Look Who’s Back

Look Who’s Back is the English title for a German movie released in October of 2015. Dealing with the hypothetical return of Adolf Hitler in contemporary Germany, the film, based on a 2012 novel, was quite successful. While the movie reached the number one rank in Germany in the third week after its release, the book has sold over 1.4 million copies and has been translated into at least 41 languages.

After being mysteriously transported to the former site of his bunker in modern-day Germany, the Führer is taken for a comedian, quickly attracting a television role and many admirers. He expresses contempt for much of contemporary German society, including television and most political parties, although he sympathizes with the Green party out of a typical German love of the natural world.

Watching this film, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that it is not so bad to think or do something that Hitler would approve of. Not only nationalism and world domination, but also courage, nature, and Wikipedia are relevant to his interests. After embarrassing himself by shooting a small dog, Hitler even makes a donation to the cause of animal protection, another interest of the historical National Socialists. All this helps circumvent the modern fad of relating everything not politically correct to Hitler in an attempt to end discussion.

The author seems to agree that having something in common with Hitler is no cause for panic. In an interview in the Sydney Morning Herald he makes it clear that he believes existing depictions of Hitler are unrealistic. Hitler is portrayed elsewhere as either a monster or “the funny Hitler,” but “Most people wouldn’t think it possible that if they would have lived back then, they would have thought he was in some way attractive too.” One reviewer agreed that historical facts might be obscured by considering Hitler “either as a comic figure or as the incarnation of evil.”

Timur Vermes, the author of both the book and the script for the film, apparently had a sense of humor in that he priced the book at €19.33, a reference to the year of Hitler’s ascent to power. This was a response to his publisher’s suggestion of €19.45; he preferred to grant the work a lighter tone by referring a point in history when, as he put it, “you have some hint that maybe it could have ended better.”

The secretary Krömeier instructs Hitler in the use of computers.

While most Germans believe or at least hope that they would have been strongly opposed to Hitler had they been alive at the time, the film suggests otherwise. Not only are normal people impressed with him, but the people most hostile to Hitler are not exactly cast in a positive light. These include not only the conniving TV executive Sensebrink, at least initially, but also an old Jewish woman with dementia, as well as a freelance journalist with a severe case of cuckface. The latter, one Sawatzki, is the first to discover Hitler and initially sees him as a great opportunity.

Hitler is not impressed by what passes for “neo-Nazism” in modern-day Germany, including street protesters, vegan cooks, and officers of an unsuccessful nationalist party called the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany). Far from being able to construct the Fourth Reich, he remarks, “they can’t even build an Ikea shelf.”

Contemporary “Nazis” do not all think highly of the new Hitler either, although many express sympathy; two thugs ultimately assault and severely beat the Führer, not realizing his identity. In a reference to the National Socialist explanation for the loss of World War I, they accuse him of stabbing Germany in the back.

Krömeier’s grandmother makes reference to family killed in the Holocaust and screams at Hitler.

The newer and more prominent nationalist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is depicted, but not to tar them as pro-Hitler. The Führer is interested enough to meet with them, and their representative is portrayed complaining about the media characterizing the party as right-wing while Hitler himself is resting his head on his shoulder. However, rather than approving of them, he is sleeping because he finds their platform so boring.

Some scenes may have been attempts to make those who share Hitler’s concerns about immigration look ignorant. One man believes that the average IQ of African immigrants to Germany is between 40 and 50 and that the overall average IQ of his country has already dropped below 80. The actual average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated at between 67 and 82, although this is of course still far below the German average of about 102.

A video on YouTube features a song made from Hitler’s televised speeches.

For the most part, though, it is easy to agree with what Hitler and his new fans say about politics and society. Is being concerned about unemployment, cultural degeneration and a declining population objectionable or even unusual? His comments denouncing various social ills resonate with viewers, inspiring YouTube videos including “songified” speeches and dancing Hitlers.

Much of this movie is actually unscripted; the actor playing Hitler is interacting with typical Germans on the street. Many are happy to be associated with him, and some even give Roman salutes.

Miss Krömeier is excited when the Führer demands a proper greeting rather than being called “mister.”

Many women in the film obviously find Hitler exciting, including several of the non-actors as well as the scripted characters. Both the television executive Bellini and the young secretary Krömeier clearly demonstrate this. Upon first encountering Hitler, the younger woman is overjoyed at the opportunity to play a role and gives an enthusiastic Roman salute, complete with shouting. In contrast with Krömeier’s “good morning, my Führer,” one girl on the street greets Hitler with “may I hug you?”

The Führer is of course depicted as having flaws. He is quick to anger, and he even shoots an attacking dog which is too small to pose a real threat. After touching an electric fence as part of a courage-building effort with Sawatzki, he tries to deny that it hurts despite his obvious physical reaction to the shock. A similar hint of dishonesty is shown when Hitler tells Bellini that he inflated the numbers of an organization he founded, starting the count of German Worker’s Party members at 500 rather than one.

Hitler’s hatred for the Jews would of course be considered a more serious flaw by most contemporary Germans, and the matter is not omitted, but it is a relief that it is far from the focus of the film. He even tries to restrain it somewhat, speculating that although Miss Krömeier’s grandmother is Jewish, she herself may not be a pureblood Judin. This brings us the interesting phrase “the body can handle a certain amount of Jewishness.”

Hitler uses a slain dog as a prop for a joke to lighten up the drive.

Hitler also has a sense of humor, at times more so than Sawatzki. After Sawatzki tries to convince him that the word “nigga” blaring from his car stereo now means “friend,” Hitler decides to practice this new meaning of the word. He picks up the carcass of the dog he has just killed, holds it toward the journalist, and says “hey, nigga!” He even has the dog kiss Sawatzki, which despite being a lonely single man he does not appreciate.

There is an interesting statement here on the absurdity of the fantasy of going back in time and assassinating Hitler before his rise to power. In a sequence near the end of the film, Adolf is brought at gunpoint to a rooftop by a crazed Sawatzki, who has discovered that the “comedian” is the dictator himself.

Hitler is permitted to make a point here in response to Sawatzki’s accusation that “you are fooling people with your propaganda.” The Germans who voted for Hitler were not simply fooled by clever rhetoric, he explains. Instead they knowingly chose a leader who reflected their values.

In a movie based on his latest book, Hitler faces death at the hands of Sawatzki.

On the rooftop, the Führer responds to being called a monster by calmly uttering words to the effect of “if you condemn me as a monster, do you condemn all those who voted for me? They were ordinary people.”

What seems to be the end of the Führer, with a shaking “Sawatzki” shooting him in the face, turns out to be only a scene played by an actor in a silicone mask. Hitler has written a wildly popular new book, inspiring a movie in which he plays himself. This is the only point at which he seems to be defeated. He is confident that he will not be shot and displays a comical surprise when he is, as if to fulfill a fantasy of finally humiliating someone who seems untouchable.

However, Adolf inexplicably returns after his fallen body disappears, informing Sawatzki that Germans will never be rid of him. He represented something much greater than himself; as he puts it, he was “a part of all of you.”

Sawatzki is kept in a padded cell after an outburst concerning “comedian” Hitler’s true identity.

A further condemnation of the idea of assassinating Hitler is that the man who “kills” him is deemed insane. Attempting to convey the new celebrity’s true identity to Bellini in a violent outburst, the real Sawatzki attracts the attention of hospital staff and ends up in a mental asylum.

Near the end of the film Bellini is riding in a Mercedes with the Führer and a journalist asks her if she fears the rise of another Hitler. “Our whole history has been fixated on that for 70 years,” she responds. “Students are sick of hearing about the Third Reich. We should have a little faith.”

Out of context this would seem to be a variation on the theme of an old Allied propaganda poster: when you ride without Nazi guilt, you ride with Hitler. More likely the intended message was that rather than simply deceiving the population during his historical rise to power, Hitler rode with Germany and Germany rode with him.

Hitler surveys the political scene in Europe, including the migrant crisis and rising nationalism.

The film ends with footage of contemporary rallies and audio clips of more or less nationalist statements from Germany and other European nations, all of which Hitler seems to approve. In another film, this is could be taken as an attempt to smear all nationalism as the reincarnation of Hitler and thus evil. But even here, the viewer cannot be certain that the creators did not honestly worry about the rise of a new Führer. Hitler observes all of this nationalist activity and says, “I can work with this;” the current situation is one which a new Führer would be able to take advantage of.

Considering the film overall, though, it could not have been meant as simply a crude condemnation of nationalism or populism. It is hard to imagine any self-respecting White man disagreeing with statements like “People who come to Sweden should adapt to our lifestyle.”

The type of people who would support such a charismatic leader today would not be only fringe figures making outlandish claims. They would be normal people expressing patriotic views that large numbers of Germans already agree with.

Further, no modern-day leader has been magicked into the present from the time of the Third Reich. We have no guarantee that the new nationalism will end in a lost World War and a suicide in a bunker. Considering the ongoing issues discussed in the film, Germans today have reason to hope for something very different.

41 replies
  1. Joe
    Joe says:

    I saw it and I thought it was pretty funny. The actor, Masucci makes a great Hitler. We in the USA, seeing Hitler on the History channel every night (except for three nights out of the year for Stalin), are surprised to see a human being with foibles and self doubts. Who is this guy?Anyway Masucci comes across credibly and the  nationalistic speeches he makes fit our preconceptions and as I recall the speeches were not all about the wildly exaggerated “conquering the world”. He is a vastly different Hitler than the spittle spewing, sputtering shrieker on the Hitler..erh History channel. He is actually funny and the scenes where they drive him around(I assume Germany) and some give the finger, some jokers ‘Heil’  him, are very entertaining. The scenes look real but I do not know if it was a set up.All in all a funny movie, not some Gotterdammerung repeat.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      All the more entertaining that some of the Roman salutes are from (Turkish?) Gastarbeiter!

  2. Robert Henderson
    Robert Henderson says:

    The ran a dramatisation of the book so years ago. Very acute satire on the moral dishonesty of the post
    Nazi German mentality of constantly apologising for Hitler whilst harbouring resentment of the mentality. The BBC version was genuinely funny.

  3. Crush Limbraw
    Crush Limbraw says:

    Movies are entertainment which often substitute for history because they’re popular and the audience is gullible – willingly so. They also distract us from reality.
    I would normally not even comment on this, but my own research into Hitler from a variety of sources by various authors has accumulated into an archive in DaLimbraw Library. Here is a word search on HITLER – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Hitler&m=1 – these are just the headnotes on my mobile phone search which you can flip to BY DATE. I have read them all and discovered that what I thought I knew, wasn’t so. Takes some reading time.
    BTW – If you search PEARL HARBOR, unless you’ve read revised history, it will blow your mind. Hitler and PH are connected.
    Decide for yourself! Don’t believe me or anyone else.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      Can’t you just give us a quick highlights package of the mind-blowing Pearl Harbour story? Lot’s of us are just working peasants here, we haven’t the time to go hunting.
      From what I know, the Jap code was broke, Roosevelt set up those obsolete(since Taranto) battleships full to the gunnels with young American patriots, to be drowned alive as a lure to the Japs.
      Nothing like starting an aggressive war with a lie, a sadistic human sacrifice of your own men, and all to cover up for the shambolic disaster of your domestic policies, and to please those weird rich Middle Eastern people who seemed to always surround you.
      What’s tragic, there are honest Leftists of truth online like Jimmy Dore who actually still revere the bastard Roosevelt, and believe it was his centralisation policies that defeated the depression, and not the world war/human holocaust he started.

  4. Thaddeus
    Thaddeus says:

    What I find most interesting of all is the possibilities of what Adolf could have achieved in Germany, and Europe as a whole, if the Jewish incited Second World War had not been allowed to happen ?

    Through German innovation and technological superiority where would Germany, Europe and the rest of the world be today ?

    I truly think the entire world lost a charismatic leader who had a opportunity to create a better world for us all.

    • Bernard Smith
      Bernard Smith says:

      It’s painful to reflect on what might have been had we not destroyed our brothers in Germany, had we not fought on the side of the jewish communists.
      If Germany had won…..communism would not have spread over half the world and millions of lives could have been saved….the western world and all of Christendom would have blossomed….instead we have small hat subversion and degeneracy and misery and death.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “I truly think the entire world lost a charismatic leader who had a opportunity to create a better world for us all.”

      Good, but your wording is a bit off. Should be “I truly think the entire world lost a charismatic leader who WAS ROBBED OF THE opportunity to create a better world for us all.” Better yet: We were robbed.

      (And now we’ve been robbed even of the lesser figure of Donald Trump, through the *stolen* election. What won’t these people steal?)

    • Peter
      Peter says:

      Good comment. I think it’s safe to say Great Britain would still be great and Germany and France too. All three would still be great powers and China would not have surpassing the USA (if it hasn’t already) to be the leading power in the world and Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and other east Asian countries would not have surpassed Europe and the USA in almost everything. I think this can be said for certain.

      It was the destruction brought by the war and the anti-white postwar policies ushered in by the Jews that destroyed Europe and now the USA. As you said, the Jews started the war. And after the war they finished everyone off with the policies they had governments push through and their changing the cultures.

      The other thing is Jews would have a fraction of the power they have today. And that is why Germany’s disagreements with small countries (all created in 1919 from German and Austrian territory) became a world war. Jews did not want to be pushed out of Germany and Europe and forced to live on Madagascar, an island off the coast of Africa and any other country willing to take them in. Many or most European countries didn’t want the Jews. Can you blame them?

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      Have you heard of ‘German New Medicine’? I haven’t had the time to really study it, but it appears to be a holistic alternative to the Jewish/Rockefeller drug-pushing garbage that has morphed into the monstrosity of Big Pharma.
      They seem to start just before medicine was turned into just another evil Jewish money-grubbing scheme, and study the work of genuine healers going back millennia.
      In my view it’s extremely based & subversive that it’s called ‘German’ New Medicine(even if it does come from Germany).
      If these guys are right, and considering what we all know here, they probably are, and the Jews have destroyed thousands of years of European acquired knowledge in healing the sick, just to make money, considering we all understand what they’ve done to art, architecture, music, education, political theory, philosophy & God knows what else, if I was struck with some life-altering disease I’d stay the H away from the companies altering people’s genetics using aborted baby parts, and dive right into GNM. I’d suggest the same for anyone else.
      Anyone who believes they haven’t also sabotaged the STEMS need only look at Elon Musk’s ridiculous rocket exploding on landing recently. They are trying to sell the idea we’ve made zero improvements since the Nazis were doing better with their V1s under wartime conditions in 1944.

  5. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    I remember the film very well, I watched it twice. I enjoyed it very much. Of course, there are spiteful scenes, the worst one is the horrible one where Hitler murders the doggie, something ridiculous since everybody knows that Hitler loved animals passionately. Anyway, there are two wonderful scenes that in my opinion deserved highlighting.

    The first one is when Hitler appears in that awful TV show. The way he wins the public and his little speech is great. The second scene is when he goes to visit the HQ of that useless little “nationalist” party, I think is the NPD (an equivalent to the British UKIP, 100% “controlled opposition”), of course, the same thing applies to the pathetic “AfD”,

    BTW. the Jewish girl (Fraulein Kromeier) is gorgeous and the funny thing is she likes him! LOL

    A very funny film, made with tongue in cheek. BTW, the Italians made a silly version of it, actually almost a copy entitled “Sono ritornato” (I have come back) with Mussolini as the hero. Don’t waste your time watching it.

  6. Emicho
    Emicho says:

    It’s funny this film is reviewed here, some of us in the comments section were just discussing the relative absence of Adolf Hitler from a website devoted not to ‘white identity, interests, culture’, but really to the Jewish problem. Without the latter, there wouldn’t be any need for such a site. Or if there was, there would be no need to stick ‘white’ on the front of it.
    Considering the inter-galactic space that Hitler takes up in the mind of the average activist Jew, this seemed somewhat odd, in my view.
    I don’t know about most here, but it’s always struck my that Organised Jewry(OJ) is the problem, not the Jewish people themselves, let alone your average everyday Jew. It’s not his/her fault they are traumatised from birth to hate the goyim. And even so, the vast majority don’t take up the war against us.
    Without OJ, Jews would simply be a rather peaceable & agreeable people to live in your nation. Of course it would be better if they weren’t here at all, considering all the crime & sharp, selfish, nepotistic practice they engage in, but compared to the more immediate carnage inflicted on whites by other ‘guests’, they aren’t in the same league.
    All the really destructive Jews have been driven to degrade, pervert & destroy our civilisation, whether through music, fashion, films, art, architecture, literature, destruction of religion, suicidal political schemes, phyco babble & all the rest, by a deep, enduring, burning ethnic hatred of us.
    And every single one of these cancerous parasites have been promoted, fuelled & funded by OJ.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      The myriad of small organizations of all flavors points to a far broader base of support than you suggest.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        Yeah my point is OJ recruit from the Jewish community, they can do this easily considering the aforementioned trauma-induced brainwashing from birth, plus the unlimited supply of funds and opportunities to ‘get on’ provided to any Jew willing to take up their war.
        Even then, the activist Jews waging this war on us is still a small(ish) percentage of the Jewish population at large.
        But my point stands that none of this horror would exist if not for the source of the thing, which is the organised Jewish ‘community leaders’.
        Maybe we can’t break this bond between the two groups, and just like in all other times in history, the average Jew will end up suffering for the crimes of his leaders, history repeating itself again.
        It’s just a bit of a shame in my opinion.

  7. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    What a stupid article about a 6-year-old film made from a 9-year-old book that made a small sensation and was soon enough forgotten. I did not see the film nor did I read the book, and I started writing about Adolf Hitler in 2007. So I do know the huge gap between the real Hitler and the pure and unadulterated fictional character portrayed in the film.

    The reviewer wants to base his article the idea that this film offers a somewhat hidden alternative view of Hitler’s legacy. In truth both the film and review mainly reinforce the stereotypes and lies about Hitler, they don’t shake it up or really offer new perspectives.The only hint of that comes from the very timid suggestion that ordinary people might relate to him easily and that’s why he “rose to power” in the first place. And it could happen again!

    But “Hitler” will not “happen again.” Hitler should be dealt with in the past, with historical accuracy, not as a joke to gain cheap contemporary laughs. Adolf Hitler is one of a kind, he is not repeatable. To be able to present the real Hitler is instructive; all the rest is enemy propaganda. Here’s proof that this film falls into the category of enemy propaganda: Why doesn’t someone do a similar type ‘jokey’ film about FDR returning? There’s a lot of material to work with there!
    Alternatively, we could have Josef Stalin presented by an actor as comical. How about it?

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      Good, strong and true thoughts. You may have rained on a few of our parades with your comments, but TRUTH should always be embraced, even if it something we do not like.

      Thank you!

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      I haven’t seen the film either, and it looks like the guy they got to play our man was too tall, without really looking anything like him. If I was advising, I’d recommend some sort of light blue contacts or something to give our man those piercing eyes he absolutely got from his mother, and that everyone who met him commented on.
      It’s no news to us that if Hitler popped up in today’s world he would generate exactly the reaction you see in those street scenes. Normal people don’t hate Hitler, it’s just the elite & weirdo leftists. 99% of people would just be amused.
      I disagree with you in one respect though, in my view ANYTHING vis-à-vis Hitler that isn’t the same, boring old clapped out war propaganda or Jewish slime has got to be an *improvement*.
      I’ll know we’ve moved on when every image of Nazi Germany or AH isn’t accompanied by menacing music & parades of soldiers. They still pull this same crap whenever they show Russia, China, or North Korea. I do hope whenever these countries show America they show Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and Berlin or Hamburg from the air, circa 1945. It’s only fair.
      WWII is the only war I can think of that come it’s end, wasn’t immediately scrubbed by historians of all infantile atrocity propaganda.
      How long did WMD’s in Iraq last? How about Gaddafi handing out Viagra to soldiers for a planned rape spree in Benghazi? Nayira’s lies to sell the Gulf War? Thatcher’s Navel stupidity before the Falklands, basically encouraging Galtieri? The Domino Theory or Gulf of Tonkin lies in Vietnam? (I don’t include in this the NATO aggression on Serbia because no one understands, let alone cares, how that mess started, but it’s pretty well understood the EU didn’t want a rival federation, those states were to be gobbled up by Brussels, and the Americans just like bombing helpless people, much like Israelis do. I wonder if there is a connection?)
      Even WWI, more complicated than Yugoslavia but at least way more interesting, was straight away dug into by historians to try and figure out what the H happened, as long as the conclusion blamed the Germans, obviously, for political reasons. Even the Yellow Journalism that fuelled the original wars of American Empire were shown to be the garbage they were, in their day.
      Why exactly is WWII exempt? Again, ANYTHING that eats away at the ridiculous WWII myth has to encouraged. Humour is perhaps the most effective weapon against power, and AH is a cornerstone of the current elites’ power.
      You say “Hitler will not happen again”, and I agree with you, of course this is true, it’s gibberish, but that’s not the message the elites put out. They’ve been threatening us with Hitler’s return since 1945!
      It was the AH vibe that Trump embodied, and the common people reacted to, that had the Jews losing their minds over him.

      • Angelicus
        Angelicus says:

        Very good observations! I agree with you. It is sad that so many of our people do not have a sense of humour. The film is very ironic and thought-provoking. Of course, it has a negative message! But several people I spoke to about the film (and who are not fully aware of the Jewish problem) said things like: “Is nice to see Hitler not demonized for once” or “Hitler was not a monster, he loved his country”. Why do you think there is such non-stop propaganda against Hitler? Because if people are allowed to think by themselves many would realize all this is crap! Regards.

    • Al Ross
      Al Ross says:

      Herr Hitler’s falsified methodology ( thank you Prof Arthur Butz ) will not, of course happen again .

      But the eminently valid reasons for Herr Hitler’s objectives are more salient than ever.

      . However , it may still be possible, with political will, to come to a modus vivendi with Jews who wish to leave the countries they have made almost uninhabitable by their innate group self interest and hatred of our people.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        There might be something to that. Half the reason they are making our nations so unliveable is to encourage the rest of their brethren into Israel. It’s the exact same thing they did with Nazi Germany when they deliberately stirred up trouble for German Jews to induce them to move to Palestine.
        Hitler even said, I can’t remember if it was in Table Talk, that if they ever get their state, most of them won’t move there, as they prefer the parasitical life, and will only use their nation as a base of criminal operations.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        This is a reply to my comment above it. Yet it does not answer to it at all and instead suggests that Jews might “change their way of life or manner of living enough” to willingly agree to “leave our countries.” There has never been any sign of this occurring, nor does it connect with the above article or my comment, so it’s quite a head-scratcher as to why you’d write such a thing.

        Do you think such ‘political wil’l exists among any of the individuals you come in contact with here?

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          Plus the Jews have never had any ‘political will’ of their own in the last 2000 years to gracefully move on, recognising the chaos & mayhem they’ve always created everywhere they’ve even been.
          I think Voltaire suggested this ethnic group was so misanthropic that for the future safety & well being of human kind, they would have to be forcibly separated from the rest of us, before they created mortal danger to us all.
          Whites simply aren’t built with the will to do this, and no other ethnicity has the brains, so it’s looking like the best we can hope for is their mad world scheme to collapse under it’s own mania, and perhaps a hard core of clear headed whites could outsource this task to some group with the inbuilt cruelty to accomplish this task. The Final Solution the the Jewish Question probably always wasn’t going to be accomplished first time by one nation alone, it will need all whites working together, and that is exactly what the Jews themselves are backing us into doing.
          There’s always hope looking at it in certain ways.

  8. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    This article reminds me of what John F. Kennedy wrote in his diary in the summer of 1945:

    “After visiting these two places (Hitler’s two country retreats) you can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived. He had boundless ambitions for his country that rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.”

  9. Right_On
    Right_On says:

    Re “some even give Roman salutes” :
    The extended-arm saluting gesture was never an ancient Roman custom. The Italian nationalist poet Gabriele d’Annunzio originated its use in 1919.
    See Mark Felton’s YouTube video: “Nazi Symbols – The Story Behind the Imagery”

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      You are wrong. The salute was linked to the Romans by romantic Europeans for over two hundred years, thereby becoming an integral part of European mythology. It doesn’t matter if the Romans didn’t actually salute each other in this way, though no one can prove they didn’t.

      And some advice, don’t believe everything Mark Felton sais in his videos. He provides interesting and enjoyable information, but there is a reason he is heavily promoted by Jew Tube’s algorithm, and has corporate sponsors, it’s because he is a liar. A professional one.
      Unless *you* can explain to us all how someone could cover WWII, mostly Nazis, tell the truth, and still not have his channel pulled by YouTube?
      He is a coward and a greedy shill. With his talent he could gain an audience elsewhere without sticking to the ridiculous goody vs baddy BS we’ve been fed for near 80 odd years.
      These controlled opposition beta-males are worse than the damn Jews.

      • Angelicus
        Angelicus says:

        Hello Emicho: You have made some very good observations. Being of Italian descend and an admirer of the Roman Empire I had studied the origins of the “Roman salute”. There are some representations in Roman coins and bas-reliefs of soldiers or citizens saluting in that manner. Cicero mentions Octavius greeting Julius Cesar with a similar salute.

        It seems that the Romans performed this salute mainly on two occasions: the “aclamatio” (acclamation) and the “adventus” (arrival). The former was when a military/political leader was cheered by his soldiers or citizens. The latter was the salute with which the Romas greet the Emperor when he arrived.

        Later on, in the early XIX century, this idea was resuscitated by the neo-classical artists, like David in his famous *The Oath of the Horatii” (Louvre) and Pietro Benvenuti’s “The Oath of the Saxons” (Palazzo Pitti, Florence) where he depicted Saxon soldiers saluting Napoleon in 1806 in the so-called Roman style.

        So, as you said, it doesn’t matter if Mussolini invented it or not. It is an Aryan tradition. Regarding Mark Felton, he is another fellow who simply recycles the usual lies about WW2. Germans=War criminals / Allies=Good guys. No one with a bit of political common sense would regard this man as a valid source. He is just a guy who makes videos for god’s sake!

        • Ayrshireman
          Ayrshireman says:

          Fascinating post, Angelicus. I will certainly follow up your examples of primary evidence for the ancient origins of the Patriotic Salute. HBO’s series ‘Rome’ was made with a meticulous approach to historical accuracy in most things, and I knew for one thing that it wasn’t for nothing that the the men performed the Patriotic Salute in the series.

          Mark Felton is just another who knows that to make a buck on Youtube, you ‘play the game’ i.e. tell lies. He’s sold his soul for monetization.

          • Angelicus
            Angelicus says:

            Thank you for your kind words. Although there is no precise definition or mention of the so-called “Roma salute” in Roman literature, as I said, there is evidence of it in bas-reliefs and coins. However, in the end, it is completely irrelevant if it existed as such or not, although our self-appointed “expert” in Roman history (Pierre de Craon) thinks differently.

            It is ridiculous, to say the least, to give such importance to something like that. Who cares which was the origin of the Fascist salute or the Communist salute? Who gives a damn? Fascism and Communism were powerful ideas that shaped the XX century and changed the course of history. It is the ideas on which we have to focus, not on the origins of their symbols, these were/are mere external manifestations of allegiance to them.

            Only an idiot desperate to show off his “knowledge” or “scholarship” would make an issue of such a pathetic detail/subject.

            Have a good day!

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            I’m glad you see Felton for what he is, Angelicus is FAR too kind.
            Everything about Felton’s videos gives off vibes that this is REAL history, when much of it is, but the way he refuses to jettison the garbage WWII propaganda makes him a fraud, a menace and an extremely useful tool for the hostile elites.
            It would be interesting to know where he gets all this information, I would bet the farm he’s just a front man and those videos are produced by the British security services.
            Thinks about it. Why weren’t all those ghastly spy buildings symbolically hauled down at the end of the Cold War? Who was now the enemy? Ask yourself, what exactly are all those people doing in those huge buildings(plus the ones we don’t know of) all day?
            The biggest threat to British sovereignty is the USA, then the EU. And our nation is simply a colony of these empires.
            British ‘sovereignty’ is a joke already.

            For anyone slow out there: they are now in a cold war with the British people.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Commenter Right_On might be wrong in thinking that d’Annunzio originated the misnamed Roman salute—that is, rather than that he merely promoted its use either alone or in cahoots with other early Fascist planners and theorists—but he is certainly correct in writing that there is no evidence of any sort linking the gesture to the ancient Romans. If Mark Felton—of whose person and video I know nothing—is relevant to the absence of evidence, perhaps someone would explain how.

        Fifty and more years ago, the two most eminent Latin scholars I ever knew told me that nowhere in Latin literature or history was there any concrete indication of what manner of posture or gesture was employed either to salute a superior officer or to show due deference to the emperor (i.e., during the imperial era). In the latter case, evidently there are strong indications that, in the later empire, genuflecting or kneeling was taken for granted, but it would be risible to imagine a soldier or a subaltern thus saluting a superior officer in the field or in any other situation where efficiency and discretion were requisite.

        The fact that Emicho can make light of the significance of the plain truth with a dismissive “it doesn’t matter” is most revealing. Airy assertions about romantic Europeans, even without mention of David’s famous painting of the Horatians’ oath, may strike him as clinching his case, but others will notice that he casually assumes that precisely the points that are in question have already been proved! I for one shall take Emicho’s attitude as an instruction in how best to treat all his own opinions and claims.

        • Al Ross
          Al Ross says:

          Apropos Classical practice , Boris Johnson’s politics so displeased his Ancient History tutor , that the Oxford Professor sent him a ”renuntiatio amicitiae” which was , as you may know , an Imperial invitation to exile or suicide.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            With respect to “as you may know”: Fifty-plus years ago, I knew well what the renuntiatio was. Thanks to your reminder, Al, I now know it again!

            Fortunately for Boris, Professor Murray’s rebuke doesn’t have the same consequences that Tiberius’s would surely have had. Whether his gain is Britain’s loss is a question that this particular Yank is glad to leave to one of Albion’s sons for an answer.

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          Lol, *you* don’t know the “plain truth” any more than I do, Mark Felton does, that bloke above does, who got his stuff off of Wikipedia, your two unnamed “eminent Latin scholars” do, or anyone bloody else!
          The point in question HAS been proved!
          Europeans adopted & took the Roman salute as their own! Do yo deny this?
          It wasn’t simply some scary ‘fascist’ stance to terrify those poor Jews.
          Mr Wikipedia & Mr Fraud . . . I mean Felton, are pushing distortions and lies. An interesting question would be why.
          What exactly is it your are struggling with here?

          But I for one will most certainly take Pierre de Craon’s opinions and claims on their own merits, in good faith. But I will be generous and take his inability to get his head around an extremely simple argument, not as the blathering’s of a fool, but more likely the early onset of creeping senility.
          I’m sure Mr de Craon must have possessed intelligence once, as I believe him when he boasts & impresses us all of knowing “two most eminent Latin scholars”.
          That really blew me away sir, as we all understand that they couldn’t possibly be wrong.
          Perhaps you could settle some of our other arguments, by regaling us with tales of eminent Greek scholars, or the time you got drunk in 1952 with a master of indo-caucasion linguistics?

  10. bruno
    bruno says:

    In the 1930s it’s been alleged that more people read newspapers in Germany than the combined newspaper readers of England, Italy and France. Whatever, the country was the leader in the production of steel and many other vital elements. Berlin was a thriving metropolis. I have always believed -and at times have been punished for such expression- that if there had been no Eurocide II today Germany would be a world leader and (2) we wouldn’t be facing many of the harmful anti-majority indoctrinations, laws, facts that prevail. The second Civil War of EuroMan was more harmful to our people than all conflicts combined.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      If you are ever in an argument about progress(usually with a leftist who truly believes we have been progressing these last 75 years), and are obviously bored by the stupidity this, a quick way to win & end this, is to direct yon leftist moron to the local library and have a look at the newspapers the common, working man was reading 100 years ago.
      Then compare that with The Sun, The Star & The Daily Sport of today. End of argument.
      And with women it’s even worse. Back then, they read novels religiously, now they don’t read at at all, the just stare at picture magazines like toddlers, of other woman’s cellulite, boyfriends, weight loss/gain, plastic surgery disasters and cloths.
      The woman of our underclass have actually been de-literalized, if they ever actually were taught to read at what they call ‘schools’ in the UK. This is quite an achievement.
      If there is one thing our hostile elite truly excel at it’s destruction.
      Talk about preparing a population for slavery.(And where has feminism been while this catastrophe has unfolded, one wonders?)
      P.S. Before 1933, Weimar Berlin was almost as depraved as we are now, everywhere. Almost.

  11. Ray Caruso
    Ray Caruso says:

    The Third Reich only ended as it did because Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union. No internal forces within German society could have removed Hitler. In fact, he was able to hold on to power even in the face of catastrophic military defeat. That’s how attuned the German people were with Hitler’s vision of a strong and proud Germany, one free from the presence of obnoxious aliens. By contrast, the ideology of modern Germany—and, of course, that of the US as well—revolves around worshiping aliens, and the more obnoxious and unfit the aliens are, the more they are to be worshiped.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      He had to invade the Soviet Union, he had no choice, because Stalin was on the brink of invading Western Europe.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        One other reason among many that the German people stuck it out to the bitter end with Adolf wasn’t the dumb, BS story we’ve been propagandised with, i.e. they were all ‘hypnotised’ with his , , , well, they never quite say, do they? But because they could see with their own eyes, the never before seen nor equalled unbelievable improvement he made in just about every German person’s life, circa 1933-40.
        He did this quite simply by withdrawing from the international Jewish financial system of slavery & putting the unemployed to use in public works.
        One of the greatest evils of our time is the way the people who the government have no use for are just abandoned on a sort of medical pension, called PIP in the UK, and forgotten about. I’ve lived among this class of people for a decade, and it’s one of the cruellest things I’ve ever seen. They all end up on heroin because at least that gives you a purpose. A reason to get out of bed in the morning.
        First they took the peasant’s religion, then they took their purpose for existence, then they blame them for the mess of their lives. It’s a level of sadism that is hard to comprehend, and is why I advocate for a return of workhouses.
        There is no more reason these institutions would be dogged by exploitation and sexual abuse than any other human structure, like the BBC or Catholic Church.
        I mention this last bit, as although off topic, it is a site for the restoration of our people is it not, and middle class folks have no idea of this human carnage inflicted by just abandoning these people.
        At least National Socialism was for the people, democracy/freedom is simply for the (((bankers))).

  12. Al Ross
    Al Ross says:

    Pierre C , I am mildly surprised that you show signs of not apprehending the fact that , as one reaches vintage status , being told what one already knows is a daily occurrence.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      As with much else, Al, not excluding surprise, it’s a matter of degree of likelihood. The successful horse player is perhaps history’s truest guide to wisdom.

Comments are closed.