Part 1, the Futurist Apocalypse is Now

Richard Stanley

Administrator
How do you see Zardoz's and your words above in terms of the thread topic Jerry?

I see the 'reactionary', knee-jerk reactions of Rayne and Eureka as being typical of the Machiavellian schema of the artificial False Dialectic(s) imposed upon us. This creates an environment that leads to such circular firing squads, where people, today's Helots, place false hopes in governing systems that were, in reality, corrupted from their beginnings, subsequent reforms and superficial 'liberalizations' being co-opted from their respective foundations or soon after implementation.

Thus, by keeping the victims shooting at the wrong targets and providing them fake and defective alternative worldviews they are doomed to only leave the frying pans for the pots. The global stage magic of the Futurist New Age only becomes possible if most everybody, right, left, or otherwise believes such is impossible, working much like the Big Lie.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
How do you see Zardoz's and your words above in terms of the thread topic Jerry?
While Rayne and Zardoz were talking about men's dominance over women, the Nazi phenomenon can be viewed as an extreme example of a dominance hierarchy on a national or international scale. It works so well, at least partly, because it takes advantage of primate dominant-submissive instincts.

In times of high social stress, when existing systems are breaking down and resources are becoming scarcer, the authoritarian message becomes more powerful. Moussolini's famous promise to "keep the trains running" was recently repeated by a spokesman of the increasingly authoritarian Republican Party:

The Senate, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 93-7, passed a bill to fund almost the entire US federal government for the coming year. And 80 percent of that bill—$675 out of $854 billion—consisted of military spending, a $60 billion increase over last year’s military budget.

Given that the passage of the bill was neither mentioned on any of the national evening news programs, nor appeared on the front pages of any major newspaper, it would be surprising if one in a hundred Americans knew about its passage. And this is exactly as intended.

In a revealing statement, Republican Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby hailed the passage of the bill, declaring, “We are going to make the appropriations trains run again.” It was, to say the least, a peculiar metaphor. A Google search for the phrase “make the trains run” brings up only references to the Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, who, as the saying goes, “made the trains run on time” by trampling democratic procedures underfoot. (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/20/pers-s20.html)
Not that increased military spending is likely to help many people in their day-to-day lives. But the authoritarians depend on the perception of effectiveness, rather than any reality. What they are effective at is war, and preparing for war, both negative sum games.

The drive towards a feudal social structure is also driven by basic power dynamics of civilization. Andrew Bard Schmookler explained this in his book "The Parable of the Tribes" which came out in 1984.

Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what if all but one choose peace, and that one is ambitious for expansion and conquest? What are the possibilities for the others when confronted by an ambitious and potent neighbor?

  • Perhaps one tribe is attacked and defeated, its people destroyed and its lands seized for the use of the victors.
  • Another is defeated, but this one is not exterminated; rather, it is subjugated and transformed to serve the conqueror.
  • A third seeking to avoid such disaster flees from the area into some inaccessible (and undesirable) place, and its former homeland becomes part of the growing empire of the power-seeking tribe.
  • Let us suppose that others observing these developments decide to defend themselves in order to preserve themselves and their autonomy. But the irony is that to defend successfully against a power-maximizing aggressor, a society must have sufficient power. For power can be stopped only by power. And if the threatening society has discovered ways to magnify its power through innovations in organization or technology or martial ferocity (or whatever), the defensive society will have to transform itself into something more like its foe in order to resist the external force.
I have just outlined four possible outcomes for the threatened tribes: destruction, absorption and transformation, withdrawal, and imitation. In every one of these outcomes the ways of power are spread throughout the system. This is the parable of the tribes.

At his website http://abetterhumanstory.org, Schmookler complains that in spite of the fact that he is a Harvard summa cum laude graduate, and in spite of the fact that his book was reviewed in the New York Times, nevertheless his idea has had little or no detectable impact. He says:

Neither when the book was published, nor any time since, has the intellectual world dealt with the idea. This thesis – which shook me to the bones in 1970, and which I sought over many years to argue compellingly — has basically been ignored.

By that I mean that:

  • No one ever refuted the argument, no one ever did the least damage to the basic thesis;
  • No one ever made any case for the idea that — even if the idea were valid — it wouldn’t be any Big Deal.
.....

But despite all that. This idea just floats out there. It has always had its enthusiasts, but it has never having permeated the culture to any but a most marginal extent. My impressions is that among those prominent in the intellectual world, and who deal with the Big Deal ideas of social thought and theory of history, no one has given Schmookler’s “parable of the tribes” any thought at all.

This story raises some non-trivial questions about how our intellectual world functions.

The analysis at this website about elite influences on academic power dynamics, might shed some light on Schmookler's "non-trivial questions". But aside from that, I agree with Schmookler that this is a very important idea.

Since we know that the primitive societies that emerged in response to this dilemma were all hierarchical and authoritarian, one can only conclude that such authoritarian societies must have been the most effective in terms of military power. Any progressive social evolution that has taken place since early times, must have arisen because of its contribution to power (or at least, without being an important detriment to such power.)

My point: it is highly relevant to our present day situation, to trace the specific paths taken by powerful Nazis and their money. And it's also relevant to look at the machinations of royal families such as the Windsors and Kaiser Wilhelm. But, one shouldn't imagine that if only such powerful individuals could be completely exposed and stripped of their power, that we wouldn't find ourselves quickly back in the same predicament. The new boss might be of a completely different bloodline, and might weave a completely different web of propaganda, but it would be based on the same cultural and biological predicament.

I see the 'reactionary', knee-jerk reactions of Rayne and Eureka as being typical of the Machiavellian schema of the artificial False Dialectic(s) imposed upon us. This creates an environment that leads to such circular firing squads, where people, today's Helots, place false hopes in governing systems that were, in reality, corrupted from their beginnings, subsequent reforms and superficial 'liberalizations' being co-opted from their respective foundations or soon after implementation.
Based on Schmookler's analysis, today's governing systems could only have evolved from more corrupt beginnings, and must have faced immediate challenges of co-option and subversion. So we shouldn't hold that against them.

Sadly, the hard-won improvements now seem at risk. That doesn't mean that Rayne and Eureka are wrong to make some effort to fight back against the authoritarian tide. I agree that their attack on Zardoz was reactionary and misguided, but the main problem is just that they thought they heard a dog whistle.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Sadly, the hard-won improvements now seem at risk. That doesn't mean that Rayne and Eureka are wrong to make some effort to fight back against the authoritarian tide. I agree that their attack on Zardoz was reactionary and misguided, but the main problem is just that they thought they heard a dog whistle.
Certainly we must all continue to struggle for solutions, my point there being that the present system seems constructed so as to easily produce counter-productive friendly fire. And ... Zardoz's message did not fit the zeitgeist of that thread, hence the messenger had to be killed.

Sarah Silverman speaks with Socrates about some of these issues and the 'democracy' dilemma for egalitarians. And I say it all points to the motivations for elite corruptions of democracy, education, law enforcement, and religion. Of course, as with the formation of American 'democracy', Athenian democracy was not all that egalitarian. And, as we have seen American public education has been propagandic, as is the case with church based schooling. In fact, American public education was generally modeled upon the Prussian system ... Hmmm.


In any case, I was thinking in bed last night that Zardoz's meta-insights might indeed be seen as some form of personal transformational alchemy, that could be viraly disseminated for the betterment of society.

At his website http://abetterhumanstory.org, Schmookler complains that in spite of the fact that he is a Harvard summa cum laude graduate, and in spite of the fact that his book was reviewed in the New York Times, nevertheless his idea has had little or no detectable impact. He says:

Neither when the book was published, nor any time since, has the intellectual world dealt with the idea. This thesis – which shook me to the bones in 1970, and which I sought over many years to argue compellingly — has basically been ignored.

By that I mean that:

  • No one ever refuted the argument, no one ever did the least damage to the basic thesis;
  • No one ever made any case for the idea that — even if the idea were valid — it wouldn’t be any Big Deal.
It seems that we experienced the same type of phenomenon as Schmookler described, both here and with our work on 9/11.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
It seems that we experienced the same type of phenomenon as Schmookler described here and with our work on 9/11.
I wish. We didn't get into the Eugene Register Guard, much less the NY Times. And even for Schmookler, it only looks like sour grapes to gripe about it. Sigh...
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I wish. We didn't get into the Eugene Register Guard, much less the NY Times. And even for Schmookler, it only looks like sour grapes to gripe about it. Sigh...
Whether it looks like sour grapes or not ignores the dynamics behind the 'ignoring'. People at all levels of society understand that when one looks too closely under the carpet, or at the gift horse's mouth under the Christmas tree, that there is likely to be too much blowback from all the housecleaning. The house will have to be rebuilt from the ground up, and where will that leave 'me'? That's why people are happy to complain about certain problems and not others.

Sounds like a problem for ... Space Jesus. Only he knows who's naughty or nice.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Peter Levenda's The Hitler Legacy provides us with the critical building block to make sense of the seeming hash of the last few centuries of history including the present Trump tableau. What Levenda provided us is a means to properly place the Nazi phenomenon into its proper historical perspective, rather than the typical treatment of it as a random one-off creation of an idiosyncratic maniac. Levenda provides one critical piece of evidence with the role of Kaiser Wilhelm and his friend, Max von Oppenheim, in colluding with the Ottoman Turk sultan to initiate what we now experience as radical Islamic terrorism, but then as part of a WWI era strategy against the colonialism of the French and British within Islamic lands. But this 'project' did not end with WWI, but rather it has been redirected, first against the Communist Soviets and now 'seemingly' against the West, ... the Liberal West.
The following excerpt, providing more detail about Max von Oppenheim, is from a longer article discussing various German Jews during the Nazi period and the complex motivations involved for taking their positions at the time. The article also notes some interesting quotes by Nazi leaders acknowledging the various problems with establishing genetic purity, the two-faced policies that entailed - and is thus of interest to read if for not other reason.

...
Soon after the outbreak of WWI, Oppenheim submitted a now-famous jihad memorandum (Denkschrift) in which he argued for enlisting pan-Islamism in the struggle against Britain (and also Russia). Pan-Islamism had been discussed (and preached) for a number of years before the outbreak of the war. In 1940, he submitted his second Denkschrift to the German government of the day, suggesting that use should be made of pan-Islamism and jihad as a major weapon in the war against Germany’s enemies.

Oppenheim’s second memorandum—dated July 1940, after the defeat of France—complained about the lack of German support (“cautious hesitation”) for the anti-British forces in the Middle East such as the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Rashid Ali in Iraq, and the Lebanese politician Shaqib Arslan, who was a personal friend of Oppenheim. In his memorandum Oppenheim mentioned his lifelong involvement in Middle Eastern affairs and his close personal relationship with (anti-British) Muslim politicians. He specifically mentioned Palestine, where the struggle against the British and the Jews was to be taken up “as energetically as possible.” Oppenheim suggested that the Jews living in Palestine in 1914 should be permitted to stay, but all others should be removed. Some Nazi support was given to the Arab politicians mentioned by Oppenheim at the time. But on the whole, the German foreign ministry was far more skeptical with regard to the help expected on the part of the Muslims and particularly the Arabs. This view was also shared by Hitler; Italian interests had to be taken into account, and there was the hope that an agreement with Britain could somehow be reached. After 1941 Germany suffered military setbacks in North Africa, and Nazi planning for the future of the Middle East was considered premature to say the least. Oppenheim’s memorandum was shelved.

In later years, the second Oppenheim Denkschrift became of interest for very different reasons: How to explain the extreme views of a person of part-Jewish extraction who had suffered discrimination in Wilhelmian Germany and a fortiori in the Nazi Reich where he was considered a Mischling, hence a person of inferior racial background. Indeed, Oppenheim’s story, as told in a recent full-scale biography by Lionel Gossman, The Passion of Max Von Oppenheim, and in a recent study by Sean McMeekin, The Berlin Baghdad Express, sheds an odd and fascinating light not only on the recent history of the Middle East, but on the small but not insignificant cohort of Germans of Jewish descent who in one way or another are portrayed by latter-day historians as having served Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime.

***

By and large, Oppenheim did not greatly suffer under the Nazis. Many people of a background similar to Oppenheim were ashamed of their Jewish (or part-Jewish) origins and hid it from their offspring. Others thought it unimportant and more or less successfully suppressed it. The 19th-century German Jewish establishment in its majority no longer felt Jewish and to a considerable extent converted to Christianity. Judaism was not intellectually or emotionally attractive and constituted a hindrance in most careers—the state service, the armed forces, academia, and elsewhere. The motives were not always ignoble and careerist. Judaism as the walls of the ghetto came down was considered by some German Jews to be an ossified religion inferior to other creeds. Jewish intellectuals in central but also often in Eastern Europe unsurprisingly preferred Faust and War and Peace to Fishke der Chigger.

Max Oppenheim felt not in the least Jewish. In his letters after 1945, he blamed Hitler for having caused the death of millions of German soldiers, with nary a mention of the fate of his fellow Jews. His German patriotism was intense and, since not all accepted him as a fully fledged bona fide German aristocrat, he may have felt doubly motivated to prove his patriotism. He truly believed in German conservatism and belonged to the leading right-wing clubs and political organizations of that world both before WWI and after. While radical assimilation sometimes led to anti-Semitism, for Oppenheim the whole issue was apparently so irrelevant that he did not become an outspoken anti-Semite—as some of his fellow former Jews did. ...

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/141788/hitler-jews-oppenheim
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following excerpt from Matthias Küentzel was found in Peter Levenda's bibliography, as going to Levenda's thesis of the Nazis fomenting what has become known to us today as global Islamic terrorism. As Levenda lays it out, the Nazis picked up the threads began by Kaiser Wilhelm, Max von Oppenheim and the Turkish sultan. And as I have been discussing on this thread, all are component vectors into the Futurist eschatology of both Christianity and Islam, whose common savior, Jesus (aka Isa) battle with Satan and his crew, the latter of whom those so minded identify, as did the Nazis, with being the Jews. The Jews being projected upon for all the excesses of the Liberal, Modern world, while conveniently ignoring all the benefits of the same.

...
The seriousness of this development is rarely grasped in the Western world. Many either react as if hating Jews was a feature of the Oriental world, like hookahs or mosques. Or antisemitism among Muslims is glossed over as a kind of “anti-imperialism of fools” and rationalised as an alleged response to the Middle East conflict. The quintessence of both modes of thinking is the belief that Muslim antisemitism is totally different from European antisemitism.

This view, however, won’t stand up to close examination. In Islamic tradition, the Jews were viewed as being inferior. As a result, the fear of “eternal” Jewish hostility or even a “Jewish conspiracy” was unknown in the Muslim world for centuries. An antisemitism based on the notion of a conspiracy of World Jewry is not rooted in Islamic tradition, but is based rather on European ideological models. The decisive transfer of this ideology took place between 1937 and 1945 under the impact of Nazi propaganda. How did Nazi Germany promote Islamic antisemitism?

...
The most powerful tool of Nazi propaganda in the Islamic world was, however, a radio transmitter near Berlin whose very existence is virtually unknown today. In the years from 1939 to 1945 the Zeesen short-wave transmitter broadcast its Arabic-language programs to the Islamic world every day. These programs skilfully mixed antisemitic agitation with quotations from the Koran as well as bits of Arabic music. A contemporary described the constantly repeated message like this: “the Jew has been the eternal enemy of the Muslims since the time of Mohammed. It is pleasing to God to kill him”. Between 1939 and 1945, no other radio station enjoyed similar popularity in public places in the Arab world as this Nazi broadcast which from 1941 onwards was directed by the Mufti9.

In April 1945 Radio Zeesen was closed down. From now on, however, antisemitism in the Arab world began to spread even more rapidly. Today, we are confronted with a Jew-hatred which fuses together the traditional European notion that Jews are deviously powerful with the Islamic view that they are inferior. At one and the same time, we find Jews being derided as “pigs” and “apes”, while simultaneously being demonised as the puppet masters of world politics.

The result is a genocidal Islamist ideology which produces genocidal programs and genocidal actions. Radical Islamists not only advocate the murder of people who happens to be Jew; they practice what they preach – be it in Djerba, Istanbul, Casablanca, Mombasa or Taba. So far, their destructive ambitions are mainly restricted by technological limitations....

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/european-roots-of-antisemitism-in-current-islamic-thinking

As I have discussed before, James Carroll's Constantine's Sword lays out in brutal detail the consistent theology of the Roman Catholic Church, from St. Augustine onward and until recent times, where the Jews are identified as the the epitome of evil, and where various popes exhort the masses to save some of the Jews, as living examples of such evil are necessary for the good of the community by negative example. The dark irony being that 'somebody' had to kill Christ or there could be no Christian religion.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following are the pertinent excerpts from Wikipedia on Max von Oppenheim (MvO), which does not mention his second Denkschrift during the Nazi era. As far as we can tell from the accounts so far, MvO appears to have been a 'patriotic' German citizen. This in the context provided by Walter Laqueur in his Tablet Magazine article that I excerpted two posts prior, where European Jews served their respective countries various militaries and such other roles. As such, MvO does not appear to have fared well financially from his affairs, but managed to survive WWII ... barely, coming to his final repose in Bavaria. Here, Bavaria and Deutsche Bank form two common narrative threads with that of President Donald Trump, which may only be coincidental.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Oppenheim

In 1892, Oppenheim travelled to Spain, the Maghreb and on to Cairo where he stayed for seven months, studying Arabic and Islam. Unusually, he moved out of a European-style hotel to live in a quarter inhabited by locals. In 1893-94, Oppenheim then travelled from Cairo through the Syrian desert, Mesopotamia to Basra. He passed through areas not visited by any European explorer before him and developed a keen interest in the Bedouins.[1]:16,23 Returning by way of India and Deutsch Ostafrika to Germany, in 1895 Max von Oppenheim wrote his two volume travelogue Vom Mittelmeer zum Persischen Golf, which made him famous on publication in 1899/1900.[1]:23 T.E Lawrence, whom Oppenheim later met at Carchemish in 1912, called Oppenheim's work "the best book on the area I know".[2]:20 In 1895, Oppenheim visited Constantinople and was received for an audience by Sultan Abdul Hamid II, discussing Panislamism.[1]:23

Interested in politics and diplomacy, Oppenheim tried to join the diplomatic corps but the Auswärtiges Amt (Foreign Office) rejected him due to the Jewish background of his father.[1]:23 Using well-connected friends — including Paul Graf von Hatzfeldt[2]:21 — Oppenheim succeeded in being accepted as an attaché (which did not bestow diplomatic status) at the German General Consulate in Cairo.[1]:23 In June 1896, he arrived in Cairo which was to be his home for the next thirteen years. Not issued with any specific instructions, he made use of his freedom to engage in freelance activities, sending reports of his impressions to his superiors in Berlin (over the years totaling around 500). However, most of his messages were simply filed without comment, only rarely distributed more widely within the diplomatic service. Oppenheim was more successful in establishing a network of upper class acquaintances in Cairo, both European and local.[1]:23

This activity and his views in support of the German government's colonial ambitions caused considerable mistrust among the British in Egypt, worried about German designs on the country (which had become a de facto protectorate in 1882), the Suez canal and the lifeline to their possessions in India. The British press repeatedly agitated against him, even styling him a "master spy of the Kaiser".[1]:23–24 For example, when tensions were later heightened by the Aqaba border crisis, 1906, British and French papers accused Oppenheim of acting in ways to incite pan-Islamic jihadi massacres of Europeans and of plotting with anti-French Algerian, and anti-Italian Tripolitan, rebels.[2]:26[3]:333–341

On one of several trips he made while stationed at Cairo, in 1899 Oppenheim travelled via Aleppo to Damascus and northern Mesopotamia on behalf of Deutsche Bank, working on establishing a route for the Bagdad Railway. ...
End of Part 1 of 2
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Part 2 of 2

...
The outbreak of World War I prevented him from returning, however. As an expert on the East, the Foreign Office asked him to summarise the many different strategic ideas floating around in the ministry. The result was his Denkschrift betreffend die Revolutionierung der islamischen Gebiete unserer Feinde ("Memorandum on revolutionizing the Islamic territories of our enemies") of October 1914. The memo argued for enlisting the Sultan to call on the world's Muslims to engage in a Holy War against the colonial powers, France and Great Britain. To develop the necessary propaganda, the Nachrichtenstelle für den Orient (Intelligence Bureau for the East) was established in Berlin. Oppenheim became its head.[1]:16,25

In November 1914, Sultan Mehmed V indeed called for a jihad against the enemies of the Ottoman Empire. In 1915, Oppenheim was sent to the German embassy at Constantinople to disseminate propaganda material in the Ottoman empire. On one of several trips he made at the time, he met Prince Faisal in early 1915, trying to win him for the German side, unaware that Faisal's father, Hussein was negotiating with the British almost simultaneously. Whilst their attempt to incite an Arab rebellion was eventually successful, Oppenheim failed.[1]:16,25

In late 1915, British High Commissioner in Cairo Henry McMahon claimed in a report that Oppenheim had been making speeches in mosques approving of the massacre of Armenians initiated by the Young Turk government earlier that year.[4]

Oppenheim was credited with being the one who came up with the dual approach to fighting the British and French: through regular troops and by encouraging uprisings by the masses.[5] Some among the Arabs reportedly referred to Oppenheim as Abu Jihad ("Father of Holy War").[6]


...
With Germany initially not a member of the League of Nations, there was no way for Oppenheim to resume his excavations. He decided to become a private scholar. In 1922, Oppenheim founded the Orient-Forschungsinstitut in Berlin. At the institute young scholars from various disciplines worked together to advance the study of Middle Eastern culture and history. In the inflation of 1923 Oppenheim lost most of his financial wealth. From then on, he was forced to rely on loans and support from friends and relatives.[1]:25–26...


...
After the Nazis took power in 1933, Oppenheim's Jewish background became a potential threat. Probably protected by old acquaintances in the scientific community, he was able to continue with his scholarly work.[1]:26 Apparently, this involved some efforts to fit into the intellectual climate of the time. According to historian Sean McMeekin: "In a speech before Nazi dignitaries, he went so far as to flatly ascribe his statues to the 'Aryan' culture, and he even received support from the Nazi government."[2]:18 ...

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Alexander Gauland, chairman of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, writing a guest column for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), was caught cribbing a November 1933 speech by Adolph Hitler.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/12/pers-o12.html

“Gauland’s text is obviously closely tied to Hitler’s,” commented historian Wolfgang Benz in the Tagesspiegel. “It is a paraphrase that looks as if the AfD chief had laid the 1933 speech of the Führer on his desk when he wrote his guest column for the FAZ.”

Benz, an authority on Nazism and anti-Semitism, commented on the column that “one probably suspects that the same spirit is blowing as in 1933.” It would appear, he said, that the AfD is offering “warmed-up leftovers” from the Nazi era, “with the nationalist movement, the NSDAP [Nazi party] and its epigones as a blueprint.”

In the FAZ, Gauland justifies the “populism” of his party on the grounds that the AfD defends the interests of the “conventional middle class” and ”so-called ordinary people” against “a new urban elite.” The members of this “globalized class,” says Gauland, “live almost exclusively in big cities, speak fluent English, and when they change jobs and move from Berlin to London or Singapore, they find similar apartments, houses, restaurants, shops and private schools everywhere... As a result, the bond of this new elite to their respective homeland is weak. In a detached parallel society, they feel they are world citizens.”

In 1933, Hitler used similar words to vilify a “small, rootless international clique,” which whipped up the peoples against each other: “These are the people who are everywhere and nowhere at home, but who live in Berlin today, tomorrow in Brussels, the day after tomorrow in Paris and then again in Prague or Vienna or in London, and feel at home everywhere,” he told his audience [interrupted with shouts of “the Jews!”). “They are the only ones that really have to be considered international elements because they can do business anywhere.”

Hitler counterpoised the “people,” as a national element, to this “international clique,” declaring that “... the people are chained to their soil, chained to their homeland, bound to the life possibilities of their state, the nation. The people cannot follow them.” Gauland’s “warmed-over” version refers to “... those for whom homeland is still a value in itself and who are the first to lose their homeland because it is their milieu, into which the immigrants pour. They cannot just move away and play golf elsewhere.”

The anti-Semitic undertone of these lines is obvious. The image of uprooted, “cosmopolitan” Jews runs like a red thread through Nazi propaganda. But Gauland’s borrowings from Hitler go further than that. The deification of nation and homeland—blood and soil—formed the core of the ideology of fascism and Nazism.

The fanatical nationalism of the Nazis protected neither the German middle class nor the working class from the blows of the capitalist global economy. It sent them to the slaughter on the battlefields of the Second World War in the interests of German imperialism.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Good find Jerry.

In 1933, Hitler used similar words to vilify a “small, rootless international clique,” which whipped up the peoples against each other: “These are the people who are everywhere and nowhere at home, but who live in Berlin today, tomorrow in Brussels, the day after tomorrow in Paris and then again in Prague or Vienna or in London, and feel at home everywhere,” he told his audience [interrupted with shouts of “the Jews!”). “They are the only ones that really have to be considered international elements because they can do business anywhere.”
When the average person reads of hears this message they typically are not aware that it was the Catholic Church that established the laws throughout feudal Europe that prevented Jews from engaging in but a few particular occupations and as well their usual confinement to urban ghettos. They were excluded from such as becoming farmers and thus being tied to the 'soil'. The Church reinforced the narrative that suited it's dark power, and which such as Hitler, Bannon, and Gauland build upon.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The Church reinforced the narrative that suited it's dark power, and which such as Hitler, Bannon, and Gauland build upon.
Exactly. And here's the Saker, off on an anti-semitic rant, just obliquely mentioning the role of the Catholic Church in vilifying Jews as Christ killers.

https://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-crash-course-on-the-true-causes-of-anti-semitism/

Here is what the Simon Wiesenthal Center writes on the page “Why The Jews? The Patterns of Persecution” [... extensive quote...]

This is the garden variety cop-out: they were older, but never given citizenship, they were tolerated as guests, their social and religious distinctiveness made them targets for persecution, then the Christians accused them of killing Christ, antisemitism was religiously sanctioned, then came the Nazis and added their racist propaganda. But it has a grain of truth buried deep inside the rest of the platitudes: “social and religious distinctiveness”. What are we talking about here exactly?

This sounds interesting so let’s immediately delve into it!

The following is a lecture by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim ... I strongly encourage you to take the time to carefully listen to his entire lecture (1h47m)...

...here are key statements from the beginning of this lecture posted along their time-stamp so you can check for their authenticity:

  • 09:20 The Torah teaches that the life of a Jew is more precious than the life of a non-Jew.
  • 10:00 God (HaShem) prefers Jews to non-Jews and gives them a special status.
  • 11:00 The notion that Jews and non-Jews are equally precious to God contradicts the spirit of the Torah from beginning to end.
  • 16:40 According to Shimon bar Yochia (aka Rashbi) “the best of non-Jews should be killed in warfare” because just as Jews cannot know if a snake approaching you is venomous or not, Jews cannot know which non-Jew is a danger to then.
  • 25:16 Jews must assume that it is likely that any non-Jew they meet does not live by the Noahide Laws.
Skating quickly right over those completely accurate and powerful reasons why anti-Semitism is an ancient problem, and describing the responsibility of the Catholic Church (and for that matter, Russian Orthodoxy) as a "garden variety cop-out", Saker devotes 90% of his column to attacking an extremist Jewish Orthodox fundamentalist rabbi. Not that this rabbi doesn't deserve the criticism, but Saker is totally committed to this meme that the 'Jewish problem' is largely or entirely their own fault.

In part II of the "crash course", Saker almost comes to the right point:

http://thesaker.is/a-crash-course-on-the-true-causes-of-anti-semitism-part-ii-the-hunt-for-anti-semites/

What Jewish/Zionist organizations are trying to impose on the rest of the planet is a blanket immunity from any criticism for all Jews (except the “self-hating” ones, of course!) combined with a grim determination to crush anybody daring to oppose such plans.

The chances that most of the world will ever accept such mental shackles are virtually nil. What is much more likely is that the resistance to such efforts will grow, no doubt reported to the public as an “emergence of a new anti-Semitism” or something equally vapid. And at the end of the road, there will always be a powerful backlash against those who started it all. So what is the point?

I am left wondering whether all these Jewish/Zionist organizations are staffed merely by incompetent people, or whether creating more, not less, anti-Semitism might not be the *real* goal of these organizations.

Whatever may be the case, anti-Semitism is not something which “just exists.” It is something which must be rekindled over and over again. Left alone, it would just fizzle out.
The only thing missing here, is the insight that Christian fundamentalists are equally dedicated to rekindling the flame. And when it bursts into an open bonfire, who gets burned? And, who benefits? Christians outnumber Jews by at least a hundred to one.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Joaquin Flores is an American expatriate now living in Belgrade, where he publishes a news site known as fort-russ.com, as well as running a more formal academic-style think tank, the "Center for Syncretic Studies". The perspective is generally pro-Russian, and Flores has adopted the Russian Orthodox faith.

Today, Flores says, "This is the moment". Signs of the end times are appearing everywhere. Flores insinuates that he "can neither confirm nor deny" that his perspective derives from extended meetings with such luminaries as "Deputy Head of the Russian Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Senator Andrei Klimov; Russian politician and economist, adviser to Putin on regional economic integration, member of the National Financial Council of the Bank of Russia, and full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Sergey Glazyev; Soviet and Russian secret service agent, Lieutenant-General of Foreign Intelligence Service, past director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Leonid Petrovich Reshetnikov; and Russian philosopher, sociologist, Kremlin insider, and geostrategist, leader of the Eurasian Movement, Alexander Dugin." But regardless of what insights might be driven by conversations with such insiders, the specific claims are readily verified.

First sign of the End Times: "Nuclear Armageddon is on the agenda", as "Putin has castigated the ‘Great Satan’, named him as such, and gone ‘full Ahmadinejad’." More specifically, as Masha Gessen explains at The New Yorker:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/putin-lied-about-his-nuclear-doctrine-and-promised-russians-that-they-would-go-to-heaven

President Vladimir Putin has promised Russians a place in heaven. Yes, it would appear, all Russians.

Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual gathering of international Russia experts, Putin answered a series of softball questions from a veteran foreign-affairs journalist, followed by a series of equally unchallenging questions, peppered with praise for the president, from the audience. Altogether, Putin spent three and a half hours onstage.

About a third of the way through, Putin conjured the spectre of nuclear war, most likely with the United States, though he didn’t name the enemy explicitly. “As martyrs, we will go to heaven,” he promised. “And they will just croak because they won’t even have time to repent.”

Putin indicated that he was explaining the Russian military doctrine, which, he said, doesn’t reserve the right of first strike for Russia. “I want everyone present here, and everyone who is going to analyze every word I say here and use it in one way or another in their own storytelling, to keep in mind: our concept of using nuclear arms does not allow for a preventive strike,” he said. “Our concept is responsive and reciprocal.”

He then explained what he meant. If an enemy fired a nuclear missile, all of Russia’s surveying and computing minds would go to work to calculate its trajectory and velocity. “And then when we are certain—all of this is happening over the course of several seconds—that the target of the attack is Russian territory, then and only then do we respond with a strike. This will be the reciprocal counter strike. Why counter? Because they are flying at us, and counter is the flying [sic] in the direction of the aggressor. Of course this will be a global catastrophe, but I repeat, we can’t initiate this catastrophe because we don’t have preventive strike. Yes, this is a situation where we are kind of waiting around for someone to use nuclear weapons against us and aren’t doing anything ourselves. Yes, sure. But the aggressor still must know that retribution is inevitable, that he will be annihilated, while we are the victims of aggression.”

And this is when he said, “As martyrs, we will go to heaven and they will just croak, because they won’t even have time to repent.”
Second sign of the End Times: Increasingly dangerous situations in Ukraine and Syria.

Third sign: Pope Francis's statement "I am the Devil", last Sept. 22. From Novus Ordo Watch:

https://novusordowatch.org/2018/09/francis-i-am-the-devil/

Francis has embarked on another blather tour, and this time the victim countries are Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, three small nations in Northeastern Europe that until 1991 were occupied by the Soviet Union.

After take-off early this morning, as is his custom, he greeted all the journalists aboard the “papal” plane, which we like to call Airhead One. At that time, one of the photographers handed him a gift, a book on “Saint” John Paul II (1920-2005), as pictured above. The Associated Press reports details as follows:

Greeting journalists Saturday en route to Lithuania, Francis was given a book about the former pope by Polish photographer Grzegorz Galazka. Receiving the large book with a beaming John Paul on the cover, Francis quipped: “[Pope John Paul II] was a saint, I am the devil.”

Laughing, Galazka immediately corrected him: “No, you are both saints! You are both saints!”

Francis’ quip appeared to acknowledge that he has his detractors, particularly among conservative Catholics who long for the more doctrinaire papacies of John Paul and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI.

(“Pope Francis quips ‘I am the devil’ next to John Paul”, Salt Lake Tribune, Sep. 22, 2018)

“I am the devil” — for once he tells the truth! The Novus Ordo Catholic News Agency quickly rushed to the scene for some damage control, saying Francis “has shown a similar penchant for self-deprecating humor in the past”. Humor? It looks more like “humble” Francis was fishing for a compliment, and he got what he wanted: The poor photographer soul declared him a saint!

Flores agrees that this is no joke:

That was the day following the event of the Autumnal Equinox, the significance of which will be known to those who dig deeper. This was apparently said in passing as a ‘joke’, comparing Francis to John Paul II, who was ‘loved’. We are supposed to read this as ‘compared to John Paul II, Poles see me as a really bad guy’. That is a very banal and very much ‘missing the point’ way to understand that statement. He was on an official visit, and was in his robes and the ‘whole 9 yards’ – and there he said it, plain as day ‘I am the Devil’. Not ‘I’m hated’, not ‘I’m devlish’, not ‘These people see me as evil’ – no – it was this ‘I AM THE DEVIL’. Taken by itself, it would be very difficult to brush off or to overlook. Taken all together with the world events happening simultaneously, we’d be blind not to see the whole picture. The way that important confessions, statements, and incantations work is simple – it does not matter if they appear to have been said in jest, the impact, truthfulness, and power of the statement is not diminished by a hair. This does not mean per se, of course, that Pope Francis is the devil. It means that he believes himself to be, needs that to be known publicly (the point of confessions, incantations, etc.) and said it on September 22nd when the period from the September 21st/22nd through Halloween confer particular (and well known), dark powers upon practitioners of the left-hand path.
As further evidence of Francis's Satanic nature, Flores links this bizarre video showing Francis's "Doves of Peace" being attacked by a crow and seagull:


And, last but not least, the Eastern Orthodox church has suffered a landmark schism. The Russian Orthodox branch has separated from the parent church, headquartered in Istanbul, as a result of tensions between NATO and Russia in the Ukraine. As Flores stated last Oct. 12, as the schism was unfolding:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/10/end-times-prophesy-being-fulfilled-as-schism-now-appears-inevitable-patriarch-bartholomew-must-be-anathematized-uoc/

END TIMES PROPHESY BEING FULFILLED AS SCHISM NOW APPEARS INEVITABLE

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate’s spokesman has just announced something major – Patriarch Bartholomew must now face anathema – excommunicated from the Orthodox Catholic Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church established by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission.

For those just getting acquainted with the story, the events date back to at least the 11th century when the German church began to exercise increasing control over Rome in Italy, and the eastern Church rejected this move. Then, in 1453, Constantinople fell to Ottoman forces. A view began to predominate that Moscow was the Third Rome.

These events line up with the end-times prophesies of the Christo-Islamic tradition. In the event that Bartholomew is excommunicated, it would represent not only this, but a number of other realities, known already to experts following these events for some time. That Bartholomew has been exercising de facto ‘Papal’ powers, those which precisely split the Church the first time when the Patriarchate of Rome and its Bishop declared full authority over the Church.

To his credit, Flores at least says he doesn't encourage anyone to try to expedite the ongoing disaster. His article published today concludes:

People who believe in the afterlife aren’t afraid to die, but at the same time, holding onto these sacred religious precepts and principles is the opposite of Reagan’s version of immanentizing the eschaton which was nuclear Armageddon. Rather, people of conscience must decidedly not live as if these are the end times, and must not behave in ways which bring about such events, ‘prematurely’, if you will.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
About a third of the way through, Putin conjured the spectre of nuclear war, most likely with the United States, though he didn’t name the enemy explicitly.
I suppose one might conjecture that Putin is just saying this so as to help make it appear that he and Trump aren't in cahoots. There is a lot coming out now about Putin and friends 'spiriting' Russian rubles away into the country of the Beast (and killing journalists and bureaucrats that put up some resistance). On the other hand, maybe the majority of these estimated $1.3 trillion in rubles is stashed away in countries that are not considered nuclear targets by either side? Then this all might make better sense.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
First sign of the End Times: "Nuclear Armageddon is on the agenda", as "Putin has castigated the ‘Great Satan’, named him as such, and gone ‘full Ahmadinejad’."
Trump is pulling us out of a 30 year old nuclear weapons treaty, because it seems, and most people are agreeing, that Putin wont play fair:

...
The Trump Administration has said repeatedly that Russia has violated the treaty and has pointed to their predecessors in the Obama administration who accused Russia of violating the terms of the agreement.

In 2014, CNN reported that the US had accused Russia of violating the INF Treaty, citing cruise missile tests that dated to 2008. CNN reported in 2014 that the United States at the time informed its NATO allies of Russia's suspected breach.

However, it wasn't until recently that NATO officially confirmed Russia's activity constituted a likely violation.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said earlier this month that the military alliance remained "concerned about Russia's lack of respect for its international commitments, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the INF Treaty."

"This treaty abolishes a whole category of weapons and is a crucial element of our security," Stoltenberg said, speaking at a defense ministers' meeting. "Now this treaty is in danger because of Russia's actions." ...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/20/politics/donald-trump-us-arms-agreement-russia/index.html
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Trump is pulling us out of a 30 year old nuclear weapons treaty, because it seems, and most people are agreeing, that Putin wont play fair:
Russia says that the USA made a clear break from the INF treaty in 2016, when they installed the Aegis missile defense system in Romania. They say that the allegedly defensive missiles could easily be targeted for offensive missions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36269734

The US has been complaining since 2014 that the Russian SSC-8 cruise missile violates the "spirit and intent" of the treaty, but Russia says their missile is compliant. Studying this page, https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ssc-8.htm, I see it's possible that the Russian missile might have a range greater than 5,500 km, which would make it a long-range system.

The Russians have also long noted that this Gorbachev-era treaty disproportionately benefits the US, which targets Russia primarily using long-range missiles based in North America.

There is a lot coming out now about Putin and friends 'spiriting' Russian rubles away into the country of the Beast (and killing journalists and bureaucrats that put up some resistance).
More unsubstantiated Putin bashing.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
A 22 minute discussion of Nikki Haley's craven speech (only days before she resigned from her UN position) to an secretive apocalyptic Christian group:

 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I have discussed before about the theory that the Catholic Church creating Islam. The 17 minute video below does so by textual analysis. For one thing, the only woman named in the Quran is Mariam, who happens to have the same attributes as the Virgin Mary. It ends with a clip of a Muslim who converted to Catholicism and he explains why.

Of course, I have also discussed that the Muslim's End Times includes Isa (aka Jesus) in much the same role as the Christian. For this and that the video discusses the means in easily mobilizing the militant for such an 'End' I have placed this post in this thread.

Upon starting the video one will be tempted to think it is a typical Christian polemic against Islam, but it is not.

 
Top