Posted on 11/30/2001 7:55:36 AM PST by Aquinasfan
Hitler's Search for the Holy Grail
When Steven Spielberg made a movie about an intrepid archaeologist’s fight to keep a precious and powerful artifact — the Holy Grail — out of the hands of the Nazis, it was not widely known that the tale was based on truth. There really was a Nazi archaeological unit and it did send teams across the world to try to find the Grail.
History meets Indiana Jones in HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL, a one-hour documentary airing on PBS Monday, November 27, 2000, 10:00 p.m. ET (check local listings). Host Michael Wood (IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT) explores how history was used as a political tool and how the theories of the Nazi historical department provided the ideology used by the SS (Schutzstaffel – "protection squadron") to justify genocide.
The program outlines how the racialist theories of the SS were drawn from archaeology, myth and legend, as well as selected history. Nazi ideas about "Aryans" and the "master race" came out of historical and ethnic fantasies in which legends such as the Holy Grail and the lost city of Atlantis — supposed to be a home of the Aryan race — played their part.
HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL contains rare and previously unseen footage, including
* color film of the Nazi expedition to Antarctica;
* film of the Nazi expeditions across the world, from the Baltic to Venezuela;
* footage of the 1938 expedition to Tibet, with the measuring of skulls of Tibetans;
* documentary evidence for expeditions to Peru, Iceland and Iran, and footage of SS chief Heinrich Himmler at archaeological sites.
The film conjures the eerie world that permeated the thoughts of key members of the Nazi leadership, especially Himmler, and shows how top scholars, some of them still alive, collaborated in this project.
HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL includes interviews with a former member of Himmler’s personal staff and the wife of a top SS commander, who give unique and unrepentant insight into the mentality of the Nazi inner circle. The program also includes a dramatic recording of the Nuremburg trial of Wolfram Sievers, the head of the SS Ahnenerbe ("Ancestral Heritage Society"), Himmler’s archaeological and historical unit. The Ahnenerbe’s task, according to Himmler, was "to restore the German people to the everlasting godly cycle of ancestors, the living and the descendants."
Himmler was a member of the Thule Society, an extreme nationalist group named after one of the mythical homes of the German people. It was the society’s almost mystical belief in the greatness of the German past — to which Himmler subscribed with fanatical devotion — that was to provide the intellectual ballast to Nazi belief in race and destiny.
The chief administrator of the Ahnenerbe, Dr. Wolfram Sievers, had been heavily involved in the criminal medical experiments that were carried out on Jews in concentration camps, all to prove racial differences and the superiority of the Aryan race. After Germany’s defeat in 1945, Sievers was brought before a war crimes tribunal, found guilty and sentenced to death. He was executed on June 2, 1948. The archaeological world of the Ahnenerbe died with Hitler, Himmler and Sievers; the Ahnenerbe, too, melted away. Many of its top archaeologists, however, returned, unpunished, to university life, only to re-emerge as leading academics in postwar Germany.
Day & time: check with your local station
Underwriters: Public Television Viewers and PBS. Producer: Maya Vision. Producer: Rebecca Dobbs. Director: Kevin Sim. Format: CC STEREO TV Calendar PBS Previews PBS Picks Telstar/C-band Schedule Primestar, Dish Network & DirecTV Schedule PBS KIDS Channel PBS YOU Schedule
Amazon.com Listmania Results
... 3. The Order of the Death's Head : The Story of Hitler's Ss (Classic Military History)
by Heinz Hohne, et al (Paperback - August 2001) Average Customer Review ...
had a number of tales about the influence of the occult in Hitler's regime.
No one said that evil isn't possible without demonic assistance, just that it's possible, and probable in some cases of extreme evil.
OTOH, it never ceases to amaze me when atheists speak of the way things should be. How do you get from "the way things are" to "the way things should be"? Isn't everything just matter in motion?
It also appears at the top of the symbol for the Theosophical Society.
That's a pretty broad conclusion. Leaves lots of room for the influence of other variables. Some postulated ones no doubt mutually exclusive, so all cannot be correct. Some, off the top of my head: he hated Jews because his grandfather was Jewish; he hated because he was raised Catholic; he hated because he embraced paganism; he hated homosexuals; he was homosexual; he had syphillis; etc.
No, that's doing it the MORAL way. If you are are a "hero" with the expectation that your self-sacrifice will lead to your death and oblivion, I consider you more heroic than one who faces death with expectation of reward for your actions. Anyone else who does good because they think it'll help them get into Heaven is far lower on the morality scale than someone who does good with either no expectation of eternal reward or even feels they are doomed to damnation anyway. Do right because it's right, How can you argue with that?
Of course, do it because it is right. The contents of the now-purged Western civilization courses included many tales of heroic deeds by non-Christians as well as Christians. (My daughter is taking classical civ. in grade school -- they learned a lot about the Greek and Roman eras). One problem is, how to determine what is right? If you don't hold to the 10 Commandments personally, you are operating in a culture formed over centuries of moral thought including Roman law, Greek philosophy, Jewish and Christian morality, scholastic philosophy, etc. With the counter influences of moral relativism and will to power (Nietzsche), neo-paganism, etc. Without standidng on someone's shoulders, it is going to be darn hard to figure out from scratch when push comes to shove, what IS the right thing to do?
Don't downplay the battle of conscience faced by someone like von Staufenberg. He was not all giddy to die and get to heaven. He had a family of young kids and another on the way. Not everyone agreed that assassinating Hitler was a moral option, so he wasn't guaranteed heaven; however, given dire necessity and the lack of alternatives, his conscience led him to go forward. (Soundly justified by my reading of the doctrine of self-defense for someone in a position of authority with the duty to defend others.) Too bad the coup did not succeed and he could have lived to see the better Germany he died for . . . and see his kids grow up in a better country. . . He did try to succeed, he did not try to martyr himself. Far more moral IMHO than going to death with heroic visions of glory . . .
Other than a difference in degree, perhaps, I don't think we disagree, except over the possibility of the existence of the supernatural. It is not unscientific to believe in the supernatural, and many scientists do. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural, since the tennants and methods of science are by definition of the material world. Nothing wrong with that either way. Metaphysics is its own ball game . . .
Not out there looking for demonic influences in coaching ball games, etc. . . . Just not ruling out the possibility of demonic influence on someone like Hitler, who was, after all (as numerous of these posts attest) actively courting it . . .
There is a lot to that . . .
Which does not negate the fact that praying to the true God with the humility to do good according to His will help one in doing true good . . .
So prayer can help one to do good. Now, can prayer help one to do evil? One example is those who intentionally pray for the power to accomplish evil ends. This includes the demonic discussed earlier on the thread. What about those who are deluded into thinking they are doing God's will when they are not? If you are a self-appointed prophet, ala Jim Jones, you might want to consider the source . . . At least he was not a threat to world civilization -- certainly not any more . . .
The 9/11 terrorists present a problem that our free societies will have to address: Muslim fundamentalists who kill in the name of Allah in disregard of a good part of the Islamic tradition. A dangerous and politicized branch from (as opposed to "of"?) a traditionally recognized monotheistic religion. Who speaks authoritatively for Islam? Every self-appointed mosque leader, who collects funds for killer terrorists and recruits same? Dealing with this real threat, in an environment of freedom of religion and separation of state from sanctioned religion (a hallmark of our modern democracies which Islam itself does not recognize) will not prove a trivial exercise.
Not totally without precedent. In the VietNam era, there were many claiming conscientious objection. Didn't the Selective Service only grant CO status to those who were members of religions which had a tradition of pacifism? So the State had to look at the long-standing religious doctrines of e.g. the Quakers and others . . .
The same will have to be done to separate the "wheat" of authentic Islam from the "chaff" of those who advocate terrorism. Not a task we'd like the State to have to perform. There is no central authority for all of Islam. But we got into this mess from immigration policies based upon moral relativism and multi-culturalism, not from sensible tolerance of differences in religious viewpoints . . .
Speaking of which: moral relativism has led us to the point that the Armed Forces tolerate wiccan practice as a "religion". There was a manual published some years back giving chaplains advice about wiccan (witchcraft) practitioners . . . Freedom of religion, I'm sure the Founders intended, was the freedom to worship God without state interference, not the freedom to exercise an anti-religion. (Note: I am not speaking of agnosticism). However, here we are . . .
My point was regarding a form of state sanction (via chaplaincy) of a version of "religion" that the founders of the Constitution certainly would not have recognized as being such. I am not advocating locking up wiccans as wiccans and don't see how you arrived at that implication.
I mentioned the sanction of wiccan practice because of your earlier posts on the thread in response to those who are concerned about the appeal of witchcraft and magic. You seemed to be rather dismissive of the reality or efficacy of such practice, but it does seem to have its adherents, does it not?
I used the term anti-religion in a descriptive, not doctrinal, sense. Sorry you took offense. However, I did not call you an ignorant bigot . . .
Maybe you could entitle it, "An acid test for 'the separation of Church and State' doctrine," or something more interesting. Great post.
No. Usually it is an effort to justify or absolve oneself from immorality, usually sexual. A good example would be the proto-socialist Rousseau, who abandoned his five children at an orphanage rather than take on his parental responsibilities.
When told by a man that he had "theological problems" with the Church, Bishop Sheen used to reply, "What's her name?"
Thanks . . . I do think it is something FReepers need to give a lot of serious thought to. This grand experiment, the United States, must find a way to protect civil society, yet tolerate broadly religious expression and our other guaranteed liberties . . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.