I am I supposed to unilaterally condemn anything to do with Adolf Hitler and his cronies, and the National Socialist Party and it's members - well fucking anywhere any time, really.
But that is a fruitless exercise in arse kissing to the collective stupidity.
Where you must conform to the common narrative.
Personally I have gone on a journey to see what Adolf had to say for himself by reading Mein Kampf - and that was a one way meal ticket into a book that the more I read, the harder it got to read, and the less I could read, until I got almost 1/3rd of the way through it, and I got to reading 2 or 3 sentences and had to put it down for 2 or 3 weeks..... Then I just had to quit reading it. It was the best of the worst books I had ever read. I can only describe it as being like drowing in ice cold mollassas, with an anvil tied around your neck. Just slow emotional death. It was exceedingly great in articulation and wordiness, but the emotional impact was one of initial significantly impressed, which devolved into repetition, to ranting, to this guy is fucking nuts, and this is insane.... To this day, I know enough in a general sense, on how to build and fly a Saturn 5 rocket to the moon etc., but my general ignorance doesn't match the smarts and labour of the 100,000 people it took to nut out all the issues and to build it and to make it fly....
And to this day, like running the Appollo Missions, I have fucking ignorace and a lack of experience, in abundance, for sure.
But also to this day, it's also absolutely beyond my comprehension as to how RESEARCHERS, were able to read their way through the whole fucking book. It's a great book, but it's a dreadful emotional impact. I DO recommend everyone borrow a copy from the local library and TRY to read it....
But in attempting to read it, I learned about the personality of Adolf, far more than I could have by reading other peoples opinions about him.
I learned a great deal.
I also had thought, although he and his co-conspiritors did many attrotious things, not everything they did was bad, insane, or evil, and not all the time.
And being a profoundly spiritual person, I have always wondered why no one ever prays for him, no one ever says thankyou for all the good things that he did do, and no one ever affirms the connection between the things what were done to him as a child, that he grew up with and did to the world.
Who were the people who went out of their way, to show him (in the abstract sense) that they cared about him?
So I for one refuse to bow down to the "We must all hate Adolf Hitler for all eternity", just because we are told we must, and I intend to spend the rest of my life showing that he did do good decent and kind things, as well as the attrocities.
Here is one of them, in this article.
The Forgotten Nazi History of ‘One-Pot Meals’
Officials believed the stews and soups had the power to unite Germany.
On the first Sunday of every month, they decreed, every German family should replace their traditional roast with a thriftier one-pot meal—an Eintopf, from the German ein Topf, or “one pot”—and set aside the savings for the charity drive. On those Sunday afternoons, collectors around the country knocked on doors to recuperate the money. Even families who didn’t want to cook were expected to join in: Restaurants were legally obligated to offer appropriately inexpensive Eintopf meals at a reduced rate on the designated Sundays.
At least initially, Eintopfsonntagen were quite popular. People seem to have enjoyed the challenge of finding meals that fit the bill, and the campaign raised hundreds of thousands of Reichsmarks for charity.
Its popularity was aided by extensive government efforts. As gatekeepers to the German kitchen, housewives and mothers were especially targeted. In time, a whole genre of cookbooks for these kinds of recipes appeared, bolstered by suggestions in magazines and newspapers for one-pot meals. Sauerkraut with lard and broad beans was a classic example—traditional, inexpensive German food that used scraps of meat to canny effect. The government even released children’s books about Eintopf and promotional photos of Adolf Hitler sitting down to a steaming pot of stew. The message was clear: Everyone is doing this, and participation is a national obligation.
(Insertion here - in the days where most people had to walk every where / use horses and carts / and do a lot of manual labour, LARD or animal fat was a HUGE source of flavour and ENERGY. It was used in everything, just like butter / cooking oils etc. Having had grand parents (born ~1880) who showed me how good the reused fat from roasts was, when spread on toast with a little salt and pepper - I know the stupid opinionated woman who wrote this article can't cook for shit. Sauerkraut or pickled and preserved cabbage, lard and broad beans - is a fucking wonderful feed - and it's a really good, nutritional TREAT.
It's wholesome, filling and absolutely top notch home cooked food.)
In fact, while Hitler officially supported the campaign, he probably did not participate privately. By 1937, he was known internationally as a vegetarian, and had likely been eating a mostly plant-based diet for some time. While Eintopf meals were occasionally meatless, they often featured some bacon or beef. On top of that, Hitler vacillated between preferring a raw diet—he blamed cooked foods for cancer—or extravagant vegetarian meals, occasionally set off with spoonfuls of caviar. Eintopf recipes, on the other hand, were wholesome plain, tasty stodgy and always served hot.
(this was writting by a compulsively revisionist femitard who has shit for brains and can't cook either)
"Fuck Grand Dad, your such an ace cook"
"This is so much better than the fucking over priced nutritional shit,
That our criminally negligent feminist mother gets for us at McDonalds"
But charity and thrift do not fully explain the Nazis’ zeal for one-pot meals. There was an equally important allegorical element: A single pot meal was democratic and accessible, blurring class lines and undermining bourgeois eating culture. All across the country, Nazi propaganda materials theorized, people of the same race would eat the same diet at the same time: common sacrifice for a common purpose. More than that, writes Alice Weinreb in Modern Hungers: Food and Power in Twentieth-Century Germany, “Cooking in ‘one pot’ (ein Topf) was supposed to symbolize the Nazi creation of ‘one people’ (ein Volk), the crafting of a delicious casserole by combining diverse ingredients analogous to the uniting of the various native German peoples into a single and self-sustaining whole.” (Of course, this so-called diversity—Prussian, Bavarian, Saxon—was as limited and homogenous as many of the suggested dishes.)
To take part in Eintopfsonntag, Germans had to experience deprivation for the good of the collective—a common, unifying Nazi theme. In a 1935 speech, Hitler castigated those who did not take part or give as much as they could to the Wintershilfswerk: “You have never known hunger yourself or you would know what a burden hunger is,” he said. “Whoever does not participate is a characterless parasite of the German people.” Those who greedily refused a day’s abstinence were said to be “stealing” from the collective. As one regional report put it, “Just as faithful Christians unite in the holy sacrament of the Last Supper in service of their lord and master, so too does the National Socialist Germany celebrate this sacrificial meal as a solemn vow to the unshakeable people’s community.”
What went into the country’s pots was equally symbolic. Eintopf recipes favored indigenous ingredients—root vegetables, dried fruit, German pork—and Nazi nutritionists claimed that the best way to nourish the Aryan body was through a racially appropriate diet. In practice, this meant German-grown potatoes and produce. One officially sanctioned cookbook was entitled: “Housewives, Now You Must Use What the Field Gives You! Healthy, Nourishing Meals from Native Soil.”
The aesthetic of Eintopfsonntag similarly drew from a kind of manufactured nationalist nostalgia. Outside of certain northern regions, Eintopf meals had not been popular before the campaign, and the word was unheard of before 1930. Yet publicity campaigns included sentimental images of one-pot meals, eaten in the trenches of the First World War, and rosy-cheeked peasant families tucking into bowls of stew. In the simplicity of an Eintopf meal, Nazis presented a romantic, bourgeois view of some radical, agrarian future.
Over time, however, people grew disillusioned with the campaign. The rich wanted their lavish roasts back, and the poor resented the loss of income. In the underground press, countercultural cartoons criticized the Eintopf obligation. “Which Eintopf dish is the most widespread in Germany?” asked one. The answer: Gedämpfte Zungen. Zungen means “tongues,” and Gedämpfte means both “steamed” and “silenced.” Eventually, amid the chaos of the Second World War, the campaign petered out.
In the end, however, Eintopfsonntagen proved more consequential than the Nazis likely anticipated. More than 80 years later, Eintopf dishes remain popular in modern Germany, and the word is still commonly used—though with scarcely a thought to its strange, racially charged origins.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This chick is so wrong about so many things - however...
So isn't that good.
Adolf was into GOOD big home cooked pots of stew that would feed heaps of people, and he was right into good nutritious meals, from good fresh home and locally grown ingredients.
He was into raising funds for charitable concerns by "the community" supporting "the community" especially the war wounded and similar, from World War 1.
What a noble sentiment:
“You have never known hunger yourself or you would know what a burden hunger is."
“Whoever does not participate is a characterless parasite of the German people.”
Though to be sure, I am not entirely convinced that the raising of the funds for the war wounded and the poor, while noble in sentiment, but they may have been lacking in fulfilment, being the pack of thieving, lying rouges that Adolf and his banker buddies were. I think that perhaps the funds raised went the way of the peoples car.
Though I will state, I have no records of the funds raised and where they went and how much either wholly or in part, actually made it through to the subjects of the fund raisers, and so I declare myself not to be an authority on the subject. I am saying that Adolf wasn't a complete and utter shit, with all things, all the time.
https://documentaryheaven.com/banking-with-hitler/
And the idea of everyone eating from a big pot is not new either....
Origin[edit]
The origins of this rhyme are unknown. The name refers to a type of porridge made from peas. Today it is known as pease pudding, and was also known in Middle English as pease pottage. ("Pease" was treated as a mass noun, similar to "oatmeal", and the singular "pea" and plural "peas" arose by back-formation.)
The earliest recorded version of Pease Porridge Hot is a riddle found in John Newbery's Mother Goose's Melody (c. 1760):[3]
- Pease Porridge hot,
- Pease Porridge cold,
- Pease Porridge in the Pot
- Nine Days old,
- Spell me that in four Letters?
- I will, THAT.[5]
Everyone ate from the pot as soon as pots were invented, 10 million years ago, just after roasting things on spits or in pits were a going concern, like as far as recorded history and beyond shows.
No comments:
Post a Comment