, you said this:


(I do want to pursue this political topic a lot more, but not exactly just now. Too many thoughts and questions coming up.)

One of the many reasons why I admire J. K. Rowling is that she teaches or models for the reader this discerning method of thought. Notice how often characters come to the wrong conclusions about other characters. Or the way Harry or Ron will read a newspaper and then Hermione will teach them to read between the lines or to read beyond the front page. Rowling exaggerates big time the need to read between the lines and to be skeptical of journalists with the whole Rita Skeeter running joke or how the MInistry of Magic so often presents things as much different than they are, and then different characters have prejudices and loyalties that make them more or less apt to take this or that position on something. And we get to feel the brunt of a lot of it because we see things from Harry's point of view and he is so often the victim of these faulty conclusions and readily constructed opinions. For a "children's series" it is a greatly undervalued quality of her books.

I have a question out of the blue, since we are talking about the way Tolkien and C. S. Lewis might have seen the world and politics and social issues: What is meant by Lewis's description of Eustace Clarence Scrubb and his parents in Voyage of the Dawn Treader? Something like, "They were very modern and up-to-date. They were teetotalers and wore a special kind of underwear." Underwear? Underwear... They were mormons? They were worried about nudity and so wore lots of underwear? They were really super liberal and wore thongs? I'm totally confused. And then Eustace wants some kind of "nerve food" which makes me think that his family shops at holistic homeopathic organic type grocers and that Eustace is a bit of a hypochondriac. Is Lewis describing a recognizable type in society from his time?

My mother would have a better idea of what Lewis was on about than I. But I think I remember a bit of info from Paul F Ford's, A Companion to Narnia:...oh ...wait ....I have the book beside me. I've been using bits to reference for my debates on Narniaweb. Okay, Eustace was raised by untraditional (read "progressive liberal") parents of the time. They sent him to school at the Experiment house, which was run by child psychologists trying out new methods of teaching. Hence, the teachers were more fascinated by the Interesting Cases (the bullies). The parents would have been vegetarians and were probably anti war activists from the 1930's. I should point out that Lewis thought conscientious objection was a legitimate stance towards war, but he sometimes felt that pacifism was a cover for cowardice. As mentioned before, Lewis and Tolkien despite being somewhat conservative for early 20th century Britain would be seen as quite liberal today. Britain before Thatcher and Post Victorian had a strong working class who had made substantial democratic gains. They had even had a Jewish Prime Minister (Benjamin Disraeli) in the mid 1800s (though he had converted to Anglicanism). Even the British Empire was considered liberal by their Dutch and German (Prussians at the time) counterparts.

I had to leave the post for a bit and I asked my mother about the whole underwear thing. Strangely enough, most English underwear was actually less restrictive, but she remembers Liberty wear which her mother got her. Light, soft woolen bodices, but tight fitting and lots and lots of annoying rubbery buttons. Eustace would have worn the boys equivalent.

That's what I love about posting. I used to do talk radio, but AM really was horrible, people just yelling over each other. My friend with the website used to have a radio programme on FM, where we talked about a lot of the sorts of things on his website. There were occasionally arguments with other callers, but he always gave people time to express their viewpoints. Posting is great because even in an argument, I can turn verbal Heavy Artillery into a Fluffy Pillow attack instead, thus avoiding emotional damage. I have to say, that my approach has garnered me some modicum of respect from the Christian moderators of Narniaweb. Until I post again...

Gandalfs Beard

Otto's World, I was just re-reading your point about Rowling demonstrating discernment, and I coudn't agree with you more. And actually, Rowlings description of the way media and the Ministry operate is no exaggeration. If anything it was an understatement (but not by much). Mainstream Media has really become the propaganda arm of the Corporate State. Moreso than any other time in history. Individual reporters, editors, and producers may have more liberal views; but they self-censor because they know what the bosses and their advertising buddies want. The advent of left of center views on MSNBC is welcome, but is more a response to the needs of the market (there are a lot of progressives nowadays). And it is a welcome change after several decades of media consolidation.

Gandalfs Beard

I tried to go on Narniaweb as a participant, but I got rejected. I must have the settings on my computer wrong for it. I don't know. I am not motivated enough to try to troubleshoot just yet. But I've read a lot of the material.

Did you see the PBS series or see the book from it, both titled The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life? It reminded me of a course I took in college. I was a Rhetoric major, which included a lot of cognitive psychology and analysis of communication and interpretation and perception and such, but also lots and lots of speeches, and lots and lots of logic and argument. One of the best courses ever was called The Rhetoric of Religion. The assignments were all essays--some sermons, some fiction--about whether God existed. And they pretty much alternated between "Yes there is a God," to "No there isn't." And they were all REALLY good arguments. At the time I was going to church on campus, and kind of newly doing it on my own on purpose because I wanted to (not because my parents wanted me to). So, you know, I wanted it to come out that there was a God. So I'd be reading, and I would say to myself,"Oh whew, good," (flip to the next reading,) "Oh $&%*, there ISN'T one??!!" Well, I wasn't that emotional, but there were really compelling arguments against it sometimes and I had to admire them and often I'd be stumped to come up with a rebuttal. The point of the course was not to put everyone's religious faith into a tailspin, but to expose us to a great variety of TYPES of arguments, and what argument works against what other one. It was like learning chess strategies. And the cadaver, or practice dummy or game board or whatever happened to be the subject of religion. Religion is a good one to use because it never gets solved, but really SMART sincere people keep trying. Armand Nicholi, the originator of the PBS series and author of the book, is a professor at one of the big hoo hah universities, and he never tells his students what HE really thinks. This series was the closest thing I have seen to the experience of the course I took. It was wonderful. (the course, I mean)

One thing, though, that bugged me was that you've got the academic environment where you question and question and rethink your own views, and really are never entirely allowed to settle into a position, and then you also have to live in the outside world (and possibly go to church) and you have to act--which means that you do have to settle into some kind of a position. I mean, pastors/ministers and such go to seminary and I imagine that they take courses like this and they have to question and rethink their views, but eventually they have to get a solid personal ethic going so that they can do their work. They can't be constantly having crises of faith, and they can't debate endlessly with their parishoners, because they're supposed to be solidly on the "God" team. When they are at someone's deathbed, you know, they're supposed to be reassuring.

So, I'm wondering, on the Narniaweb site, if it gets hard for people. Some are really good at making the arguments, some are tired of arguing the same points over and over, some hear them for the first time and get really upset because they don't have any answer to the new questions asked by a smart doubter (or a pagan agnostic nontheistic person ). Some of the older ones may feel a bit protective of the tender young 'uns who participate on the site and they get a bit techy (is that the right spelling? tetch-ee). Or some may feel more threatened than they like, and you end up looking kind of like an orc, and they feel they have to win one FOR THE SHIRE!!!! If everyone can stay calm and civil, and maybe tolerate a bit of cognitive dissonance now and then, everyone can learn something.

On another point, I love it that you asked your mom about British underwear and that she had an answer, and I love it that the underwear had a name and that she remembers the eeewy rubbery buttons.

Oh No, Please....not another book I would love to read. Where am I going to find the time? Seriously though, I never finished college myself. Not because I was lazy, but I had my own ideas about what I wanted to study and when I was going to study. It was difficult for me to juggle school and work. So I embarked on a very eclectic journey through: physics, anthropology, psychology, sociology, Biology, Philosophy, comparative theology, politics...and on and on . Being a Gemini, I have always had an analytical side that (like Harry Potter) just had to Know. It wasn't enough to just believe something because someone said so. I had always been agnostic on God because it seemed to me no matter how good an argument is; it couldn't really prove anything one way or the other. Only direct experience can do that -- and even then you have to wonder if what you experienced was outside your head or inside. But, as I said, I'm a Gemini. So the other part of me always believed in Magic. The part of me that cartoons and illustrates, plays keyboards and reads Tolkien and Lewis. So I had to learn to simply let each side be what it is. This led me to accept ather peoples views even when they couldn't accept mine. Though that never stopped me from seeking to bring others to accepting different views without fear.

On Narniaweb, I have been trying to demonstrate that not all Pagans are Heavy Metal Hooligans, or Savages ready to eat their babies. And I am also trying to show that it is possible to hold a firm point of view without assuming that anyone who doesn't believe in their particular stripe of Christianity is automatically going to Hell. That one is a little tougher, but I'm working on it. What I love about Lewis and Tolkien is that they are both Inclusivist. Not automatically rejecting people based on faith.

Yay Mum!!

Gandalfs Beard

Hmmm...Chirping crickets and silence again. Everyone must still be Hungover from New Year. And tomorrow is Tolkien's Birthday, more whooping it up!!

Gandalfs Beard

Here's another tidbit from Paul F Ford's Companion to Narnia: "Alberta Scrubb -- She is apparently something of a feminist, as indicated by Eustace's remark that she would consider Caspian's giving Lucy his cabin because she is a girl to be demeaning to girls."-- And in his notes --"These 6 traits -- nonconformist, vegetarian, teetotaler, nonsmoker, wearer of 'a special kind of underclothes', and feminist -- would classify her and her husband and son not as Latter-day Saints (as some commentators have carelessly thought) but as members of one of the many back-to-nature groups of the early to mid 20th century."

Of course his point is not mutually exclusive to the notion that they were anti-war activists, but it should be pointed out that many back-to-nature groups of the 1930s and 1940s were associated with Fascism (though certainly not all such groups, and as with National "Socialism", may have involved cooption on the part of the fascists). So I think even Paul Ford's commentary on this subject requires more research and analysis.

Gandalfs Beard

P.S. Also Ford's point is, I think, belied by Eustace and his parents scientific worldview.

Yep, nothing much out here but coyotes and crickets. I wondered why so few of the Hobbit Movie Forum population are posting and worried that they drowned in too many book recommendations. Maybe root rot is sinking in, and the place needs more air. Of course, I didn't leave the forum alone totally, because I checked it! Aaa!!! Can't resist. I have a horrible sinus infection right now and my head is trying to explode, so it's easy to leave off for awhile. I hope people write more.

I finally found (I think) the spare oom in Narniaweb where there were all of the Chesterton quotes. So many rooms there. No wonder it kept you busy, GB. It was interesting but it also made me feel reeeeaaally sad--maybe has to do with the sinus infection. I think I will watch Prince Caspian to cheer up.

I didn't think that Harold and Alberta were Momons, but I am not aware of any other belief system or ideology that involves special underwear. Oh no! They're fascists?!! Fascism and paganism keeps cropping up everywhere.