Did Fascists win WWII?

on a century of defeating Germany

In this video, I ask viewers to help me find a missing puzzle piece. How did Germany go from the crippling debt of the Weimar inflation to a thriving economy before the invasion of Poland? I propose two scenarios: one involving Madame Blavatsky and theosophist bankers, the other with Hitler kicking out the bankers and creating his own money. And then there's a mix of the two. Help me search the couch cushions!

As always, it’s important to define terms. By fascism, I mean the collusion of government and business for private benefit at the expense of the public. By Nazism, I mean a political party that began as National Socialism, innocuous at least in name, and has come to be associated with doctrines of blood purity, racial superiority and eugenics. Are these, and have they always been, the same? The following is supplementary material in addition to the video:

The counter-narrative to the Covid narrative keeps comparing this era to Nazi Germany and warning that, just like the civilized Germans turned spontaneously into monsters, this could be us. So I think that it’s important to understand what really happened and how and who. Was it as Jung described, as quoted in Mass Formation or Mass Atrocity?

The phenomenon we have witnessed in Germany was nothing less than the first outbreak of epidemic insanity, an irruption of the unconscious into what seemed to be a tolerably well-ordered world. A whole nation, as well as countless millions belonging to other nations, were swept into the blood-drenched madness of a war of extermination. No one knew what was happening to [them], least of all the Germans, who allowed themselves to be driven to the slaughterhouse by their leading psychopaths like hypnotized sheep. (Jung 1970, 212)

Or were the oligarchs playing both sides of the chessboard? Matt Ehret writes in Why Is It So Hard to Finnish (sic) Nazism?

In his brilliant ‘The Shocking Truth About the 1938 Munich Agreement’, Alex Krainer demonstrates that British secret diplomacy ensured that from Hitler’s takeover of Austria to the invasion of Poland in September 1939, Britain’s appeasement policy merely feigned opposition to Nazism while actually facilitating its unrelenting growth as a Frankenstein monster in the heart of Europe.

Matt continues to explain the role of Blavatsky’s Theosophy in Nazism:

Eric and Clarence von Rosen had been followers of an occult sect called Ariosophism, led by a mystic rune-obsessed poet named Guido von List who simply took Madame Blavatsky’s theosophy and infused an Aryan racial superiority twist with a heightened focus on Wotan myths. In this sect, the swastika and other rune symbols like the Othala rune, Ehlaz/life rune, Sig runs (later used by SS), and wolfsangle were treated as sacred images endowed with magic power.

Guido von List had organized his sect into an inner and outer core with the “elect” learning a secret interpretation of the runes under an elite occult society called the High Armanen Order where von List himself served as Grand Master.

This racist occult Aryanism with its Theosophical aim to infuse Hindu and Buddhist mysticism into a new post-Christian age became an extremely popular phenomenon among the noble families of Europe during this period. The aim was to use a perverse interpretation of eastern spiritualism devoid of substance and create a new order premised on an “Age of Aquarius” which would supersede the obsolete “Age of Pisces” that represented the obsolete of reason exemplified by the likes of Socrates, Plato and Christ.

Out of the High Armanen Order soon grew another secret occult organization called the Thule Society which saw Rudolf Hess, Hans Frank, Hermann Goring, Karl Haushofer and Hitler’s coach Dietrich Eckart as leading members.

It is an uncomfortable fact of history that those same powers that gave rise to fascism were never punished at the Nuremburg Trials. Those Wall Street industrialists and financiers that supplied Germany with funding and supplies before and during the war were not punished… nor were the British financiers at the Bank of England who ensured that Nazi coffers would be replete with confiscated loot from Austria, Czechoslovakia or Poland.

The post-war age not only saw a vast re-organization of fascist killers in the form of the CIA/NATO managed Operation Gladio and we know that Allan Dulles directly oversaw the re-activation of Hitler’s intelligence chief Reinhard Gehlen into the command structure of West German Intelligence along with his entire network.

If Aryan theosophy is what Nazism became, the royal families of Europe are certainly one demographic who believe in blood purity, racial superiority and the right of domination, if not eugenics. Where did anti-Semitism come in? Madame Blavatsky’s secretary is ‘credited’ with the discovery of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. I put credited in quotes because this was later ‘discovered’ to be a forgery. This was ‘discovered’ by … Allen Dulles? Here is a one-page summary from the Substack of Gregory Lessing Garrett:

Protocol 19 Reveals INOCULATION as One of Their Weapons 

“TO PRODUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE EXPRESSION OF SUCH WISHES BY ALL THE NATIONS IT IS INDISPENSABLE TO TROUBLE IN ALL COUNTRIES THE PEOPLE'S RELATIONS WITH THEIR GOVERNMENTS SO AS TO UTTERLY EXHAUST HUMANITY WITH DISSENSION, HATRED, STRUGGLE, ENVY AND EVEN BY THE USE OF TORTURE, BY STARVATION, BY THE INOCULATION OF DISEASES, BY WANT, SO THAT THE "GOYIM" SEE NO OTHER ISSUE THAN TO TAKE REFUGE IN OUR COMPLETE SOVEREIGNTY IN MONEY AND IN ALL ELSE.”

From The Protocols of The Learned Elders:

According to Talmudic Judaism, Goyim (Gentile “Cattle”) are mentally inferior to Jews and can’t run their nations properly. For their sake and ours, we need to abolish their governments and replace them with a single government. This will take a long time and involve much bloodshed, but it's for a good cause.

Here's what we’ll (The Jesuits) need to do:

* Place our agents and helpers everywhere

* Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans

* Start fights between different races, classes and religions

* Use bribery, threats and blackmail to get our way

* Use Freemasonic Lodges to attract potential public officials

* Appeal to successful people's egos

* Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail (Epstein’s Island, etc…)

* Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, then despotism

* Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by us

* Sacrifice people (including Jews sometimes) when necessary

* Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism

* Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect

* Rewrite history to our benefit

* Create entertaining distractions

* Corrupt minds with filth and perversion

* Encourage people to spy on one another

* Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor

* Take possession of all wealth, property and (especially) gold

* Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc.

* Introduce a progressive tax on wealth

* Replace sound investment with speculation

* Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments

* Give bad advice to governments and everyone else

Eventually the Goyim will be so angry with their governments (because we'll blame them for the resulting mess) that they'll gladly have us take over. We will then appoint a descendant of David to be King of The World (The Antichrist), and the remaining Goyim will bow down and sing his praises.

Everyone will live in peace and obedient order under his glorious rule.

I have no opinion on this document’s authenticity but a strong opinion on what that would say about the Jewish people, if so—NOTHING! We talk about the Russians, Chinese and Germans as if they’re homogenous units with a single character, even while we decry their authoritarian gov’ts. All personifications of nations or races are nonsense.

However if, like European royalty, there was a competing family who considered themselves the rightful dynastic rulers of rulers, it would certainly behoove them to conflate any criticism of them as the first step on a slippery slope towards genocide.

In 1944, the American Jewish Committee held a two-day conference on religious and racial prejudice. They said that, although anti-Semitism was currently “not manifesting itself with the full and violent destructiveness of which we know it to be capable” systemic plans needed to be laid. They ask, “What tissues in the life of our modern society remain cancerous, and despite our assumed enlightenment show the incongruous atavism of ancient peoples?” In the resulting compilation is this excerpt:

The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno, pp. 975-976.

Confronted with the rigidity of the adult ethnocentrist, one turns naturally to the question of whether the prospects for healthy personality structure would not be greater if the proper influences were brought to bear earlier in the individual's life, and since the earlier the influence the more profound it will be, attention becomes focused upon child training. It would not be difficult, on the basis of the clinical and genetic studies reported in this volume, to propose a program which, even in the present cultural pattern, could produce nonethnocentric personalities. All that is really essential is that children be genuinely loved and treated as individual humans. But all the features of such a program would have the aspect of being more easily said than done.

For ethnocentric parents, acting by themselves, the prescribed measures would probably be impossible. We should expect them to exhibit in their relations with their children much the same moralistically punitive attitudes that they express toward minority groups—and toward their own impulses. In children then, as in the case of the adult ethnocentrist, we cannot expect psychology, by itself, to produce the desired result; one is too familiar with cases of young parents with the fullest intellectual understanding of modern theories whose need to do the "correct" thing prevents the very warmth and spontaneity which those theories prescribe.

But more serious, because much more widespread, is the case of parents who with the best will and the best feelings are thwarted by the need to mould the child so that he will find a place in the world as it is. Few parents can be expected to persist for long in educating their children for a society that does not exist, or even in orienting themselves toward goals which they share only with a minority. It seems obvious therefore that the modification of the potentially fascist structure cannot be achieved by psychological means alone. The task is comparable to that of eliminating neurosis, or delinquency, or nationalism from the world. These are products of the total organization of society and are to be changed only as that society is changed.

It is not for the psychologist to say how such changes are to be brought about. The problem is one which requires the efforts of all social scientists. All that we would insist upon is that in the councils or round tables where the problem is considered and action planned the psychologist should have a voice. We believe that the scientific understanding of society must include an understanding of what it does to people, and that it is possible to have social reforms, even broad and sweeping ones, which though desirable in their own right would not necessarily change the structure of the prejudiced personality.

For the fascist potential to change, or even to be held in check, there must be an increase in people's capacity to see themselves and to be themselves. This cannot be achieved by the manipulation of people, however well grounded in modern psychology the devices of manipulation might be; and it is a judgment which finds support in the present study that the man who is first to seize power will be the last to give it up. It is safe to assume, however, that fascism is imposed on the people, that it actually goes against their basic interests, and that when they can be made fully aware of themselves and their situation they are capable of behaving realistically.

That people too often cannot see the workings of society or their own role within it is due not only to a social control that does not tell the truth but to a "blindness" that is rooted in their own psychology. Although it cannot be claimed that psychological insight is any guarantee of insight into society, there is ample evidence that people who have the greatest difficulty in facing themselves are the least able to see the way the world is made. Resistance to self- insight and resistance to social facts are contrived, most essentially, of the same stuff. It is here that psychology may play its most important role. Techniques for overcoming resistance, developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use with groups and even for use on a mass scale.

Let it be admitted that such techniques could hardly be effective with the extreme ethnocentrist, but it may be remembered that the majority of the population are not extreme but, in our terminology, "middle." It is the fact that the potentially fascist pattern is to so large an extent imposed upon people that carries with it some hope for the future. People are continuously molded from above because they must be molded if the overall economic pattern is to be maintained, and the amount of energy that goes into this process bears a direct relation to the amount of potential, residing within the people, for moving in a different direction.

Is this a form of moral superiority over people who can’t be trusted to love their own children? It’s worth taking a closer look.

---

For further background, here’s CJ Hopkins & the New Normal Reich:

In Through the Looking Glass, Margaret Anna Alice interviews playwright CJ Hopkins about his Substack, The Consent Factory Essays, and his book, The New Normal Reich. She asks eight questions that I summarize and respond to, on the cultural zeitgeist and reality vs. "reality". I raise questions about the original Third Reich, and whether we've been told the truth. Mattias Desmet is discussed and which came first, totalitarianism or mass psychosis. I quote from A Course in Miracles and why more people are psychoanalyzing humanity as one consciousness than ever before.

and Forgiving Hitler:

I examine the spiritual, psychological and geopolitical reasons to forgive Hitler, not by absolving his guilt but by questioning the WWII official narrative. As the personification of evil, is Hitler a projection of a systemic brutality that was only spurred by his defeat? I question the cause of the anger invoked and how it relates to 'triggers' of 9-11 or the CoVax. I end by looking at the hope and possibility for social change when we give all people the same integrity we give to ourselves.