Weaponizing Sex'n'Drugs'n'Rock&Roll????

I had to reply to Richard's claim below but could not properly do so on the Science forum in "The Corruption of Science by Modern Philosophy".
Richard Stanley said:
I suppose you will grace us with instances of successful fascism, possibly an enlightened and benign fascism? And that you will describe the social structure of your fascism? How will leadership succession be managed, or deposition? Like Plato, DeVere, Evola, and others posit caste systems where everyone is granted a dignified life (each according to their needs and such o_O and/or karma :eek:). Some even where one is not fixed from birth into a particular caste, being meritriciously mobile up or down.

There are NO instances of successful fascism. Contrary to popular belief the reason for this is that Fascism is a relatively new movement, barely 100 years old and is thus still finding its feet - paradoxical as this might seem despite already wearing jackboots; however, I am merely using a metaphor.

What I have to explain here is WHY Fascism arose in the first place - as opposed to the crazy-sounding seemingly irrelevant title of the thread, whose significance will gradually become apparent to you!

Of the three Fascisms - not including Imperial Japan which had certain features resembling the Western varieties - the order was Italy then Germany then Spain. Hence I will explain them in reverse order, providing the reason for the ultimate Italian origin last.

The great significance of Spanish Fascism, and its victory (and subsequent ultimate conversion to a constitutional monarchy) was rapidly obscured by WW2, the Soviet victory as the primary combatant over Nazi Germany obscuring the significance both of Fascism itself and Spanish Fascism's defeat of both Communism and Anarchism, despite Orwell's belief in 1937 that the Civil War would end in compromise. Only with the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union and Western Communism generally in 1991 did the true fundamental significance of Franco's victory start to become clear - though nobody on the Left seemed to notice it. Remember first and foremost that Franco wished to rid Spain of Communists, Jews and Freemasons. And you can blame Joe Atwill for exposing the vicious machinations of the last!

The Communists and Anarchists could NOT agree about what needed to be done to combat Franco - shooting at each other in Barcelona, while Orwell, a non-Trotskyist member of POUM, was stuck in the middle on a rooftop, gradually realizing that POUM would be blamed for the particular fighting in the 'Barcelona May Days'. Nothing destroyed the Left's morale more than this! Meanwhile Franco ensured his victory by promising his Moroccan troops - Moslems - independence after the war.

Going back to the major Fascist movement, Nazi Germany; the Nazis were defeated for one reason alone - their racism, stigmatizing Slavs as inferior, ensured that the Soviet Union would rise as one to defend the country, and not merely communism since they termed the conflict 'The Great Patriotic War'. Hitler failed to capitalize on the Holodomor - the forced collectivization in Ukraine which gained the Nazis initial sympathy there (Ukrainians being one fifth of the Soviet population); nor was he able and willing to support the very able General Vlasov, the Soviet renegade general who was looking to overthrow Bolshevism once and for all. Hence Hitler's racism merely guaranteed his defeat.

This leaves Mussolini's Fascism as the pioneering representative. Remember that Mussolini began as a socialist, turning against Germany in 1914 and joining the non-socialists lobbying for Italy's entry into war against Germany. He fought in WW1, Italy gaining less territory than promised by Austria should she keep out of WW1. With this ludicrous result, after the war Mussolini's Fascists fought and defeated the Communists in Italy.

So the question is: why did Fascism arise in the first place? When we consider the support it received from the middle class and even some of the working class in Italy, we have to ask why the socialist Left did not have the overwhelming strength of the masses behind it.

The answer is that Fascism arose throughout Europe - not just in Italy, first due to her resentment at not sharing in the gains of Britain and France - because of the threat posed by Bolshevism to Europeans generally, not just the big capitalists but small business and farmers too.

The deeper reason is that the emerging Fascists saw the murderous danger of Bolshevism bringing class war to Russia. We need to remember that the 'bourgeois' February 1917 Russian Revolution marked only the start. When Kerensky's army was rapidly defeated by the Germans in June-July of 1917, army morale broke down, with hordes of peasant-soldiers abandoning the front and heading back to their homelands. We know this from the failure of the Kornilov Coup, where he could not even get the trains to carry his troops to the right destinations.

These ill-educated peasant ex-soldier hordes were not Bolsheviks (at least not yet) but anarchists. Returning to their homelands they attacked and destroyed the nobility and the richer peasants - the kulaks. By the time of the Bolshevik coup in November (October in the old calendar) Lenin merely declared his solidarity and support for these anarchists and their class war. By destroying the nobility, the feudal order and the richer peasants, the anarchist-Bolshevik horde destroyed the necessary agricultural organization for producing a surplus of food - particularly grain.

Before WW1 Russia exported grain, but now with transport damaged and civil war rife, the need was merely to get enough food to feed the cities, but the anarchist assembly of geniuses now running the rural lands merely broke up the feudal estates into individual peasant plots. I.e. peasant plots that could feed the peasants with a small surplus - but could NOT produce the necessary surplus to feed the cities.

Lenin's support for these anarchist activities e.g. the Poor Peasants' Requisitioning Committees that declared "merciless war on the kulaks" and essentially wiped the latter out, ensured that NO surplus grain would be planted, harvested to feed the cities. Hence Petrograd's population from 1917 to 1921 fell from 3,000,000 to 750,000 as starving people fled into the countryside to find food! The cities were instead fed by imported food - paid for by Tsarist gold.

Having defeated the inadequately-supplied Whites in the Civil War, Lenin, having established increasingly tight bureaucratic control over the country, faced an anarchist rebellion in Kronstadt! Before it was crushed in 1921 it made numerous demands for restoring democracy in the councils (=Soviets) but in particular the 15 points, which demands included:

8) To abolish immediately all Bolshevik requisitioning squads (which suppressed traffic and trading in goods and seized goods at the marketplace, accusing and punishing the sellers of indulging in speculative/capitalist activity).

11) To give the peasants full freedom of action in regard to their land, and also the right to keep cattle, on condition that the peasants manage with their own means; that is, WITHOUT EMPLOYING HIRED LABOR.

This is true anarchism - Cultural Marxism - radical egalitarian levelling such that any peasant organizers who would hire labor (e.g. budding kulaks) would be utterly supressed. The end result of such policies would be local rural self-sufficiency and thus the utter collapse of cities like Moscow and Petrograd due to lack of surplus food production to feed them. Hardly a surprise then that not only did the Bolsheviks crush the anarchist uprising, but took an economic about-turn to encourage the formation of larger farms organizing by the hiring of labor - these run by kulaks - and a (money-based) market economy to get the transfer of goods flowing with the Bolsheviks taking a tax (in grain then in money) from this procedure (i.e. the New Economic Policy - NEP). This also meant the suppression of all claims to democracy lest the anarchists rise again. Lenin called this "economic democracy", a return to capitalist norms, a temporary measure however, hoping to restore communism in 10-20 years. Stalin restarted it in 7-8 years with forced collectivization, replacing capitalists with mere bureaucrats. By 1991, the bureaucrats voted the system out, becoming capitalists individually in their own right.

Quite apart from the mass killings of the middle class in Petrograd and Moscow, particularly associated with the Left-SR coup and the assassination attempt on Lenin, one can now easily see why knowledgeable people in Europe were fearful of Bolshevism and class war: its anarchistic levelling destruction of social order leading to civil conflict and starvation based on strictly egalitarian (cultural Marxist) principles. Hence these knowledgeable people felt the need to prevent the spread of Bolshevism - so no wonder Fascism was invented. Soon Mussolini's initiatives were hailed by the Right and the middle class throughout interwar Europe. And so do you have to wonder why?

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: Now I know what you're going to say - when are you getting to the SnDnR&R? Be patient and read your Lukacz, Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
OK, since you can't point to a successful implementation of Fascism, and your historical analysis (despite being contrary to my analysis) seems to otherwise agree with me that Fascism is just a transient front (as fascia) to attempt to reattain Monarchy (see immediately below), the ideal of a True Catholic (including the Orthodox).

The great significance of Spanish Fascism, and its victory (and subsequent ultimate conversion to a constitutional monarchy)
The Italian Fascists also paid homage to (Sabine) Monarchy, via their ideal city (one of three) of Sabaudia, and the use of the color Savoy Blue there. The Savoys are the royals of 'Italy', and Sabaudia is the land that the 'imperial' Sabines eventually moved to from Roma. It was comprised of Burgundy, the Piedmonte, and the Haute Savoy. Hence the saying: "Once you go Savoy you'll never go Black."

BTW, the House of Orange got its start inside Burgundy, and the House of Savoy is present in England as well.

I have already laid out the social dynamic of the freed serfs cum industrial proletariat. Once you seen the lights of Paris you'll never go back (to the farm that is). These working serfs then had the gall to think that they could organize and steal divine profits from the worthy nobles and their sheepdog mercantilists. As Wolfgang Waldner (via Jerry) explained, Karl Marx, married into the Prussian nobility, devised a schema that co-opted these scurvy serfers gone amuck. The plan is basically, "If you want collective benefits, we'll show you collective benefits, right up your ass".

This is why the Communists never made peace between the former serfs cum industrialists and the former serfs cum peasants, albeit some rich peasants. Divide and Conquer.

As I have also discussed, Hitler's real goal was supported by the Second Prophecy of Fatima, the Church's way of inserting itself into such matters. Hitler died a Catholic in good standing (in Indonesia), while Catholic Communists were excommunicated. His SS, modeled upon the Jesuit order, was made up more by southern Catholic Germans, as opposed to the earlier more Protestant SA Brown Shirts and the Wehrmacht. Kill more than one bird at a time.

So Mussolini started out as a Socialist, so what. Can't actors change their roles when one play is over?

No, the real goal of Hitler was not to win for his overt cause, nor was this the case for Napoleon (and his Hidden Hand). Their goals were to facilitate the required transformations to get where we are today and beyond. Not any different than the Hasmonean Josephus leading his Zealots off of a cliff. Yankee Doodle put a feather in his cap and called it macaroni.

George Washington was a Freemason, as was Benjamin Franklin, and ...

Remember first and foremost that Franco wished to rid Spain of Communists, Jews and Freemasons. And you can blame Joe Atwill for exposing the vicious machinations of the last!
Well, except that Joe refuses to acknowledge who the Freemasons actually work for and exist under whose royal aegis. Or, how are you going to explain the Fascist Freemasons, the Propaganda Due? And that is only one of many issues that confound Joe's POV. And I hate to say it again, even "the Bible tells me so" (i.e. the org chart of Western Civilization).

How would you compare Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll to the Troubadour Movement? Didn't the latter introduce the vicious degradations of (r)omantic love, debasing the proper role of a real man owning his chattel wife for purposes of genetic begetting, while being able to enjoy himself properly with the corner whore(s)?

And before that freaking fakir, Jesus, came along real men indulged in Greek sex (uhmmm Culture), whether they liked it or not. Those naughty troubs got men to indulge in French Culture, whether they licked it or not.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
There are NO instances of successful fascism. Contrary to popular belief the reason for this is that Fascism is a relatively new movement, barely 100 years old and is thus still finding its feet - paradoxical as this might seem despite already wearing jackboots; however, I am merely using a metaphor.
Since you are treating fascism as an evolving movement, I am curious as to why you wouldn't want to come up with a new name. 'Fascism' has a terrible reputation, to the extent that the term has lost most of its descriptive value, aside from its usefulness as an insulting pejorative.

Either you're an exceptionally honest person to acknowledge yourself as a fascist, or else you're trying to shock us.

I wouldn't disagree with your characterization that fascism arose because certain "knowledgeable people in Europe were fearful of Bolshevism and class war". And I hadn't heard of the Kronstadt Rebellion before, so thank you for introducing me to that interesting bit of history. Your view that the Kronstadt Rebels were "Cultural Marxists" seems a little anachronistic, but I'll leave that aside.

Looking again to Wikipedia for a quick summary of conventional wisdom, we find:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Criticism

Fascism has been widely criticized and condemned in modern times since the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II.
One of the most common and strongest criticisms of fascism is that it is a tyranny.[257] Fascism is deliberately and entirely non-democratic and anti-democratic.[258][259][260]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant

A tyrant (from Ancient Greek τύραννος, túrannos), in the modern English-language usage of the word, is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law, or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. Often portrayed as cruel, tyrants may defend their position by oppressive means.[1][2]
So your claim that fascism is something new ("barely 100 years old") is clearly open for debate. It so happens that I agree completely with the Wikipedia editors, that Modern Fascism is nothing more than Ancient Greek Tyranny under a new name. And, Franco, Hitler and Mussolini were hardly anything more than cruel and oppressive autocrats, as bad as any in the long history of tyrants and wicked kings of old.

On the other hand, from Aristotle on, there has always been the hope that civilization could somehow be ruled by a wise, benevolent and generous philosopher king.

Chomsky seems to be within this Aristotelian tradition, when he imagines that somehow a fascist dictator can be recruited to take charge of the world economy to implement an antidote to Global Warming, presumably in a manner consistent with the anarcho-socialist ideals Chomsky has always advocated.

But what sort of coup can you envision, to bring in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as our world fascist dictator? We'll be lucky even to get Al Gore, and somehow we have to get rid of Trump first.

Now I know what you're going to say - when are you getting to the SnDnR&R?
I have to warn you: sometimes I edit the titles of threads, to conform to the actual content of the thread. This one is likely to get renamed, something like "Postflavians' Guide to Why Fascism is a Really Bad Idea".
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
My following thread better fits reality. Ironically, Atwill's late shadow, Loren Hough, agreed with this take, which Joe would not touch.

The following below makes the claim that JPII saw a vision of Islamists invading Europe to kick off the third millenium (the start of the new age), and which, of course, the refugee crisis caused by the Arab Spring has only fulfilled his vision, ... errr command.
The Arab Spring did not happen all by itself, but was sparked by those 'evil globalist actors': Hillary and Obama. And assisted by the CIA/NSA Facebook and Twitter. Thank Dogod that Saint Trumpus will abort this situation, even with his Jesu and Goldman Sachs handlers all throughout the WH.
The founder of Opus Dei, Father (and now Saint) Escriva was closely associated with the fascist Franciso Franco during the bloody Spanish Civil War as well as with the Perons of Argentina, and even the Nazis. If JPII (made a saint at the same time as Escriva) was such a good Catholic back in the day, then he was likely indeed a Nazi collaborator (likely covert), consistent with the Second Prophecy of Fatima calling for 'global' Catholics to fight godless Communism. Indeed there are claims that JPII was just that, which doesn't preclude that he also had a visible alter ego fighting the same Nazis.
Ironically, apostate Europe became so because of the understood and documented collaboration of the Church with the Nazis. ...
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So your claim that fascism is something new ("barely 100 years old") is clearly open for debate. It so happens that I agree completely with the Wikipedia editors, that Modern Fascism is nothing more than Ancient Greek Tyranny under a new name. And, Franco, Hitler and Mussolini were hardly anything more than cruel and oppressive autocrats, as bad as any in the long history of tyrants and wicked kings of old.
This is also why there is so much male on male pedophilia in the Church, maintaining cultural traditions, and one aspect of Rule by Shame. The Pontifex Maximus, Julius Caesar (aka JC #1), was well known to have indulged in the Greek pasttime, even with King Mithradates. Mithra dates ... boys?
 
Jerry Russell said:
Since you are treating fascism as an evolving movement, I am curious as to why you wouldn't want to come up with a new name. 'Fascism' has a terrible reputation, to the extent that the term has lost most of its descriptive value, aside from its usefulness as an insulting pejorative.

Either you're an exceptionally honest person to acknowledge yourself as a fascist, or else you're trying to shock us.
Indeed I would like to give it a new name, but had I done so from the start I would have been accused of being dishonest and hiding my real agenda.
Jerry Russell said:
I wouldn't disagree with your characterization that fascism arose because certain "knowledgeable people in Europe were fearful of Bolshevism and class war". And I hadn't heard of the Kronstadt Rebellion before, so thank you for introducing me to that interesting bit of history. Your view that the Kronstadt Rebels were "Cultural Marxists" seems a little anachronistic, but I'll leave that aside.
I didn't realize you were not that familiar with the Bolshevik Revolution, so I must apologize for charging ahead as I presumed such historical events were well known to some of you. The fifteen points of the Kronstadt rebellion can be found in many places, not just in anarchist literature (Kronstadt is a fort on Kotlin Island outside Petrograd rather far out in the Baltic Sea nearby; nowadays connected by a causeway north and south, it could readily be supplied by anti-Communist forces by sea from Finland, so it was finally overthrown in March 1921 by an attack over the now-melting ice). They are used as part of the key democratic objection to Bolshevism. I think you will find that the anachronism stands, although later Cultural Marxists usually do not refer to it directly.

Jerry Russell said:
Looking again to Wikipedia for a quick summary of conventional wisdom, we find:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Criticism

Fascism has been widely criticized and condemned in modern times since the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II.
One of the most common and strongest criticisms of fascism is that it is a tyranny.[257] Fascism is deliberately and entirely non-democratic and anti-democratic.[258][259][260]
These descriptions are all OK but I have to focus on the point that Fascism arose as a direct reaction to growing Bolshevik power and influence.

A tyrant is rather different however - being one of the four types of rulership listed in Plato once degeneration from his imagined "philosopher kings" takes place, the four being Tyranny, Democracy, Oligarchy and Timarchy, the last perhaps not familiar to some readers.
Jerry Russell said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant

A tyrant (from Ancient Greek τύραννος, túrannos), in the modern English-language usage of the word, is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law, or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. Often portrayed as cruel, tyrants may defend their position by oppressive means.[1][2]
Bolshevism was something very new and the organization of Fascism in response was new, but I am quite happy with your words below, since Fascism, like other social theories has deep roots.
Jerry Russell said:
So your claim that fascism is something new ("barely 100 years old") is clearly open for debate. It so happens that I agree completely with the Wikipedia editors, that Modern Fascism is nothing more than Ancient Greek Tyranny under a new name. And, Franco, Hitler and Mussolini were hardly anything more than cruel and oppressive autocrats, as bad as any in the long history of tyrants and wicked kings of old.
I have no basic problem there either.

But the crookedness of each dictator, and Franco too, was different, facts which the appellation 'Fascism' tends to obscure.
Jerry Russell said:
On the other hand, from Aristotle on, there has always been the hope that civilization could somehow be ruled by a wise, benevolent and generous philosopher king.

Chomsky seems to be within this Aristotelian tradition, when he imagines that somehow a fascist dictator can be recruited to take charge of the world economy to implement an antidote to Global Warming, presumably in a manner consistent with the anarcho-socialist ideals Chomsky has always advocated.
Touché for cleverness, trying to lump me in with the miserable Chomsky now suddenly spouting Fascism in sheer desperation! But I just can't take offence at that no matter how hard you try!:D

Jerry Russell said:
But what sort of coup can you envision, to bring in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as our world fascist dictator? We'll be lucky even to get Al Gore, and somehow we have to get rid of Trump first.
:cool:No such coup is possible; rather, a greater understanding by enough people as to the implications of democracy, the potentially infinite complexity of society (Gabriel Jackson's statement on the Spanish Revolution), and the need for both specialists and a ruling stratum that understands the implications of each. A tall order but a necessary one.
Jerry Russell said:
I have to warn you: sometimes I edit the titles of threads, to conform to the actual content of the thread. This one is likely to get renamed, something like "Postflavians' Guide to Why Fascism is a Really Bad Idea".
A really good idea:) - as I set up the title as an interim to garner attention as I gradually reveal the unexpectedly intimate connection between S'nD'R&R and modern politics (over and above Joe's horrifying insights which I build upon).

Yours faithfully
Claude

*And let us not forget that certain Fascist initiatives remain popular today. The Olympic torch relay, so loved today, was invented by Joseph Goebbels.
 
Last edited:
Richard Stanley said:
OK, since you can't point to a successful implementation of Fascism, and your historical analysis (despite being contrary to my analysis) seems to otherwise agree with me that Fascism is just a transient front (as fascia) to attempt to reattain Monarchy (see immediately below), the ideal of a True Catholic (including the Orthodox).

The Italian Fascists also paid homage to (Sabine) Monarchy, via their ideal city (one of three) of Sabaudia, and the use of the color Savoy Blue there. The Savoys are the royals of 'Italy', and Sabaudia is the land that the 'imperial' Sabines eventually moved to from Roma. It was comprised of Burgundy, the Piedmonte, and the Haute Savoy. Hence the saying: "Once you go Savoy you'll never go Black."

BTW, the House of Orange got its start inside Burgundy, and the House of Savoy is present in England as well.
I am trying to cover more than mere Catholic or ex-Catholic (Protestant and Orthodox) traditional elites, so I avoided Japan in order not to get involved in other cultural questions, notably the effect of Buddhism on Japan.
Richard Stanley said:
I have already laid out the social dynamic of the freed serfs cum industrial proletariat. Once you seen the lights of Paris you'll never go back (to the farm that is). These working serfs then had the gall to think that they could organize and steal divine profits from the worthy nobles and their sheepdog mercantilists. As Wolfgang Waldner (via Jerry) explained, Karl Marx, married into the Prussian nobility, devised a schema that co-opted these scurvy serfers gone amuck. The plan is basically, "If you want collective benefits, we'll show you collective benefits, right up your ass".
Presumably the scurvy serfers are anarchists and Marx was somehow hired by the ruling class to lead them astray into Communism. I cannot deny this fact, and have to concede that Marx & Engels made strange statements in the Communist Manifesto about the bourgeoisie having their wives in common (Communist Manifesto part 2 "Proletarians and Communists"). Had this been true STDs would have run wild!

Richard Stanley said:
This is why the Communists never made peace between the former serfs cum industrialists and the former serfs cum peasants, albeit some rich peasants. Divide and Conquer.
They could not of course because they wanted to overthrow the industrialists entirely and win over most peasants into the 'former serf' category of "levellers" i.e. communist equality with a transient period called "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" whereby industry would be developed under the proletarian dictatorship until the state "withered away" to become an essentially anarchist utopia.

Richard Stanley said:
As I have also discussed, Hitler's real goal was supported by the Second Prophecy of Fatima, the Church's way of inserting itself into such matters. Hitler died a Catholic in good standing (in Indonesia), while Catholic Communists were excommunicated. His SS, modeled upon the Jesuit order, was made up more by southern Catholic Germans, as opposed to the earlier more Protestant SA Brown Shirts and the Wehrmacht. Kill more than one bird at a time.
A really good observation, Richard.

Heinrich Himmler (a dimbulb ex-Catholic) discovered to his surprise that in their background Sturmabteilung (SA) men were mainly Protestants while SS men were mainly Catholics. Hitler's reply is given in Breitman (The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and The Final Solution, Grafton, HarperCollins, London, 1992 p. 34) as he understood the reason for the difference.
the SA attracts “militant... men who think democratically” whereas SS “men are inclined to the authoritarian state, who wish to serve and obey, who respond less to an idea than to a man.”
This highlights the vital role of hierarchy as opposed to the democratic levelling almost instinctive among Protestants e.g. the thoroughgoing democracy of Presbyterianism.

Richard Stanley said:
So Mussolini started out as a Socialist, so what. Can't actors change their roles when one play is over?
Indeed, in the Salo Republic, Mussolini governed justly despite his regime being a German puppet, enraging the Communists who found that Mussolini was winning support once more.
Richard Stanley said:
No, the real goal of Hitler was not to win for his overt cause, nor was this the case for Napoleon (and his Hidden Hand). Their goals were to facilitate the required transformations to get where we are today and beyond. Not any different than the Hasmonean Josephus leading his Zealots off of a cliff. Yankee Doodle put a feather in his cap and called it macaroni.

George Washington was a Freemason, as was Benjamin Franklin, and ...
Hitler's own goals were different to what the elites had in mind for him as a tool - and it is the latter you are referring to as the "real goal of Hitler" I think, so I concur essentially.

Below however, a more important point arises.
Richard Stanley said:
Well, except that Joe refuses to acknowledge who the Freemasons actually work for and exist under whose royal aegis. Or, how are you going to explain the Fascist Freemasons, the Propaganda Due? And that is only one of many issues that confound Joe's POV. And I hate to say it again, even "the Bible tells me so" (i.e. the org chart of Western Civilization).
While Freemasons and secret societies helped organize the origin of Right-wing opposition to Bolshevism, when Fascism came to power any "fascist" freemasonry only played a minor role as the Freemasons were soon closed down and pushed out of Fascist and Bolshevik countries. Also Joe is correct concerning the pre-WW1 period at least (though he doesn't specifically mention it) in that Freemasonry was created in Britain with the coming of the Reformation, the Scottish Rite being the oldest. It then quickly spread across Europe to Catholic and Protestant countries. It was the Freemasons, particularly in Britain, that united wealthy elites (Jews and Protestants, later Catholics) under a common religious ritual which became the nucleus of Judaeo-Christianity - that vicious entity that Miss Kitty is too scared to claw at!

Freemasons later metastasized and mutated to become student societies and apolitical areligious clubs i.e. the Rotary, Lions and Apex Clubs, the last mentioned being most prominent in Australia, the Freemason origin of the name being obvious.

Richard Stanley said:
How would you compare Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll to the Troubadour Movement? Didn't the latter introduce the vicious degradations of (r)omantic love, debasing the proper role of a real man owning his chattel wife for purposes of genetic begetting, while being able to enjoy himself properly with the corner whore(s)?

And before that freaking fakir, Jesus, came along real men indulged in Greek sex (uhmmm Culture), whether they liked it or not. Those naughty troubs got men to indulge in French Culture, whether they licked it or not.
I have no idea as I want to focus on the implications of the 'Gang of Four' Cultural Marxists - Lukacz, Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Presumably the scurvy serfers are anarchists and Marx was somehow hired by the ruling class to lead them astray into Communism. I cannot deny this fact, and have to concede that Marx & Engels made strange statements in the Communist Manifesto about the bourgeoisie having their wives in common. Had this been true STDs would have run wild!
"Having their wives in common?" Sounds like the Etruscan elites, whom the prudish early Romans were scandalized by. Romans being scandalized? Of course, these 'nobles' were all very moral folk, depending on one's POV.

Interesting to note that Etruscan wall art shows these elites to have flaxen blonde, raven, and ... flaming red hair. The show I watched this on stated that the 3 women lounging with 3 men were with their respective mates, but how does one really know? This same show also demonstrated that these Etruscans were mondo 'global' traders, a massive merchant ship discovered off the coast of France, loaded with hundreds of Etruscan wine amphoras stacked five levels high, like a modern container ship. Etruscan bourgeoisie, or perhaps more like the Abraxis family in Jupiter Ascending?

Of course, the focus on the bourgeoisie was part of the Sheepdogs' misdirection away from their Shepherds. It is central to our lens of analysis that there is really only one true dialectic that matters, that is subservient and masked/veiled by lesser and/or synthetic dialectics.

They could not of course because they wanted to overthrow the industrialists entirely and win over most peasants into the 'former serf' category of "levellers" i.e. communist equality with a transient period called "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" whereby industry would be developed under the proletarian dictatorship until the state "withered away" to become an essentially anarchist utopia.
More bait and switch tactics. Just like Hitler's Socialism, which became a spiritual construct within the Nazi millennial messianic schema (all cribbed from Christianity and meant to appeal to Christians). Instead, as Otto Strasser stated in his Hitler and I, that Hitler changed the socialist course of the NSDAP upon being assured of his assumption of power. This by pandering to the German industrialists -- and more covertly to the aristocracy, who like Kaiser Wilhelm launched all this 'chaos'. All part of a piece with the Hanoverian George II of England sponsoring the Romantic Bowel Movement at the University of Gottingen (Now we have Proud White men (many with Black genes) running around with Polynesian tiki-torches Romantically shouting Blood and Soil). Cui bono?

It was the subsequent George III, and the machinations of his Catholic Lords, Bute and Baltimore, that helped launch the American Revolution, aided by the ('disestablished') Jesu and their collaborating masons (e.g. the fake Indians at the Boston Tea Party), that made the USA. The Lords giveth and the Lords taketh, as good shepherds lovingly do with their flocks, preparing them for market, fleecing and slaughter.

All else is putting lipstick on the proverbial chimpig.
A really good observation, Richard.

Heinrich Himmler (a dimbulb ex-Catholic) discovered to his surprise that in their background Sturmabteilung (SA) men were mainly Protestants while SS men were mainly Catholics. Hitler's reply is given in Breitman (The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and The Final Solution, Grafton, HarperCollins, London, 1992 p. 34) as he understood the reason for the difference.
I got the same info via a different route. Of course, one branch of the SS were Hitler's virtual Praetorian Guards, fitting with the Roman Reich affinity and typology.
This highlights the vital role of hierarchy as opposed to the democratic levelling almost instinctive among Protestants e.g. the thoroughgoing democracy of Presbyterianism.
It's only vital to those who insist that it is. And, this is yet another aspect of why I consider the USA enterprise to have been sabotaged from its colonial inception. Namely the inclusion of the Catholic colony of Mary Land, which became the home to the new Jerusalem, i.e. Washington D.C.. (There were 13 colonies, to typologically recognize the 12 tribes and that the tribe of Joseph was divided into two, Ephraim and Manasseh. The Jesu perform the role of the Levites, quietly spread throughout the land, covertly managing the masons - and providing 'effective' deniability to the Church.)

The Presbyterians were equally 'royally' infected with Freemasonry amongst its elders.
Hitler's own goals were different to what the elites had in mind for him as a tool - and it is the latter you are referring to as the "real goal of Hitler" I think, so I concur essentially.
I consider that Hitler performed exactly as was intended. From the beginning, his professional (real) generals considered that he was an idiot, just as many American generals and other professional cogniscenti do in regards to Agent Orange, Trump. But they all were either cowed by the politics or by the Hidden Hand, as with today's cowering Republicans watching their republic be dismantled.
Also Joe is correct concerning the pre-WW1 period at least (though he doesn't specifically mention it) in that Freemasonry was created in Britain with the coming of the Reformation, the Scottish Rite being the oldest. It then quickly spread across Europe to Catholic and Protestant countries. It was the Freemasons that united wealthy elites (Jews and Protestants, later Catholics) under a common religious ritual which became the nucleus of Judaeo-Christianity
Masonry writ large is much older. Hilariously, Joe includes in his CM that fake Jesus's father is attested as a tekton, because this is an allusion to masonry, according to Joe. Yet such masonry didn't exist till the Reformation? No, as retired Italian admiral, Flavio Barbiero, discusses in his Secret Society of Moses, masonry existed as the 'Roman' cult of Mithra, fabricated from an amalgam of pagan aspects. Then there was the Templars, who are now the Freemasons and the Knights of Malta (and the Knights of Columbus and ...

The central problem with Joe and the common, especially cultural Catholic, approach is that it is essential to the propaganda to frame such masonry as a late corruption, designed to degrade the once pure creation of Christ, or whatever. This is pure, unadulterated crap. It's always been there to one degree or another, and its how the Shepherds manage their flocks with deniability. It was present to a lesser degree, at times, because there was more complete kontrol over the masses. This kontrol must at times be 'liberalized' in order to garner certain leaps in abilities, then the kontrol can be fascistly re-facilitated.

And when the Jesu were disestablished, a clever political ruse, they quietly joined the Grand Orient and other lodges. Adam Weishaupt, a Jesu teacher of Catholic canon law, founded the Bavarian Illuminati, along with various members of the aristocracy. The poor hounded Jesu, now became "the enemy of my papist enemy" of the Protestant American revolutionaries, previously happy subjects of their 'German' king. Then, after wandering 40 years (one Biblical 'generation') in the Wilderness, the Mother Church welcomes them back with open arms.

One man's cultural degradation is another's [fill in the blank].

Joe says that, yes, Christianity was originally a perverse construction, but that over the centuries something miraculous happened, and they got it all sorted out. Then along came those ... Jews, and Oy vey.

Yes, 'they' got it all sorted out. Making sausage is a nasty business, but it tastes so good.
I have no idea as I want to focus on the implications of the 'Gang of Four' Cultural Marxists - Lukacz, Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse.
So, papa Claude, you are myopic, but on what account? Papa Nero's?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
No such coup is possible; rather, a greater understanding by enough people as to the implications of democracy, the potentially infinite complexity of society (Gabriel Jackson's statement on the Spanish Revolution), and the need for both specialists and a ruling stratum that understands the implications of each. A tall order but a necessary one.
If you're looking for "a greater understanding by enough people", isn't that an appeal to a democratic (people-driven) process in itself? On the other hand, if by "enough people" you mean "a few people", then how is this different from a coup?
 
A people-driven process huh?
Jerry Russell said:
If you're looking for "a greater understanding by enough people", isn't that an appeal to a democratic (people-driven) process in itself? On the other hand, if by "enough people" you mean "a few people", then how is this different from a coup?
Enough people to enact a takeover may not always be enough to win democratic elections!

Democratic processes can either be participatory democracy - as we have in Cuba or was taught by Jefferson.

Or it can be elective (Alexander Hamilton) democracy by voting herds of sheep, as we have now.

Yet people also have the option to vote in dictators (tyrants) as in ancient Greece or in Weimar Germany - and soon did so! This is why much rubbish was written after WW2 (e.g. William Montgomery McGovern, From Luther to Hitler: The History of Fascist-Nazi Philosophy, Harrap & Co., London 1946) to say that Germany in 1933 did not have enough experience in democracy not to do that - but now, with the reserve army of unemployed (RAU) burgeoning everywhere, right-wing parties are on the rise worldwide, demonstrating the disempowering lies that the West invented about "the West is best" and Churchill's doltish dictum about "democracy is a terrible system but it is better than all the others.' These arguments, so popular in the West, are BS.

This unprincipled upholding of democracy is easily demonstrated in Australia, which, for instance, was the first modern country to have the secret ballot (in Melbourne in the 1850s according to Collier's Encyclopaedia). Melbourne itself was only founded in 1835, just before the Myall Creek Massacre in 1838 in far away New South Wales where a party of about eight whites slaughtered over 30 Aborigines, mainly women and children. This event came to trial - since the British authorities had promised Aborigines that whites could not get away with murdering them wholesale.

See:

The trial was held (if I remember correctly) at the newly founded town of Warialda, near to the massacre site, and was meant as a demonstration that British authorities would stand by their word to native Australia (indeed you have a picture here of Governor Arthur's proclamation to Tasmanian aborigines testifying to this fact). Two of the Whites turned Queen's evidence (=crown witnesses) which secured a conviction against five of the others. Since the punishment in those days for murder was execution of the perpetrator(s), five of these were eventually hung after their conviction by jury.

Where was democracy in all of this? This was a judicial procedure.

What people don't seem to grasp is that the democracy came afterwards! There was no such thing as a witness protection program then so the two Whites who had turned crown witnesses were beaten up and thrown out of town. Whenever one of them was recognized at a later place of employment he was beaten up and driven out, finally dying of starvation as, now badly injured from repeated assaults, he was unable to secure employment. The other fled the area. Why? Because their testimonies sent to death five Whites who were merely doing their job of disposing of unwanted Black vermin!

No "ordinary democratic people" stepped in to save the two Whites because the democracy - i.e. mob rule according to the original Greek meaning of the words -cracy (rulership) and demos (the mob) - desired their eradication for having turned "traitor to their own race" or whatever words were used to justify the deeply-felt mob feelings at the judicial executions. Such was the democracy on which Australia was built - and it was clearly no different in the USA! Hence calls for "restoring democracy" etc. are either meaningless phrases or double-edged at best. Heaven help humanity if we cannot get past democracy, which merely means levelling poverty such as was practiced in Anarchist Spain and Bolshevik Russia!

This is why I can proudly uphold Nietzsche's principle: inequality of rights is the precondition for any rights at all.

I.e. what is wrong is not unequal rights but who the hell is running the show and by what principles is it being run!

Yours faithfully
Claude.
 
Last edited:
I like pretty well everything you wrote above but must clarify the later section.
Richard Stanley said:
Claude said:
Also Joe is correct concerning the pre-WW1 period at least (though he doesn't specifically mention it) in that Freemasonry was created in Britain with the coming of the Reformation, the Scottish Rite being the oldest. It then quickly spread across Europe to Catholic and Protestant countries. It was the Freemasons that united wealthy elites (Jews and Protestants, later Catholics) under a common religious ritual which became the nucleus of Judaeo-Christianity
Masonry writ large is much older.
What you are describing below is a broader conception - the wider roots of Freemasonry back to ancient Egypt and no doubt other deep roots. True Masonry could only develop under the freedom of Protestantism however. I had long been puzzled how Anglicans and Jews could have gotten together to create Judaeo-Christianity before 1688 - it was Joe who opened my eyes to the role of Freemasonry here, though no doubt others had known it long ago, but the facts had not been widely publicized.


Richard Stanley said:
Hilariously, Joe includes in his CM that fake Jesus's father is attested as a tekton, because this is an allusion to masonry, according to Joe. Yet such masonry didn't exist till the Reformation? No, as retired Italian admiral, Flavio Barbiero, discusses in his Secret Society of Moses, masonry existed as the 'Roman' cult of Mithra, fabricated from an amalgam of pagan aspects. Then there was the Templars, who are now the Freemasons and the Knights of Malta (and the Knights of Columbus and ...
These are the roots of Freemasonry indeed, but e.g. the tekton, meaning a builder, hence carpenter and stonemason are included, is part of wider imagery concerning Roman, Jewish and emerging Christian cosmologies. For example, Paul was described as a tent-maker, the subtext here is that the tent is the material world. The Christian building, built of stone, is found described in more detail in the Shepherd of Hermas, a 1st century work that Christian orthodoxy tries to date to the 2nd century AD.

Your point on Mithra is no doubt correct as the Vatican was built upon a Mithraic temple. Mithraic worship was common in Parthia but NOT among the Roman soldiers facing Parthia. Rather, Mithra-worshipping Roman soldiers were at the opposite end of the Empire - in Britain!
Richard Stanley said:
The central problem with Joe and the common, especially cultural Catholic, approach is that it is essential to the propaganda to frame such masonry as a late corruption, designed to degrade the once pure creation of Christ, or whatever. This is pure, unadulterated crap. It's always been there to one degree or another, and its how the Shepherds manage their flocks with deniability. It was present to a lesser degree, at times, because there was more complete kontrol over the masses. This kontrol must at times be 'liberalized' in order to garner certain leaps in abilities, then the kontrol can be fascistly re-facilitated.
Because of the powerful hold of the RockChopper Church they had no need for Freemason sculpturing, which is a later Protestant-centered development - i.e. a "lesser degree" of 'masonic control' was needed under RockChopper hegemony (i.e. pre-Reformation).

I would have thought that Joe would NOT merely treat Catholic masonry as a late corruption but endemic to the Faith - simply because CM has blown the Church's arguments sky high. The Catholic leadership is cunning and clever and so, not ever a Catholic, I cannot imagine what knavery they might have to try to seduce Joe. Nor can I imagine Joe EVER being stupid enough to fall for it - though you know him better than me.
Richard Stanley said:
And when the Jesu were disestablished, a clever political ruse, they quietly joined the Grand Orient and other lodges. Adam Weishaupt, a Jesu teacher of Catholic canon law, founded the Bavarian Illuminati, along with various members of the aristocracy. The poor hounded Jesu, now became "the enemy of my papist enemy" of the Protestant American revolutionaries, previously happy subjects of their 'German' king. Then, after wandering 40 years (one Biblical 'generation') in the Wilderness, the Mother Church welcomes them back with open arms.

One man's cultural degradation is another's [fill in the blank].

Joe says that, yes, Christianity was originally a perverse construction, but that over the centuries something miraculous happened, and they got it all sorted out. Then along came those ... Jews, and Oy vey.

Yes, 'they' got it all sorted out. Making sausage is a nasty business, but it tastes so good.

So, papa Claude, you are myopic, but on what account? Papa Nero's?
Well, you silly soss:D, I cannot condemn ancient Rome absolutely. After all "What have the Romans ever done for us?" as Life of Brian says. And when I read about Vespasian afterwards and looked at videos about him and his work I was reminded of another leader who also came from obscurity but became the leader because he was an honest man, a man of integrity, (like Vespasian who did not milk Africa's wealth when he was governor, ensuring his path to become emperor) promoted even by the corrupt (including a Jewish oligarch called Boris Berezovsky whom he befriended) because the situation in Yeltsin's Russia was truly desperate.

But can you even guess who I mean?

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Well, you silly soss:D, I cannot condemn ancient Rome absolutely. After all "What have the Romans ever done for us?" as Life of Brian says.
Despite the black and white ideals of the Church and Masonry, the world and humanity is not binary, at least at the macro level. I am a cultural Roman albeit its sewage yet stinks. I would have to guess that I would not like to live in a clan dominated, animist world, but we still are highly tribal. Machiavellian means are employed for moving human herds into new environments (cultures) that they are not comfortable with. Those that compain too much have to be sacrificed, as examples to the rest. This is the system, not that I agree with the methodology, profitable for the Shepherds and some Sheepdogs.
And when I read about Vespasian afterwards and looked at videos about him and his work I was reminded of another leader who also came from obscurity but became the leader because he was an honest man, a man of integrity, (like Vespasian who did not milk Africa's wealth when he was governor, ensuring his path to become emperor) promoted even by the corrupt (including a Jewish oligarch called Boris Berezovsky whom he befriended) because the situation in Yeltsin's Russia was truly desperate.

But can you even guess who I mean?
That they are employing him in an apocalyptic and messianic role, as they did with Hitler provides me with no comfort, especially as the USA is their Satan. Mere religio-political rhetoric? That's what the German Jews thought about Hitler. In contrast to Putin, his friend Herr (hair) Trump is posing as an agent of the AntiChrist, or Samson - "seeking occasion against" his Philistines. What comes after in all cases is a new order. The actors have the same employer.
True Masonry could only develop under the freedom of Protestantism however.
If one wants to quibble about Form over Function then I have no problem with this Form characterization. It provides the same Function as the prior manifestations, as well as maintaining its ties to the nobility, the Shepherds. Joe conflates the Sheepdogs with the Shepherds.

And, as I have discussed, Protestantism is yet another cynical Divide and Conquer charade, so that Freemasonry (as opposed to wink, wink, (m)asonry) sprang from that is no more organic than Protestantism itself. Besides, it also has direct links to the Templars, which destroys any such 'late' argumentation. And, as I have stated, the Templars are just a manifestation of the Inner Church.

Joe briefly discussed the import of Flavia Domitilla at the beginnings of Christianity (or Chrestianity per Bartram). The sarcophagus of hers has the iconography of Mithraism.
For example, Paul was described as a tent-maker, the subtext here is that the tent is the material world.
Where does it say that Paul is from? Tarsus, the cult center of oriental Mithraism. Per the narratives, at least, it is Paul (aka Josephus Flavius) that brought Paulene Christianity to Rome, riding on the ship named for the prior Greco-Roman saviors, Castor and Pollux.

And thanks to Bartram, Valliant, Fahy, and Fideler, we know that the Flavians were Pythagoreans, as was Plato. Hence the 'Chrestianity' which became Christianity. The pope holds the Silver and Gold Keys to the Silver and Gold (which the solar Christ enters through) Gates, the former symbology demonstrating the esoteric knowledge and adherence to zodiacal precession, i.e. the Inner Church is always inside the Outer Church, no matter what name one puts on it..

The constant catholic drumbeat to perform this conflation, in the face of all the evidence, not cherry-picked evidence, is beyond frustrating. But that is the whole reason for obfuscation isn't it?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Yet people also have the option to vote in dictators (tyrants) as in ancient Greece or in Weimar Germany - and soon did so!
Yes, democratic systems are vulnerable to attack by reactionary supporters of tyrants, dictators, royalty and/or big capital and big capitalists. If right-wing reactionaries take control of the means of communication and propaganda, it's impressive how easily the vast majority of people are tricked into going against their own interests.

So far, history has been a seesaw battle between the reactionary forces of tyranny, versus the vast majority of humanity. When the reactionary forces win out, it's bad news for everyone except the victors' clique.

There was no such thing as a witness protection program then so the two Whites who had turned crown witnesses were beaten up and thrown out of town. Whenever one of them was recognized at a later place of employment he was beaten up and driven out, finally dying of starvation as, now badly injured from repeated assaults, he was unable to secure employment.
How many people does it take, to beat up a couple of defenseless individuals? You are blaming an entire people for the evil actions of relatively few. As you mention, modern democracies have witness protection programs to prevent atrocities like this. Historically, it's in fascist dictatorships that minorities are left entirely without any protection whatsoever.

Nor can I imagine Joe EVER being stupid enough to fall for it - though you know him better than me.
I recommend letting Joe speak for himself. Rick often extrapolates Joe's views unfairly, based on the positions he does take.

You have Joe's email, right?

joeatwill@gmail.com

He also has a regular weekly podcast with Tim Kelly. Joe occasionally says things on this podcast that I don't agree with, but his views are always interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/user/thkelly67/videos
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Yet people also have the option to vote in dictators (tyrants) as in ancient Greece or in Weimar Germany - and soon did so!
Yes, democratic systems are vulnerable to attack by reactionary supporters of tyrants, dictators, royalty and/or big capital and big capitalists. If right-wing reactionaries take control of the means of communication and propaganda, it's impressive how easily the vast majority of people are tricked into going against their own interests.
Yes, and with Weimar Germany, whom even many correctly blamed on the Kaiser, it's fall was precipitated by the violent failure of the Socialists and the Communists to unite in a compromise candidate against Hitler, combined with the machinations of Franz von Papen, leader of the Catholic's Zentrum (Center) Party. FvP was rewarded with being the lieutenant to Hitler (like the odd Catholic evangelical, Mike Pence to Trump), where he negotiated the Vatican Nazi Concordat. FvP would attend, in Hitler's stead, the unveiling of Jesus's ephod, the seamless robe of the Judaic high priest, at the Trier Cathedral in 1933 (in Catholic celebration of Hitler's messianic ascension). And FvP, as now an official Papal Camerlengo (chamberlain) would attend the second unveiling in 1959.

Catholics celebrating Jesus as the high priest of the Jews? Sounds like some old time JudaeoChristianity to me. And that some people, at least, understand the dialectic system, unlike most who are in De Nile, or agents.

I explained to Joe that his breaking the Jesus code, so to speak, is no big deal (in relativity terms), if a new revelation is coming, and it is. What is a bigger deal is to expose the False Dialectic, but of course, there is much vain and Stockholm Syndromish cultural resistance to digesting this.

All roads lead to a Rome by a different name. Hence, "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss".

Hitler, the Liddle Austrian cum Bavarian, was inserted into the DAP, as a counter-intelligence spy for the remnants of the German Army, that which was left intact by the strictures of the Versailles Treaty. The German Army held no truck with organizing workers cum socialists.

Now we have the likes of Georgetown Steve Bannon, producer of Titus Andronicus, running around Europe whipping up nationalist fascism. But do his 'voters' really understand these machinations, the American ilk shitting on their Constitutional protections, because the deep elites that Trump is really allied with screwed them over. Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis. Create the problem, provide the solution.

There is no 'modern' democracy, with some limited local exceptions, that hasn't been variously corrupted from its inception. Hence making arguments about what is better or not is something of a straw argument.

But maybe you are trying to say that the new Purple Space Jesus, once he is fake sacrificed, will indeed be the ideal 'fascist-esque' (not Fascist) leader of global humanity?
How many people does it take, to beat up a couple of defenseless individuals? You are blaming an entire people for the evil actions of relatively few. As you mention, modern democracies have witness protection programs to prevent atrocities like this. Historically, it's in fascist dictatorships that minorities are left entirely without any protection whatsoever.
Well Jerry, the American lynchings of blacks were frequently attended by many 'good folk' in the public square(s). And the second incarnation of the KKK had about 3 million good White Protestants. That hated Catholics, of course, and maybe Missy Kitty could ask Daweed Duke about that?

In any case, in the South, the lesser Whites were covertly agitated in local committees by their 'deniable' greater Whites into performing much of the dirty work of racial segregation. Kind of like secret societies operate.
 
Last edited:
Your words below presume that the majority is always right!
Jerry Russell said:
Yes, democratic systems are vulnerable to attack by reactionary supporters of tyrants, dictators, royalty and/or big capital and big capitalists. If right-wing reactionaries take control of the means of communication and propaganda, it's impressive how easily the vast majority of people are tricked into going against their own interests.

So far, history has been a seesaw battle between the reactionary forces of tyranny, versus the vast majority of humanity. When the reactionary forces win out, it's bad news for everyone except the victors' clique.
It is even worse news when the majority is the reactionary side - a situation that you edit out by merely presuming that the mob (the democrat majority) is always right.
Jerry Russell said:
How many people does it take, to beat up a couple of defenseless individuals? You are blaming an entire people for the evil actions of relatively few. As you mention, modern democracies have witness protection programs to prevent atrocities like this.
With these words you are trying to blame only a few 'bad individuals' rather than understand and admit White (i.e. colonial) majority sentiment!

As the video points out, the trial, the first trial in Australia indicting Whites for murdering Aborigines, garnered international interest. The point was that the democratic majority did NOT support the two witnesses - it beat them up instead. I.e. the majority White sentiment was AGAINST condemning Whites for merely killing Aborigines. The legal authorities understood that too - which is why there were no more trials of Whites killing Aborigines after this event throughout the 19th century! It was a de facto principle understood by all in Australia that an Aboriginal life was worth less than a White man's - because the White majority upheld that principle, and proved it democratically by voting in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in the first decade of the 1900s where the ALP's primary plank was the White Australia Policy! Indeed, as the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody movement shows, this mob attitude characteristic of White Australia is still being fought today!

Nor are all minorities good. Freemasons in Germany were a minority. So what if some were stomped on by jackboots!
Jerry Russell said:
Historically, it's in fascist dictatorships that minorities are left entirely without any protection whatsoever.
The most effective system of inequality is the caste system of India. It continues to operate despite India's Western democratic veneer of institutions. If the Dalits (Untouchables) are suspected of killing a cow - regarded as superior to an ordinary human life other than the top caste human (the Brahman) - it is not Brahmans who punish the Dalits, but the lowest official caste, the Sudras, who take it upon themselves to beat up and/or kill the Dalit suspects. In such cases, even the police will not intervene because they know it is a religious matter that could get them killed because the police themselves belong to a mixture of castes and subcastes and thus the enraged Dalit-bashing lynch mob could easily turn upon the police and be justified by Hindu authorities in doing so.

To imagine that some "democratic all-loving revolution" is about to embrace the world is wishful thinking since Western democracy's failures are all-too-apparent now. In Australia, some Turkish immigrants who came in 1973 remarked to me how welcoming it was then. Now however, for the last five years as the economy has crumbled, the mother - and even her incredibly beautiful daughters - are spat upon and insulted nearly every day. What she is coming to learn is that democracy in the West is merely a veneer supported ONLY by a healthy economy. But the latter has now collapsed for good since the GFC from 2008.

My task in this thread is to show how ordinary people in the West were rendered individualistic and helpless by Western institutions and procedures (specifically the cultural debasement that Joe outlined - but I want to show the deeper roots that he only partly uncovered). Now made desperate by unemployment and Government downsizing in the interest of financial elites, Whites in Australia either join in the cultural debasement (dying of alcohol, drugs, constipatory Leftist academic obfuscation etc.) or join Far Right groups in an attempt to create some form of collectivist resistance. A true nightmare indeed.

It is the breaking down of any attempt at collectivist resistance (Right or Left) to financial elite domination that I am addressing in this thread.
Jerry Russell said:
I recommend letting Joe speak for himself. Rick often extrapolates Joe's views unfairly, based on the positions he does take.

He also has a regular weekly podcast with Tim Kelly. Joe occasionally says things on this podcast that I don't agree with, but his views are always interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/user/thkelly67/videos
I have Joe's email but I did not know that he had a regular weekly podcast with a Tim Kelly. Thank you so much for the link.:)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Your words below presume that the majority is always right! ... With these words you are trying to blame only a few 'bad individuals' rather than understand and admit White (i.e. colonial) majority sentiment!
Rick didn't like what I said either. You may be right: the majority sentiment at the time, might have been just as murderous as you say.

And furthermore, I can't deny your claims that democracy has suffered from serious failings. I certainly don't claim that majority sentiment is always something I would agree with, or consider "correct" in any absolute or utilitarian sense. What I mean is, that the vast majority of humanity has always been downtrodden and exploited by the elite.

It is the breaking down of any attempt at collectivist resistance (Right or Left) to financial elite domination that I am addressing in this thread.
I had thought that your purpose was to advocate for Fascism, which has historically involved a celebration of "financial elite domination" and their enabler and instrument, the fascist dictator.

But you did say that you would prefer to give a new name to the social structure you're advocating. Maybe it's different from fascism in some way that's eluding me so far. So, I suppose I should wait patiently as you ration out your 'tiny bites.'
 
Last edited:
Here is another tiny bite - but with humungous implications.

How malleable is personality (= character)? Is personality hereditary or is it primarily due to the environment? Or is it primarily idiosyncratic? These were the big questions that underpinned Horkheimer, Adorno and the others when they published The Authoritarian Personality.

Lenin, Stalin and other communists thought that personality was readily malleable from childhood - they were creating the 'Socialist Man' but nothing of this character had remained by 1991, hence the question remains unanswered. Traditional Fascism usually took the opposite view - that personality was innate but heritable (innate here meaning idiosyncratic) and racially segregated too. Capitalist liberal democracy (i.e. the West - or Whites in the broadest sense if you prefer;)) holds either to an intermediate position or no position at all.

[Admin note: Off topic racialist speculations moved here: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/human-races-are-socially-defined-constructs.2509]

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
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.

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.

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?

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.

This squirrelly money is not effectively put to economic use in creating dignified jobs for those that need them. As Trump says, it is a sport for such as him to hide his money and pay no taxes, not pay workers, ...

I work all night I work all day
To pay the bills I have to pay
Ain't it sad
And still there never seems to be
A single penny left for me
That's too bad
In my dreams I have a plan
If I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn't have to work at all
I'd fool around and have a ball
Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world ...
...
Got to have it, I really need it
How many things have I heard you say
Some people really need it
How many things have I heard you say
Got to have it, I really need it
How many things have I heard you say
Lay down, lay down, a woman will lay down
For the love of money
All for the love of money
Don't let, don't let, don't let money rule you
For the love of money
Money can change people sometimes
Don't let, don't let, don't let money fool you
Money can fool people sometimes
People! Don't let money, don't let money change you,
it will keep on changing, changing up your mind.

So, if money can change a person, maybe Culture can as well.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So what you [Claude Badley - rs], 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.
Note how I have cleverly framed Claude with Adorno et al.. :eek:

For more on contemporary reframing, in the general thread context of 'weaponizing', perhaps more literally:
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/just-saying-whos-trumping-der-fuhrer.1548/post-11844

The entertainment media has been increasingly pushing apocalyptic themes in the last decades, from those with natural origins to human ones. Now we can see that Putin and Trump are framed as frenemies of their respective camps, the main difference is that Putin is internally framed as his literal messiah by the Russian Church, and Trump is accepted as being sent by God. The latter is perhaps more properly in the category of being careful what you wish for.

As I've discussed before, from a Traditionalist POV (Catholic or Islamic), the USA is indeed the epitome of (L)iberal (M)aterialist and libertine (m)aterialistic debauchery, and Trump is literally the apex of this nature, which his American dolts have inverted as a virtue. So we have these frenemies being 'staged' in dialectic opposition to each other within an apocalyptic motif. From a typological perspective, Satan and Christ, brothers or perhaps half-brothers, had their Yalta Conference in the desert, where they divided up their future domains. Christ, of course, ceded the Earth to Satan (for that age that is).
 
Top