Postflavians' Guide to Why Fascism is a Really Bad Idea

Richard Stanley said:
In the 1920s(?), I believe, a Harvard study was undertaken to determine why Blacks and the Irish were so criminally oriented, in relative terms. The conclusion, apparently based upon Romantic Movement 'feelings' and little else, determined that the Irish could be successfully integrated into 'proper' (white) American society if certain programs were provided to them, but that these programs would not work for Blacks. So the programs were solely instituted for the Irish and today nobody thinks twice, other than the occasional ethnic joke, more often self-deprecating. While I have not studied what these programs consisted of, I believe they were cultural reframing programs.
Keeping the two ethnic groups at loggerheads. Reminds me of the American Civil War when Irish-led anti-war riots broke out in New York, helping to trigger the Gettysberg speech since northern Whites increasingly did not want to become soldiers!
Richard Stanley said:
So what you, Horkheimer, Adorno and the others are saying is that Culture, writ large and small, is what 'frames' peoples' POV's and social behaviors. Culture, of which Religion is a subset, is a Tool. A Tool which can be used for good or bad purposes, depending on the beholder of the Tool.
Too right! And the (big C) Cultural effect is overwhelmingly powerful since it acts on us even in our pre-lingual state and in subtle ways even when we are adults. In the "Dialectic of Enlightenment" A&H (my abbreviation for Adorno & Horkheimer, as opposed to AH - Adolf Hitler) attack the Enlightenment, but in general for the wrong reasons! My attack on the Enlightenment is based on a quite different approach, even though there are some parallels.

I only joined the website because I had guessed your next sentence from the postings, partly too from hearing Joe's diatribes with Jan Irvin.o_O
Richard Stanley said:
Jerry and I have been remiss in also not informing you earlier that we have issues with the use of the terms 'Right' and 'Left'. Especially if someone is advancing a still yet vague notion of an enlightened fascism. The terms are too freighted over time to allow a clear communication of meaning.

Yesterday's Liberal is today's Conservative, and this is important when considering that the OG Left was breaking away from Monarchism. So today, when discussing on a sliding scale, when one mentions the Right or a Conservative, is one talking about a Monarchist, a CryptoMonarchist, a Fascist, or an OG Liberal?
This is exactly the fundamental issue - in that the fundamental principles for an effective and just philosophy for running the world simply do not exist.

I might bring in Martin Heidegger (the supposed evil crypto-Nazi) at this point, since when in April, just before signing up for your website, I finally finished reading the translation of his work (Heraclitus: The Inception of Occidental Thinking and Heraclitus' Doctrine of the Logos, Bloomsbury Academic, London 2018). There I at last understood his philosophy when I realized what he meant by "presumptuous mismeasurement" in place of "insolence" as the translation for hubris in Diels Fragment 43 of Heraclitus; conversely I also could now understand where he had gone wrong as well. In an interview decades after he wrote this work Heidegger stated that "only a god could save us now"; but today however armed with his original insights - since he could not see how to apply his discovery - I can readily solve his conundrum and solve the question of postmodernity.

See also:

https://solidarity-us.org/atc/45/p4883/

a massively convoluted article by Marxist Loren Goldner (and Tony Smith's adjacent similar article) attacking postmodern concerns (the original text had cartoons, found in my photocopy issued by said Marxist party, the funniest being of Levi-Strauss, Barthes and Lacan dressed as natives sitting in the jungle listening to a native-dressed Foucault). Goldner mentioned Heidegger negatively, but his work finally convinced me to be his opponent, to ditch popular Marxist thought by 1994, leading to my expulsion from a Marxist Party for opposing their actions against now obsolete Fascist grouplets as counterproductive. Only after this did I gradually come to understand Nietzsche and, only this year, Heidegger.
Richard Stanley said:
Some on the contemporary American Right may indeed be correct that certain programs of the latter decades, tailored to the poor (of all groups), have had a deleterious effect on such as Blacks and others. And maybe this was by design. That said, it was government spending for WWII and later, that created the wider American middle class, including many Blacks. Prior to this time was the massive financial inequities across all groups as remnants of the Robber Baron period.

Today, the contemporary Right (whoever they all are) complain about too many burdens upon the taxpayers, almost always forgetting that their legal heroes created the ability of those who CAN, to squirrel their financial nuts away in various hiding places. It use to be tax havens, and now it is almost exclusively via the use of shell corporations.
How true, shell corporations that survive by the support of hollow philosophical shells and the shills that promote them.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
I need to expand on what I meant by
(Gabriel Jackson's statement on the Spanish Revolution)
These are two statements by Jackson (The Spanish Republic and the Civil War 1931-1939, Princeton University Press, 1965) on the Spanish Revolution on pages 313-314 and 368 concerning the Spanish Revolution's degeneration by July 1937, a year into the revolution.
Gabriel Jackson said:
During these same months the revolutionary tide began to ebb in Catalonia... accumulating food and supply problems, and the experience of administrating villages, frontier posts and public utilities, had rapidly shown the anarchists the unsuspected complexity of modern society. ... Among the proletariat, the naïve optimism of the previous August [1936] had given way to feelings of resentment and of somehow having been cheated.
Infuriated at Jackson's observations, Noam Chomsky (The Chomsky Reader p. 94) claimed the exact opposite to explain the anger and resentment of the Anarchists. Note that the Communist Party was playing the middle class role in Spain, as opposed to the Leftist Anarchists!
Chomsky said:
In fact, the revolutionary tide began to ebb in Catalonia under a middle-class attack led by the Communist party, not because of a recognition of the "complexity of modern society". And it was moreover quite true that the Communist-dominated central government attempted, with much success, to hamper collectivized industry and agriculture and to disrupt the collectivization of commerce.
Given the failure of Lenin's War Communism to feed the cities, it had to be abandoned and replaced with the NEP as described in the initial posting on the thread, hence the activity of the middle-class Spanish Communist Party is readily understandable - to anyone who isn't a consummate Anarchist actor like Chomsky!

What Chomsky refuses to admit is the unsuspected complexity of modern society - the need for experts, e.g. in medicine, engineering, science etc. especially given new research. In fact as the context of his work reveals, Chomsky has to covertly agree with Jackson, in that the Spanish Communists, unlike the Anarchists, realized the complexity of modern society and had to try to satisfy the Republican businessmen so as to create economic order by setting up capitalistic trade patterns once more - alienating the anarchists as they did so! Hence Franco's path to victory was smoothed by the Communists who were caught in the middle - the anarchists ironically having followed the line blessed by Lenin 20 years earlier in the Bolshevik Revolution, the guaranteed road to egalitarian democratic failure!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Hence Franco's path to victory was smoothed by the Communists who were caught in the middle - the anarchists ironically having followed the line blessed by Lenin 20 years earlier in the Bolshevik Revolution, the guaranteed road to egalitarian democratic failure!
Interesting then that the most extreme version of libertarianism is anarchism, and once you buy in at the beginning the inevitable logic and rhetoric of the formers' thinking this leads you to the anarchist position.

I think that it is clear that any unified political force which has either the overt or covert support of powerful 'agency' (I'm talking human) has a clear advantage over a disorganized coalition of otherwise disparate interests. Again, I don't see the connection between the revolutionary process dynamics and the issue of relative political merits in a stable and peaceful environment. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Of course, as a former libertarian anarchist, I have actually sat at a Spanish hotel bar talking (nervously) to a former Francoist Guardia Civil commander. BTW, I am no longer a libertarian anarchist, as these people are indeed much worse than herds of cats.

As a former engineer, I believe that humans should seek to find an ideal form of governance, that works for everybody, beginning with dignity. No more socialism for the rich only. And no more squirrely shell corporations period.

So I'm waiting for you to explain what exactly the Frankfort School was degrading in Western Civilization, which was built by Guns, Germs, and Steel according to Diamond. And I say it was built with that and the globalist Cultural Monarchism (Jesus is the King of Kings) of the Bible and their useful idiot readers. Now these idiots think that they should be nationalists and want to blame Globalism on ... whom?

As such, why would the Hanoverian Crown of England knight such as the Beatles? (Note how I have brought this thread back on topic. :))
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Western Civilization, which was built by Guns, Germs, and Steel according to Diamond.
I did read Guns, Germs, and Steel, many years ago, and not long after it came out. As I recall, it was not about the foundations or establishment of Western Civilization. Instead, it was addressing the reasons why European nations were successful in conquering and colonizing the rest of the planet. He argued that it was not due to superior genetics or cultural aspects. Instead, he said that geographical accidents led to European cultures being the first to develop firearms and industry, and also that their living conditions caused them to accidentally develop endemic diseases to which indigenous cultures had no immunity.

Claude recently claimed that Diamond made some sort of racist comment about Neanderthals in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I don't recall for sure whether Diamond mentioned Neanderthals in the book, but it would be consistent with the theme. And I think one can discuss the possibility of modern human superiority over Neanderthals, without being judged racist in a modern sociological sense. GGS was, on the contrary, a powerful argument against the idea that White European Judeo-Christian success was based on racial superiority.

In an interview decades after he wrote this work Heidegger stated that "only a god could save us now"; but today however armed with his original insights - since he could not see how to apply his discovery - I can readily solve his conundrum and solve the question of postmodernity.
Heidegger's collected works span an incredible 102 volumes, of which I haven't read, much less understood, a single word. And it looks like Wikipedia isn't going to help. Some editor attached a maintenance tag complaining that the existing article section on his philosophy " is obfuscatory and the logical sequence between one sentence and the next is obscure throughout."

So, Claude, perhaps you could do us the favor of writing, or referring us to, an "idiot's guide to Heidegger" for those of us who aren't in a position to deal directly with 102 volumes of work? It can't be easy, boiling 102 volumes down into a few paragraphs, but somebody's got to do it.

And FWIW it looks like Wikipedia is practically begging for someone to contribute a better summary than they've currently got.

Since your solution to "the question of postmodernity" goes beyond Heidegger, perhaps we should call it "Badley's Prescription"?

Getting back for a moment to Jared Diamond, who is now predicting a 49% chance that the world as we know it will end by 2050: I was intrigued by this Q & A --

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/jared-diamond-on-his-new-book-upheaval.html

In the book, when you write about the present day — you talk about climate, you talk about resources, but you also talk about the threat of nuclear war and nuclear weapons. It may be kind of a foolish question to ask, but … how do you rank those threats?
I’m repressing a chuckle because I know how people react when I answer that. Whenever somebody tells me, “How should we prioritize our efforts?” My answer is, “We should not be prioritizing our efforts.” It’s like someone asking me, “Jared, I’m about to get married. What is the most important factor for a happy marriage?” And my response is, “If you’re asking me what is the most important factor for a happy marriage, I’d predict that you’re going to get divorced within a few years.” Because in order to have a happy marriage you’ve got to get 37 things right. And if you get 36 right but you don’t get sex right, or you don’t get money right, or you don’t get your in-laws right, you will get divorced. You got to get lots of things right.
So for the state of the world today, how do we prioritize what’s going on in the world? We have to avoid a nuclear holocaust. If we have a nuclear holocaust, we’re finished, even if we solve climate change. We have to solve climate change because if we don’t solve climate change but we deal with a nuclear holocaust, we’re finished. If we solve climate change and don’t have a nuclear holocaust but we continue with unsustainable resource use, we’re finished. And if we deal with the nuclear problem and climate change and sustainable use, but we maintain or increase inequality around the world, we’re finished. So, we can’t prioritize. Just as a couple in a marriage have to agree about sex and children and in-laws and money and religion and politics. We got to solve all four of those problems.
I couldn't agree more. And I don't have any answers, other than to call attention to the problems, and obstacles to solving them.

Also, I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, other than that so far it has nothing to do with sex, drugs, and/or rock'n'roll. But does "Badley's (NeoFascist?) Prescription" address Diamond's list of concerns somehow?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Since your solution to "the question of postmodernity" goes beyond Heidegger, perhaps we should call it "Badley's Prescription"?
It could be at least two volumes: 1) Dr. Badley's Prescription, and 2) Dr. Badley's Proscription.

I did read Guns, Germs, and Steel, many years ago, and not long after it came out. As I recall, it was not about the foundations or establishment of Western Civilization. Instead, it was addressing the reasons why European nations were successful in conquering and colonizing the rest of the planet. He argued that it was not due to superior genetics or cultural aspects. Instead, he said that geographical accidents led to European cultures being the first to develop firearms and industry, and also that their living conditions caused them to accidentally develop endemic diseases to which indigenous cultures had no immunity.
You're correct, of course, but as the excerpt I posted on my The Futurist Apocalypse is Now thread discussed, GGS was interpreted by some as Western Triumphalism. Of which Triumphalism is baked into the cultural cake of Christianity and its Abrahamic siblings.

Joe and friends premise on Cultural Degradation is that their miraculous transformation of the cynical JudeoRoman imperial creation of Christianity into a moral paragon of an Ozzie and Harriet (Triumphal) dreamworld was thus under attack by these various Judaic / Masonic evildoers. In some narrow respects I think this may be true, however, as we discussed in our blog post on Cultural Degradation, we must also consider exactly what it was that is/was being rebelled against and from exactly whose perspective (i.e whose oxen are getting gored).

As with the Nazi millennial apocalyptic cult there must be a foil to lash out against, and not just having Jews living and breathing amongst the volk. Therefore, the conditions were created via the idiotic WWI and the subsequent tribulations of the Wiemar Republic. A new (global) synthesis was achieved, but not what the Nazi rank and file had desired, because they weren't driving the bus.

In dialectic memory of Ozzie and Harriet, via their son Rick(y):

I went to a garden party to reminisce with my old friends
A chance to share old memories and play our songs again
When I got to the garden party, they all knew my name
No one recognized me, I didn't look the same
But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself
And people came from miles around, everyone was there
Yoko brought her walrus, there was magic in the air
An' over in the corner, much to my surprise
Mr. Hughes hid in Dylan's shoes wearing his disguise
 
Dear Jerry,

What you have uncovered here is the vexation of academia - though this posting can serve as an idiot's introduction to Heidegger, since he is vitally important in only two ways, which he never himself resolved.
  1. His interpretation of Heraclitus.
  2. His invocation of Nietzsche's incomplete work "On Truth and Falsehood Outside the Moral Sense" as vitally important and which I hope later to reveal here.
    To answer my own question: this looks pretty good... Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, written by Michael Wheeler:
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/
Heidegger wrote a lot and the tendency of Wheeler is to focus on Heidegger's early work Being and Time rather than on his original insights put forward in lectures during WW2!

Heidegger is also labelled an 'Existentialist', which automatically links him with the popular French scribbler whom the media turned into the embodiment of modern existentialism - Jean Paul Sartre, who wrote a book appropriately called 'Being and Nothingness', clearly a parody on Heidegger.

Heidegger spawned many famous students, including his Jewish lover, Hannah Arendt, but more importantly Hans Jonas who was the first to realize that Gnosticism was not a 2nd century Christian heresy - which would make it subordinate to CM - but originally a Jewish heresy, since the villains of Jewish scripture become the good guys of Gnosticism.

No one (among the academics) wants to investigate what Heidegger means by "presumptuous mismeasurement". As Diels Fragment 43 now reads (Heraclitus p. 244): "It is necessary to extinguish presumptuous mismeasurement, even before a conflagration." I have already been demonstrating on another thread the effects of presumptuous mismeasurement, but, as a philosopher, Heidegger lacked enough scientific knowledge to deal with the issue.

Heidegger was obsessed with the nature of Being, of everything that is, physically especially but other philosophers would also include gods so as to confuse the issues. He understood that Pantheism - the idea that the universe itself was divine and an integral whole - was nonsense, but was struggling to find the correct refutation of that doctrine. In Diels fragment #50 Heraclitus wrote:
Heraclitus said:
Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to agree that all things are one.
I.e. the question of how the One is also the many, how the universe comprising Being is to be divided up at the most basic level. It is this that is in severe dispute. By 'Logos' conventional philosophical thinking means the decree of a god or gods (e.g. Jesus himself as Logos 'the Word' in John's Gospel). However Heidegger treats Logos as the inherent changing of the universe itself, whether working in nature or through human, animal and extraterrestrial alien minds. The Logos also contains fixed unchangeable principles - those directed against 'presumptuous mismeasurement' (Heraclitus pp. 201-202).

Other statements in his Heraclitus also tell us where we should be looking, however! Needless to say, he and Marcuse did not get on either!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
Thank you Richard for refocusing on the topic - and wow, what an experience.
I think that it is clear that any unified political force which has either the overt or covert support of powerful 'agency' (I'm talking human) has a clear advantage over a disorganized coalition of otherwise disparate interests. Again, I don't see the connection between the revolutionary process dynamics and the issue of relative political merits in a stable and peaceful environment. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Of course, as a former libertarian anarchist, I have actually sat at a Spanish hotel bar talking (nervously) to a former Francoist Guardia Civil commander. BTW, I am no longer a libertarian anarchist, as these people are indeed much worse than herds of cats.

As a former engineer, I believe that humans should seek to find an ideal form of governance, that works for everybody, beginning with dignity. No more socialism for the rich only. And no more squirrely shell corporations period.
Your highlighted words identify the principal issue - that what works in crisis situations such as "revolutionary process dynamics" does not work in a stable peaceful environment. You need people of different characters in each! Perhaps the best example of this is the so-called 'worst' prison population consisting of murderers, rapists and child molesters. The latter often don't survive prison because of the disgust and hatred of the others - but if not in prison these people can certainly find employment by Freemason-type elites within a "stable and peaceful environment" as hit men and an intimidating force.

Conversely, during crisis times of war and civil war, even the most hardened criminals can find a new life - given a gun, given the practice and told to shoot and promised freedom if their employer wins the war!

Hence a unified political force has to find employment for people of vastly opposed characters (=personalities). Under our financial elites however the superabundance of choice is only for the few - like a pregnant blowfly in a badly run zoo!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Hence a unified political force has to find employment for people of vastly opposed characters (=personalities). Under our financial elites however the superabundance of choice is only for the few - like a pregnant blowfly in a badly run zoo!
It is my position that the elites that matter, what we term the Shepherds (or the PTB, etc.), necessarily employ the whole spectrum of personalities, either wittingly or not to the employees. Thus they must attempt to control both sides of all significant political divides, co-opting those sides which appear in opposition to them. For them, the cost is trivial, as opposed to the average person.

Such behavior is also consistent with what the late Cyrus H. Gordon stated in his books on the Old Testament that such guile and cunning was a prized value amongst all the people of the day, Jews and otherwise. As I have discussed elsewhere, the Science of Mind includes Deceit and the Consciousness of Deceit as evidences of comparative higher orders of intelligence. As such it still exists today, only it is more subtly veiled to confuse the superficial that believe their respective cultural propaganda. For example, Americans who believe, as I did, that the government, constitutional or otherwise, exists to protect all the 'citizens'. As we've just observed, some of today's American citizens are reverting to the position that their constitution and government are supposed to protect a specific subset of the populace.

Their delusional vanity thus allows themselves to include themselves amongst the Chosen du jour, while they sardonically and rabidly calumniate against the OG Chosen.

As such, we should expect that those Shepherds that pull the veiled strings, to mix metaphors, do indeed apply such principles to cultural manipulations to such as various cultural mediums as poplar entertainment genre's. In this context, one must necessarily find messaging that appeals to the heartstrings of those seeking to achieve real or perceived social equities amongst a mixture of 'destructive' messaging. The latter especially going to the motivations of those interests interested in perpetuating the real subtext of the Western agenda, i.e. achieving their canonic global consolidation, while allowing the conceit of the various 'nationalists' to persist. With the latter, their construct is all in their mind, their 'nations' all synthetic constructions as are their 'patriotic' vanities regarding their respective Identity affinities with the true elites.

These neurotic Identity fetishes are what prevent Jews, 'other' Whites, and more, to comprehend that the real Shepherds, as outlined in Genesis (e.g. chapter 47 and the org chart of Jacob) operate behind a veil, like in The Wizard of Oz. And that, as such, those that always take the easy bait in front of them were indeed meant to take such bait. It is well known that sheep are quite terrible at fishing.

Perhaps the best example of this is the so-called 'worst' prison population consisting of murderers, rapists and child molesters. The latter often don't survive prison because of the disgust and hatred of the others - but if not in prison these people can certainly find employment by Freemason-type elites within a "stable and peaceful environment" as hit men and an intimidating force.
Today's literal and figurative 'hit men' can operate through a variety of employers, including governments, these depending upon the specific assignments. Freemasonry, as such, forms a convenient foil, especially when combined with the popular Judaic trope. This is not to say that it cannot be employed to dark purposes, but the 'craft' also has had players of serious 'positive' societal note, like engineers and scientists, etc.. And, of course, such can be employed for positive or negative purposes, like any tool.

Just as easily as we can constantly find various Sheep downgrading the relative humanity of the Sheep of other Flocks, we can also expect that the Shepherds (and Sheepdogs) have also engaged in such dehumanization. Such 'speculative' shepherds understand and observe a different morality, just as literal shepherds understand that the cute lamb they once saved from the wolves must eventually be taken to market.

Jerry and I trust that in your hiatus that you are busy working on your thesis?
 
Thesis huh? I wish!

What a relief to find I hadn't been banned from the website (unlike on some other sites)...
Moe and Larry trust that in your hiatus that you are busy working on your thesis?
...and even more that Larry & Moe hadn't started scoring off each other again - since you work so much better as a threesome, e.g. with Joe [Besser-als-einander].

But before I throw you some curly (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk) questions, I need to tell you that my "new" computer broke down last Monday (since I had purchased it 4 years before in expectation of the older computer's collapse). They told me it would take four days, but they finished it in two, so I had to look back on my mobile old messages to find their call - as the mobile lets missed calls sink into oblivion, as I've just discovered. I did that on Sunday but rainwater getting in through our bad guttering system meant I had to spend yesterday and most of today drying the carpet before I could pick up the computer. TIme was not wasted though as I have been reading Vaillant & Fahy and Carotta. So far I can find no necessary clash between their work, Joe's CM and my own Gnostic research as the Gnostic question deepens the understanding of ALL the authors, since none of the Jesus-was-not-a-real-human-being authors have touched deeply on the Gnostic question in Christianity.

So here's another tiny byte. I was surprised to read of your (Richard's) mention of Cyrus H. Gordon. I am familiar with his work from my studies of Mandaeism, the only surviving branch of Gnosticism and one that was NOT mentioned by the three leading heresiologists - Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanius! The first two you can find on the internet under the 'Ante-Nicene Fathers'; with the last you have to buy the two volume book but the first book is the more important.

Cyrus Gordon was the first to realize that the word 'Jordan' - already known NOT to be a Jewish name - called 'yardna' in the original pronunciation as in the Mandaic, comes from the Iardanos River in Crete. So put that in your labyrinth and smoke it out! :D

Can't write more for the moment because am trying to ensure that I get to speak at the Mandaean conference in Oxford in July.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Cyrus Gordon was the first to realize that the word 'Jordan' - already known NOT to be a Jewish name - called 'yardna' in the original pronunciation as in the Mandaic, comes from the Iardanos River in Crete. So put that in your labyrinth and smoke it out! :D
I'm not sure whether he mentioned that in one of the books of his that I have, but yes, like the Legend of Kret, found at Ugarit. Those Cretans seem to have gotten around quite a bit. I suspect they may be related to the later Etruscans, based upon some similar social behaviors, at least.

Sorry to hear about your computer, I know how that goes.

..and even more that Larry & Moe hadn't started scoring off each other again - since you work so much better as a threesome, e.g. with Joe [Besser-als-einander].
The issue is really rather simple, yet a considerable problem. We don't really disagree, generally, over the larger question of programatic 'cultural degradation' existing or not. The difference is one of motivation and actual sponsorship. Jerry and I consider both to be a part of the larger Western Globalist cyclical (Postflavian CCCS) destruction and construction 'process', with the Jews and Freemasons as integral role players. This, rather than zealous genetic zombies on a bizarre revenge binge. The former fits much better with the widest historical and canonic evidence.

The failure to recognize the distinction, IMO, makes Judaeo-phobic nationalists into globalists that don't know it, aka useful idiots. Or, in other words, rabid 'patriots' who don't realize that their sly Father(s), their 'patrones' are globalists. Did we just see such an American feline who idolized the Imperial Tsar (Caesar) of Russia? OMG, those godless Jews killed yet another mangod!!!!

This leaves otherwise sympatico Christian skeptics at cross purposes, pun intended.
 
So now for a few tiny bites in one big gobbet, getting back to the main thrust of the thread. When Marxist revolution degenerated in Soviet Russia, particularly highlighted by the Kronstadt anarchist uprising, some of whose leaders fled to the West rather than be slaughtered in the fighting in the fortress, other Marxists were already thinking about how Marx's ideas could ever be achieved - notably Georg Lukacs, son of a Jewish investment banker, having been responsible for sex education in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic. Lukacs soon joined up with like-minded others to form the Frankfurt School in the 1920s with Adorno and Horkheimer, Marcuse joining in shortly after. Not merely due to their Jewish heritage, they were both frank about their Marxism and furtive about how they hoped to make it work - especially when they migrated to the USA!

(Antonio Gramsci had nothing to do with this - any link to Lukacs being accidental since both criticized Bukharin's cretinous 'Popular Manual' of Marxist Philosophy in similar ways. Discussing Gramsci's work here would be a distraction).

Jerry and Joe touched on the Frankfurters' issue in the Aug 17, 2015 podcast, but that and later podcasts have not fully revealed the order of events. When Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School leaders, also Jewish like Adorno (only on his father's side), Horkheimer and Marcuse fled to the USA. After 1945 they began to synthesize their philosophies, combining Western (capitalist liberal democratic) philosophy with their Marxist background. This was not too hard as it meant little more than replacing the word ‘proletarian’ with ‘democratic’.

The major texts published, interspersed with related landmarks, are, in order:

Dialectic of Enlightenment (Adorno & Horkheimer) - 1947
Kinsey on the Male – 1948
The Authoritarian Personality - 1950
Catcher in the Rye (Salinger) – 1951
Kinsey on the Female – 1953
Eros and Civilization (Marcuse) – 1955
Wasson’s Mushroom Trip – 1956-7
The One Dimensional Man (Marcuse) - 1966

Three of the books above are underlined, those which I had read years before reading Postflaviana or listening to Joe on video-tube. The vile Salinger book we had studied in late high school, as I mentioned earlier, while I read One Dimensional Man decades ago, too early to appreciate his subtle and convoluted philosophical arguments; Dialectic of Enlightenment I read about 12 years ago. I have never read Kinsey so was unaware and rather surprised about the paedophile contact that led to his claims on “infant sexuality” (I had earlier presumed his experimental findings were based on nursing staff and orphanage research – though with people like Jimmy Savile associated with the latter, there is perhaps no substantial difference).

I knew of Eros and Civilization but having endured his later text I wanted to read nothing more of Marcuse; I had presumed it had a rather conventional agenda so would just be an elaboration of Freudian concepts trying to cure 19th century ‘Victorian’ sexual hangups – without a particular political agenda, apart from being vaguely ‘left’, its message merely being to counteract the ignorance and suppression of that era, without any overt culturally debasing message which I instead presumed arose indirectly from the ‘permissive society’ that resulted in reaction to ‘50s conformity and conservatism.

The new one for me was Joe discussing The Authoritarian Personality on Youtube (e.g. on ‘Elvis as a Mind-Control Slave’) as he brought up the 'F-scale', not a sexual scaling as one would naively expect, but the 'Fascist Scale'. This of course tied in with Adorno & Horkheimer’s goal which was to overcome the resistance of “authoritarian personalities” since it was these types who most likely to turn to Fascism.

Joe quoted the infamous words from the book’s conclusion viz:
”The Authoritarian Personality” said:
Techniques for overcoming resistance, developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use on a mass scale. … Thus, we need not suppose that appeal to emotion belongs to those who strive in the direction of fascism, while democratic propaganda must limit itself to reason and restraint. If fear and destructiveness are the major emotional sources of fascism, eros belongs mainly to democracy.
These words go beyond Dialectics of Enlightenment from three years before and instead show that the authors of the later work, including both Adorno & Horkheimer, would covertly take up a new strategy for manipulating the masses – this being what we now call Sex’n’Drugs’n’Rock&Roll (SnDnR&R).

As I realized this, I downloaded and read Marcuse’s earlier work, Eros and Civilization. The text is easier to read than One Dimensional Man, which is more devoted to the underlying philosophy. In Eros and Civilization we see the SnDnR&R plan laid out in full and in advance for Wasson & Co. to realize the aims of MK-Ultra culminating in Woodstock. The end result of course was the debasement of culture and by now the creation of over a generation of ‘Single Mom’ and ‘Porno-man’ types, with people drifting from one relationship to another while in intermittent employment making an impoverished life for their children if they happen to have them.

What now became clear to me from the above is the unexpected – and antagonistic – association between Fascism on one side and SnDnR&R on the other. Do you see what I’m getting at here? And if not perhaps Miss Kitty will see it quicker than you two do because she might feel more sympathy towards the hidden connection now being exposed!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
What now became clear to me from the above is the unexpected – and antagonistic – association between Fascism on one side and SnDnR&R on the other. Do you see what I’m getting at here?
No, I don't see what you're getting at (except that I do - if that makes any sense). Why would this antagonistic association be unexpected?

You brought up the sexually repressive nature of the Victorian era, and this was nothing new.

We see it hinted at with Augustus Caesar's (proto-Christian) Family Values program being instituted because Roman elite husbands were too busy screwing around while the domina of the house was playing with her mandingo. These Family Values were carried on by the Church, but of course, they had to quietly allow males some external relieve down at the corner brothel and such. This culture went on for a long, long time, until various 'conservative' interests put the kibosh on this particular aspect of the so-called Double Standard around the opening of the 20th century.

As I had asked Joe to answer, and never got a reply to my knowledge, is exactly what was being degraded, ignoring here the various excesses brought about by SnDnR&R. Maybe for Joe, the question was too obvious for him to dignify with a response, but now you've, at least, provided the Augustan nuclear family stability issue. But my question was really intended to get to the same issue that the adulterously philandering Augustus was getting to, i.e. that there weren't enough real Romans to sustain the expansionist Roman enterprise. They did not like allowing outsiders (like the Latini and worse) into their ruling Sabini cabal.

This last is what Miss Kitty is hinting at, perhaps unwittingly, nand/nor knowing that we're essentially talking about the same general dialectic phenomenon and elite (non po white) peoples today.

Hmmm, people, po white or otherwise, can't ensure the prosperity of their spawn? Why are university educations so damn expensive, just to sit in a lecture hall and write theses?

Then you need to answer why neoRome's CIA would take an interest in this project. OMG, thar's Freemasons in thar!! Yes, and good (elite) Catholics as well, the same witch's brew that created neoRome from day one.

This same CIA admitted that it helped spread cocaine selectively into urban black communities. This allowed them to further 'degrade' one subculture while at the same time raise money to fight anti-neocolonialism in Central and South America. This last motive was made even more 'poignant' when the likes of Newt Gingrich (I believe?) extolled that Obama's father was a fighter against colonialism. Talk about an American 'patriot' "spilling the beans", and Mosaic cultural inversion. This guy's adulterous wife is the current American ambassador to the Vatican (whom Ronald Reagan recognized as being a nation).

As we've been discussing on other threads, all cultures are social constructs, woven together from various local environmental circumstances ... and sometimes conscious human inputs. Hence Imperial Rome's Christianity, and Persopolis and Thebe's Judaism. And if Augustan Family Values are too authoritarian and Yin, and the Frankfurt School's results were too libertine and Yang, then perhaps we need to do some designer synthesis for the coming age, finding the balance between your thesis? and the antithesis. But, I'm guessing the cultural design for the new order is already on velum, ex cathedra. And it too will have the Double Standard.

Robotic slaves will be serving the 'White' descendants of the proletariat and the Guardia Civil Cuba Libres in the bars of Spain, and they'll all wonder what the fuss was about. Workers? Who needs fucking workers, or ... ?
 
What an interesting reply!
Richard Stanley said:
No, I don't see what you're getting at (except that I do - if that makes any sense). Why would this antagonistic association be unexpected?
I was always led to believe that the puritanism sometimes exhibited by Fascists (German, Italian or Spanish) was humbug and that the regimes lived off sexual degradation.

Hence I did not expect to find a major antagonistic association as Joe uncovered!

Richard Stanley said:
You brought up the sexually repressive nature of the Victorian era, and this was nothing new.
True, but I had to state this to emphasize the different interpretation to be developed.
Richard Stanley said:
We see it hinted at with Augustus Caesar's (proto-Christian) Family Values program being instituted because Roman elite husbands were too busy screwing around while the domina of the house was playing with her mandingo. These Family Values were carried on by the Church, but of course, they had to quietly allow males some external relieve down at the corner brothel and such. This culture went on for a long, long time, until various 'conservative' interests put the kibosh on this particular aspect of the so-called Double Standard around the opening of the 20th century.

As I had asked Joe to answer, and never got a reply to my knowledge, is exactly what was being degraded, ignoring here the various excesses brought about by SnDnR&R. Maybe for Joe, the question was too obvious for him to dignify with a response, but now you've, at least, provided the Augustan nuclear family stability issue. But my question was really intended to get to the same issue that the adulterously philandering Augustus was getting to, i.e. that there weren't enough real Romans to sustain the expansionist Roman enterprise. They did not like allowing outsiders (like the Latini and worse) into their ruling Sabini cabal.
Very true, and it was exacerbated by the incompetence and arrogance of Quintilius Varus who lost three legions ambushed in Kallkriese in newly conquered Germany.

Though I now have to ask what "non po" means - ?Non post-modern???? People of mixed ancestry?????
Richard Stanley said:
This last is what Miss Kitty is hinting at, perhaps unwittingly, nand/nor knowing that we're essentially talking about the same general dialectic phenomenon and elite (non po white) peoples today.

Hmmm, people, po white or otherwise, can't ensure the prosperity of their spawn? Why are university educations so damn expensive, just to sit in a lecture hall and write theses?

Then you need to answer why neoRome's CIA would take an interest in this project. OMG, thar's Freemasons in thar!! Yes, and good (elite) Catholics as well, the same witch's brew that created neoRome from day one.

This same CIA admitted that it helped spread cocaine selectively into urban black communities.
The first point is that Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse have both a Marxist background and a Western liberal democratic one.

The second point, rather obvious, is that they hated Fascism, especially with Hitler and the systematic extermination of Jews.

The third point is that they also keenly felt the failure of Marxist-Leninism to thrive and win over Europeans through some magic 'domino effect.'

They could not explain Leninism's failure according to their democratic-cum-Marxist teaching but nor could they explain Fascism's obvious success in winning over a crucially significant portion of the workers of these countries.

More importantly, in the quote at the very end of the Authoritarian Personality they frankly admit that they could NOT, repeat NOT, challenge Fascism successfully via "reason and restraint". Their reason and rationality, Western or Marxist, failed them in the face of Fascist development so they decide to cheat - to seduce the masses into distraction and dissipation via SnDnR&R, brandishing it as a porno-fuelled weapon, rendering them helpless, confused and stupid - all to ensure that they could never ever turn to Fascism again!

Clearly, in order to stoop to such a sleazy strategy, devastating families and individuals for generations now, there must be something very rational and Reason-able in Fascism that they were utterly unable to combat, something that they would not dare admit to the public - and, I suspect, not even to themselves since it would mean admitting that in crucial respects Fascists are MORE RATIONAL and REASONABLE than either Western liberal democracy or Marxist teachings or both in alliance, notwithstanding the comprehensive Fascist defeat in WW2!

Your task is to work out and understand what this is - and bring the smelling salts to Jerry!:p

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
More importantly, in the quote at the very end of the Authoritarian Personality they frankly admit that they could NOT, repeat NOT, challenge Fascism successfully via "reason and restraint".
No, they didn't reject reason and restraint as part of the democratic "propaganda" tool kit. They recommended an emotional appeal to eros as well. And what is eros?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Eros

1: the Greek god of erotic love — compare CUPID
2: the sum of life-preserving instincts that are manifested as impulses to gratify basic needs, as sublimated impulses, and as impulses to protect and preserve the body and mind — compare DEATH INSTINCT
3a: love conceived by Plato as a fundamental creative impulse having a sensual element
b often not capitalized : erotic love or desire
Sounds essential for reproductive success to me. The opposite of a "porno-fuelled weapon", and having absolutely nothing to do with drug induced stupor.

So, where does that leave your claim that Adorno & Horkheimer are somehow to blame for later CIA projects such as MK-Ultra?

Also, Adorno and Horkheimer said that the emotional appeal of Fascism is "fear and destructiveness" -- that is, the DEATH INSTINCT, the opposite of eros. So their recommendation to fight Fascism with eros was completely logical.

Whereas the CIA's strategy to pervert eros into drug addiction, was also perfectly consistent with our view that the CIA is basically a Fascist institution.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
What an interesting reply! I was always led to believe that the puritanism sometimes exhibited by Fascists (German, Italian or Spanish) was humbug and that the regimes lived off sexual degradation.

Hence I did not expect to find a major antagonistic association as Joe uncovered!
Well, we were all lied to as to the real nature of the troika of 20th Century Fascism, i.e. its real relationship to Western religion. As I have discussed about Nazi eschatology, it is messianicly apocalyptic, Millennial and cribbed directly from the JudaeoChristian playbooks. As such, Hitler was painted as the next Christ, the literal Savior for the new millennial Reich (an imperial empire for the ever shallow 'nationalists'). Thus, in their own myopic minds, just as with the apocalyptic Evangelicals of today, they're not Evil - as we were all otherwise correctly taught. The apocalyptic Jewish Zealots were not Evil in their own minds, but they certainly were to those with a Roman (proto-Christian) POV. "The more things change the more they stay the same".

This is not to say that one can find plenty of examples of debauched Fascist individuals (especially as leaders), but this comes with the territory, no less than the typical debauchery of the Euro-nobility and ecclesia of the Church, the rule that proves the exceptions [sic]. This is also theologically consistent with Christianity, where Jesus let Satan rule the Earth. Why, because he and his Daddy were/are lazy murderous pieces of shit, or is there a dialectical method to the madness, albeit metaphorical, even gnosticly dual?
Very true, and it was exacerbated by the incompetence and arrogance of Quintilius Varus who lost three legions ambushed in Kallkriese in newly conquered Germany.
Even if this was the case, it had already been made moot by such as Julius Caesar, a Fascist Populist of yore, and of much repute amongst neoRomans even today. This, because JC's legions were only 'Roman' at the officer level, the troops being Gauls (like that later JC having Gaul-ileans).
Though I now have to ask what "non po" means - ?Non post-modern???? People of mixed ancestry?????
Sorry about that. 'Po' is an American colloquialism, a shortening of 'poor'. So "non po" means elites or wannbe elites.
The first point is that Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse have both a Marxist background and a Western liberal democratic one.
Correlation is not Causation. The American founding fathers were, by definition, Liberal. Even if judged along a spectrum, they were anti-monarchists, at least 'on paper'. By my book, their various Freemasonry practices accord these as being crypto-monarchists.

What you really need to do is convince us that these had motivations that are contrary to the process dynamics of the Western roll-out, writ large. So far, Joe and you, and the likes of Miss Kitty are failing miserably.
The second point, rather obvious, is that they hated Fascism, especially with Hitler and the systematic extermination of Jews.
This means nothing to me, in terms of your argumentation.
The third point is that they also keenly felt the failure of Marxist-Leninism to thrive and win over Europeans through some magic 'domino effect.' They could not explain Leninism's failure according to their democratic-cum-Marxist teaching but nor could they explain Fascism's obvious success in winning over a crucially significant portion of the workers of these countries.
Wow, so little patience, for Jews no less. Must not have been real Jews then. :rolleyes:

But, in any case, I suspect that you, like Miss Kitty and the neo and cryptoCatholics, are again baldly projecting your traditionalist dialect interpretations into their motivations, unless you can demonstrate proof otherwise.

More importantly, in the quote at the very end of the Authoritarian Personality they frankly admit that they could NOT, repeat NOT, challenge Fascism successfully via "reason and restraint". Their reason and rationality, Western or Marxist, failed them in the face of Fascist development so they decide to cheat - to seduce the masses into distraction and dissipation via SnDnR&R, brandishing it as a porno-fuelled weapon, rendering them helpless, confused and stupid - all to ensure that they could never ever turn to Fascism again!
You are, so far, pre-supposing that Fascism is a good thing, except for those who 'Craft it', as you have yet provided any evidence, other than it is a historical LOSER, according to the standard terms of the Fascist/Populist Donald Trump and yourself. In typological process terms, Fascism is a necessary transitional state to an (now global) Imperium, as a process Synthesis arising from a contrived, manufactured Dialectic.
”The Authoritarian Personality” said:

Techniques for overcoming resistance, developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use on a mass scale. … Thus, we need not suppose that appeal to emotion belongs to those who strive in the direction of fascism, while democratic propaganda must limit itself to reason and restraint. If fear and destructiveness are the major emotional sources of fascism, eros belongs mainly to democracy.
Thus, blah, blah, blah. Now, if you want to go beyond this quote I might listen to you. But, on its own, the above is rather dry, at least, as to describing malign motivations ... in a psychological war against totalitarian Fascism that is.

If you were to argue that one must first Craft an Antithesis to a prior order (of supposed Christian wonderfulness - as the Thesis), then one can indeed see Fascism as a Reactionary reaction. And, what we have been witnessing, is rather several 'rockings of the boat' so to speak, in order to achieve the Final Synthesis. These 'rockings' beginning with the American and French Revolutions.

Rock Music, 'rocking of the boat'? Hmmm

In the early days of the American Rock scene, one of the famous venues was The Troubadour in Los Angeles. Remember that quip? And the so-called noise in the Michelson-Morley Interferometer?

But, let's presume that the intended eros does indeed have malign purpose, process or otherwise. You, again, make a non sequitur from concluding that Fascism, from its oppositional state is a binary morality or whatever. It almost seems as blatant casuistry.
Clearly, in order to stoop to such a sleazy strategy, devastating families and individuals for generations now, there must be something very rational and Reason-able in Fascism that they were utterly unable to combat, something that they would not dare admit to the public - and, I suspect, not even to themselves since it would mean admitting that in crucial respects Fascists are MORE RATIONAL and REASONABLE than either Western liberal democracy or Marxist teachings or both in alliance, notwithstanding the comprehensive Fascist defeat in WW2!

Your task is to work out and understand what this is - and bring the smelling salts to Jerry!:p
Beyond my agreeing that historical Fascism (and its inherent Nationalist association) is a more rational construct of controlled oppositional support in furthering emerging and expanded imperial Western needs, I think you need the smelling salts.

Children succeed or fail for all types of reasons, whether they be in tradition Christian cultural norms or not. If you want to argue that their success is more likely in the traditional setting, you might want to ask how much of the obverse is merely from expected Christian konformity becoming a roadblock to others.

You seem to be on a driven neoPauline mission to advance your thesis.
 
Last edited:
Well I would like to agree with your straightforward (but actually evasive) answer, Jerry i.e. no sleaze but healthy eros instead in your ideal la-la world.:rolleyes:
Jerry Russell said:
No, they didn't reject reason and restraint as part of the democratic "propaganda" tool kit. They recommended an emotional appeal to eros as well. And what is eros?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Eros

1: the Greek god of erotic love — compare CUPID
2: the sum of life-preserving instincts that are manifested as impulses to gratify basic needs, as sublimated impulses, and as impulses to protect and preserve the body and mind — compare DEATH INSTINCT
3a: love conceived by Plato as a fundamental creative impulse having a sensual element
b often not capitalized : erotic love or desire
Sounds essential for reproductive success to me. The opposite of a "porno-fuelled weapon", and having absolutely nothing to do with drug induced stupor.
But you can see for yourself, even without Joe's prodding, that the correct straightforward answer you give from the dictionary is NOT the answer that Adorno, Horkheimer & Marcuse intended!
Jerry Russell said:
So, where does that leave your claim that Adorno & Horkheimer are somehow to blame for later CIA projects such as MK-Ultra?
It shows my claim is correct, because Marcuse follows in their frank-&-furtive footsteps and extends their argument in Eros & Civilization - invoking e.g. the fulfilment of imagined infantile sexual fantansies as the timewarped future for mankind seen from the Golden Age of 1955, distracting people from the questions of power and government into the individualistic pursuit of sexual fantasies. A sure recipe for disappointment - and on one of his videos Joe mentions that he attended lectures by Marcuse, Marcuse preaching a very popular and influential message of sexual libertinism and infinite self-indulgence. (And let's not kid ourselves here - just listening to Joe speak of listening to a Marcuse lecture makes you realize how he felt for being played a chump, excusable only by his youth).

Adorno & Horkheimer were still alive then (especially in the early 1960s) and did NOT oppose Marcuse's text, therefore they incriminate themselves in the whole process of SnDnR&R by their silence! Rather, by their silence they reveal their tacit acceptance of the sleazy agenda!
Jerry Russell said:
Also, Adorno and Horkheimer said that the emotional appeal of Fascism is "fear and destructiveness" -- that is, the DEATH INSTINCT, the opposite of eros. So their recommendation to fight Fascism with eros was completely logical.
Clearly Fascism is much more than mere "fear and destructiveness" and contains a powerful, indeed predominant, reasonable and rational element - otherwise the HAM triad (Horkheimer, Adorno & Marcuse) would not have had to resort to such "below the belt" tactics.

Hence your next phrase is simply obfuscation since it gives the word 'fascist' a double meaning, since what is being referred to in the 1950s is the Fascist Era teachings of Italy, Germany and Spain, not the label 'fascism' spouted at some group that someone (usually a Leftist) does not like.
Jerry Russell said:
Whereas the CIA's strategy to pervert eros into drug addiction, was also perfectly consistent with our view that the CIA is basically a Fascist institution.
I.e. the CIA feared the ultimate return of Fascism with the USA's eventual economic decline (see Rosa Luxemburg's work The Accumulation of Capital and the Anticritique for proof of this) hence they wanted to disempower and destroy the masses beforehand, especially as the 'Marxist option' had now (1955-1966) been contained in Eastern Europe and still-developing Communist China, assuring relatively high wages for US workers until the Soviet collapse.

Hence the proof of Fascism's inner reasonableness and rationality is clear - and I can invoke even the anti-Fascist George Orwell as proof for this, notwithstanding Aldous Huxley's coward-generating Brave New World.:cool:

Yours faithfully
Claude

BTW - I made a mistake with the date of One Dimensional Man, it was published first in 1964 when I was in third class at primary school!
 
Last edited:
Richard Stanley said:
Well, we were all lied to as to the real nature of the troika of 20th Century Fascism, i.e. its real relationship to Western religion.
As if Western ideology or Marxism has any lesser relationship to Western religion - but I won't dispute your point!
Richard Stanley said:
As I have discussed about Nazi eschatology, it is messianicly apocalyptic, Millennial and cribbed directly from the JudaeoChristian playbooks. As such, Hitler was painted as the next Christ, the literal Savior for the new millennial Reich (an imperial empire for the ever shallow 'nationalists'). Thus, in their own myopic minds, just as with the apocalyptic Evangelicals of today, they're not Evil - as we were all otherwise correctly taught. The apocalyptic Jewish Zealots were not Evil in their own minds, but they certainly were to those with a Roman (proto-Christian) POV. "The more things change the more they stay the same".
That is right, since they are not Evil in their own minds - else how could they function.

I emphasized the massive losses of Romans in the civil war following JC's death.
Richard Stanley said:
Even if this was the case, it had already been made moot by such as Julius Caesar, a Fascist Populist of yore, and of much repute amongst neoRomans even today. This, because JC's legions were only 'Roman' at the officer level, the troops being Gauls (like that later JC having Gaul-ileans).
Very interesting claim, since JC claimed to be an Epicurean, whereas Brutus was a Stoic. JC's legions initially consisted mainly of Italians - if you include Cisalpine Gaul as Italy, but he won over many other troops to his cause over time i.e. the "merciful Ceasar" of yore! The problem is that in our day anyone who is a leader and thus authoritarian in some sense is ALWAYS labelled a 'fascist' weakening the term by broadening it.
Richard Stanley said:
'Po' is an American colloquialism, a shortening of 'poor'. So "non po" means elites or wannbe elites.
Thank you for that as I had badly misinterpreted your words!
Richard Stanley said:
Correlation is not Causation. The American founding fathers were, by definition, Liberal. Even if judged along a spectrum, they were anti-monarchists, at least 'on paper'. By my book, their various Freemasonry practices accord these as being crypto-monarchists.

What you really need to do is convince us that these had motivations that are contrary to the process dynamics of the Western roll-out, writ large. So far, Joe and you, and the likes of Miss Kitty are failing miserably.
In this context I am specifically referring to the motivations of Adorno, Horkheimer & Marcuse - and their realization that reason and rationality were inadequate in opposing Fascism, despite it so often being labelled 'irrational'. Yet as Jews they were determined to prevent a Fascist revival!
Richard Stanley said:
This means nothing to me, in terms of your argumentation.
It should however, because in this way you understand their motivation, and their desire to resort to the dirtiest arguments in order to win! Were Fascism as evil as people portray it, the resort to sleazy eros in order to prevent it and combat it would not have been necessary - as I will show from George Orwell!
Richard Stanley said:
Wow, so little patience, for Jews no less. Must not have been real Jews then. :rolleyes:

But, in any case, I suspect that you, like Miss Kitty and the neo and cryptoCatholics, are again baldly projecting your traditionalist dialect interpretations into their motivations, unless you can demonstrate proof otherwise.
Do I really have to prove that Jews hated the Nazis because the latter wanted to wipe them out? What I am showing is that the former, embodied in the Frankfurt HAM triad (Horkheimer, Adorno & Marcuse) resorted to sleaze - not with the primary intention to make money from it - but to debase culture so badly that the masses became incapable of clear thinking! How they have succeeded!

I am not presupposing that Fascism is a good thing per se, but that it contains good things...
Richard Stanley said:
You are, so far, pre-supposing that Fascism is a good thing, except for those who 'Craft it', as you have yet provided any evidence, other than it is a historical LOSER, according to the standard terms of the Fascist/Populist Donald Trump and yourself. In typological process terms, Fascism is a necessary transitional state to an (now global) Imperium, as a process Synthesis arising from a contrived, manufactured Dialectic.
...despite its being associated with LOSERS like Hitler and the Daffy Ducktator.

Hitler lost due to his racism - since if he had backed both the Ukrainians and the rebel anti-Communist Russian general Vlasov, the Nazis would have subverted and beaten the Soviet Union, meeting up with unopposed Japanese troops coming westward along the Trans-Siberian railway. The USA leadership, Freemasons and all, would have broken out in panic as Turkey and Spain rallied to the Axis cause, full knowing that the US's subsequent attack on Spain via Portugal would bring Mexico to Spain's side! (So will you help Trump build that wall????)

Hence the agenda exposed in the Authoritarian Personality "Thus, we need not suppose that appeal to emotion belongs to those who strive in the direction of fascism, while democratic propaganda must limit itself to reason and restraint. If fear and destructiveness are the major emotional sources of fascism, eros belongs mainly to democracy." The HAM triad well knew that a cleverer less bigoted leader than Hitler could eventually get things done!
Richard Stanley said:
Thus, blah, blah, blah. Now, if you want to go beyond this quote I might listen to you. But, on its own, the above is rather dry, at least, as to describing malign motivations ... in a psychological war against totalitarian Fascism that is.

If you were to argue that one must first Craft an Antithesis to a prior order (of supposed Christian wonderfulness - as the Thesis), then one can indeed see Fascism as a Reactionary reaction. And, what we have been witnessing, is rather several 'rockings of the boat' so to speak, in order to achieve the Final Synthesis. These 'rockings' beginning with the American and French Revolutions.

Rock Music, 'rocking of the boat'? Hmmm

In the early days of the American Rock scene, one of the famous venues was The Troubadour in Los Angeles. Remember that quip? And the so-called noise in the Michelson-Morley Interferometer?

But, let's presume that the intended eros does indeed have malign purpose, process or otherwise. You, again, make a non sequitur from concluding that Fascism, from its oppositional state is a binary morality or whatever. It almost seems as blatant casuistry.
A binary morality of Fascism versus the West you mean?

Richard Stanley said:
Beyond my agreeing that historical Fascism (and its inherent Nationalist association) is a more rational construct of controlled oppositional support in furthering emerging and expanded imperial Western needs, I think you need the smelling salts.
The point is that uncovering the good side of Fascism enables it to be developed properly without all the racist, sociobiological (e.g. Kevin MacDonald and his 'Culture of Critique') and nationalist stuff which led to its destruction.
Richard Stanley said:
Children succeed or fail for all types of reasons, whether they be in tradition Christian cultural norms or not. If you want to argue that their success is more likely in the traditional setting, you might want to ask how much of the obverse is merely from expected Christian konformity becoming a roadblock to others.

You seem to be on a driven neoPauline mission to advance your thesis.
Big words on your part - but we want children to succeed at more than fulfilling their alleged Marcusian infantile sexual fantasies:rolleyes:! The roadblock exists not merely in Christianity (or other religions) but in Nature itself. We cannot escape this Earth with present technology to live elsewhere, while regnant capitalism is rapidly destroying the environment. :)

Once again, it is primarily a question of power, not a question of imposing upon or seducing the mob with Leftist levelling egalitarianism!

When the Australian Greens managed to get members into the Senate in the early 2000s, the Liberal Party (actually the Liberal-National Coalition but equivalent to your GOP) dug up evidence - correct evidence - to show that the Nazis (notably Walther Darre) had Green credentials, all this done to embarrass the Australian Greens. Rather, it shows that the Nazis had a genuine environmental concern, unlike leading financial elites today, the Liberal Party's anti-environmental agenda being voted in again just last Saturday:mad:!

And you wonder why I feel more than miffed?

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
None other than George Orwell pre-empted my interpretation of Marcuse's Eros and Civilization. While Joe rightly saw its disastrous debasing effects on culture, he attributes it merely to the Freemason-inspired degradation of humanity via secret societies and their activities in order, ultimately, to provoke a mass genocide of Europeans and others. In this way he misses or ignores the anti-Fascist agenda behind Marcuse & Co.! But in post #35 Jerry wants to believe that Marcuse's ideas haven't significantly debased the West since 1955.

So now read Orwell from his Essays, Journalism & Letters (OEJM)
OEJM Vol. 2 p. 14 said:
Hitler's... pathetic dog-like face, is the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. …. Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life.
Hence we have eros-invoking Marcuse comfortably placing himself in opposition to the Fuehrer! But Orwell also observes that:
OEJM Vol. 2 p. 14 said:
Nearly all western thought since the last war [WW1], certainly all "progressive" thought [Claude: that means e.g. Larry & Mo though perhaps not their kitty-cat?], has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and the avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won't do.
Seems that there are knuckleheads who think otherwise.:rolleyes:
OEJM Vol. 2 p. 14 said:
Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don't only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. …. Whereas Socialism and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time", Hitler has said "I offer you struggle, danger and death" and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.
You also know Docherty & MacGregor's work on how Britain organized WW1 for 20 years before it started - you have a link to Docherty's video here on the website.

Hence the HAM triad have discovered the most effective cure for Fascism - eros, quickly elaborated into perverted sexual debauchery and cultural debasement.:D:D:D

In case you bring up Orwell's possible Freemasonry I hasten to add that he is not a Fascist, but disavowed himself with perhaps the stupidest, blindest and most reactionary words ever written in the 20th century. He labels Fascism & Nazism (though not yet necessarily Stalin's Marxist Leninism) as 'totalitarianism'.
OEJM Vol. 2 'The Lion and the Unicorn' p. 106 said:
So long as democracy exists, even in its very imperfect English form, totalitarianism is in deadly danger. The whole English-speaking world is haunted by the idea of human equality, and though it would be simply a lie to say that either we or the Americans have ever acted up to our professions, still, the idea is there, and it is capable of one day becoming a reality. From the English-speaking culture, if it does not perish, a society of free and equal human beings will ultimately arise. But it is precisely the idea of human equality - the 'Jewish' or 'Judaeo-Christian' idea of equality - that Hitler came into the world to destroy. The thought of a world in which black men would be as good as white men and Jews treated as human beings brings him the same horror and despair as the thought of endless slavery brings to us.
His emphasized words are utter and complete rubbish - not merely because of English culture but because the goal is fatally flawed as an aim!

Rather, Orwell reveals the true conundrum in lumping together Hitler's attitude to Blacks and to Jews. In both cases Hitler treats these differences as genetic differences (as does Kevin MacDonald in his Culture of Critique,* who in this case thinks more like the amiable but irritating Kevin-the-Quarterback in the Daria cartoon series), whereas I have clearly stated that genetic differences are what separate White and Black - and all the intermediate people, including myself - whereas what separates Jews from other people (White, Black or Whatever) is entirely cultural, NOT genetic and thus contra Hitler & MacDonald (and of course contra that cat that Larry & Mo like to kick outa the house).

What pollutes the West is its culture, not just English culture, in that it believes that human personality differences are essentially trivial and that everyone is the same underneath such that "a society of free and equal human beings will ultimately arise." The mere existence of Shepherds, Sheepdogs and Sheep indicates that the Hindu caste system for example, is based upon sound psychological instinct, despite its obvious injustice for being hereditary.

What I am saying is that the correct criteria to separate Shepherds, Sheepdogs and Sheep is required - rather than pretending that everybody can be part of "a society of free and equal human beings" by abolishing the Shepherd-Sheepdog-Sheep distinction, since necessary personality differences (which are also non-hereditary as we shall see) preclude this outcome ever.

The much more difficult question is highlighted by Kevin MacDonald - who seems to think it arises by sociobiology or evolutionary psychology - is where does human personality, specifically differential human personality, come from?

Yours faithfully
Claude

*Thank you for the reference to Joe's radio show with Tim Kelly. It was there that I heard of Kevin's book; I downloaded it later.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I have clearly stated that genetic differences are what separate White and Black
Whereas we have clearly and repetitively stated that White and Black are also cultural constructs, poorly correlated with genetics. I would appreciate it if there was some forward movement in the conversation, rather than endless repetition.

(and of course that cat that Larry & Mo like to kick outa the house).
Miss Kitty is welcome to post here if she will respect the site rules, and refrain from hate speech and calls for genocide or ethnic cleansing against Latinos and Jews.

I need to remind you about this site rule also:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/forum-rules-site-policies-and-disclaimer.1224/

2 - No personal attacks or abusive behavior
Each and every member on this forum has a right to be treated with dignity and respect. The following behavior is not acceptable:
- Personal attacks: Any insulting or abusive behavior that is directed at a specific person.
- Bullying (flaming): Repeated abuse towards another member, this could be undertaken by one member or a number of members.
- Instigating (trolling): Repeatedly provoking a member with the goal of getting an irrational response from them. Or, content consisting of unsupported assertions, speculations, or opinions, which are deemed to be gratuitously inciting acrimony, rather than promoting sincere dialogue and mutual understanding.
- Comment bombardment: replying by posting an excessive volume of marginally relevant content.
Repeated comparisons of your hosts to the Three Stooges, is insulting and abusive. This is our site, and we don't have to put up with it.
 
Last edited:
Top