You've hit the jackpot here, Seeker, in identifying the source of conflict between Richard and I as the 'F' word. That you would suggest that I should use...
In the interests of harmony, my guess would be that Richard would dialogue with you quite willingly and capably on this topic, especially since you have avoided using that "F" word, and its meaning to you, in this posting, per his request. The following quote is not from "Izates", but from "Isaiah", "Come now, and let us reason together".
..."leader principle" rather than "Führerprinzip" I have to acknowledge,
especially as I had earlier allowed the two phrases to mean the same thing. And I now think it my mistake to have done that.
In English there is no word derived from the German
führen - to lead. However, German has the word 'Leiter' meaning 'leader', the two words obviously having the same derivation. There is much overlap in the words
Führer and
Leiter but the German word has a different meaning however - Heinrich Himmler was called the "Nationalleiter" (national leader) but the term is trivial in German, barely flattering his position. The verb
leiten means "to lead, manage or conduct" whereas the reflexive of
führen means "to behave oneself", indicating self-discipline, and so in non-reflexive usage means 'to lead' in a broader sense,
as an actual commander, ruler, master or dictator, able to both create and uphold the law. The effective ruler is master over himself first of all, as Nietzsche would say.
To call someone the Leader of a country is commonplace - and even anarchists have leaders when actually doing something.
A Führer however is qualitatively different - and it is sad that the English language's inherent blindness doesn't recognize this fundamental difference. The Führerprinzip essentially involves the concept of sovereignty, something a nation needs if it to escape external debt (owing money to foreign creditors) or, more importantly, internal debt (owing money to the
financial elites, meaning Judaeo-Christianity today). Sovereignty, as I explained elsewhere from Rubinstein's work, is the opposite of pluralism, since pluralism corrodes a nation's sovereignty by dispersing power - dispersing it into the hands of the oligarchy, i.e. the financial elites such as that run by Judaeo-Christianity, and in the wings elsewhere, whether in ancient Rome or modern Russia and China too.
Richard Stanley said:
As far as I am concerned, he has long ill-spoken his piece in poor defenses of his Neo-Fascist thesis. All the while ignoring the critiques provided here. Now, he has even gone to the length of claiming that his beloved Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with the Nazis, but rather that his vaunted Nazis were the construction of the very Protestants that he hates so much.
Protestantism in particular has facilitated pluralism - with its sectarian breakups and encouragement of Jewish moneylending, as opposed to traditional Catholicism which had the safety valve of the death of Jesus in order to release themselves from debt by persecuting the Jews, so putting the latter in their place once more. This system was overthrown by Protestantism - but not in one go!
However, Richard's point above brings out a further complication. The Lutheran Church was not Judaeo-Christian, unlike the rest of Protestantism, and I have a pamphlet from the mid-1970s from the Lutherans emphasizing their anti-Zionism. In contrast, the mainstream Protestants, the Evangelists, are indeed Zionist, even if only on the sly, hence the other Protestants are indeed
de facto Judaeo-Christians, whatever they might say.
As for Protestantism rather than Catholicism having more to do with the Nazis, it is clear from the historical record (e.g. by Prot. historian William Shirer) that Catholic Germans opposed the Nazis much more than Protestant (not just Lutheran) Germans. As for the Protestants in other countries, notably Britain but also the USA, their role in Nazism is indirect thru their support for starting WW1, as Docherty & MacGregor have shown (their work quoted here and with videos too).
Readers, including you Seeker, have to come to grasp with Ezra Pound's
Axiomata No: 1, that "The intimate essence of the universe is not of the same nature as our own consciousness."
This is the opposite to Spinoza's (& Einstein's) assertion that the universe itself is God, implying necessarily that each of us is but part of this God, including each of our consciousnesses. Only by understanding this do you realize that democracy is a sham because
humans beings are not essentially the same underneath, hence one person cannot be substituted for another. This is why the fundamental principle of Fascism is simply: "together we are stronger." This does not mean that as the we group grows, that everyone can join and have an equal vote and equal authority in a democratic takeover of a movement!
Nevertheless, Jerry's reply in #156 is vital too so I will have to deal with that when the internet connection improves (very variable at present).
Yours faithfully
Claude
] 