Postlavians Beating a Dead Fuhrerprinzep

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
...his phrasing in the quoted essay strongly indicated to me a Marxist background on his part.
Not only a Marxist, but Executive Director of the Critical Theory Workshop! And according to Claudio Corradetti, author of the article "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory" at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Critical Theory" is nothing other than the proper philosophical name for "the Frankfurt School". As Corradetti further explains: "Critical Theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy with regards to some of its central economic and political notions like commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture."

He does not acknowledge that Fascism - big F Fascism - arose only because of the Leninist activities leading to Bolshevik Russia and the Hungarian and Bavarian Socialist Republics.
Indeed, Rockhill is at least questioning whether the concept of fascism can be limited to that specific historical milieu which (as you say) arose in response to Bolshevism and other socialist movements. He says that this bourgeois capitalist definition of Fascism (limited to Mussolini, Franco and Hitler) is exemplary of an invalid ideological operation that "transforms the systemic into the sporadic, the structural into the singular, the conjunctural into the idiosyncratic", ultimately leading to the ridiculous conclusion that "if there are no jackboots, Sieg Heil salutes and goose-stepping soldiers, then we cannot possibly be within what is commonly known as fascism."

And above, you defined "big F Fascism" as the rule by a savior figure who would implement a Georgist single tax and other reform measures to respect the rights of the public. In contrast to this, you gave the definition that a (small-f) "'fascist strongman' in our era is one ruled by Western capitalism, ultimately by the USA, so he has no real independence, being but a figurehead, a small-f 'fascist.'"

By your definition, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were all small-f 'fascists' ultimately ruled by Western (Anglo-American) capitalism, certainly unable to implement the Georgist single tax or any other serious populist reform measures. In other words, simply, tyrants.

Or perhaps the distinction between "big F Fascism" and "small-f fascism" is collapsing under scrutiny?

The big Marxist failure is its refusal to deal with finance capitalism - a striking contrast to Fascism which understood that finance capitalism was the real killer, hence the Judaeo-Christian antipathy to Fascism as the latter knows where the power lies, unlike the idiotic Marxists who blame but "capitalism" for everything - as if the true cure is collectivized farming and factories (with an accompanying dictatorship of the proletariat a temporary situation before egalitarian anarchism is achieved as the ultimate goal)! This is why the capitalists quickly became supportive of Fascism, because the Fascists promised to protect them from the Bolsheviks! In contrast, Hitler's victories (starting from 1933) would ensure that German finance capitalism could not control and dominate the Nazis - contra the Marxist prattle about Fascism being merely a manifestation of capitalism.

Marxists historically failed to deal with finance capitalism, and they also failed even more spectacularly to deal with the remnants of the monarchical system, nobility, and landed wealth. Perhaps this is because Marx himself was some sort of Prussian government agent. And I must agree that "farming and factories" is a limited aspect of "capitalism". A proper analysis needs to address finance capitalism as well as other influential cultural, religious and political powers.

But -- if Hitler was able to escape domination by German finance capitalism, it was only because he had fallen under the domination of Anglo-American finance capitalism.

PS: This is also why I like Richard's corrections here.
Thanks for that.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Yes, Jerry, the usual term nowadays is the bland sounding 'Critical Theory', which term tells us next to nothing about the actual movement and so could be attached as a label to almost everything. That is why Frankfurt School is a better term - and Cultural Marxist Clown College an even more effective one!

I wrote that Rockhill "does not acknowledge that Fascism - big F Fascism - arose only because of the Leninist activities leading to Bolshevik Russia and the Hungarian and Bavarian Socialist Republics."
Indeed, Rockhill is at least questioning whether the concept of fascism can be limited to that specific historical milieu which (as you say) arose in response to Bolshevism and other socialist movements. He says that this bourgeois capitalist definition of Fascism (limited to Mussolini, Franco and Hitler) is exemplary of an invalid ideological operation that "transforms the systemic into the sporadic, the structural into the singular, the conjunctural into the idiosyncratic", ultimately leading to the ridiculous conclusion that "if there are no jackboots, Sieg Heil salutes and goose-stepping soldiers, then we cannot possibly be within what is commonly known as fascism."
The question here is where the true power lies, not merely the suppression of Bolshevik-Leftist activities. With Mussolini you could argue the point that he wasn't really in true power as he was finally sacked by the king, unlike Hitler who had taken over in his own right.

The point is that larger nations like Italy and Germany had some degree of freedom against international capitalism. Indeed Hitler's whole agenda to 1933 was ending the debt to the West - the War Reparations - which was the core of Western financial control over Germany. In Mussolini's case he had borrowed and thus fallen into debt to the West, his joining with Hitler - and introduction of Nazism's Nuremberg Laws - part of his attempt to escape his unpopularity after the Great Depression set in. So while there is some relativity between small f and big F Fascism, the difference remains in that the rulers in Big F Fascism are not beholden to Western creditors, unlike e.g. Pinochet, who would not have staged a coup unless he had Western support, hence he could only ever be a small-f fascist.

My use of Big F Fascism to describe a future economy should not be confused with Nazism, since the Nazis did not have Georgist policies...
And above, you defined "big F Fascism" as the rule by a savior figure who would implement a Georgist single tax and other reform measures to respect the rights of the public. In contrast to this, you gave the definition that a (small-f) "'fascist strongman' in our era is one ruled by Western capitalism, ultimately by the USA, so he has no real independence, being but a figurehead, a small-f 'fascist.'"
...but based their principles on racism, the bizarre conception that Germans were a degraded master race that needed to return to its roots.

By your definition, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were all small-f 'fascists' ultimately ruled by Western (Anglo-American) capitalism, certainly unable to implement the Georgist single tax or any other serious populist reform measures. In other words, simply, tyrants.
Franco had to negotiate with Roosevelt to ensure that his uprising in 1936 would not be opposed by the USA, who offered him secret finance. Mussolini however had invented Fascism on his own initiative, and was not controlled by the USA to do so - only later falling into the tinpot dictator category, as indeed Germany would have done if Hitler had died in mid-September 1939 and Goering taken over!!!!
Or perhaps the distinction between "big F Fascism" and "small-f fascism" is collapsing under scrutiny?
No, because the question of the source of power and of sovereignty remains (Leftists have a characteristic blind spot here, thinking that sovereignty has to lie in the stupid and divided mass of people). Franco's sovereignty is shown by his extirpation of Communists, Jews and Freemasons from Spain.

In fact, given the antipathy of Spain to Freemasons, from Joe's podcasts on Cuba I now realize that the Freemasons gave full backing to Cuba - in order to spite Franco - thus I suspect the Freemasons were involved in protecting Cuba, e.g. in having air support denied to the rebels during the Bay of Pigs landing, leading ultimately of course to the assassination of Kennedy! And this Freemasonic influence was a US tradition, as Jose Marti, Jose de San Martin and Simon Bolivar were ALL freemasons, subjugating Latin America to US interests.

Marxists historically failed to deal with finance capitalism, and they also failed even more spectacularly to deal with the remnants of the monarchical system, nobility, and landed wealth. Perhaps this is because Marx himself was some sort of Prussian government agent. And I must agree that "farming and factories" is a limited aspect of "capitalism". A proper analysis needs to address finance capitalism as well as other influential cultural, religious and political powers.
I could hardly agree more (since Marx had to get money from somewhere after being expelled from Germany), but Engels was independently wealthy, supported Marx, and was thus not a Prussian government agent. His warning about the future in "Socialism in Germany" from 1891 was an amazing prediction of the coming of socialism to Germany - but of the Nazi variety, not Leninist communism, hence it is NOT referred to in either Communist or Nazi literature!:p Just follow the numbers in:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1892/01/socialism-germany.htm
But -- if Hitler was able to escape domination by German finance capitalism, it was only because he had fallen under the domination of Anglo-American finance capitalism.
This is what WW2 was all about, as Hjalmar Schacht was trying to break away from A-A financial control. As Hitler knocked out one country after another, the Western financial system began losing control; further victories would have enabled Hitler to control Sweden and Switzerland economically, such that the Morgan-Rothschild financiers would lose control of all of Europe.* At the same time however this would increase Nazi power over German financiers too - but Hitler already had major control over the latter, and they too wished to break from Anglo-American financial domination. So NO - it was not a case of Hitler being dominated either by Western or German financiers but instead of his establishing his authoritarian ascendancy over them.

And this is what the Frankfurt School (and Western and indeed all financiers) really hates - that an authoritarian personality could rule over financiers and not be dominated by them! This is why the egalitarian democratic halfwit Larry chumps (e.g. Antifa) are favored over the authoritarian Mack types - as you'll find when you read Adorno & Co.'s Authoritarian Personality.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*Which they nearly did post-War too when France and Italy turned sharply leftward and would take Germany with them to join the Soviet bloc. Only the massive monetary injection by the Marshall Plan prevented this by initiating the postwar economic boom from 1947. (Remember that there was a short Post-war Depression following the layoffs from factories in 1945, especially in the UK - and this post-war Depression was cured completely only when Mao took China, the Russians detonated an A-bomb and the Korean War broke out, all in 1949, such that the USA extended the Marshall Plan to Japan too).
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
With Mussolini you could argue the point that he wasn't really in true power as he was finally sacked by the king... In Mussolini's case he had borrowed and thus fallen into debt to the West...
He was first voted out by the Grand Council of Fascism (a sort of parliamentary body) and then King Victor Emmanuel was tasked to give him the bad news. They always retained this power, an obvious violation of "der Fuehrerprinzip". And about that debt to the West? Aren't you contradicting yourself later on when you say Mussolini was not subject to this? Guido Jung, a Jewish banker, was sitting on the Grand Council.

Mussolini however had invented Fascism
Did he really invent anything, or just put a label on an old-fashioned capitalist oligarchic tyranny?

If Mussolini invented Fascism, does he get to define what it is?

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

(ONLY COMPLETE OFFICIAL TEXT ON THE INTERNET)

REJECTION OF INDIVIDUALISM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE
....​
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State (13). The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14).
No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).

The internet meme that Mussolini said that “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power” seems to be a misquote. What Mussolini actually said in Doctrine of Fascism was this:

8. Conception of a corporative state
....
(16) We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. We stand for a new principle in the world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, free-masonry, to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789. (Speech before the new National Directory of the Party, April 7, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 120).
What hubris! The "Corporative state" sounds like Jesus, with the ability to control the wind and waves. More than that, control of all forces acting in nature!

But again I ask, is this really something new? Or just a restatement of the old Roman Republican and/or Imperial hubris? Christ was an avatar of Caesar projected into the heavens, controlling all forces acting in nature. Mussolini was simply placing himself in a role like the Pope as Christ's representative on earth.

Franco's sovereignty is shown by his extirpation of Communists, Jews and Freemasons from Spain.
This is a demonstration of blatant murderous psychopathy, which has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty. True sovereignty has no need to murder citizens because of ideological controversies.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
He was first voted out by the Grand Council of Fascism (a sort of parliamentary body) and then King Victor Emmanuel was tasked to give him the bad news. They always retained this power, an obvious violation of "der Fuehrerprinzip". And about that debt to the West? Aren't you contradicting yourself later on when you say Mussolini was not subject to this? Guido Jung, a Jewish banker, was sitting on the Grand Council.
Not at all, because even though Mussolini invented Fascism he did not think its implications through, i.e. the need for sovereignty with himself at the top - the Fuehrerprinzip.

You prove this by the fact that Mussolini did not stigmatize Italy's few Jews when he came to power e.g. Guido Jung on the Grand Council, and obviously part of Italy's if not the West's financial elite. Mussolini's Jewish girlfriend Carla Sarfatti, helped introduce him to influential people and supported him until he started moving closer to Hitler - showing how Mussolini's ideas changed considerably over time.

The financiers still retained most control over Italy because Italy was one of the victorious allies post-WW1!
Did he really invent anything, or just put a label on an old-fashioned capitalist oligarchic tyranny?

If Mussolini invented Fascism, does he get to define what it is?
Well he certainly makes a start at it - but he did not realize the deeper philosophical implications, deeper implications of philosophy that BOTH liberal democracy and socialism ignore or flatly deny!

Individualism is the core of capitalism, allowing powerful wealthy individuals to trample everybody via usury. Hence the first red-highlight section of your quote.
THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

(ONLY COMPLETE OFFICIAL TEXT ON THE INTERNET)

REJECTION OF INDIVIDUALISM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE
....​
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State (13). The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14).
No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).

Under liberal democacy a financial elite rules in secret. The Fascist conception of the state tries to protect itself from financier domination, but attributes all human and spiritual values to the State, without realizing the negative implications. Nevertheless, it takes the first vital step against liberal democracy. Musso's philosophy is crude however, as indicated in the purple-quote section. Yet as the second red highlight indicates, he understands the question of sovereignty - which is more than can be said for both liberal democracy and socialism! And this is where Musso's vital insight lies. He was however readily seduced by the financial elites!

The internet meme that Mussolini said that “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power” seems to be a misquote. What Mussolini actually said in Doctrine of Fascism was this:

8. Conception of a corporative state
....
(16) We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state. We stand for a new principle in the world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, free-masonry, to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789. (Speech before the new National Directory of the Party, April 7, 1926, in Discorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 120).
What hubris! The "Corporative state" sounds like Jesus, with the ability to control the wind and waves. More than that, control of all forces acting in nature!
Because nature itself is FUNDAMENTALLY disordered, there has to be a human order based on the Fuehrerprinzip to counteract the disorder from nature and from opposed human groups.
But again I ask, is this really something new? Or just a restatement of the old Roman Republican and/or Imperial hubris? Christ was an avatar of Caesar projected into the heavens, controlling all forces acting in nature. Mussolini was simply placing himself in a role like the Pope as Christ's representative on earth.
From your words it is clear that you are referring back to religion as the hoodwink basis for society. Musso certainly adopted Roman Catholic affectations, despite having a socialist-atheist background - and the Church was willing to overlook this. Hence Musso's idea is something new, the idea that egalitarian democratic socialism (or libertarian socialism - Chomsky) is not and can never be a model for large-scale human organization. The failure of the Soviet Union and of anarchist Spain and of the negative effect of Antifa today is more than adequate proof of this.

When I wrote that: "Franco's sovereignty is shown by his extirpation of Communists, Jews and Freemasons from Spain," you reply.

This is a demonstration of blatant murderous psychopathy, which has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty. True sovereignty has no need to murder citizens because of ideological controversies.
You seem not to realize that capitalist control of the world was due to the sovereignty of the Anglo-American financiers controlling events outside their own nation and empire. Spain was the victim of this and it required what you call murder to set things in order again. By merely calling it "blatant murderous psychopathy" you excuse the actions of the Capitalist West - e.g. the extermination and ongoing repression of native Americans, native Australians - as you do not see the negative effect of the Left in Spain with the opportunism of Freemasons and wealthy Jews, and perhaps not even the Left in the USA e.g. the Democrats as well as Antifa (the latter financed by Georges Soros*).

Today, Zionism has become the way to unite Jews together, since otherwise they would fight with each other - as Jews are wont to do, as I have noticed myself, as Jews always tell me, and as is evident in history texts such as Slezkine's, and in descriptions of interactions between Jews in organizations (e.g. Bolsheviks versus Mensheviks). Yet Zionism is in control of the media, so always evades the 'fascist' label that would otherwise be placed upon them! Jewish power in Anglo-America also demonstrates those nations loss of sovereignty to a ruling financier elite with a very predominant Jewish minority within it, maintaining control through the Judaeo-Christian ideology which includes Zionism and Einstein's relativity.

Thus to establish true sovereignty, there is a need to kill those who wish to subvert it - because with their essential killer instinct they want hidden power for themselves. Hence the issue cannot be reduced to mere "ideological controversies", as you, no doubt, label disagreement of Einstein's relativity today, just as Sir Karl Popper reduces controversy in science & philosophy as mere "problems".:eek:

Yours faithfully
Claude

*To understand the issues better - and not have me tell you as you might think of me as a biased source :D - read George Soros's work "The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society in Danger" (Little, Brown & Co., Perseus, London, UK) from 1998 (i.e. pre-Putin) and his description of Fallibility and Reflexivity, their basis in relativity physics (pp. 6-15, 29-40) and their application to modern economics.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Individualism is the core of capitalism, allowing powerful wealthy individuals to trample everybody via usury.
True individualism recognizes the importance of every individual, and not just wealthy bankers. "Usury" (that is, lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest) could conceivably be outlawed or taxed out of existence, without eliminating capitalism or individualism.

Under liberal democacy a financial elite rules in secret.
Financial elites only? What about industrial and hi-tech corporations? The church? The remnants of hereditary monarchy and nobility? Of course financial elites are important, but the oligarchy is probably far more complex and diverse than just financial elites. I don't know if this is your intention, Claude, but this reads like a dog whistle for the canard that liberal democracies are ruled by Jewish bankers. Which of course, is anti-semitic racist crap.

...egalitarian democratic socialism (or libertarian socialism - Chomsky) is not and can never be a model for large-scale human organization. The failure of the Soviet Union and of anarchist Spain and of the negative effect of Antifa today is more than adequate proof of this.
Every human model of organization has utterly failed at this point. Liberal democracy has failed, Soviet socialism has failed, and the failure of fascism is the most spectacular of all. The planet is on fire, we are flirting with extinction.

...you excuse the actions of the Capitalist West - e.g. the extermination and ongoing repression of native Americans, native Australians
No, I didn't. This extermination was also a manifestation of murderous psychopathy. Different and perhaps worse than what Franco did, because the indigenous were regarded as sub-human.

Jewish power in Anglo-America also demonstrates those nations loss of sovereignty to a ruling financier elite with a very predominant Jewish minority within it, maintaining control through the Judaeo-Christian ideology which includes Zionism and Einstein's relativity.
More anti-Semitic racist crap. But if this were true, it would not mean that there would be any loss of national sovereignty. It would mean that the power of national sovereignty had fallen into the hands of the ruling financier elite, instead of a fascist tyrant as you would prefer.

Thus to establish true sovereignty, there is a need to kill those who wish to subvert it
What sort of worthless person doesn't take an interest in subverting and defeating fascist tyranny??
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
True individualism recognizes the importance of every individual, and not just wealthy bankers. "Usury" (that is, lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest) could conceivably be outlawed or taxed out of existence, without eliminating capitalism or individualism.
A theoretical question, since usury and capitalism go hand-in-hand as became more than evident once Calvinism normalized the idea that making money is an outward sign of God's favor. Traditional Christianity was NOT like that.

The financier elites hold the key - over industrial and hi-tech companies even, especially as the board-members of the latter include members of the former. Hence among the Western oligarchies the financiers are supreme. This Western oligarchy also extends into the 3rd world which has individual members in close contact or part of the Western oligarchy. The Churches are of course included...
Financial elites only? What about industrial and hi-tech corporations? The church? The remnants of hereditary monarchy and nobility? Of course financial elites are important, but the oligarchy is probably far more complex and diverse than just financial elites. I don't know if this is your intention, Claude, but this reads like a dog whistle for the canard that liberal democracies are ruled by Jewish bankers. Which of course, is anti-semitic racist crap.
...appearing under the name "Judaeo-Christianity", now extending its elite rule openly into the UAE, Saudi Arabia and even Bahrain - which last regime at present seems like it will be the trigger to start WW3 (because a wealthy Sunni minority rules over a poor Shia majority). Your last highlighted statement is BS, based upon Anglo-American prejudices rather than seeing the factual change in status of Jews once Calvinist thought was normalized in the West. (In Germany and its Lutheran Protestantism, this came only with the Napoleonic invasions, Fichte, I think it was him, warning that releasing the Jews from the ghettos would lead to them controlling the nation's economy).

The big question is: how many Christians and Jews will remain Zionist once Israel (or the USA on Israel's behalf) starts throwing atomic weapons - at Iran, China, Russia etc.???????? Do not Earth's inhabitants have the right to fight against this, even if means the complete extermination of every last Zionist, whether Jew or Christian or whatever? The protection of the environment is more important than equal human rights. Those who live by hypocrisy-turned-global power deserve only to be exterminated! By your dragging in the term "anti-semitic racist crap" you are trying NOT to acknowledge the underlying issues, issues that Joe grasped fully as he started to peel away Western hypocrisy from 2001.

Every human model of organization has utterly failed at this point. Liberal democracy has failed, Soviet socialism has failed, and the failure of fascism is the most spectacular of all. The planet is on fire, we are flirting with extinction.
Very true! Nevertheless, Fascism failed ONLY because of its racism, otherwise, as even George Orwell admitted, Nazism was a system that would work, because it is an updated version of the Hindu caste system. So I don't have to make unacceptable claims - even Orwell does this for me! So does this make George Orwell an anti-semite - or more to the point Joe Atwill, who I know understands the overweening Jewish influence among the financier elites. Is he an anti-semite too?

I wrote how your attack on Fascism excuses the West's genocidal activities, so you reply!
No, I didn't. This extermination was also a manifestation of murderous psychopathy. Different and perhaps worse than what Franco did, because the indigenous were regarded as sub-human.
I.e. the West STILL holds to the belief in subhumanity, and as you admit elsewhere, will resort to racism - but at present this will be backhandedly e.g. by backing Antifa and BLM, whose activities serve only to drive Whites into the Far Right! Or am I going to be accused of concocting yet another anti-Semitic fantasy? :D

When I wrote "Jewish power in Anglo-America also demonstrates those nations [i.e. the UK and USA] loss of sovereignty to a ruling financier elite with a very predominant Jewish minority within it, maintaining control through the Judaeo-Christian ideology which includes Zionism and Einstein's relativity," you can only reply.
More anti-Semitic racist crap. But if this were true, it would not mean that there would be any loss of national sovereignty. It would mean that the power of national sovereignty had fallen into the hands of the ruling financier elite, instead of a fascist tyrant as you would prefer.
Apart from the red-highlighted BS, your blue highlighted section reveals the truth - that some sort of POWER of national sovereignty (for the USA) remains, but this POWER is transferred to the financier elites (and therefore to an influential Jewish minority within it) - which merely restates what I said above. Therefore, this means, as I would deduce from your red-highlighted claim, that I must be an open anti-semite and you a covert anti-semite.:p

But I don't think that is what you meant to say.:(

Nevertheless, you do ask the right question.
What sort of worthless person doesn't take an interest in subverting and defeating fascist tyranny??
Answer: The desperately poor scrawny masses on the streets of LA and SF, for example.! They will support whoever offers them means of support in whatever way, irrespective of ideology. Hitler knew that; even Lenin knew that (though without admitting it to himself in a meaningful way); so what is your position?

(Gee I miss Richard's contribution here. He would make some sarcastic comment that would, backhandedly, meaningfully expose another or deeper layer to the issue - so we have to struggle along without him). Please help here, Suchender, Seeker etc.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

windhorse

Member
Either a tyrant or frozen/shut down victim of one.

A lot depends on the variables. Take zionists for instance. From my own family experience with them, disowning them and cutting off all contact was the only solution. There's the aftermath to deal with, and you learn to watch for anything/anyone that gives you that vibe.

What Claude said about killing those who wish to subvert sovereignty, like viruses psychopaths aren't really alive.

I do know absolutely nothing enrages them more than a healthy happy person who bonds. It's envy. Raging envy. Psychopaths, out of envy, force or manipulate you into bond-age, just like viruses. They really resemble viruses in every respect.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Dear Windhorse, greetings to the website.
I don't know how to use the quote feature. My reply was to Jerry's last post and last sentence in that post.
To use the quote feature in a simple way, just press 'reply' to this posting. You'll find that my quote of your words will disappear whereas my words will appear in quotation marks. You can then copy my name (at the beginning) to make quotations from me, ending the quote with the bracketed string which appears after my name here.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Very true, windhorse, and Jews...
Claude, Jerry, I don't know if this link will help or not here, it may provide that deeper layer:

https://www.transnotitia.com/freemasonry-and-the-confederacy/

One thing is very clear to me: Jew or non-Jew, the middleman is always the real power spot. Control every means of conveyance; money, communications, transport, and you control both supply and demand.
...are middlemen by profession and culture, as Yuri Slezkine, author of 'The Jewish Century', readily admits. Thanks for the freemasonry link which I will look at right now.

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: Is your moniker on this website named after BoJack Horseman?
 

windhorse

Member
Dear Windhorse, greetings to the website.To use the quote feature in a simply wae, just press 'reply' to this posting. You'll find that my quote of your words will disappear whereas my words will appear in quotation marks. You can then copy my name (at the beginning) to make quotations from me, ending the quote with the bracketed string which appears after my name here.

Yours faithfully
Claude
Thank you Claude.
 

windhorse

Member
Very true, windhorse, and Jews......are middlemen by profession and culture, as Yuri Slezkine, author of 'The Jewish Century', readily admits. Thanks for the freemasonry link which I will look at right now.

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: Is your moniker on this website named after BoJack Horseman?
I don't know who BoJack Horseman is. I just like the image of the windhorse from the Buddhist prayer flags, though I've no interest in Buddhism. I am a lifelong horse nut!
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Your reference is very good re the Civil War - though as an Australian I cannot comment much in detail on the specific issue that Lucien Cerise deals with. I notice that his website has Guyenot named as a contributor; his work on Zionism is very revealing.

Australia too is Freemason controlled, as Joe and Jerry unwittingly revealed to me in their analysis of Catcher in the Rye, despite Salinger not having visited Australia and the story being set in New York.

Catcher in the Rye is also a homage to Zionism since the first money for the Zio project came from Melbourne, Australia in 1861 (as Moses Hess writes in his 'Rome & Jerusalem'). The proof lies in Holden Caulfield's name. 'Holden' is the name of the car in Australia that the US calls a 'Chevrolet', while the carousel scene at the end of the novel is a metaphor for the Caulfield Racecourse in Melbourne, which from the 1930s on was the Melbourne suburb with the highest percentage of Jews, the carousel in the novel (chapter 25) being a metaphor both for capitalism (the gold ring) and for gambling, with few winners and many losers. (Read Holden's comment about the children's falling from the carousel compared to his earlier comment about wanting to rescue children falling off a cliff when emerging from the field of rye - that image giving the novel its name).
I don't know who BoJack Horseman is. I just like the image of the windhorse from the Buddhist prayer flags, though I've no interest in Buddhism. I am a lifelong horse nut!
My own name on the website is from Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons (Boris Badenov pretending to be a lion tamer). People had told me to look at the BoJack Horseman cartoon series; it is very clever and humorous but also very sad, since all the characters are depressed at their former actions and feel bad about themselves, giving the cartoon a profound yet heavily depressing impression of human folly being irredeemable. I had therefore thought that you may have been escaping the influence of the negative things that the cartoon deals with - but that you do not know the series stands to your credit in the positive derivation of your moniker on this website!

Yours faithfully
Claude Badley
 
Last edited:

windhorse

Member
Your reference is very good re the Civil War - though as an Australian I cannot comment much in detail on the specific issue that Lucien Cerise deals with. I notice that his website has Guyenot named as a contributor; his work on Zionism is very revealing.

Australia too is Freemason controlled, as Joe and Jerry unwittingly revealed to me in their analysis of Catcher in the Rye, despite Salinger not having visited Australia and the story being set in New York.

Catcher in the Rye is also a homage to Zionism since the first money for the Zio project came from Melbourne, Australia in 1861 (as Moses Hess writes in his 'Rome & Jerusalem'). The proof lies in Holden Caulfield's name. 'Holden' is the name of the car in Australia that the US calls a 'Chevrolet', while the carousel scene at the end of the novel is a metaphor for the Caulfield Racecourse in Melbourne, which from the 1930s on was the Melbourne suburb with the highest percentage of Jews, the carousel in the novel (chapter 25) being a metaphor both for capitalism (the gold ring) and for gambling, with few winners and many losers. (Read Holden's comment about the children's falling from the carousel compared to his earlier comment about wanting to rescue children falling off a cliff when emerging from the field of rye - that image giving the novel its name).
My own name on the website is from Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons (Boris Badenov pretending to be a lion tamer). People had told me to look at the BoJack Horseman cartoon series; it is very clever and humorous but also very sad, since all the characters are depressed at their former actions and feel bad about themselves, giving the cartoon a profound yet heavily depressing impression of human folly being irredeemable. I had therefore thought that you may have been escaping the influence of the negative things that the cartoon deals with - but that you do not know the series stands to your credit in the positive derivation of your moniker on this website!

Yours faithfully
Claude Badley
I'll Google up Guyenot, thanks for the tip Claude.

All the symbolism of psychopathic characters turns my stomach. They're obsessed with it. High functioning psychosis?
 

windhorse

Member
Your reference is very good re the Civil War - though as an Australian I cannot comment much in detail on the specific issue that Lucien Cerise deals with. I notice that his website has Guyenot named as a contributor; his work on Zionism is very revealing.

Australia too is Freemason controlled, as Joe and Jerry unwittingly revealed to me in their analysis of Catcher in the Rye, despite Salinger not having visited Australia and the story being set in New York.

Catcher in the Rye is also a homage to Zionism since the first money for the Zio project came from Melbourne, Australia in 1861 (as Moses Hess writes in his 'Rome & Jerusalem'). The proof lies in Holden Caulfield's name. 'Holden' is the name of the car in Australia that the US calls a 'Chevrolet', while the carousel scene at the end of the novel is a metaphor for the Caulfield Racecourse in Melbourne, which from the 1930s on was the Melbourne suburb with the highest percentage of Jews, the carousel in the novel (chapter 25) being a metaphor both for capitalism (the gold ring) and for gambling, with few winners and many losers. (Read Holden's comment about the children's falling from the carousel compared to his earlier comment about wanting to rescue children falling off a cliff when emerging from the field of rye - that image giving the novel its name).
My own name on the website is from Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons (Boris Badenov pretending to be a lion tamer). People had told me to look at the BoJack Horseman cartoon series; it is very clever and humorous but also very sad, since all the characters are depressed at their former actions and feel bad about themselves, giving the cartoon a profound yet heavily depressing impression of human folly being irredeemable. I had therefore thought that you may have been escaping the influence of the negative things that the cartoon deals with - but that you do not know the series stands to your credit in the positive derivation of your moniker on this website!

Yours faithfully
Claude Badley
Claude, thank you so much, I'm going to read all Guyenot's articles I can find. What a treasure, thanks again!
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The big question is: how many Christians and Jews will remain Zionist once Israel (or the USA on Israel's behalf) starts throwing atomic weapons - at Iran, China, Russia etc.???????? Do not Earth's inhabitants have the right to fight against this, even if means the complete extermination of every last Zionist, whether Jew or Christian or whatever? The protection of the environment is more important than equal human rights.
If we start murdering each other over ideologies, this is where it leads to, eh? Extermination of every last Iranian, Chinese, Russian, Zionist, Jew and Christian? Democrats and fascists, we will all go together when we go. Not to mention that the plutonium fallout will be great for the world environment.

So does this make George Orwell an anti-semite - or more to the point Joe Atwill, who I know understands the overweening Jewish influence among the financier elites. Is he an anti-semite too?
I don't know about Orwell, but I have addressed this question about Atwill before. I call your attention to this article:

https://postflaviana.org/was-shakespeare-jewish/

Most relevant paragraphs:

Atwill’s ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ hypothesis
... Dunbar says that according to Atwill, The Tempest is ‘really’ about a “fiendish Zionist plot to put the Gentiles into an MKULTRA dream-state” which will lead to the end of the world. After this apocalypse, “there’ll be nothing left but owls and blossoms. And Jews, obviously”.
In his article on The Tempest, Atwill expressed it this way: “it is hard not engage in paranoid wondering of to what extent Jewish influence in the media is related to the ‘dream state’ for Gentiles described in the Tempest”. And furthermore, Atwill is certainly steadfast in maintaining that his fearful curiosity and concern about the political situation is well warranted.
Atwill’s view is that US and world governments, media, corporations, and religions are becoming increasingly dominated by a secret society. His working hypothesis is that, at its core, the secret society may be ruled by a very small group of oligarchs, or perhaps even a single family or person.
Considering the hierarchical nature of so many human organizations, Joe’s concern cannot be ruled out a priori. And if there is such a ruling center, its agenda might very possibly be rooted in some primitive tribal or ethnic viewpoint.
Atwill points to Shakespeare as the first evidence of a possible breakaway scheme by elite Jews, perhaps one particular family, to infiltrate and then achieve domination over ‘the Gentiles’ and their cultural and governmental institutions.
Can there be any justification for “paranoid wondering”?
Long-time visitors of this website will be well aware of a simmering controversy among the authors here, regarding this Jewish question. Rick Stanley and I feel that the hypothesis of a Jewish takeover of the New World Order is demonstrably wrong. As we have argued in several articles, actually the Jews seem to be in a scapegoat or sheepdog role with respect to more powerful Gentile institutions. And it’s often hard to know whether to describe this as a “plot”, or more of a result of age-old, impersonal cultural memes.
What’s worse: by entertaining the hypothesis, Atwill leaves himself (and, by extension, us) vulnerable to Dunbar’s charge of anti-Semitism. We have enough problems with marginalization of our ideas, without having to deal with this as well.
But, I don’t feel the charge of anti-Semitism is accurate, even when it comes to Atwill’s hypothesis.
Atwill is opposed to anti-Semitism!
Or at any rate, Atwill’s hypothesis of a possible Jewish conspiracy is very different from anti-Semitism in its classical, medieval or Fascist forms. He does not hold that there is any fundamental flaw in the Jewish character. Nor does he claim that Jewish religion is any more flawed than the other ancient traditions, Abrahamic or otherwise.
Indeed, if there is a Jewish conspiracy, Atwill believes the vast majority of Jews don’t know anything about it, and therefore are completely blameless. If indeed a tiny cabal of Jews has “taken over”, it’s purely an accident of history, and any other ethnic or religious group might have been in this role instead.
Futhermore, Atwill also recognizes that the plot involving MK-Ultra and the CIA seems to have involved people of various religions and ethnic backgrounds. Similarly, secret societies such as the Freemasons, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg and so forth, are very diverse in ethnic terms, although to varying degrees they attract mostly elite participants.
Neither is there any obvious pattern of ethnicity at any other major power center. That is, except for the oft-noted concentration of Jews in media and banking. In both of these arenas, this can be explained in terms of Rick Stanley’s Shepherd-Sheepdog model. Or, more prosaically, the Christian religion has often taken a dim view of professions such as money-lending or acting. Thus, those fields have been wide open for Jewish participation.
 

windhorse

Member
Claude, I've read Guyenot's 3 articles at voltaire.net, I have no doubt whatsoever he's right about every Israel & Co. plot/script. Then at unz.com - here is the link: https://www.unz.com/article/will-the-denazification-ever-end

I discover Guyenot is as racist/fascist as the zionist Jews. Good grief. Does he shave his own face or his bathroom mirror image? But aside from that, I'm off to read the rest of his articles on unz.com.

This whole business of racism/fascism I've noticed always comes with its companions of misogyny and land grabs. That's every organized patriarchal script ad nauseum. Religion IS politics in my opinion. And I believe the deepest layer of fascism is rooted in what psychologist Karen Horney stated in her book, Feminine Psychology:

"...It was this life creating power of woman, an elemental force, that filled men with admiration. And this is exactly the point where problems arise. For it is contrary to human nature to sustain appreciation without resentment toward capabilities that one does not possess...even the greatest satisfactions or achievements, if born out of sublimation, cannot fully make up for something for which we are not endowed by nature."

There's that little green-eyed "devil."
 

windhorse

Member
If we start murdering each other over ideologies, this is where it leads to, eh? Extermination of every last Iranian, Chinese, Russian, Zionist, Jew and Christian? Democrats and fascists, we will all go together when we go. Not to mention that the plutonium fallout will be great for the world environment.



I don't know about Orwell, but I have addressed this question about Atwill before. I call your attention to this article:

https://postflaviana.org/was-shakespeare-jewish/

Most relevant paragraphs:

Atwill’s ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ hypothesis
... Dunbar says that according to Atwill, The Tempest is ‘really’ about a “fiendish Zionist plot to put the Gentiles into an MKULTRA dream-state” which will lead to the end of the world. After this apocalypse, “there’ll be nothing left but owls and blossoms. And Jews, obviously”.
In his article on The Tempest, Atwill expressed it this way: “it is hard not engage in paranoid wondering of to what extent Jewish influence in the media is related to the ‘dream state’ for Gentiles described in the Tempest”. And furthermore, Atwill is certainly steadfast in maintaining that his fearful curiosity and concern about the political situation is well warranted.
Atwill’s view is that US and world governments, media, corporations, and religions are becoming increasingly dominated by a secret society. His working hypothesis is that, at its core, the secret society may be ruled by a very small group of oligarchs, or perhaps even a single family or person.
Considering the hierarchical nature of so many human organizations, Joe’s concern cannot be ruled out a priori. And if there is such a ruling center, its agenda might very possibly be rooted in some primitive tribal or ethnic viewpoint.
Atwill points to Shakespeare as the first evidence of a possible breakaway scheme by elite Jews, perhaps one particular family, to infiltrate and then achieve domination over ‘the Gentiles’ and their cultural and governmental institutions.
Can there be any justification for “paranoid wondering”?
Long-time visitors of this website will be well aware of a simmering controversy among the authors here, regarding this Jewish question. Rick Stanley and I feel that the hypothesis of a Jewish takeover of the New World Order is demonstrably wrong. As we have argued in several articles, actually the Jews seem to be in a scapegoat or sheepdog role with respect to more powerful Gentile institutions. And it’s often hard to know whether to describe this as a “plot”, or more of a result of age-old, impersonal cultural memes.
What’s worse: by entertaining the hypothesis, Atwill leaves himself (and, by extension, us) vulnerable to Dunbar’s charge of anti-Semitism. We have enough problems with marginalization of our ideas, without having to deal with this as well.
But, I don’t feel the charge of anti-Semitism is accurate, even when it comes to Atwill’s hypothesis.
Atwill is opposed to anti-Semitism!
Or at any rate, Atwill’s hypothesis of a possible Jewish conspiracy is very different from anti-Semitism in its classical, medieval or Fascist forms. He does not hold that there is any fundamental flaw in the Jewish character. Nor does he claim that Jewish religion is any more flawed than the other ancient traditions, Abrahamic or otherwise.
Indeed, if there is a Jewish conspiracy, Atwill believes the vast majority of Jews don’t know anything about it, and therefore are completely blameless. If indeed a tiny cabal of Jews has “taken over”, it’s purely an accident of history, and any other ethnic or religious group might have been in this role instead.
Futhermore, Atwill also recognizes that the plot involving MK-Ultra and the CIA seems to have involved people of various religions and ethnic backgrounds. Similarly, secret societies such as the Freemasons, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg and so forth, are very diverse in ethnic terms, although to varying degrees they attract mostly elite participants.
Neither is there any obvious pattern of ethnicity at any other major power center. That is, except for the oft-noted concentration of Jews in media and banking. In both of these arenas, this can be explained in terms of Rick Stanley’s Shepherd-Sheepdog model. Or, more prosaically, the Christian religion has often taken a dim view of professions such as money-lending or acting. Thus, those fields have been wide open for Jewish participation.
Jerry, from my own experience in the family Mason cult bubble, it is not wide open, that's a front.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello Windhorse,

Jerry, from my own experience in the family Mason cult bubble, it is not wide open, that's a front.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That cults such as Freemasonry aren't open to outsiders? That banking and acting are not "wide open" professions, even for Jews?

You were in the Manson family cult? I'm looking forward to learning more about that!!
 
Top