Page 138 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 138
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
lurking is the danger that the real relevance and the historical gravity of
the Nazi atrocities would pale into insignificance as a result of the hyper-
trophy of analogies with Hitler. However, Godwin’s discovery does little
to explain people’s desire and need to sympathise with the Nazi regime. In
fact, the fascination with Hitler is diametrically opposite to Godwin’s law
and may be paraphrased in the following rule: as the discussion on the ref-
ugees grows, why the parallel rise in probability that a person would men-
tion Hitler as a potential solution?
If the first type of discourse on fascism can be labelled reductive,
since it minimizes the significance of fascism and attributes the relevant
discussion with a certain self-blinding tendency, or even draws parallels
between the purposes of anti-fascism and fascism: that is a fetishist ex-
clusion of the Other, then the next type is imitational. Meaning that fas-
cism, including the fascination with Hitler, can only be virtual, satirical,
»unreal«, perhaps pedagogical, and containing elements of parody. In
this type, imitations of the Führer function most often to amuse, or pro-
vide a current social critique at best, but never serve to approve or foster
fascist belief. Contrary to Žižek’s reading, under which the marker is too
hastily employed, this reading reduces the marker to a mere tool for con-
sideration: a good example of such imitational discourse is the 2015 David
Wnendt film titled Er is wieder da, a satirical parable on the return of
Hitler in the twenty-first century, his resurfacing among the Germans,
who convivially embrace him, and who, in return, delivers a number of
grievous remarks about the society. Wnendt, perhaps in order to promote
the film, even decided to engage in a small-scale psychological experi-
ment and sent the male lead, Oliver Masucci, out on the streets of Berlin
(Drury, 2015) with a surprising result: people pulled him over to take self-
ies and begged him to re-introduce concentration camps – 2015 marked
one of the high tides of the refugee crisis in Germany – and support right
wing movements in Germany.
In this second type of discourse on fascism, Hitler is still perceived as
a pop icon, rendering the fascination with his personae not entirely attrib-
utable to the existence of fascist beliefs. Sometimes, Hitler is the source of
material for comedy, featuring online in the form of various memes, with
the emphasis on the interplay of incongruity and the search for amuse-
ment. The World Wide Web has made possible numerous visual, graph-
ical and textual depictions; one noteworthy example is a scene from the
2004 German film Der Untergang, featuring a dramatic performance by
Bruno Hanz as Hitler, which has been imitated profusely. Published on
Youtube, the videos invariably alter the scene’s context by subtitles play-
ing out different variations of social events so as to further the agenda of
136
lurking is the danger that the real relevance and the historical gravity of
the Nazi atrocities would pale into insignificance as a result of the hyper-
trophy of analogies with Hitler. However, Godwin’s discovery does little
to explain people’s desire and need to sympathise with the Nazi regime. In
fact, the fascination with Hitler is diametrically opposite to Godwin’s law
and may be paraphrased in the following rule: as the discussion on the ref-
ugees grows, why the parallel rise in probability that a person would men-
tion Hitler as a potential solution?
If the first type of discourse on fascism can be labelled reductive,
since it minimizes the significance of fascism and attributes the relevant
discussion with a certain self-blinding tendency, or even draws parallels
between the purposes of anti-fascism and fascism: that is a fetishist ex-
clusion of the Other, then the next type is imitational. Meaning that fas-
cism, including the fascination with Hitler, can only be virtual, satirical,
»unreal«, perhaps pedagogical, and containing elements of parody. In
this type, imitations of the Führer function most often to amuse, or pro-
vide a current social critique at best, but never serve to approve or foster
fascist belief. Contrary to Žižek’s reading, under which the marker is too
hastily employed, this reading reduces the marker to a mere tool for con-
sideration: a good example of such imitational discourse is the 2015 David
Wnendt film titled Er is wieder da, a satirical parable on the return of
Hitler in the twenty-first century, his resurfacing among the Germans,
who convivially embrace him, and who, in return, delivers a number of
grievous remarks about the society. Wnendt, perhaps in order to promote
the film, even decided to engage in a small-scale psychological experi-
ment and sent the male lead, Oliver Masucci, out on the streets of Berlin
(Drury, 2015) with a surprising result: people pulled him over to take self-
ies and begged him to re-introduce concentration camps – 2015 marked
one of the high tides of the refugee crisis in Germany – and support right
wing movements in Germany.
In this second type of discourse on fascism, Hitler is still perceived as
a pop icon, rendering the fascination with his personae not entirely attrib-
utable to the existence of fascist beliefs. Sometimes, Hitler is the source of
material for comedy, featuring online in the form of various memes, with
the emphasis on the interplay of incongruity and the search for amuse-
ment. The World Wide Web has made possible numerous visual, graph-
ical and textual depictions; one noteworthy example is a scene from the
2004 German film Der Untergang, featuring a dramatic performance by
Bruno Hanz as Hitler, which has been imitated profusely. Published on
Youtube, the videos invariably alter the scene’s context by subtitles play-
ing out different variations of social events so as to further the agenda of
136
