Bedenke, auch bei Abrazo hat es Monate gedauert, bis sie plötzlich den inneren Zusammenhang all der seltsamen Ideen begriff, bis sie merkte, dass da etwas anderes hinter steckt als ein lächerliches Kuriosum - denn auf so eine Suche macht man sich schließlich erst, wenn man weiß, dass da etwas nicht stimmen kann.

[my translation:]  Consider, and also it required a month for Abrazo, before she noted the connection behind the strange ideas, that, namely, something was concealed there that was more than a laughable curiosity.  Because one enters such a search, as one knows,only when there is something there that just is not right. --Abrazo, - codeword hausverbot.

The white american population is perhaps 60-70% German.  But relatives do not always get along.  Therefore, when trying to predict the future of the bond between Germans and German Americans I am going to emphasize some other factory in history than pure blood ties.  That is, what needs to be considered now is that no one whomsoever can entirely predict the future; so that what we say here is as likely as what is said in our press.  There is a natural instability of international relationships in general   If we see this, we see that all bets are off; we see that the claims of the now dominant cultural forces of America that certain racial elements will rise above the others is unfounded speculation.  This instability introduces into our theme a great deal of uncertainty--and also an oportunity for creative thinking.  Of course I am not allowed creativity in the classroom.    The history of alliances worldwide shows no set pattern. Thus anyone saying that Germans and Americans could not be allies, they would simply be tempting fate. In fact, we just do not know.  The English and Germans could just as well have been allies in the last War.   America could have been allies of the Germans, of course, in World War II.   In that case the English would have been out of luck and could not, as they do today, tout themselves as most virtuous of all peoples.  ("Good old, British common sense.")    Maybe the Italians and English could have been allies.   The great obstacle to overcome in promoting close ties of our two peoples, Germans and German Americans, is this:  powerful factions, against such a relationship, decry it.  Any attempt to bring together Germans with German Americans would be decried as a treachery.  Ties between the two countries are suspicious; but factions in America attempting to reach out to Germans in America would be suspected of sedition against the whole of Western Civilization, of, in other words, disrupting any status quo reached through wars and treaties.  The present blog, which would play no role in influencing opinion on a wide scale, may allow itself the luxury of simply entertaining ideas casually.  That is what we are about:  half-baked ideas, untested ideas and ideas, parked away unnoticed, is our stock in trade.  It is precisely the silence of German Americans that is now my concern, the lack of interest in any high-profile role in American society.  Jews are naturally attracted to television and movies; they have there a very high profile.  They call attention to themselves.  No one complains.  Presently I am not complaining either.  I do say that, in the universities--where I must live and make a living--my own ethnicity as a German American does not help me at all.  I must constantly deprecate myself.  This is true of white people (excluding Jews) in general.  There is among us a culture of guilt that turns any serious discussion into a soppy mia culpa.  Of course, in such a setting--a worker at a power plant or telephone company would not have the same perspective--this disadvantage that I have, in the schools, is a major obstacle to anything like "success."   Where we are heading with this consideration--that German Americans are "disadvantaged" is this:  to build a major power bloc in the Western World.   This would be an alliance for political objectives, not the least of which is to ensure not just an equal, but a superior footing in such institutions as universities. 

"Never again!" is a phrase we've all heard.  It is one that will make an interesting topic for an essay.  Everyone has heard it; it is undoubtedly a cornerstone of our educational and religious upbringing.  My initial comment will be an obvious one:   Before saying "Never again!" one should think seriously:  this is a phrase one should not even think, let alone say.  Here, in this fateful few words, lies a very serious matter.  Just to say this thing is to evoke the whole Hegelian process wherein a categorical statement calls into existence its opposite.  "Never again!" is a cry that does not end with itself but rather begins a whole chain of events that was never intended.    Right now my only purpose is to set up a theoretical framework to discuss the logical implications of the word "Never."  The word already resounds with a certain ominous Hegelian thunder.   Here, with this phrase--and because it is made a veritable cornerstone of our educational and national cultures--there is a sense that fate is being seriously tempted.   "Never again!" is a categorical statement.  "Never" is an absolute and absolutist word.    Never again evokes its logical opposite, which is "forever again."  A hard reality begets its opposite.  That word is forever.  We understand, but don't understand, the great emotions evoked by the phrase "never again."   Suffice it to say that here we only speak theoretically and as Hegelians conscious of the logical implications of the words that are used in the sacred writings of our times.  In hearing "never," which is a categorical word, we can only think of the meaning opposite to the meaning.  It is a general comment, but one we can make here, that a public hearing a word such as "never" will never conform to that word, because the public is only an incoherent and not a well defined entity.  To force an incohate being into a categorical mold is to force a categorical--that is opposite--response.  Thus by this logic never becomes forever.

World politics is not less violent than the proverbial jungle of the animals.  When we strain to anticipate the future, and whether never means never or forever, we are faced with a fundamental fact or trait of human beings.Human beings find themselves in what I will call categorical situations; animals never do.  Humans think categorically; animals do not.  Thus for an animal there is what may be called a "partial" movement or "partial" relationship.  If the animal is compelled to flee a predator, it may flee a short distance or a long one.  But this is not a "categorical" flight; but only a conditional and inhibited flight.  Humans, as I say, exist in a world--created by thought--of "either/or."   They exist in a world of categorical yes and categorical no.  We must keep in mind that everything humans do or make, creatively in a technological mode, is categorically this or categorically that.  Thus, for the computer, modeled on the human thought process itself, there are ones and zeros.  There are no zeros mixed with ones, and so forth.  Any machine, unlike a living organism, is essentially this way. Humans taught a machine how to think; in fact, however, the computer--instilling in my idea of the categorical thought--has taught me how to think.(!)  This part of a machine is absolutely not that part, and vice versa.   But there is more.  We pass at some point from the thoughts of individuals to entire collective situations.  Society is compartmentalized categorically.  Thus one department is not the other; and that other is not any other than itself.  Society, as I say, is not an organism but a machine according to human rules of thinking.  From the level of social interaction we pass, again, into the realm of ideology.  Here, again, we find the same categorical thinking of "yes" or "no."  What we say now additionally will be at the core of our basic theory.  That is that, finally, in a categorical situation there are no possibilities of movement or choice except between these categorical opposites.  We may take our example from religion.  To define a Christian it is necessary to say that he is not a Muslim; and vice versa.  All religious disputes are categorical precisely because they are human disputes.  The issue is as simple as that.   What happens as humans become social is that the situations the people find themselves in are essentially categorical ones.  There is no choice in a given dispute or issue other than absolutely "yes" or absolutely "no."   In most disputes that there are in society there are only absolute answers when an animal, on the other hand, would have a partial and conditional solution.  But humans never do create categorical situations as such.  This point must be stated seriously and emphatically because it is at the core of our own Force Theory.  By saying merely "absolutely yes" or "absolutely no," either one, is sufficient by itself to create a categorical situation.  For the rest, any alternatives within that context would be absolutely this or that, never "in between."   Thus to say that "race" is wrong, categorically, is to put the speaker in a categorical relation to other persons who themselves are given a choice only to answer the absolute contrary.  We are following a course of history, I say, to "absolute race."  Force Theory is compelled, not by choice but by the context in which it exists, to say that race is absolute reality and reality is race.  Animals do not think this way.  Humans inevitably do.

The question arises, as it always has, regarding leadership of the Western World. The country which will lead will be both large and unified.   We look for direction and focus to a unified people with a central and focused idea of direction. The point I want to dwell upon here, most importantly, is that such an idea exists independent of any national ideology.  So that we are not concerned whether such a nation is New Left or fascist, either one.  The idea which will emerge to give focus is presently unconscious.    No one would know this, however, without certain intuitive powers and also some experience.     I raise the issue of America not out of any urge to take immediate action.  I believe now as always that events play themselves out, somehow, in ways that make human and conscious intervention irrelevant and pointless.  These and other thoughts I published on the webbsite I offended some Germans and caused them to call me Verfassungswidrig and banish me from their site.  One person commented:  this site is for Germans, you know.  I thought some discussion of our mutual roles in world events would be constructive.  Earlier I wanted to identify these Germans as "new left," people known for their intolerance of discussion.  I was wrong.  I think these people are like people everywhere today in the west, including (as per my reading of an ideologically diverse site from South Africa, where circumstances are egregious).   The word that fits is a German word, Zeitgeist.  In the meantime, before events play themselves out in reality, we can talk theoretically.  The issue of leadership will be raised again most certainly.  I believe, however, that no war--not even a small war--will be necessary to settle this issue.  I think we can comfortably pass from one century to the next without doubting that that the will of man--and nature--will be realized.

Last edited by richard_swartzbaugh (2010-10-26 17:07:12)