Great post. Listening on all cylinders with loud music in the background of course. (My desk sits near the piano. lol) Complex material for us today I see. Will let it percolate and get back to you. I do not think the United States or the allies "won" WW II or WW I or the Civil War for that matter. I believe the entire planet lost to the ingrained Fascist mentality. What happened in the past three years is not coincidence or accident. Totalitarianism is well planned and executed.
General Patton, shortly before dying under suspicious circumstances in occupied Germany, was rumored to have said right after the war, "We fought against the wrong country". He was most likely whacked by the Russians and/or their sycophantic lackeys in the West.
As I’m sure you know, Tereza, that rabbit hole you’re descending is connected to every other rabbit hole in the universe. Just the swastika rabbit hole alone could (and probably has) consumed entire lifetimes.
So before I search my metaphorical couch cushions for missing puzzle pieces, I’m just going to cut to the chase and answer the question, Did Fascists win WWII? The answer is: Yes.
I base this answer on your definition of fascism as “the collusion of government and business for private benefit at the expense of the public.” I honestly can’t think of a government participating in WWII that did NOT fit this definition to some significant degree. Even the Soviets fit this description, though mainly because of the way everything in this world gets corrupted, including (perhaps especially) socialist ideology. [Note for future discussion: Doctrine, no matter how beautiful, ruins everything.] At some point in Soviet history, it must have become achingly clear to everyone that the paradise of the proletariat would never happen. From that point, it was a slow slide to oblivion. Therefore, even though the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht, all surviving nations were fascist to some degree (especially the U.S.).
I wonder if this means there are only really the binary options of fascist government or anarchism? If true, then all social structures hung from government--whether empire, aristocracy, philosopher-kingdom, theocracy, or democracy—all become fascistic. (The degree of fascism may, however, be best limited in a democracy, so democracy is not a total bust.)
With regard to the idea of individual sovereignty, in a fascist society there are sovereign individuals in the sense that the owners/rentiers have significant individual sovereignty, even in systems of extreme money sovereignty by a banking class. But outside of those elite classes, sovereignty/equality declines precipitously. OTOH, in anarchism there can never be absolute individual sovereignty because cooperation requires a great deal of self-limitation, plus some system of common law, though equality is optimized.
I like your new profile pic, Jack. It's an excellent resemblance.
I now have to question everything I thought I knew about fascism based on Julius' response below. I'd love your thoughts on that rabbit hole.
Curious about your thoughts on doctrine and how you define it. "Achingly clear," beautiful phrase. Another way of saying the binary of fascist vs. anarchism is that there's only empire vs. sovereignty or rule by rulers vs. rule by rules. I think the rules would want to curb monopoly, extraction of wealth and degradation of resources. Equality is over-rated, imo. Usually applies to a distribution of money or goods, not the ability to produce for yourself or your family. I think you could write rules that aren't self-limiting but self-optimizing and fostering real wealth accumulation, without control over other people. But it's certainly not an experiment that's been done in Western Civ, unless it was Franklin's PA commonwealth, I think.
What I mean by “doctrine” are those debatable propositions—some interesting, some absurd, none provable—that are accepted as truths and enforced by an authority. The creation of religious doctrine is a phenomenon mostly exclusive to monotheistic religions. In the Roman world, pantheist worship had ritual and myth but no doctrine; only philosophers argued over propositions. Jews and Christians, however, combined philosophy (and religious law) with religion, which, of course, resulted in friction between Jews and Christians and the Empire. However, the Empire eventually recognized how compatible a doctrinaire religion was with imperial government. (I believe I first encountered this idea in one of Bart Ehrman’s books.)
Regarding your construction of “rule by rulers vs rule by rules”, I admit it is enticing on a certain level, and I agree with the sentiment. Anglo-Saxon common law might be an example. But, on a more formal philosophical level, I’m not sure rules can be separated from rulers, either linguistically or politically—at least not in the long run. I’m reminded of the difference between rule of law vs rule by law, and how the powerful inevitably bend law to their advantage. Over time, Anglo-Saxon common law evolved into the injustice system we have today. Similarly, I’m dubious of self-optimizing rules. I am one of those who believe all things should be permitted except those things that are prohibited. Isn’t self-limitation just a description of personal responsibility? Self-optimizing rules form a permission system while self-limitations form a prohibition system.
Equality? (Warning: gnostic idea ahead.) IMO, it’s not only overrated, it’s a phantasm due to deficient world design. Equality is impossible in a material world. That equality is always promoted as a noble idea is just another bit of gaslighting by The Maker. OTH, I like it as a personal metaphysical value. Isn’t your idea that you’re no better than anyone else a form of equality?
Lastly, the new profile image is supposedly the Egyptian hieroglyph for the star Sirius.
Oh, nice on the Egyptian hieroglyph! Curious, does that word relate to hierarchy or inheritance? It seems like a Greek word. And I'm reminded of that phrase 'soul-glyphs of the numinous realms' that I borrowed in my Imagination Seeks Attention episode.
I like your parsing (am I using that right?) of the word doctrine. I've said religion should be a forum to ask the big questions; both of those work against that.
Funny, I was just thinking that equality and sovereignty are mutually exclusive. Sovereignty includes the right to fuck up your own life and not have anyone save you. Moral equality, the way I mean it in my core dogma, is trusting that everyone has the capacity to save themselves, or they/ I wouldn't be in that role. My job is creating a fair system, if that's what my life in this role is leading me towards, not 'taking care' of anyone else, with the implicit moral superiority.
When I talk about self-optimizing rules, I mean the ones that you're going to write when you design your Sirius fiefdom. I think we agree that nothing should be prohibited that only impacts you, your family, your neighborhood, your commonwealth--whatever the range for that 'rule' is. You can't 'secede' in order to monopolize resources or pollute or extract. But otherwise, I should be able to keep my house and join another virtual fiefdom if Siriusville isn't the set of rules I want.
So let's say you want to use the caret system to create material equality, ala Santa Cruz. You're going to sell your housing to the highest bidder and use the incoming dollars to shelter the poorest, starting with the homeless. Since Santa Cruz is majority renters and students, you know you can get the votes. What I can do, however, is run a different set of rules through the 'game,' showing that mine keeps the carets circulating through more internal trades of productive activity. It's not a matter of opinion, there's an objective measure of whether it serves the goal of sovereignty. I'm free to take my carets and join with anyone else who wants that set of rules. If the set of rules doesn't meet the criteria, then it might be seceding for an illegitimate reason. Whaddathink?
Yes, the word hierophant (which I know from Tarot ;-) means a religious authority from hiero- holy and phant one-who-makes-known. But I wonder how much of that relates to the divine order of rulers, since earthly authority was seen to have derived from divine grant (often or always manipulated to get the desired results).
"...since earthly authority was seen to have derived from divine grant..."
Nah, that's just what the frauds want us to think. In fact "G-d" himself was made in the image and likeness of certain men; in short, the biggest frauds.
I'm unable to listen to spoken word or music while doing something else; I lose the thread and suddenly realize I have no idea what happened in the last three minutes. For this reason, I prefer written text and transcripts of conversations, though I realize that transcripts take a lot of work.
I have read "The New Normal Reich" and liked it. But I still have trouble with C.J.'s use of the word "decode", as in "capitalism is a values-decoding machine". As a computer programmer, I think of decoding in a very different sense from what C.J. seems to mean. For him, "decode" seems to mean something destructive; I tend to think of it as something that transforms or reveals but does not (usually) destroy.
I entirely sympathize, I'm a reader (and writer) primarily myself. I'm incapable of sitting in a lecture anymore without falling asleep or my mind wandering. For me, if I'm doing something--driving, housework, a jigsaw puzzle, knitting--that occupies my hands but not my mind, I listen better. And it gets me to keep doing the thing that would otherwise be too boring. But everyone's not the same and I'm glad you're reading me!
I agree also that I don't agree with everything CJ says or how he uses words. I just posted a comment on his latest where (although I didn't say this) I think he plays fast and loose with the word 'fascism' without defining what he means by it. I've never gotten that phrase of his you mention. I don't know if I agree or disagree, although he uses it a lot. I just don't get it and it seems to obfuscate the issue. I define capitalism as a system that favors the accumulation of capital, which I define as ownership of the assets that back the money. It's meaningless without defining who. We live under banker capitalism, making the rich richer. But if we had community and family capitalism, it would foster increasing security and wellbeing for each successive generation.
The problem is not with capitalism per se, but with some of the capitalists. It seems that some people can screw up anything and they seem to enjoy doing it.
Sort of disagree but only because a system that favors some over all is going to be inherently destructive. With community or family capitalism favoring wealth accumulation in the form of security, since everyone lives in one, it benefits inclusive groups only.
I do listen to music (classical) in the car; that seems to work because the driving is more of an automatic thing and I need the music to keep it interesting.
I should probably read your book to understand your caret system. I didn't quite get it from your posts. I'm assuming that's related to what you call "community and family capitalism".
The first stages of every -ism seem to be heavily into technological modernization and even, I dare say, quite rational. Benito's draining of swamps and mechanizing agriculture, Adolph's Autobahns and Volkswagen...
(interesting reading re: fascism and agriculture: «Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History» of Fascism by Tiago Saraiva)
And then it, for some mysterious reasons, goes completely nuts.
The pattern might be common. The Great Purge in the Soviet Union and Cultural Revolution in China also happened soon after periods of initial technological modernization. (The difference is just the direction of agression – inward instead of outward.)
I think what you're noticing is that money seems to get pumped into the societies so that people go along with the program that the bankers have in mind, then the traps get sprung and the populations get used and abused to suit the bankers.
Very good article, I believe you are correct about the real war being always between Sovereignty and Empire. I might be looking at this from a different stance; literally ALL authority ever held by government was only ever "rented" from the Individual People themselves. "Individual Sovereignty" is a natural enemy to "Collectivism." In order to get people to go along with collectivism, they need to be lied to from birth, convinced to identify with various "Groups." This always opens the door to construction of Hierarchical social and political organization, where the few are able to control the many. Truly free society exist in a relative state of Anarchy, which is not the same as Chaos
In order to get to the heart of the matter, we must look at history from the perspective that it has been presented to us with only half truths, with the goal of manipulation of perception to get a calculated result from the people, to gain acquiescence for the few to hold power.
The conflict of WW 2 is definitely tied to WW1; but wait...... there's more. The discussion everyone has been psyop'ed into not wanting to talk about is the connection to the Balfour Declaration which was initiated in the USA. The point of all of the Anti Semitic Trope was for there to be a political shield for the Criminal Bankers to hide behind. The purpose for the Sykes Picot redrawing of the Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, was to carve out a piece of land for the Askenazi to occupy, and call "Israel." Ironically, the people who are called Palestinians are of 85% Semitic ancestry, while the majority of the Israelis are of Scythian descent. Now if you have read any of my essays on Individualism; you know I don't care about genetics, bloodlines or race, every individual is sovereign. I have absolutely ZERO issues with Jews, I have many friends that are, and they agree with me. I have a very big issue with secret societies and the Sabbatean Frankist movement that these current Globalist are definitely a part of.
The whole thing we are observing has been going on for centuries. These superiority theorist are the same ones who gave rise to eugenics. They trace their origin back to the Order of the Garter and the Dragon Bloodline; the cult of Mithras from ancient Rome. They believe themselves to be the natural rulers of all human kind, they believe they own everything on Earth; hence the Aloidal Trust system implemented by the Papal Bulls.
You are speaking my language, Nefahotep. My book defines anarchy as 'rule by rules rather than by rulers' aka the archons, with hierarchy being their inheritance order. However, I think the psyops trick that's taken our sovereignty is by leapfrogging the community and going straight from some centralized control to individual rights, like the misnamed 'Federal' gov't bypassing the States and speaking for "We the People." We need to invade Afghanistan to defend women from burkas! The rights of women to abortion means that we have to overrule the States! It's a trick that makes us fight over the issues rather than who gets to decide.
Do you know Matt Ehret and his wife, Cynthia Chung? I think you'd like them for their history of secret societies. You make a good point about 'anti-Semitic.' I think I'll use that in my next piece.
Fully realizing the actual extent of the current hierarchical social and political structure, one can see how all of it has relied on "belief" in order to exist. For example: if nobody ever had any trust in the medical establishment, especially in injected therapies, nobody would take a vaccine.
On a much more massive scale, if billions of people began to realize that they are actually infinite beings and are a manifestation of consciousness, not limited to the appearance based identities they are being told they are; hierarchical control becomes impossible. The Elites become nullified. The social structure can nolonger be based on compulsory collectivism, it gets transformed into a voluntary cooperative one.
Freedom is a natural property of existence through birth, right now we are experiencing an opportunity to notice that we are already free.
I too, went looking for an answer to the question “what is fascism?” and sought out as many articles and books as I could.
(I don’t know how/if it is possible to use html highlighting in substack so I have enclosed key passages with **…**)
Having very much appreciated his work on the Moon Landing Hoax (**Wagging the Moondoggie**
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/), I procured **Dave McGowan’s “Understanding the F-Word”** only to be very disappointed. McGowan relies on the Webster New World Dictionary definition and interprets people and events to suit this faux definition which stresses ‘militarism’.
I subsequently discovered Sir Oswald Mosely and read not only his autobiography **“My Life”** but more importantly, **“Fascism – 100 Questions Asked and Answered”**. So why not ask a fascist what fascism means …?
In the latter, Mosley uses the term ‘Corporation’ more in the sense of a ‘cooperative’ of like-minded or vocationally similar groups of people. He makes a distinction between these ‘social corporations’ and international capitalism/private oligarchs which he says the state must curtail, not so much work in lockstep with or be allowed to override or control the government.
Quoting from “Fascism – 100 Questions … “:
“In the autumn of 1932 the British Union of Fascists took form, with Oswald Mosley as Leader.
**It was a challenge to all the most powerful forces of the established order in Britain**. Mosley **challenged the system of financial capitalism, by which the great banks and insurance companies had fastened their grip upon the whole economic life of Great Britain.**
He **challenged the expert dogma-accepted by all the "Old Gang" parties whereby the fabric of international capitalism was considered of more importance than the individual and collective well-being of the workers of Britain.**
He **challenged the corrupt working of the so-called democratic system, whereby party machines with colossal monetary resources were enabled to establish "caucus-regimes" utterly unrepresentative of any of the integral social elements in the country.**
He **challenged the so-called "free press" dominated by millionaire company-promoters who were themselves subordinate to the great financial and advertising interests on whom their revenue depended.** He even dared to challenge the covert but all pervading influence of the Jews on the life of the community.”
So please, let’s stop using terms and ideologies that mean whatever we want them to mean – and often (as in this case) the opposite of their true definition …
… when what we really mean is
"By **totalitarianism**, I mean the collusion of government and business for private benefit at the expense of the public."
Woah, so fascism has been reverse-engineered perhaps like Nazi, definitely like anarchist, certainly like zealot. And Luddites are in there too. I will certainly do more research and follow this up. Thank you for this, and listening to my interview with Jeff, and being interested in my book!
"So please, let’s stop using terms and ideologies that mean whatever we want them to mean – and often (as in this case) the opposite of their true definition …"
Amen.
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book III, 3.82-[4]
A couple more.:
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — “
Oh these are most excellent quotes. I'm going to copy the first into a post on Empire Deflection Points for the future. One of the most heartsinking books I've ever read was Spain in Our Hearts by Adam Hochschild about the US citizens who went to fight for Catalonia. I haven't read his Homage but Hochschild talks about the betrayal of the anarchists and them all, FDR saying that non-intervention was the greatest mistake he'd ever made.
Helene, you have the best couch cushions. So many interesting puzzle pieces in there! This is fascinating, the newspapers pre-WWII and before Hitler came to power with the repetition that 6 million Jews (always the same number) are being exterminated in Eastern Europe and Russia. And the use of the term "European holocaust" before WWII.
This might fit with Ajax's puzzle piece about Patton saying right after the war, "We fought against the wrong country," before his mysterious death.
have you all watched this 10 part series called "Europa-The Last Battle"? The whole series can be found on internet archives and the first episode is on Bitchute. Similar to Greatest Story, but more details.
It's found under the same name from what I can tell. I did a search last night and also found the other episodes in the series on Bitchute. I would be very interested in discussing this documentary with someone. The film maker did include a long list of his resources at the end of the film. Would like to dig into those.
Very interesting, both your reference and Lisa's. I feel like more information is coming to me on this from everywhere. I will definitely look at these and follow up in an episode. So many lies, so little time. Where does one start?
Don't forget that some Jews in New York declared war on, and advocated a boycott of, Germany in 1933. That was a time when Germany was still suffering from the Great Depression and the year that Hitler had just come into power. It was also the year that the wonderful FDR granted recognition to the USSR...
Re: Mass Formation Psychosis - I so far tend to follow the thinking of those who dismiss the use of this theoretical modeling of human behavior as used to explain the recent Covid events only (not as a theory in itself) because it is a handy way to float blame away from specific individuals and specific organizations from their specific decisions that caused harm on a mass level and to various populations. Refer to Peter Breggin but there are others to agree with him – Fauci for example does not get a pass on his actions because the people are to blame for going crazy together. So that puts me on the "Oligarchs were playing both sides" I suppose though the situation was more complex than just Oligarchical collusion.
The direct roots of the Thule Society being formed out of Theosophy is interesting. From my absorption of Daniel Liszt’s work over the years, I have some background understanding of how the Theosophists operated as a Mystery School and Blavatsky’s role in it. I believe she was a true mystic, and she had a troubled relationship with the male dominated western schools, probablky the ones that warped into The Thule Scociety and on into the idealistic underpinnings of the Nazi movement. You must visit and look at his work to get some deep insights into how the ex-Nazis embedded themselves into the US aerospace industry and operated their own intelligence units with their own aims completely under the radar of US society, forming the underpinnings of the Deep State and what Daniel terms the “X Protect” faction of the US government responsible for the assissination of JFK, and the secret space program and UFO secrecy which has divided our civilization into “haves and have nots” of the fruits of hidden high technology. Of course the Eugenics movement is involved as well.
Daniel’s work is rich and voluminous but not well indexed unfortunately. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwzU4R8nwfc He insists that Blavatsky herself was a mystic and was not interested in promoting anything along the lines of Nazi ideology. However this connection came about it was through elements around her and associated with Theosophy, and their misuse of some of the elements of her work. Rudolph Steiner left Theosophy to found Anthroposophy, as he saw the movement going off track. Steiner has also been accused of pre-Nazi-ism but in fact he was persecuted by the Nazis who burned down his hand built headquarters called the Goetheanum. Blavatsky was apparently put in a sort of “psychic deep freeze” in the later part of her life by those in the Western Mystery schools who she challenged when they did not want to initiate her because she was a woman. It would be the practitioners of the Left Hand Path in Theosophy who would be the likely culprits in fomenting the ideas behind the Thules. Left hand path practitioners are reaching the same goals as the right hand, but left hand does anything to get to the end - ends justifies the means type people who will do anything immoral to get what they want, yet nevertheless mystics and mystery practitioners that are considered part of the balancing act of history, no matter how unsavory. Very interesting history there, usually very sloppily glossed into representing Blavatsky personally as a catalyst of extreme right wing eugenics and the holocaust - a left hand path practitioner - which she was not.
Yes, I recognize you, if you're going to pick up hitchhikers, readers are the best kind!
Haha, it's fun to converse with someone who's just meeting me. Ginger Breggin called yesterday to thank me for being a 'room monitor' on her last post. I've given them 9 pp of my thoughts on why the judge should dismiss Malone's suit against them. I've now published 14 episodes on Malone and I think this one links all but the most recent: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/malones-million-dollar-pity-party. Some of those touch on why Desmet's theory is so dangerous. One of my readers, Jim, has done a great job dissecting Desmet on his stack and I'm sure you've seen this one: https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/11/investigative-reports/covid-19-mass-formation-or-mass-atrocity/. In short, we agree ;-)
Very interesting on Liszt, thanks for providing that link. I'll check it out. How do you define mystic? My particular focus is on the economics so the individual players aren't as critical, including Hitler, as what was happening with the money and who controlled it. It's been interesting to see how much has been suppressed.
I think of nazism as a tool of the fascists, once the smallholders were wrested from the land they were no longer needed.
I knew a man who as a kid living in Poland WW2 era, his family was taken from their village and forced to work on a large farm in Germany. He said the entire village was broken apart. What the fascists goal had been since mechanization was to rid the land of the peasants to more thoroughly control production, and humans.
I keep thinking about the Twelve Articles, before mechanization, the reason for innovating mechanization. The Franco Prussian war wiped out the free tenant peasants with the historical record in Sweden at the same time kicking all the peasants off the land to consolidate land production.
And where did the peasants flee to?
I think of Jesus as a rebel against (fascist) hierarchy.
Collectivized by Hitler is an interesting concept!
I write that there's only one war, empire vs. sovereignty. The smallholders lose no matter who wins the battle of emperors.
There was certainly a rebellion against fascist hierarchy in Judea from 70 BCE to 70 CE but the leader's name was Judas, known as the Nazarene, the Healer, the Sicariot, the Gallilean, leader of the zealots with Zadok the Pharisee. The name Jesus doesn't exist in the Hebrew language, and the gospels were never written or even spoken in Aramaic because the parables, direct quotes from 'Jesus' are word plays that only work in Greek.
I like this idea: fascist hierarchy in Judea from 70 BCE. I think fascism, or hierarchy (beyond the Dunbar Number) to siphon the surpluses from humanity started in Sumer. Probably before just the Sumerians left a written account.
Arguably when the Romans tried to tame the region it bankrupted them. And which national hierarchy is being bankrupted now? Nothing new under the sun!
You are asking great questions and I love it that you even start out by defining terms. Superb.
Too much great material here to comment on.
I would bet that you would be amazed by the works of Douglas Reed, "The Controvery of Zion," Bella Dodd's, "School of Darkness," and Racey Jordan's "From Major Jordan’s Diaries." These all help folks put the pieces together. All are easy to read and full of info.
Interesting indeed. Ellen Brown wrote a bit about the Nazi economic system in her book Web of Debt, whereby they declared independence from the big international banking cartel and created their own Treasury notes on an ad hoc basis, rescuing their economy (inspired by Abraham Lincoln, no less). Which Ellen Brown predictably got dragged for by her lamestream detractors who put vile words in her mouth, for obvious reasons.
It is an open secret that the Nazis at least dabbled in the occult, secret societies, and what later came to be the New Age movement. But did you know that many of the top Nazi brass and their philosophers were also...wait for it...closet matriarchists as well? Yes, really, despite being outwardly patriarchal. Of course, their preferred version of Matriarchy was in fact a degenerate perversion of the real thing, and the Nazis of course were quite evil, totalitarian, and genocidal, in contrast to real Matriarchy. But in their economic system you can still see some of the signatures of it if you look closely enough. Something one does NOT see in any other fascist regimes, or socialist or communist regimes either.
Yes, I write a lot about Web of Debt in my book. It's one of its cornerstones. And I put her quotes about the Nazi economic system into the Forgiving Hitler post. When I was interviewing Ellen once about the banking system (not Nazi economics) a listener called to say she was being anti-Semitic. No names had been mentioned. So I think this is a technique that any criticism of the banks is called anti-Semitic. Curious, the matriarchy thing.
Indeed. I recall someone years ago somewhere commenting about the Nazis' supposed links to the idea of Matriarchy, and then I did some Googling and found out quite a bit in that regard.
So many people luuurrrve to accuse others of racism and antisemitism or whatever just to silence them, it seems.
What difference does it make whether the Protocols is legit or not if the world rulers operate as if it is? More important is whether the actions are in consistent with them.
"In 1944, the American Jewish Committee" says it all and shows you where to start down the path to today's decadence according to the jewish Frankfort School plan of The Authoritarian Personality. (Note the date and that this was begun and instituted before the end of the war and the holocost narrative defining fascism as the cause. As if it could have nothing to do with a reaction to the Weimar decadence which you can see by the books burned by the Reich.). You ignore the final chapter 23 which states the plan to remove the ethnic family and all authoritarian structures (except their own hypocritically) and to use "Eros" to destroy the family. Thus, you have the epidemic of porn today and the near elimination of ethnic pride and practices. Witness the Irish.
It's a plan and it has been funded completely, penetrated all facets of life and worked only too well.
Hi, Leo. There's plenty on the internet to not bother with anything you consider slander. But I'd point out that the Matt Ehret quote may agree with your perspective. From what he's saying, it was someone else who took Mdm Blavasky's theosophy and added the Aryan twist. I don't have an opinion since I don't know enough, and it's not central enough to my main point to research. My main point is that perhaps WWII was a battle between different royal dynasties for who had 'the ring to rule them all.' One was the traditional European bloodlines over nations and the other was a religious royalty that controlled the gold-backed issuance of money. Neither one had any regard for the people, on their side or the other, except for how they could be used to further their own ambitions.
My point is that you mention Mdm Blavatsky as being in cohort with later so-called theosophist like Besante and Bailey. One of them directly linked to papism and then off course i like to mention that the book Mein Kampf seems to have been written by a Jesuit priest of sorts.
For people that have no background all is one big mess (and you suggest the same).
I wonder how this flies with your ideas pickuped by acim.
I like your articles but if it misses something i think it should be addressed.
Hi, Leo. I think you might be confusing me with someone else's writing. In my video, I don't mention any of those names (with which I'm not familiar) and in the quote from Matt, as I read it, he says that someone picked up her ideas and added Aryan superiority to it then popularized it with the royals.
A Course in Miracles is premised on the idea that we're all One, not separate minds encased in separate bodies. So the greatest obstacle to that would be a belief that I'm superior to you. I don't know if theosophy contains that but certainly not the way Gandhi interpreted it, since he said that the caste system in the Hindu religion was like arsenic in milk. So I leave that to your much more informed knowledge on the subject.
"By fascism, I mean the collusion of government and business for private benefit at the expense of the public."
Now they call it "public-private partnership (PPP)" in Newspeak today.
You nailed it!
Great post. Listening on all cylinders with loud music in the background of course. (My desk sits near the piano. lol) Complex material for us today I see. Will let it percolate and get back to you. I do not think the United States or the allies "won" WW II or WW I or the Civil War for that matter. I believe the entire planet lost to the ingrained Fascist mentality. What happened in the past three years is not coincidence or accident. Totalitarianism is well planned and executed.
Well put, KW.
"I do not think the United States or the allies "won" WW II or WW I or the Civil War for that matter."
Correct. The globalist banking mafia won. The rest of us lost and we are living the results.
Another interesting "coincidence":
General Patton, shortly before dying under suspicious circumstances in occupied Germany, was rumored to have said right after the war, "We fought against the wrong country". He was most likely whacked by the Russians and/or their sycophantic lackeys in the West.
As I’m sure you know, Tereza, that rabbit hole you’re descending is connected to every other rabbit hole in the universe. Just the swastika rabbit hole alone could (and probably has) consumed entire lifetimes.
So before I search my metaphorical couch cushions for missing puzzle pieces, I’m just going to cut to the chase and answer the question, Did Fascists win WWII? The answer is: Yes.
I base this answer on your definition of fascism as “the collusion of government and business for private benefit at the expense of the public.” I honestly can’t think of a government participating in WWII that did NOT fit this definition to some significant degree. Even the Soviets fit this description, though mainly because of the way everything in this world gets corrupted, including (perhaps especially) socialist ideology. [Note for future discussion: Doctrine, no matter how beautiful, ruins everything.] At some point in Soviet history, it must have become achingly clear to everyone that the paradise of the proletariat would never happen. From that point, it was a slow slide to oblivion. Therefore, even though the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht, all surviving nations were fascist to some degree (especially the U.S.).
I wonder if this means there are only really the binary options of fascist government or anarchism? If true, then all social structures hung from government--whether empire, aristocracy, philosopher-kingdom, theocracy, or democracy—all become fascistic. (The degree of fascism may, however, be best limited in a democracy, so democracy is not a total bust.)
With regard to the idea of individual sovereignty, in a fascist society there are sovereign individuals in the sense that the owners/rentiers have significant individual sovereignty, even in systems of extreme money sovereignty by a banking class. But outside of those elite classes, sovereignty/equality declines precipitously. OTOH, in anarchism there can never be absolute individual sovereignty because cooperation requires a great deal of self-limitation, plus some system of common law, though equality is optimized.
I like your new profile pic, Jack. It's an excellent resemblance.
I now have to question everything I thought I knew about fascism based on Julius' response below. I'd love your thoughts on that rabbit hole.
Curious about your thoughts on doctrine and how you define it. "Achingly clear," beautiful phrase. Another way of saying the binary of fascist vs. anarchism is that there's only empire vs. sovereignty or rule by rulers vs. rule by rules. I think the rules would want to curb monopoly, extraction of wealth and degradation of resources. Equality is over-rated, imo. Usually applies to a distribution of money or goods, not the ability to produce for yourself or your family. I think you could write rules that aren't self-limiting but self-optimizing and fostering real wealth accumulation, without control over other people. But it's certainly not an experiment that's been done in Western Civ, unless it was Franklin's PA commonwealth, I think.
What I mean by “doctrine” are those debatable propositions—some interesting, some absurd, none provable—that are accepted as truths and enforced by an authority. The creation of religious doctrine is a phenomenon mostly exclusive to monotheistic religions. In the Roman world, pantheist worship had ritual and myth but no doctrine; only philosophers argued over propositions. Jews and Christians, however, combined philosophy (and religious law) with religion, which, of course, resulted in friction between Jews and Christians and the Empire. However, the Empire eventually recognized how compatible a doctrinaire religion was with imperial government. (I believe I first encountered this idea in one of Bart Ehrman’s books.)
Regarding your construction of “rule by rulers vs rule by rules”, I admit it is enticing on a certain level, and I agree with the sentiment. Anglo-Saxon common law might be an example. But, on a more formal philosophical level, I’m not sure rules can be separated from rulers, either linguistically or politically—at least not in the long run. I’m reminded of the difference between rule of law vs rule by law, and how the powerful inevitably bend law to their advantage. Over time, Anglo-Saxon common law evolved into the injustice system we have today. Similarly, I’m dubious of self-optimizing rules. I am one of those who believe all things should be permitted except those things that are prohibited. Isn’t self-limitation just a description of personal responsibility? Self-optimizing rules form a permission system while self-limitations form a prohibition system.
Equality? (Warning: gnostic idea ahead.) IMO, it’s not only overrated, it’s a phantasm due to deficient world design. Equality is impossible in a material world. That equality is always promoted as a noble idea is just another bit of gaslighting by The Maker. OTH, I like it as a personal metaphysical value. Isn’t your idea that you’re no better than anyone else a form of equality?
Lastly, the new profile image is supposedly the Egyptian hieroglyph for the star Sirius.
Oh, nice on the Egyptian hieroglyph! Curious, does that word relate to hierarchy or inheritance? It seems like a Greek word. And I'm reminded of that phrase 'soul-glyphs of the numinous realms' that I borrowed in my Imagination Seeks Attention episode.
I like your parsing (am I using that right?) of the word doctrine. I've said religion should be a forum to ask the big questions; both of those work against that.
Funny, I was just thinking that equality and sovereignty are mutually exclusive. Sovereignty includes the right to fuck up your own life and not have anyone save you. Moral equality, the way I mean it in my core dogma, is trusting that everyone has the capacity to save themselves, or they/ I wouldn't be in that role. My job is creating a fair system, if that's what my life in this role is leading me towards, not 'taking care' of anyone else, with the implicit moral superiority.
When I talk about self-optimizing rules, I mean the ones that you're going to write when you design your Sirius fiefdom. I think we agree that nothing should be prohibited that only impacts you, your family, your neighborhood, your commonwealth--whatever the range for that 'rule' is. You can't 'secede' in order to monopolize resources or pollute or extract. But otherwise, I should be able to keep my house and join another virtual fiefdom if Siriusville isn't the set of rules I want.
So let's say you want to use the caret system to create material equality, ala Santa Cruz. You're going to sell your housing to the highest bidder and use the incoming dollars to shelter the poorest, starting with the homeless. Since Santa Cruz is majority renters and students, you know you can get the votes. What I can do, however, is run a different set of rules through the 'game,' showing that mine keeps the carets circulating through more internal trades of productive activity. It's not a matter of opinion, there's an objective measure of whether it serves the goal of sovereignty. I'm free to take my carets and join with anyone else who wants that set of rules. If the set of rules doesn't meet the criteria, then it might be seceding for an illegitimate reason. Whaddathink?
" Curious, does that word relate to hierarchy or inheritance?"
I believe "hiero" referes to something sacred.
In modern Greek the sound has a connotation of respect.
Yes, the word hierophant (which I know from Tarot ;-) means a religious authority from hiero- holy and phant one-who-makes-known. But I wonder how much of that relates to the divine order of rulers, since earthly authority was seen to have derived from divine grant (often or always manipulated to get the desired results).
"...since earthly authority was seen to have derived from divine grant..."
Nah, that's just what the frauds want us to think. In fact "G-d" himself was made in the image and likeness of certain men; in short, the biggest frauds.
I've concluded it's tur(d)les all the way down.
I'm unable to listen to spoken word or music while doing something else; I lose the thread and suddenly realize I have no idea what happened in the last three minutes. For this reason, I prefer written text and transcripts of conversations, though I realize that transcripts take a lot of work.
I have read "The New Normal Reich" and liked it. But I still have trouble with C.J.'s use of the word "decode", as in "capitalism is a values-decoding machine". As a computer programmer, I think of decoding in a very different sense from what C.J. seems to mean. For him, "decode" seems to mean something destructive; I tend to think of it as something that transforms or reveals but does not (usually) destroy.
I entirely sympathize, I'm a reader (and writer) primarily myself. I'm incapable of sitting in a lecture anymore without falling asleep or my mind wandering. For me, if I'm doing something--driving, housework, a jigsaw puzzle, knitting--that occupies my hands but not my mind, I listen better. And it gets me to keep doing the thing that would otherwise be too boring. But everyone's not the same and I'm glad you're reading me!
I agree also that I don't agree with everything CJ says or how he uses words. I just posted a comment on his latest where (although I didn't say this) I think he plays fast and loose with the word 'fascism' without defining what he means by it. I've never gotten that phrase of his you mention. I don't know if I agree or disagree, although he uses it a lot. I just don't get it and it seems to obfuscate the issue. I define capitalism as a system that favors the accumulation of capital, which I define as ownership of the assets that back the money. It's meaningless without defining who. We live under banker capitalism, making the rich richer. But if we had community and family capitalism, it would foster increasing security and wellbeing for each successive generation.
The problem is not with capitalism per se, but with some of the capitalists. It seems that some people can screw up anything and they seem to enjoy doing it.
Sort of disagree but only because a system that favors some over all is going to be inherently destructive. With community or family capitalism favoring wealth accumulation in the form of security, since everyone lives in one, it benefits inclusive groups only.
I do listen to music (classical) in the car; that seems to work because the driving is more of an automatic thing and I need the music to keep it interesting.
I should probably read your book to understand your caret system. I didn't quite get it from your posts. I'm assuming that's related to what you call "community and family capitalism".
The first stages of every -ism seem to be heavily into technological modernization and even, I dare say, quite rational. Benito's draining of swamps and mechanizing agriculture, Adolph's Autobahns and Volkswagen...
(interesting reading re: fascism and agriculture: «Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History» of Fascism by Tiago Saraiva)
And then it, for some mysterious reasons, goes completely nuts.
The pattern might be common. The Great Purge in the Soviet Union and Cultural Revolution in China also happened soon after periods of initial technological modernization. (The difference is just the direction of agression – inward instead of outward.)
Or am I generalizing with strokes too broad?
What an erudite rat you are! I don't know if there's a connection but I'll brood on it. On second thought, I'll gnaw on it ;-)
I think what you're noticing is that money seems to get pumped into the societies so that people go along with the program that the bankers have in mind, then the traps get sprung and the populations get used and abused to suit the bankers.
Very good article, I believe you are correct about the real war being always between Sovereignty and Empire. I might be looking at this from a different stance; literally ALL authority ever held by government was only ever "rented" from the Individual People themselves. "Individual Sovereignty" is a natural enemy to "Collectivism." In order to get people to go along with collectivism, they need to be lied to from birth, convinced to identify with various "Groups." This always opens the door to construction of Hierarchical social and political organization, where the few are able to control the many. Truly free society exist in a relative state of Anarchy, which is not the same as Chaos
In order to get to the heart of the matter, we must look at history from the perspective that it has been presented to us with only half truths, with the goal of manipulation of perception to get a calculated result from the people, to gain acquiescence for the few to hold power.
The conflict of WW 2 is definitely tied to WW1; but wait...... there's more. The discussion everyone has been psyop'ed into not wanting to talk about is the connection to the Balfour Declaration which was initiated in the USA. The point of all of the Anti Semitic Trope was for there to be a political shield for the Criminal Bankers to hide behind. The purpose for the Sykes Picot redrawing of the Middle East after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, was to carve out a piece of land for the Askenazi to occupy, and call "Israel." Ironically, the people who are called Palestinians are of 85% Semitic ancestry, while the majority of the Israelis are of Scythian descent. Now if you have read any of my essays on Individualism; you know I don't care about genetics, bloodlines or race, every individual is sovereign. I have absolutely ZERO issues with Jews, I have many friends that are, and they agree with me. I have a very big issue with secret societies and the Sabbatean Frankist movement that these current Globalist are definitely a part of.
The whole thing we are observing has been going on for centuries. These superiority theorist are the same ones who gave rise to eugenics. They trace their origin back to the Order of the Garter and the Dragon Bloodline; the cult of Mithras from ancient Rome. They believe themselves to be the natural rulers of all human kind, they believe they own everything on Earth; hence the Aloidal Trust system implemented by the Papal Bulls.
You are speaking my language, Nefahotep. My book defines anarchy as 'rule by rules rather than by rulers' aka the archons, with hierarchy being their inheritance order. However, I think the psyops trick that's taken our sovereignty is by leapfrogging the community and going straight from some centralized control to individual rights, like the misnamed 'Federal' gov't bypassing the States and speaking for "We the People." We need to invade Afghanistan to defend women from burkas! The rights of women to abortion means that we have to overrule the States! It's a trick that makes us fight over the issues rather than who gets to decide.
Do you know Matt Ehret and his wife, Cynthia Chung? I think you'd like them for their history of secret societies. You make a good point about 'anti-Semitic.' I think I'll use that in my next piece.
Here is a link to my article on Individualized Sovereignty:
https://nefahotep.substack.com/p/individualized-sovereignty-and-political
I base my approach on the linguistic aspect of "projection of being."
I would like to check out Matt and Cynthia, are they on substack?
Here's my article on them, which should have links to each. Matt has a recent article on Klaus' Great Narrative that I think you'd like:
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/matt-ehret-and-cynthia-chung-geopuzzle
Fully realizing the actual extent of the current hierarchical social and political structure, one can see how all of it has relied on "belief" in order to exist. For example: if nobody ever had any trust in the medical establishment, especially in injected therapies, nobody would take a vaccine.
On a much more massive scale, if billions of people began to realize that they are actually infinite beings and are a manifestation of consciousness, not limited to the appearance based identities they are being told they are; hierarchical control becomes impossible. The Elites become nullified. The social structure can nolonger be based on compulsory collectivism, it gets transformed into a voluntary cooperative one.
Freedom is a natural property of existence through birth, right now we are experiencing an opportunity to notice that we are already free.
There are so many of my episodes that could convey my agreement with you that I had a hard time choosing. But I picked this one for starts:
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/meaning-is-all-there-is
I too, went looking for an answer to the question “what is fascism?” and sought out as many articles and books as I could.
(I don’t know how/if it is possible to use html highlighting in substack so I have enclosed key passages with **…**)
Having very much appreciated his work on the Moon Landing Hoax (**Wagging the Moondoggie**
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/), I procured **Dave McGowan’s “Understanding the F-Word”** only to be very disappointed. McGowan relies on the Webster New World Dictionary definition and interprets people and events to suit this faux definition which stresses ‘militarism’.
I subsequently discovered Sir Oswald Mosely and read not only his autobiography **“My Life”** but more importantly, **“Fascism – 100 Questions Asked and Answered”**. So why not ask a fascist what fascism means …?
In the latter, Mosley uses the term ‘Corporation’ more in the sense of a ‘cooperative’ of like-minded or vocationally similar groups of people. He makes a distinction between these ‘social corporations’ and international capitalism/private oligarchs which he says the state must curtail, not so much work in lockstep with or be allowed to override or control the government.
Quoting from “Fascism – 100 Questions … “:
“In the autumn of 1932 the British Union of Fascists took form, with Oswald Mosley as Leader.
**It was a challenge to all the most powerful forces of the established order in Britain**. Mosley **challenged the system of financial capitalism, by which the great banks and insurance companies had fastened their grip upon the whole economic life of Great Britain.**
He **challenged the expert dogma-accepted by all the "Old Gang" parties whereby the fabric of international capitalism was considered of more importance than the individual and collective well-being of the workers of Britain.**
He **challenged the corrupt working of the so-called democratic system, whereby party machines with colossal monetary resources were enabled to establish "caucus-regimes" utterly unrepresentative of any of the integral social elements in the country.**
He **challenged the so-called "free press" dominated by millionaire company-promoters who were themselves subordinate to the great financial and advertising interests on whom their revenue depended.** He even dared to challenge the covert but all pervading influence of the Jews on the life of the community.”
So please, let’s stop using terms and ideologies that mean whatever we want them to mean – and often (as in this case) the opposite of their true definition …
… when what we really mean is
"By **totalitarianism**, I mean the collusion of government and business for private benefit at the expense of the public."
😊
Woah, so fascism has been reverse-engineered perhaps like Nazi, definitely like anarchist, certainly like zealot. And Luddites are in there too. I will certainly do more research and follow this up. Thank you for this, and listening to my interview with Jeff, and being interested in my book!
"So please, let’s stop using terms and ideologies that mean whatever we want them to mean – and often (as in this case) the opposite of their true definition …"
Amen.
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book III, 3.82-[4]
A couple more.:
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — “
-Alice in Wonderland
Oh these are most excellent quotes. I'm going to copy the first into a post on Empire Deflection Points for the future. One of the most heartsinking books I've ever read was Spain in Our Hearts by Adam Hochschild about the US citizens who went to fight for Catalonia. I haven't read his Homage but Hochschild talks about the betrayal of the anarchists and them all, FDR saying that non-intervention was the greatest mistake he'd ever made.
I use that H-D quote in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/nina-jankowicz-the-warbling-warmonger.
I've collected quite a few more quotes on that subject as well. Will read your link, thanks!
WOW That is food for thought, but why not? Check this out maybe it will help somehow:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6fHFV0srcZ3c/
Helene, you have the best couch cushions. So many interesting puzzle pieces in there! This is fascinating, the newspapers pre-WWII and before Hitler came to power with the repetition that 6 million Jews (always the same number) are being exterminated in Eastern Europe and Russia. And the use of the term "European holocaust" before WWII.
This might fit with Ajax's puzzle piece about Patton saying right after the war, "We fought against the wrong country," before his mysterious death.
following this up,
see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0HsHBFW6pg
and then read this suggestion in the comment section :
"The Greatest Story Never Told"
If i remember well it is a 9-hour documentary, so good luck for those with a short attention span :)
have you all watched this 10 part series called "Europa-The Last Battle"? The whole series can be found on internet archives and the first episode is on Bitchute. Similar to Greatest Story, but more details.
I think that I watched the first episode and cited it on an episode somewhere. What was that one called?
It's found under the same name from what I can tell. I did a search last night and also found the other episodes in the series on Bitchute. I would be very interested in discussing this documentary with someone. The film maker did include a long list of his resources at the end of the film. Would like to dig into those.
Very interesting, both your reference and Lisa's. I feel like more information is coming to me on this from everywhere. I will definitely look at these and follow up in an episode. So many lies, so little time. Where does one start?
Don't forget that some Jews in New York declared war on, and advocated a boycott of, Germany in 1933. That was a time when Germany was still suffering from the Great Depression and the year that Hitler had just come into power. It was also the year that the wonderful FDR granted recognition to the USSR...
I'm the hitchiker, thanks for the lift!
A Few Thoughts –
Re: Mass Formation Psychosis - I so far tend to follow the thinking of those who dismiss the use of this theoretical modeling of human behavior as used to explain the recent Covid events only (not as a theory in itself) because it is a handy way to float blame away from specific individuals and specific organizations from their specific decisions that caused harm on a mass level and to various populations. Refer to Peter Breggin but there are others to agree with him – Fauci for example does not get a pass on his actions because the people are to blame for going crazy together. So that puts me on the "Oligarchs were playing both sides" I suppose though the situation was more complex than just Oligarchical collusion.
The direct roots of the Thule Society being formed out of Theosophy is interesting. From my absorption of Daniel Liszt’s work over the years, I have some background understanding of how the Theosophists operated as a Mystery School and Blavatsky’s role in it. I believe she was a true mystic, and she had a troubled relationship with the male dominated western schools, probablky the ones that warped into The Thule Scociety and on into the idealistic underpinnings of the Nazi movement. You must visit and look at his work to get some deep insights into how the ex-Nazis embedded themselves into the US aerospace industry and operated their own intelligence units with their own aims completely under the radar of US society, forming the underpinnings of the Deep State and what Daniel terms the “X Protect” faction of the US government responsible for the assissination of JFK, and the secret space program and UFO secrecy which has divided our civilization into “haves and have nots” of the fruits of hidden high technology. Of course the Eugenics movement is involved as well.
Daniel’s work is rich and voluminous but not well indexed unfortunately. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwzU4R8nwfc He insists that Blavatsky herself was a mystic and was not interested in promoting anything along the lines of Nazi ideology. However this connection came about it was through elements around her and associated with Theosophy, and their misuse of some of the elements of her work. Rudolph Steiner left Theosophy to found Anthroposophy, as he saw the movement going off track. Steiner has also been accused of pre-Nazi-ism but in fact he was persecuted by the Nazis who burned down his hand built headquarters called the Goetheanum. Blavatsky was apparently put in a sort of “psychic deep freeze” in the later part of her life by those in the Western Mystery schools who she challenged when they did not want to initiate her because she was a woman. It would be the practitioners of the Left Hand Path in Theosophy who would be the likely culprits in fomenting the ideas behind the Thules. Left hand path practitioners are reaching the same goals as the right hand, but left hand does anything to get to the end - ends justifies the means type people who will do anything immoral to get what they want, yet nevertheless mystics and mystery practitioners that are considered part of the balancing act of history, no matter how unsavory. Very interesting history there, usually very sloppily glossed into representing Blavatsky personally as a catalyst of extreme right wing eugenics and the holocaust - a left hand path practitioner - which she was not.
Yes, I recognize you, if you're going to pick up hitchhikers, readers are the best kind!
Haha, it's fun to converse with someone who's just meeting me. Ginger Breggin called yesterday to thank me for being a 'room monitor' on her last post. I've given them 9 pp of my thoughts on why the judge should dismiss Malone's suit against them. I've now published 14 episodes on Malone and I think this one links all but the most recent: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/malones-million-dollar-pity-party. Some of those touch on why Desmet's theory is so dangerous. One of my readers, Jim, has done a great job dissecting Desmet on his stack and I'm sure you've seen this one: https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/11/investigative-reports/covid-19-mass-formation-or-mass-atrocity/. In short, we agree ;-)
Very interesting on Liszt, thanks for providing that link. I'll check it out. How do you define mystic? My particular focus is on the economics so the individual players aren't as critical, including Hitler, as what was happening with the money and who controlled it. It's been interesting to see how much has been suppressed.
Thanks for reading!
The small land holders lost.
I think of nazism as a tool of the fascists, once the smallholders were wrested from the land they were no longer needed.
I knew a man who as a kid living in Poland WW2 era, his family was taken from their village and forced to work on a large farm in Germany. He said the entire village was broken apart. What the fascists goal had been since mechanization was to rid the land of the peasants to more thoroughly control production, and humans.
I keep thinking about the Twelve Articles, before mechanization, the reason for innovating mechanization. The Franco Prussian war wiped out the free tenant peasants with the historical record in Sweden at the same time kicking all the peasants off the land to consolidate land production.
And where did the peasants flee to?
I think of Jesus as a rebel against (fascist) hierarchy.
Collectivized by Hitler is an interesting concept!
I write that there's only one war, empire vs. sovereignty. The smallholders lose no matter who wins the battle of emperors.
There was certainly a rebellion against fascist hierarchy in Judea from 70 BCE to 70 CE but the leader's name was Judas, known as the Nazarene, the Healer, the Sicariot, the Gallilean, leader of the zealots with Zadok the Pharisee. The name Jesus doesn't exist in the Hebrew language, and the gospels were never written or even spoken in Aramaic because the parables, direct quotes from 'Jesus' are word plays that only work in Greek.
So you're asking exactly the right question--is the story of 'Jesus' on the side of the peasants or the empire? But I think it's a different answer: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-is-the-og-psy-ops.
I like this idea: fascist hierarchy in Judea from 70 BCE. I think fascism, or hierarchy (beyond the Dunbar Number) to siphon the surpluses from humanity started in Sumer. Probably before just the Sumerians left a written account.
Arguably when the Romans tried to tame the region it bankrupted them. And which national hierarchy is being bankrupted now? Nothing new under the sun!
If fascism is defined as a system that makes the rich richer at the expense of the rest, I trace it back 3500 yrs to the twin inventions of democracy and coinage in my book, How to Dismantle an Empire: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607
Whoa! You are on the right tracks.
You are asking great questions and I love it that you even start out by defining terms. Superb.
Too much great material here to comment on.
I would bet that you would be amazed by the works of Douglas Reed, "The Controvery of Zion," Bella Dodd's, "School of Darkness," and Racey Jordan's "From Major Jordan’s Diaries." These all help folks put the pieces together. All are easy to read and full of info.
http://whale.to/c/Maj_Geo_Racey_Jordan-FROM_MAJOR_JORDANS_DIARIES.pdf
Thanks for your perceptive comments, Geoff, and the kind compliments. And for the great recommendations! I'll put them on my list.
Interesting indeed. Ellen Brown wrote a bit about the Nazi economic system in her book Web of Debt, whereby they declared independence from the big international banking cartel and created their own Treasury notes on an ad hoc basis, rescuing their economy (inspired by Abraham Lincoln, no less). Which Ellen Brown predictably got dragged for by her lamestream detractors who put vile words in her mouth, for obvious reasons.
It is an open secret that the Nazis at least dabbled in the occult, secret societies, and what later came to be the New Age movement. But did you know that many of the top Nazi brass and their philosophers were also...wait for it...closet matriarchists as well? Yes, really, despite being outwardly patriarchal. Of course, their preferred version of Matriarchy was in fact a degenerate perversion of the real thing, and the Nazis of course were quite evil, totalitarian, and genocidal, in contrast to real Matriarchy. But in their economic system you can still see some of the signatures of it if you look closely enough. Something one does NOT see in any other fascist regimes, or socialist or communist regimes either.
Yes, I write a lot about Web of Debt in my book. It's one of its cornerstones. And I put her quotes about the Nazi economic system into the Forgiving Hitler post. When I was interviewing Ellen once about the banking system (not Nazi economics) a listener called to say she was being anti-Semitic. No names had been mentioned. So I think this is a technique that any criticism of the banks is called anti-Semitic. Curious, the matriarchy thing.
Indeed. I recall someone years ago somewhere commenting about the Nazis' supposed links to the idea of Matriarchy, and then I did some Googling and found out quite a bit in that regard.
So many people luuurrrve to accuse others of racism and antisemitism or whatever just to silence them, it seems.
But yes, the globalist Money Power luuurrrves to play both sides of every conflict in history and today.
What difference does it make whether the Protocols is legit or not if the world rulers operate as if it is? More important is whether the actions are in consistent with them.
"In 1944, the American Jewish Committee" says it all and shows you where to start down the path to today's decadence according to the jewish Frankfort School plan of The Authoritarian Personality. (Note the date and that this was begun and instituted before the end of the war and the holocost narrative defining fascism as the cause. As if it could have nothing to do with a reaction to the Weimar decadence which you can see by the books burned by the Reich.). You ignore the final chapter 23 which states the plan to remove the ethnic family and all authoritarian structures (except their own hypocritically) and to use "Eros" to destroy the family. Thus, you have the epidemic of porn today and the near elimination of ethnic pride and practices. Witness the Irish.
It's a plan and it has been funded completely, penetrated all facets of life and worked only too well.
Weimar decadence? Are you looking at the period after the debt-genocide imposed on Weimar by the bankers?
I must admit I find it hard to listen to your accusations addressing Mdm Blavastky.
I will look at the assumed ideas and follow the bread crumbs . . .
But having read a lot of Mdm Blavatsky I doubt that this allegations are true.
And then i consider your work to be slander however cautious you word them.
i will be back . . .
Hi, Leo. There's plenty on the internet to not bother with anything you consider slander. But I'd point out that the Matt Ehret quote may agree with your perspective. From what he's saying, it was someone else who took Mdm Blavasky's theosophy and added the Aryan twist. I don't have an opinion since I don't know enough, and it's not central enough to my main point to research. My main point is that perhaps WWII was a battle between different royal dynasties for who had 'the ring to rule them all.' One was the traditional European bloodlines over nations and the other was a religious royalty that controlled the gold-backed issuance of money. Neither one had any regard for the people, on their side or the other, except for how they could be used to further their own ambitions.
My point is that you mention Mdm Blavatsky as being in cohort with later so-called theosophist like Besante and Bailey. One of them directly linked to papism and then off course i like to mention that the book Mein Kampf seems to have been written by a Jesuit priest of sorts.
For people that have no background all is one big mess (and you suggest the same).
I wonder how this flies with your ideas pickuped by acim.
I like your articles but if it misses something i think it should be addressed.
Hi, Leo. I think you might be confusing me with someone else's writing. In my video, I don't mention any of those names (with which I'm not familiar) and in the quote from Matt, as I read it, he says that someone picked up her ideas and added Aryan superiority to it then popularized it with the royals.
A Course in Miracles is premised on the idea that we're all One, not separate minds encased in separate bodies. So the greatest obstacle to that would be a belief that I'm superior to you. I don't know if theosophy contains that but certainly not the way Gandhi interpreted it, since he said that the caste system in the Hindu religion was like arsenic in milk. So I leave that to your much more informed knowledge on the subject.
Thanks for keeping me honest!
interesting style of communication. thanks for your education :)