Socialist Laments

Antifascist and socialist monuments pervaded the landscape of the former German Democratic Republic (1949-89), presenting a distorted vision of the national past. Official commemorative culture in East Germany celebrated a selective set of political heroes, seeming to leave no public space for mourning those who were excluded from the country's founding myths. Socialist Laments: Musical Mourning in the German Democratic Republic examines the role of music in this nation's memorial culture, demonstrating how music facilitated the expressions of loss within spaces of commemoration for East German citizens. Music performed during state-sponsored memorial rituals no doubt bolstered official narratives of the German past. But it simultaneously provided an outlet for mourning in highly politicized environment. The book presents both a history and theory of musical mourning in East Germany. Using a site-specific approach to analysis, author Martha Sprigge demonstrates how the multiple semantic networks opened up by these musical works facilitated many memorial associations without necessitating the overt articulation of a mourned subject. Throughout the country's forty-year existence, music offered East German citizens an audible outlet for working through traumatic losses-both collective and individual-that was distinct from other artistic expressive possibilities. The book reveals the ways that East Germany's extensive commemorative repertoire helped composers, performers, and audiences navigate between the inevitable need to mourn on the one hand, and the seeming impossibilities of mourning on the other.

As one of the most significant and widely performed composers of the nineteenth century, Brahms continues to command our attention. Rethinking Brahms counterbalances prevailing scholarly assumptions that position him as a conservative composer (whether musically or politically) with a wide-ranging exploration and re-evaluation of his significance today. Drawing on German- and English-language scholarship, it deploys original approaches to his music and pursues innovative methodologies to interrogate the historical, cultural, and artistic contexts of his creativity. Empowered by recent theoretical work on form and tonality, it offers fresh analytical insights into his music, including a number of corpus studies that interrogate the relationships between Brahms and other composers, past and present. The book brings into sharp focus the productive tension that exists between the perceived fixedness of musical texts and the ephemerality of performance by considering how historical and modern performers shape established understandings of Brahms and his music. Rethinking Brahms invites the reader to hear familiar pieces anew as they are refracted through historical, artistic, and philosophical prisms. Bringing us up to the present day, it also gives sustained attention to the resounding impact of Brahms's compositions on new music by exploring works by recent composers who have engaged deeply with his oeuvre. Combining awareness of overarching contexts with perceptive insights into Brahms's music, this book enlivens our understanding of Brahms, providing a dynamic, multifaceted, complex, and invigoratingly fresh portrait of the composer.

In his 1970 introduction to Lament for a Nation, Professor George Grant modestly expressed doubt whether his study had an enduring importance beyond the particular circumstances occasioning its appearance.

What is happening to our country? This question is heard more and more frequently these days as Americans worry about the unrelenting attacks by so-called progressives on the foundation, core values, and history of our nation. Nobody is more concerned than those Americans who volunteered to serve in uniform and willingly put their lives on the line to protect the United States and all it represents. Based on interviews by the authors, this book explains why many of our American heroes believed in and loved our nation enough to go into harm’s way to defend it, and why so many of them now question if America is still the country they fought for. More importantly, it asks—is America still worth fighting for?

Almost everyone (including every "scholar") refers to Hitler as "Nazi" or "Fascist" and not "Socialist." Educational Outreach Programs (EOPs) inspired by Dr. Rex Curry's work are the only services that inform ignorant scholars that "Hitler self-identified as Socialist. He did not self-identify as Nazi, nor as Fascist". No one else provides this vital public awareness. So, if you ever see a sentence like the following one then you know it was from EOPs for Dr. Curry's work: "Hitler didn't call himself Nazi or Fascist, he called himself socialist". The linguistic EOPs above led to many amazing historical discoveries, including revelations about Anne Frank’s Diary; Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”; Sophie Scholl’s White Rose group; Joseph Goebbels’ “Der Nazi Sozi”; Martin Niemoller’s verse “First They Came For the Socialists”; the swastika symbol; the hexagram (Star of David); and much more! Except for the American Historian Laureate Dr. Rex Curry, every other historian did not see how the USA’s Pledge of Allegiance led to Nazi salutes and Nazi behavior; and how the original pledge’s use of the military salute led to the Nazi salute. Also, historians did not see the similar symbolism of Adolf Hitler's NSV, SA, and SS logos, as compared with the logo of Hitler's party: the National Socialist German Workers Party. Even today, only exceptional scholars with extraordinary skills (e.g. Dr. Curry) are able to discern the “S”-letter shape of the NSV’s logo (The National Socialist People's Welfare; in German: Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt). The "S" symbolism is almost as difficult to perceive as in Hitler’s Hakenkreuz (hooked cross). It is as undetectable as in the symbols for the SS and SA (Schutzstaffel and Sturmabteilung). All historians did not see (other than Dr. Curry) how Hitler used his party's symbol to represent "S"-letter shapes for "SOCIALIST." Do you not see? Professor Curry transformed the culture of India along with Hinduism and Buddhism. Before Dr. Curry’s discoveries, Buddhists and Hindus published complaints that “Hitler stole their swastika symbol and ruined it and they want to restore respect for their ancient symbol.” Educational Outreach Programs (EOP) about Dr. Curry’s work taught India’s commentators that Hitler’s symbol was not a swastika, and that Hitler never called it a swastika. An upheaval occurred among Buddhists and Hindus in their objections. Now they proudly assert: “Hitler called his symbol a Hakenkreuz (hooked cross), not a swastika. It was not the same symbol. Dr. Curry told us!”

Lenin’s swastika is exposed for the first time herein. The impact of Vladimir Lenin’s swastikas was reinforced at that time with additional swastikas on ruble money (paper currency). The swastika became a symbol of socialism under Lenin. It’s influence upon Adolf Hitler is explained in this book. Lenin predated Hitler, but Lenin’s raison d'être was that other German, Karl Marx. Hitler and Marx are always trending on the internet (and that is not the case for Lenin). Ideas from the Deutschland duo are adored and repeated often on social media and by the mainstream media (MSM). Marx was glorified in the 2018 video “Chinese President Xi Jinping delivers speech on anniversary of Marx’s birth.” In the embarrassing homage, Xi openly drooled over the western male racist socialist. It is reminiscent of Lenin’s reverence for Marx. A larger-than-life portrait of Marx hangs next to the outdated hammer and sickle symbol that China parroted from Lenin’s Soviet socialism. How humiliating. China is led around by its nose tied to the same old German who influenced Hitler. Of course, China has the largest population (billions) who self-identify the same as Hitler: SOCIALIST (that is also the same way that Marx and Lenin self-identified). Is there any other country of that size that openly worships a foreigner as their great white savior? The books of Marx and Hitler were once considered too dangerous for the general public. But Mein Kampf was a bestseller as recently as 2017. Its popularity grows worldwide. It has always been one of Amazon’s better-selling book titles. America’s love affair with German philosophy stretches back to the mid-1800s, and farther. Many Americans struggle to bring Germany’s past into the present at every election. MSM polling reports that 70 percent of millennials say they would vote for a candidate who self-identifies the same as Hitler (2019 YouGov poll). Two politicians in the USA (Alexanderia Ocasio Cortez -AOC- & Bernie Sanders -BS) boastfully self-identify the same as Hitler: SOCIALIST. They also admire Lenin and Marx. Other politicians gladly adopt and repeat the same ideas even if they are too dishonest to admit that they are socialist. According to another report, 60 percent of Millennials (age 24-39) support a “complete change of our economic system.” Lenin, Marx, and Hitler were anti-bourgeois and advocated revolution. Many Americans long for the same revolutions. The ideas of the beloved Deutschland duo (Marx and Hitler) continue to grow in popularity. Germany’s two top white male racist political philosophers stay in vogue even though their policies remain a mystery. For example, the following facts (with credit to the archives of the historian Dr. Rex Curry) will come as news to most readers: 1. Hitler and Marx were popular in the USA. Two famous American socialists (the cousins Edward Bellamy and Francis Bellamy) were heavily influenced by Marx. The American socialists returned the favor: Francis Bellamy created the “Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag” that produced Nazi salutes and Nazi behavior. The Bellamys were American national socialists. For more on that advance to chapter 6 on “Bellamy salutes.” 2. The classic military salute (to the brow) also contributed to the creation of the Nazi salute (with the right-arm extended stiffly). 3. The Bellamy cousins promoted socialist schools that imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. 4. Hitler and his supporters self-identified as “socialists” by the very word in voluminous speeches and writings. The term "Socialist" appears throughout Mein Kampf as a self-description by Hitler. 5. Hitler never called himself a "Nazi." There was no “Nazi Germany.” There was no “Nazi Party.” Those terms are slang to hide how Hitler and his comrades self-identified: SOCIALIST. 6. Hitler never called himself a “Fascist.” That term is misused to hide how Hitler and his comrades self-identified: SOCIALIST. 7. The term “Nazi” isn’t in "Mein Kampf" nor in "Triumph of the Will." 8. The term “Fascist” never appears in Mein Kampf as a self-description by Hitler. 9. The term “swastika” never appears in the original Mein Kampf. 10. There is no evidence that Hitler ever used the word “swastika.” 11. The symbol that Hitler did use was intended to represent “S”-letter shapes for “socialist.” NEW DISCOVERY: That is why Hitler changed the name of his party. It was imperative that the party’s name include the word “socialist” so that it would coordinate with Hitler’s party emblem. 12. Hitler altered his own signature to reflect his “S-shapes for socialism” logo branding. 13. Mussolini was a long-time socialist leader, with a socialist background, raised by socialists to be a socialist, and he joined socialists known as “fascio, fasci, and fascisti.” 14. Fascism came from a socialist (e.g. Mussolini). Communism came from a socialist (e.g. Marx). Fascism and Communism came from socialists. 15. German socialists and Soviet socialists partnered for International Socialism in 1939. They launched WWII, invading Poland together, and continued onward from there, killing millions. Soviet socialism had signed on for Hitler’s Holocaust. 16. After Hitler’s death, Stalin continued the plan he had made with Hitler for Global Socialism. Stalin took over the same areas that Hitler had captured. He used the same facilities that Hitler had used. Hitler’s Holocaust never ended. Stalin replaced Hitler. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, and other tyrants were influenced by propaganda in the USA, including the childish American socialists Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy. Both Bellamy cousins wanted government to take over all schools, to teach socialism to all youngsters worldwide.