|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
|News||Corporatism||Recommended Links||Recommended books||Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ?||Media-Military-Industrial Complex||National neoliberalism|
|Neocons||Robert Kagan||The problem of control of intelligence services in democratic societies||Predator state||Crisis of Neoliberalism of 2008 and Shift to neofascism||Gangster Capitalism: The United States and the Globalization of Organized Crime||Big Uncle is Watching You|
|NeoMcCartyism||National Security State||Nation under attack meme||Inverted Totalitarism||Elite [Dominance] Theory And the Revolt of the Elite||Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite||Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime|
|National Socialism and Military Keysianism||F-scale||American Exceptionalism||Neoconservatism||Authoritarian Corporatism||Audacious Oligarchy and Loss of Trust||The Grand Chessboard|
|Neoliberal Brainwashing: Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few||New American Militarism||Militarism and reckless jingoism of the US neoliberal elite||Tea Party and right wing rage||Totalitarian Decisionism||The Far Right Forces in Ukraine||If Corporations Are People, They Are Psychopaths|
|Corruption of Regulators||Double High Authoritarians||The Iron Law of Oligarchy||The Great Democratic Party Betrayal: Pro-War Neoliberal Democrats as Vichy Left||Mussolini on the Corporate State||Reconciling Human Rights||IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement|
|The Tea Party||Mayberry Machiavellians||Neoliberal rationality||Henry A Wallace Quotes||Snowden Quotes||Corporatism quotes||Etc|
|"Fascism: Any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic
policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition."
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites , abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
- Robert Paxton
That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt -
“National Socialism was a revulsion by my friends against parliamentary politics, parliamentary debate, parliamentary government—against all the higgling and the haggling of the parties and the splinter parties, their coalitions, their confusions, and their conniving. It was the final fruit of the common man's repudiation of 'the rascals'. Its motif was, 'Throw them all out.'
I fooled myself. I had to. Everybody has to. If the good had been twice as good and the bad only half as bad, I still ought to have seen it. But I didn't want to see it, because I would have then had to think about the consequences of seeing it, what followed from seeing it, what I must do to be decent. I wanted my home and family, my job, my career, a place in the community.”
Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free-
You can view neofascism as fixed state ( fixed social system), or as a trend to more extreme forms of nationalism and more close alliance of large corporations and the state under neoliberalism. I view it more like a trend, with the revival of far right nationalism as a reaction on excesses of neoliberalization and destruction of the civil society under neoliberalism with its cult of globalization. Kind of neoliberal globalization blowback.
In its essence fascism is a form of crisis management via imposing of the society military style organization. Fascism grows if three factors are in place. First, a nation must be in a severe economic crisis. Second, people must believe that existing institutions and government parties cannot improve the situation. The third ingredient is a sense that a country used to be great.
The key feature of neofascism is a more flexible and more sophisticated mechanism of suppression of opposition, which no longer rely solely on brute force like in classical fascism but more on the combination of total surveillance with powerful propaganda machine. They also learned to operate within the framework of parliamentary democracy, not striving to depose it as during "fascist quarter century" in Europe 1919-1945.) It is still denounced as degenerate, corrupt, and incapable of dealing with current problems -- the charge that is, unfortunately, not totally untrue if we think about Russiagate and look as such players as Schiff, Pelosi, Trump, Biden, etc.
At the same time the role surveillance agencies as the backbone of any fascist or neofascist regime only strengthened. So in a way parliamentary democracy became a Potemkin village, an illusion to placate masses. RussiaGate is just a nice example here: in best traditions on NKVD anybody can be declared a Russia spy (which a mirrors NKVD tactic to declare such people British spies) and put under such a pressure that he accept this change. Threat to prosecute children are especially effective as General Flynn case had shown.
While a different movement then classic fascism, neofascism retained to a large extent several features of classic fascism such as extreme militarism, disregard for the historic rights of others, drive for Lebensraum, and fear of extinction. It is undeniable that fascism played an important role in European culture since at least since 1920 (if not from 1905 if we count from Vladimir Purishkevich and the Union of the Russian People). The key "justification" for fascism was always its extreme anti-communism. It should not be thought, however, that fascism was exclusively shaped by its hostility to communism; the key here is that at some point of social crisis (and we can talk about the crisis of neoliberalism now with the same certainty as the crisis of capitalism in 1920th) a part of the elite (and first of all financial elite), fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privileges.
And while created and supported by financial oligarchy is did not represent obiendient child. Even during its classic period fascism displayed large variations. There were traditionalist "protofascist" regimes (e.g., Horthy, Pilsudski, Alexander of Yugoslavia, Salazar), less traditionalist regimes (e.g., Franco), non-traditionalist regimes (e.g., Mussolini), and anti-traditionalist, radical regimes (e.g., Hitler's Nazi Germany)
Fascism was the first ideology (neoliberalism is the second as such can be viewed as related to the classic fascism; some kind of merger of fascism and Trotskyism) openly based on deception: "the governments that have emerged from the fascist movements never actually pursued policies that are economically populist, were used by them during elections and brought them to power".
Fascist and neofascist governments are always pro-monopolies, not pro-people. They serve as the last bastion of financial oligarchy against popular discontent. The root of the rise of neofascism (and far right nationalism, which is close but differs in in the social program part, see below) is the impoverishment of working (both blue and lower strata of white collar) and lower middle class under neoliberalism. Creation of a mass of students with no future, and disenfranchised, impoverished mass of veterans after WWI were critical for the emergence of the classic fascism.
To what extent this is true for neofascism as a reaction on crisis of neoliberalism (which started in 2008 and so far did not end producing "permanent stagnation") remain to be seen. Extreme inequality, and the threat from neoliberal globalization to the existence of nation-states definitely feed far right nationalism which became a political factor in Europe (Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, France, Baltic republics; even Belorussia ) In other words, neoliberalism is a powerful enabler of both neofascism and far right nationalism.
Like Bolshevism fascism is just another party oligarchy centered, “top- down ” [ that is, controlled/managed by the elite at the top of the party and state apparatus], bound-to-fail [for the masses], economic system of expropriation, to benefit the narrow strata of people defined as Ubermench and impoverish everyone else.
Simplifying neofascism means classic fascism with the following major features removed/modified:
Neofascism rejects or revise several postulates of fascism:
Neofascism like classic fascism is a derivative of corporatism (control of the state by financial oligarchy and large industrialists) and political power still belongs to the capitalists, but the preference is given to "national" monopolies and large banks instead of transnational. So while all pigs are created equal some pigs are not equal then others. All-in-all neofascism ideology proved to be compatible with neoliberalism, and allows emergence of such flavors as Trump's "national neoliberalism."
Neofascism is compatible with neoliberalism and allows emergence of such flavors as Trump's "national neoliberalism." Like Neoliberalism Fascism uses Social Darwinism as its base
In the USA the main part of the neoliberal elite (or more correctly several different parts of the neoliberal elite) support the current shift to neofascism and far right nationalism. Among them are "imperial servants" and what Eisenhower defined as "military-industrial complex." The latter includes politicized intelligences agencies (the "Deep state" in a narrow sense of this word). In this sense Russiagate is a the second stage of the shift to neofascism in the USA after Bush II regime unleashed series of neocolonial wars after 9/11 (which in this sense is an equivalent to Reichstag fire)
At the same time neofascism has a large number of common elements with fascism. Among them:
It is important to understand that neofascism inherits all major elements of fascism foreign policy. It is interesting to compare definition of neofascism with the definition of Neoconservatism. The latter, according to Wikipedia was defined by prominent neocons Robert Kagan as:
In 2008, Kagan wrote an article titled "Neocon Nation: Neoconservatism, c. 1776" for World Affairs, describing the main components of American Neoconservatism as
- A belief in the rectitude of applying US moralism to the world stage,
- Support for the US to act alone,
- The promotion of American-style liberty and democracy in other countries,
- The belief in American hegemony,
- The confidence in US military power,
- a distrust of international institutions.
According to Kagan, his foreign-policy views are "deeply rooted in American history and widely shared by Americans".
As we can see in foreign policy Neoconservatism and neofascism are almost identical. I would say that the idea of Neoconservatism was to take fascist foreign policy and recreate it as a separate political supremacist movement using Trotskyism with its idea of "World revolution" as the common glue.
In this sense, the victory of the USA after WWII quickly backfired as with the creation of Truman powerful and uncontrollable intelligence agencies and McCarthyism campaign the key elements of neofascism quickly emerged within the country. Especially important in this sense was the creation by Truman powerful intelligence agencies (CIA and FBI) and JFK assassination in 1963. It is also important to remember that the first McCarthyism hysteria lasted for over decade.
This two developments created preconditions for the slide toward the flavor of neofascism which prominent political scientist Sheldon Wolin called "inverted totalitarism". The existence of a powerful intelligence agencies (or network of such agencies -- the Deep state in a narrow sense) is a litmus test for "inverted totalitarism". As soon a Truman created CIA such the slide became inevitable and 1963 was in this sense the defining year after which we can consider the USA has have "inverted totalitarism" regime established. The dominance of intelligence agencies and assumption by them of political functions is a very important indication of the slide toward neofascism, as it the size of the military budget in general. In a way, the role of military establishment in general and intelligence agencies in particular in the rise of neofascism deserves more detailed study.
The role of military establishment in general and intelligence agencies in particular in the rise of neofascism deserves more detailed study.
The natural logic of evolution of powerful intelligence agencies presuppose acquiring by them political function (JFK assassination happened just after 15 years of existence of CIA) as well as assuming of FBI the critical role in crushing the political dissent (FBI under Edgar Hoover). If we view intelligence agencies as special, semi-controlled by the state type of organized crime (and sometimes they have ties with organized crime and are involved in narcotrade and arms trade) there are some similarities with the term "mafia state":
The term mafia state is a political buzzword to describe a state system where the government is tied with organized crime, including when government officials, police, and/or military take part in illicit enterprises. The term mafia is a reference to any organized crime groups strongly connected with the authorities.
According to the critics of the mafia state concept, the term "has now been so used and abused in popularized descriptions of organized criminal activity that it has lost much of its analytic value".
The term may also be used in a positive sense, and be used to describe a political system in which the government has been replaced by organized crime.
As for political role of intelligence agencies, in 2016 the US intelligence agencies (mainly CIA and FBI) definitely attempted to become "kingmakers" in the national election (although previously CIA also played crucial role in Carter defeat, as well as Nixon impeachment; not this not the first case). After they failed to prevent Trump from being elected they launched a color revolution against him (known mostly under the term of Russiagate). Other measures are taken against politicians who deviate too much from the accepted "Party line" in best traditions of blackmail by Gestapo, STASI and NKVD. Assassinations in case the politician who is classified as "hopeless" or "dangerous" is another. Robert Kennedy assassination probably belongs to this case.
In this sense no society with powerful intelligence agencies (be it CIA, MI6, FSB, Mossad, etc) can not be properly called democracy as it has one of the most important elements of neofascism imbedded in the particular society. From the moment of their creation the process of politization and the loss of civil control over intelligence services is an inevitable process, which is difficult to control, although some countries fared better in this respect then the other. As soon as politization reach critical state and "the tail starts waging the dog": such agencies very quickly assume purely political function (such as "kingmakers") and start behaving like the Praetorian Guard in Rome.
Intelligences agencies also play prominent role in brainwashing the population, as they often covertly control substantial part of the national press and the major part of foreign correspondents corps. Former CIA Director William Casey quote "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" (I think the quote has two levels: level one is about foreign events coverage in the USA; the level two is about CIA attempt to deceive Soviet intelligence which like the US intelligence relied for 80% of their data on public sources ). in proper historical context this can be viewed as a refined statement about importance of creation of national myth under neofascism and the level of distortion of foreign events coverage which is the hallmark of any fascist or neofascist regime. It can be attributed to any the major fascist propagandas machine official, such as Goebbels.
Elimination of political figures using trump up changes of foreign conspiracy is the most obvious sign of politicized intelligence agencies. This essentially makes political dissent a dangerous activity because they are framed as stooges (or worse agents ) of the foreign state. This is the key feature of all fascists and neofascist states (as well as Bolsheviks regime -- look at Stalin "Show Trials") . While McCarthyism period was a specific for the US decade, similar periods can be observed in other nations too.
And now McCarthyism was re-ignited on new level with the framework of Russiagate. In this sense the current color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate) can be interpreted as a sign of a new stage of sliding of the USA toward neofascism. Please note the that in this case intelligence agencies clearly assumed important political role. As Patrick Martin noted (Inside The FBI's 'Police State' Operation Against Trump, Jan 23, 2019, Off-guardian.org)
The Times article goes on to describe how FBI officials monitored the platform adopted at the Republican National Convention, reporting that the spy agency "watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia." That is, the nation's top police agency was concerned that the positions adopted contravened certain basic tenets of dominant sections of the foreign policy establishment.
By what constitutional authority can the FBI, based on political positions adopted by one or the other of the two main capitalist parties, open up a secret investigation into treason and conspiracy? Such an operation bespeaks a police state and recalls the methods of the Stalinist NKVD.
The agency also investigated four of Trump's campaign aides over possible ties to Russia, and even made use of the notorious Steele dossier, consisting of anti-Trump gossip collated from Russian sources by a former British intelligence agent on the payroll of the Democratic Party.
After Trump fired Comey, according to the Times , "law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence."
The operations of the FBI, encouraged, aided and abetted by the Times , recall the paranoid rantings of the John Birch Society, the ultra-right group formed in the 1950s, whose founder, Robert Welch, notoriously claimed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former World War II commander of Allied forces in Europe, was a "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy."
Claims that once were the province of an extremist group, on the fringes of American politics, are now embraced by the military-intelligence apparatus, appear on the front page of the most influential American daily newspaper, and dominate the network and cable television news.
But these allegations have no credibility. Why should anyone believe claims that Trump, at age 70, after decades as a real estate mogul, con man and media celebrity, with a billion-dollar fortune, suddenly decided to throw in his lot with Vladimir Putin? Even the Times report itself concedes, in a single sentence buried in the 2,000-word text, "No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials."
The third defining feature is rampant militarism and open disregard of all international norms ("might makes right" mentality). That include the pipe dream of "full spectrum dominance" which is the USA neoliberal elite goal since 1991 -- the year of the collapse of the USSR. The USA under Trump administration actually pursued openly disregard international law. Please note that all Presidents since Clinton pursued this policy. Only the degree of violation of international norms varied between those presidencies. all four "post-Soviet" (Clinton, Bush, and Obama and Trump) launched aggressive wars under false pretences (with Bush and Obama -- multiple wars; Trump so far only color revolution in Venezuela with Iran as a possible next step)
One interesting nuance that distinguishes the recent mutation of neofascism in the USA from all previous versions is that political mobilization of masses are discouraged under neoliberalism. "Go shopping" was famous Bush II recommendation to US citizens after the 9/11, while he pushed Patriot act which essentially make intelligence agencies key political actors in the USA, the role which they played both in Third Reich and Stalin regime. In this sense it is important to understand that the use of the term "fascism" by neoliberal propaganda more often then not constitute projection and neoliberalism always carry within itself strong elements of neofascism, and they became even stronger when neoliberalism entered an ideological crisis in 2008.
In a sense the notorious female warmonger and former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright (of Yugoslav bombing face and her remark about Iraq children) with her book Fascism A Warning screaming the certain Central European states are sliding toward neofascism is a classic example The pot calling the kettle black. The same is true about primitive (and corrupt) neocon warmonger like Max Boot (chickenhawk who cheerleadered Iraq invasion; see The Iraq War cheerleaders who are still around 15 years later) who claim that Putin is a fascist dictator. Putin probably can be called authoritarian ruler, but he is a neoliberal. If he can be called "fascist dictator" then both Nobel price winner Barack Obama (with his past connections to CIA via his mother family and wars of aggression in Libya and Syria) and Trump with his "humanitarian bombings" of Syria, clear authoritarian tendencies, nepotism and pandering to the oligarchy (Trump tax cuts) are fascist dictators two. In this sense it is important to abstract from neoliberal/neocon propaganda of the USA MSM in order better understand this complex and interesting issue. Aggressive militaristic posture, cult of militarism in the society, are classic features of fascism and neofascism.
And only very naive person can deny the fact that cult of militarism in the USA is an official state policy. Whether of not neocons can be called neofascists is an interesting and so far unresolved question. But the fact that their foreign policy is identical to neofascist policies is undisputable.
By Nuremberg principles all US officials who participated in unleashing Iraq war are war criminals
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
- (a) Crimes against peace:
- (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
- (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
- (b) War crimes:
- Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
- (c) Crimes against humanity:
- Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
According to Marxist doctrine Fascism is a class term. The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle of the Working Class against Fascism
It describes a mass movement of the petty-bourgeoisie that seeks to destroy all vestiges of the working-class movement. Fascism is a violent, procapitalist mass movement of the middle-class that employs socialist phrase-mongering.
Adapted from Fascism and neofascism (by L. Proyect)
Fascism is the most extreme form of counterrevolution. Counterrevolution itself only emerges as a response to revolution. Nazism, for example, didn't arrive because the German people all of a sudden lost their bearings from an overdose of Wagner's operas and Nietzsche's aphorisms. It arrived at a time when massive worker's parties threatened bourgeois rule during a period of terrible economic hardship. Big capital backed Hitler as a last resort. The Nazis represented reactionary politics gone berserk. Not only could Nazism attack worker's parties, it could also attack powerful institutions of the ruling class, including its churches, media, intellectuals, parties and individual families and individuals. Fascism is not a scalpel. It is a very explosive, uncontrollable weapon that can also inflict some harm on its wielder.
... ... ...
Bonapartism, populism and fascism overlap to a striking degree. We see elements of fascism, populism and Bonapartism in the politics of Pat Buchanan. Buchanan rails against African-Americans and immigrants, both documented and undocumented. He also rails against Wall St. which is "selling out" the working man. Is he a fascist, however? Ross Perot employs a number of the same themes. Is he?
The problem in trying to answer these questions solely on the basis of someone's speeches or writings is that it ignores historical and class dynamics. Bonaparte and Hitler emerged as a response to powerful proletrian revolutionary attacks on capital. What are the objective conditions in American society today? Hitler based their power on large-scale social movements that could put tens of thousands of people into the streets at a moment's notice. These movements were not creatures of capitalist cabals. They had their own logic and their own warped integrity. Many were drawn to Hitler in the deluded hope that he would bring some kind of "all-German" socialism into existence. These followers were not Marxists, but they certainly hated the capitalist class. Are the people who attend Buchanan, Perot and Farrakhan rallies also in such a frenzied, revolutionary state of mind?
Fascism is a class term. It describes a mass movement of the petty-bourgeoisie that seeks to destroy all vestiges of the working-class movement. This at least is the Marxist definition.
Fascism is not intolerance, bad attitudes, meanness or insensitivity. It is a violent, procapitalist mass movement of the middle-class that employs socialist phrase-mongering
The target of McCarthyite "fascism" was the working-class and its unions. The Militant stated on January 18, 1954:
"If the workers' organizations don't have the answer, the fascists will utilize the rising discontent of the middle class, its disgust with the blundering labor leadership, and its frenzy at being ruined economically, to build a mass fascist movement with armed detachments and hurl them at the unions. While spouting a lot of radical-sounding demagogy they will deflect the anti-capitalist wrath of the middle class and deploy it against labor, and establish the iron- heel dictatorship of Big Capital on the smoking ruins of union halls."
In the face of the atomization of the US working class, it is no surprise that many workers seem to vote for Buchanan. He offers them a variant on the personal solution. A worker may say to himself or herself, "Ah, this Buchanan's a racist bigot, but he's the only one who seems to care about what's happening to me. I'll take a gamble and give him my vote." Voting is not politics. It is the opposite of politics. It is the capitalist system's mechanism for preventing political action.
2) Buchanan is a bourgeois politician.
Pat Buchanan represents the thinking of an element of the US ruling class, and views the problems of the United States from within that perspective. Buchanan's nationalism relates very closely to the nationalism of Ross Perot, another ruling class politician.
A consensus exists among the ruling class that US capital must take a global route. The capitalist state must eliminate trade barriers and capital must flow to where there is greatest possibility for profit. Buchanan articulates the resentments of a section of the bourgeoisie that wants to resist this consensus. It would be an interesting project to discover where Buchanan gets his money. This would be a more useful of one's time than comparing his speeches to Father Coughlin or Benito Mussolini's.
Still the rise of far right nationalism movement in Europe is an important political factor of modern times. And many ask question: Is this the neofascism or not? I view it more like the reaction to neoliberalism that neofascism some elements of neofascism: both are variations of corporatism. But at the same time fascism in many of its elements is identical to the reaction of any society on grave threat. And neoliberal globalization represents such a threat. Which makes reaction of some Eastern European states look similar to neofascism, but each incarnation of neofascism has important differences and neofascism movements that emerged after 2008 differ from classic fascism movements of 1930th in many key elements.
Again, as used in the USA neoliberal MSM the terms "fascism" or "neofascism" more often then not constitutes projection. Despicable warmongers, especially female neocon Madeleine Albright exploits those terms as a powerful propaganda cliché ( Everything Madeleine Albright Doesn’t Like is Fascism ). In the review of her book Guillaume Durocher noted:
Opponents of American imperialism will observe that Albright's list of quasi-Fascist states corresponds quite closely with those who have opposed U.S. foreign policies in recent decades. There is barely a word about America's authoritarian allies Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
... ... ...
Strikingly, the word "Netanyahu" does not appear in the book's Index at all. The existence of a democratic ethno-nationalist state goes against her whole narrative. For what it's worth, I suspect most people in European nationalist parties and in the Alt-Right would be happy to preserve democracy if they could have their own Netanyahus, with the establishment of Western ethnostates dedicated to their own people, with the explicit goal of preserving or restoring ethnic European demographic supermajorities.
This selectivity will encourage the impression that the State Department's talk of "human rights" has less to do with upholding universal moral principles than with demonizing the United States' geopolitical opponents du jour . The American Establishment does not bully China as much as Russia, despite being obviously more authoritarian. I suspect this is because China is already too big to bully, while Russia can still be pushed around and serve as a useful bogeyman (always useful to the Military-Industrial Complex, the National Security State, and for all the Establishmentarians who need a scapegoat for the rise of populism). On that note, I suspect most diplomatic conflicts today have less to do with "realist" international power dynamics than with the utility of foreign enemies for governments domestically.
... ... ...
In a dictatorship, the elimination of political and ideological pluralism means that the country can enjoy political stability. This, by the way, is crucial in multiethnic countries such as Yugoslavia or Iraq, for which the fall of the dictatorship and democratization led to atrocious ethno-religious civil war. As Lee Kuan Yew , my favorite antidote to the political childishness that prevails in the West today, said concerning his multiracial state of Singapore: "We had to lock up people, without trial, whether they are communists, whether they are language chauvinists, or religious extremists. If you don't do that the country would be in ruins today!" Few things have been as murderous as the promotion of "democracy" in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, a policy which, not coincidentally, has destroyed several geopolitical opponents of Israel.
In any case, it is important to understand that corporatism is a very resilient political system, which can take many forms and mutate from one form into another. With some being if fierce conflict with each other. Both "classic neoliberalism" and "national neoliberalism" are flavors of the same political system -- corporatism. One promotes globalism including using the force of arms for opening countries to transnational corporations and financial institutions, the other rejects it and promote strengthening of national borders and wars on weaker nations as the way of solving internal problems.
The USA is the example of the country which set a precedent for Deep State type of corporatism structure: Tweed's system was the corrupt mafia-style organization with the level of cohesion so strong that it lasted for decades (Tammny Hall's political patronage "machine" thrived from 1850's to the 1930's.) It was described as:
It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system ... The Tweed ring at its height was an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key power points: the courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds had a grandeur of scale and an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing and organization [organized crime].
All forms of fascism (aka "national socialism") are forms of corporatism and as such are based on the merger of government and corporations. From classic fascism modern form borrowed the role of intelligence agencies. But, in a sense we can view intelligence agencies as powerful corporations with the majority stakes on government and minor stake of Wall-Street (especially, in case of CIA) and add them to the list of corporations, as they operate semi-independently from the government and often have goals which does not correlate (and sometimes are opposite) with the goals of executive branch especially in foreign policy.
They form the core of so called Deep State and position themselves of a new praetorian guard that makes of breaks presidential candidates at will. The suppression of Hillary Clinton "emailgate" investigation, surveillance over Trump campaign and launching by intelligence services color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate) after Presidential election of 2016 in the USA are just most prominent illustration of this trend. Derailing Sanders by suppressing emailgate definitely position them as kingmakers Here we are talking about CIA, FBI and the State Department. The role of NSA is not that clear and is somewhat controversial, due to Admiral Mike Rogers warning to Trump (The Last Refuge, Mar 3, 2017).
Fascism combines nationalism, militarism and revival/rebirth of nation fantasies in a unique but very eclectic and self-contradicting framework. It simply lacks a coherent theoretical/ideological core: oscillating between elitism and populism, between anti-capitalist and anti-socialist themes, and between ethnic and cultural nationalism. In all cases fascist movements (and often modern neofascist movements) offers an alternative to liberal and neoliberal ideology and social practice, making the nationalism as the core of the resistance to neoliberal globalization.
The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence is a 1974 controversial non-fiction political book written by Victor Marchetti, a former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and John D. Marks, a former officer of the United States Department of State. The book discusses how the CIA works and how its original purpose (i.e. collecting and analyzing information about foreign governments, corporations, and persons in order to advise public policymakers) has, according to the author, been subverted by its obsession with clandestine operations.
The book was a critically acclaimed bestseller whose publication contributed to the establishment of the Church Committee, a United States Senate select committee to study governmental operations with respect to intelligence activities, in 1975. The book was published in paperback by Dell Publishing in 1975.
Victor Marchetti used the expression "cult of intelligence" to denounce what he viewed as a counterproductive mindset and culture of secrecy, elitism, amorality and lawlessness within and surrounding the Central Intelligence Agency in the service of American imperialism:
There exists in our nation today a powerful and dangerous secret cult -- the cult of intelligence. Its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Its patrons and protectors are the highest officials of the federal government. Its membership, extending far beyond governmental circles, reaches into the power centers of industry, commerce, finance, and labor. Its friends are many in the areas of important public influence -- the academic world and the communications media.
The cult of intelligence is a secret fraternity of the American political aristocracy. The purpose of the cult is to further the foreign policies of the U.S. government by covert and usually illegal means, while at the same time containing the spread of its avowed enemy, communism. Traditionally, the cult's hope has been to foster a world order in which America would reign supreme, the unchallenged international leader.
Today, however, that dream stands tarnished by time and frequent failures. Thus, the cult's objectives are now less grandiose, but no less disturbing. It seeks largely to advance America's self-appointed role as the dominant arbiter of social, economic, and political change in the awakening regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And its worldwide war against communism has to some extent been reduced to a covert struggle to maintain a self-serving stability in the Third World, using whatever clandestine methods are available.
In his 1978 memoir, Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA, William Colby, a former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, endorsed Marchetti's critique and adopted the use of the expression "cult of intelligence":
Socially as well as professionally they cliqued together, forming a sealed fraternity. They ate together at their own special favorite restaurants; they partied almost only among themselves; their families drifted to each other, so their defenses did not always have to be up. In this way they increasingly separated themselves from the ordinary world and developed a rather skewed view of that world.
Their own dedicated double life became the proper norm, and they looked down on the life of the rest of the citizenry.
And out of this grew what was later named -- and condemned -- as the "cult" of intelligence, an inbred, distorted, elitist view of intelligence that held it to be above the normal processes of society, with its own rationale and justification, beyond the restraints of the Constitution, which applied to everything and everyone else.
Control of MSM by intelligence agencies is another important feature of neofascism ( The CIA and the MSM 50 Facts the World Needs to Know Humans Are Free):
This is exactly the reason why news organizations and individual journalists are tapped as assets by intelligence agencies and, as the experiences of German journalist Udo Ulfkotte (entry 47 below) suggest, this practice is at least as widespread today as it was at the height of the Cold War.
Consider the cover-ups of election fraud in 2000 and 2004, the events of September 11, 2001, the invasions Afghanistan and Iraq, the destabilization of Syria, and the creation of “ISIS.”
These are among the most significant events in recent world history, and yet they are also those much of the American public is wholly ignorant of. In an era where information and communication technologies are ubiquitous, prompting many to harbor the illusion of being well-informed, one must ask why this condition persists.
Further, why do prominent US journalists routinely fail to question other deep events that shape America’s tragic history over the past half century, such as the political assassinations of the 1960s, or the central role played by the CIA major role in international drug trafficking?
Popular and academic commentators have suggested various reasons for the almost universal failure of mainstream journalism in these areas, including newsroom sociology, advertising pressure, monopoly ownership, news organizations’ heavy reliance on “official” sources, and journalists’ simple quest for career advancement.
There is also, no doubt, the influence of professional public relations maneuvers. Yet such a broad conspiracy of silence suggests another province of deception examined far too infrequently — specifically the CIA and similar intelligence agencies’ continued involvement in the news media to mold thought and opinion in ways scarcely imagined by the lay public.
The following historical and contemporary facts–by no means exhaustive–provides a glimpse of how the power such entities possess to influence if not determine popular memory and what respectable institutions deem to be the historical record.
- The CIA’s Operation MOCKINGBIRD is a long-recognized keystone among researchers pointing to the Agency’s clear interest in and relationship to major US news media. MOCKINGBIRD grew out of the CIA’s forerunner, the Office for Strategic Services (OSS, 1942-47), which during World War Two had established a network of journalists and psychological warfare experts operating primarily in the European theatre.
- Many of the relationships forged under OSS auspices were carried over into the postwar era through a State Department-run organization called the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) overseen by OSS staffer Frank Wisner.
- The OPC “became the fastest-growing unit within the nascent CIA,” historian Lisa Pease observes, “rising in personnel from 302 in 1949 to 2,812 in 1952, along with 3,142 overseas contract personnel. In the same period, the budget rose from $4.7 million to $82 million.” Lisa Pease, “The Media and the Assassination,” in James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, Port Townsend, WA, 2003, 300.
- Like many career CIA officers, eventual CIA Director/Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Richard Helms was recruited out of the press corps by his own supervisor at the United Press International’s Berlin Bureau to join in the OSS’s fledgling “black propaganda” program. “‘[Y]ou’re a natural,” Helms’ boss remarked. Richard Helms, A Look Over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency, New York: Random House, 2003, 30-31.
- Wisner tapped Marshall Plan funds to pay for his division’s early exploits, money his branch referred to as “candy.” “We couldn’t spend it all,” CIA agent Gilbert Greenway recalls. “I remember once meeting with Wisner and the comptroller. My God, I said, how can we spend that? There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it. It was amazing.” Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, New York: The New Press, 2000, 105.
- When the OPC was merged with the Office of Special Operations in 1948 to create the CIA, OPC’s media assets were likewise absorbed.
- Wisner maintained the top secret “Propaganda Assets Inventory,” better known as “Wisner’s Wurlitzer”—a virtual rolodex of over 800 news and information entities prepared to play whatever tune Wisner chose. “The network included journalists, columnists, book publishers, editors, entire organizations such as Radio Free Europe, and stringers across multiple news organizations.” Pease, “The Media and the Assassination,” 300.
- A few years after Wisner’s operation was up-and-running he “’owned’ respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS, and other communication vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a CIA analyst. Each one was a separate ‘operation,’” investigative journalist Deborah Davis notes, “requiring a code name, a field supervisor, and a field office, at an annual cost of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars—there has never been an accurate accounting.” Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and the Washington Post Empire, Second Edition, Bethesda MD: National Press Inc, 1987, 139.
- Psychological operations in the form of journalism were perceived as necessary to influence and direct mass opinion, as well as elite perspectives. “[T]he President of the United States, the Secretary of State, Congressmen and even the Director of the CIA himself will read, believe, and be impressed by a report from Cy Sulzberger, Arnaud de Borchgrave, or Stewart Alsop when they don’t even bother to read a CIA report on the same subject,” noted CIA agent Miles Copeland. Cited in Pease, “The Media and the Assassination,” 301.
- By the mid-to-late 1950s, Darrell Garwood points out, the Agency sought to limit criticism directed against covert activity and bypass congressional oversight or potential judicial interference by “infiltrat[ing] the groves of academia, the missionary corps, the editorial boards of influential journal and book publishers, and any other quarters where public attitudes could be effectively influenced.” Darrell Garwood, Under Cover: Thirty-Five Years of CIA Deception, New York: Grove Press, 1985, 250.
- The CIA frequently intercedes in editorial decision-making. For example, when the Agency proceeded to wage an overthrow of the Arbenz regime in Guatemala in 1954, Allen and John Foster Dulles, President Eisenhower’s Secretary of State and CIA Director respectively, called upon New York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger to reassign reporter Sydney Gruson from Guatemala to Mexico City. Sulzberger thus placed Gruson in Mexico City with the rationale that some repercussions from the revolution might be felt in Mexico. Pease, “The Media and the Assassination,” 302.
- Since the early 1950s the CIA “has secretly bankrolled numerous foreign press services, periodicals and newspapers—both English and foreign language—which provided excellent cover for CIA operatives,” Carl Bernstein reported in 1977. “One such publication was the Rome Daily American, forty percent of which was owned by the CIA until the 1970s.” Carl Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media,” Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977.
- The CIA exercised informal liaisons with news media executives, in contrast to its relationships with salaried reporters and stringers, “who were much more subject to direction from the Agency” according to Bernstein. “A few executives—Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times among them—signed secrecy agreements. But such formal understandings were rare: relationships between Agency officials and media executives were usually social—’The P and Q Street axis in Georgetown,’ said one source. ‘You don’t tell William Paley to sign a piece of paper saying he won’t fink.’” Director of CBS William Paley’s personal “friendship with CIA Director Dulles is now known to have been one of the most influential and significant in the communications industry,” author Debora Davis explains. “He provided cover for CIA agents, supplied out-takes of news film, permitted the debriefing of reporters, and in many ways set the standard for the cooperation between the CIA and major broadcast companies which lasted until the mid-1970s.” Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and the Washington Post, Second Edition, Bethesda MD: National Press Inc, 1987, 175.
- “The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials,” Bernstein points out in his key 1977 article. “From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.” In addition, Sulzberger was a close friend of CIA Director Allen Dulles. “’At that level of contact it was the mighty talking to the mighty,’ said a high‑level CIA official who was present at some of the discussions. ‘There was an agreement in principle that, yes indeed, we would help each other. The question of cover came up on several occasions. It was agreed that the actual arrangements would be handled by subordinates…. The mighty didn’t want to know the specifics; they wanted plausible deniability.’” Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”
- CBS’s Paley worked reciprocally with the CIA, allowing the Agency to utilize network resources and personnel. “It was a form of assistance that a number of wealthy persons are now generally known to have rendered the CIA through their private interests,” veteran broadcast journalist Daniel Schorr wrote in 1977. “It suggested to me, however, that a relationship of confidence and trust had existed between him and the agency.” Schorr points to “clues indicating that CBS had been infiltrated.” For example, “A news editor remembered the CIA officer who used to come to the radio control room in New York in the early morning, and, with the permission of persons unknown, listened to CBS correspondents around the world recording their ‘spots’ for the ‘World News Roundup’ and discussing events with the editor on duty. Sam Jaffe claimed that when he applied in 1955 for a job with CBS, a CIA officer told him that he would be hired–which he subsequently was. He was told that he would be sent to Moscow–which he subsequently was; he was assigned in 1960 to cover the trial of U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers. [Richard] Salant told me,” Schorr continues, “that when he first became president of CBS News in 1961, a CIA case officer called saying he wanted to continue the ‘long standing relationship known to Paley and [CBS president Frank] Stanton, but Salant was told by Stanton there was no obligation that he knew of” (276). Schorr, Daniel. Clearing the Air, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977, 277, 276.
- National Enquirer publisher Gene Pope Jr. worked briefly on the CIA’s Italy desk in the early 1950s and maintained close ties with the Agency thereafter. Pope refrained from publishing dozens of stories with “details of CIA kidnappings and murders, enough stuff for a year’s worth of headlines” in order to “collect chits, IOUs,” Pope’s son writes. “He figured he’d never know when he might need them, and those IOUs would come in handy when he got to 20 million circulation. When that happened, he’d have the voice to be almost his own branch of government and would need the cover.” Paul David Pope, The Deeds of My Fathers: How My Grandfather and Father Built New York and Created the Tabloid World of Today, New York: Phillip Turner/Rowman & Littlefield, 2010, 309, 310.
- One explosive story Pope’s National Enquirer‘s refrained from publishing in the late 1970s centered on excerpts from a long-sought after diary of President Kennedy’s lover, Mary Pinchot Meyer, who was murdered on October 12, 1964. “The reporters who wrote the story were even able to place James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s head of counterintelligence operations, at the scene.” Another potential story drew on “documents proving that [Howard] Hughes and the CIA had been connected for years and that the CIA was giving Hughes money to secretly fund, with campaign donations, twenty-seven congressmen and senators who sat on sub-committees critical to the agency. There are also fifty-three international companies named and sourced as CIA fronts .. and even a list of reporters for mainstream media organizations who were playing ball with the agency.” Pope, The Deeds of My Fathers, 309.
- Angleton, who oversaw the Agency counterintelligence branch for 25 years, “ran a completely independent group entirely separate cadre of journalist‑operatives who performed sensitive and frequently dangerous assignments; little is known about this group for the simple reason that Angleton deliberately kept only the vaguest of files.” Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”
- The CIA conducted a “formal training program” during the 1950s for the sole purpose of instructing its agents to function as newsmen. “Intelligence officers were ‘taught to make noises like reporters,’ explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management. These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told ‘You’re going to he a journalist,’” the CIA official said.” The Agency’s preference, however, was to engage journalists who were already established in the industry. Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”
- Newspaper columnists and broadcast journalists with household names have been known to maintain close ties with the Agency. “There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources,” Bernstein maintains. “They are referred to at the Agency as ‘known assets’ and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects.” Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”
- Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, and Washington Post publisher Phillip Graham were close associates, and the Post developed into one of the most influential news organs in the United States due to its ties with the CIA. The Post managers’ “individual relations with intelligence had in fact been the reason the Post Company had grown as fast as it did after the war,” Davis (172) observes. “[T]heir secrets were its corporate secrets, beginning with MOCKINGBIRD. Phillip Graham’s commitment to intelligence had given his friends Frank Wisner an interest in helping to make the Washington Post the dominant news vehicle in Washington, which they had done by assisting with its two most crucial acquisitions, the Times-Herald and WTOP radio and television stations.” Davis, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and the Washington Post, 172.
- In the wake of World War One the Woodrow Wilson administration placed journalist and author Walter Lippmann in charge of recruiting agents for the Inquiry, a first-of-its-kind ultra-secret civilian intelligence organization whose role involved ascertaining information to prepare Wilson for the peace negotiations, as well as identify foreign natural resources for Wall Street speculators and oil companies. The activities of this organization served as a prototype for the function eventually performed by the CIA, namely “planning, collecting, digesting, and editing the raw data,” notes historian Servando Gonzalez. “This roughly corresponds to the CIA’s intelligence cycle: planning and direction, collection, processing, production and analysis, and dissemination.” Most Inquiry members would later become members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Lippmann would go on to become the Washington Post’s best known columnists. Servando Gonzalez, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People, Oakland, CA: Spooks Books, 2010, 50.
- The two most prominent US newsweeklies, Time and Newsweek, kept close ties with the CIA. “Agency files contain written agreements with former foreign correspondents and stringers for both the weekly newsmagazines,” according to Carl Bernstein. “Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience.” Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”
- In his autobiography former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt quotes Bernstein’s “The CIA and the Media” article at length. “I know nothing to contradict this report,” Hunt declares, suggesting the investigative journalist of Watergate fame didn’t go far enough. “Bernstein further identified some of the country’s top media executives as being valuable assets to the agency … But the list of organizations that cooperated with the agency was a veritable ‘Who’s Who’ of the media industry, including ABC, NBC, the Associated Press, UPI, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, and others.” E. Howard Hunt, American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate, and Beyond, Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007, 150.
- When the first major exposé of the CIA emerged in 1964 with the publication of The Invisible Government by journalists David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, the CIA considered purchasing the entire printing to keep the book from the public, yet in the end judged against it. “To an extent that is only beginning to be perceived, this shadow government is shaping the lives of 190,000,000 Americans” authors Wise and Ross write in the book’s preamble. “Major decisions involving peace and war are taking place out of public view. An informed citizen might come to suspect that the foreign policy of the United States often works publicly in one direction and secretly through the Invisible Government in just the opposite direction.”Lisa Pease, “When the CIA’s Empire Struck Back,” Consortiumnews.com, February 6, 2014.
- Agency infiltration of the news media shaped public perception of deep events and undergirded the official explanations of such events. For example, the Warren Commission’s report on President John F. Kennedy’s assassination was met with almost unanimous approval by US media outlets. “I have never seen an official report greeted with such universal praise as that accorded the Warren Commission’s findings when they were made public on September 24, 1964,” recalls investigative reporter Fred Cook. “All the major television networks devoted special programs and analyses to the report; the next day the newspapers ran long columns detailing its findings, accompanied by special news analyses and editorials. The verdict was unanimous. The report answered all questions, left no room for doubt. Lee Harvey Oswald, alone and unaided, had assassinated the president of the United States.” Fred J. Cook, Maverick: Fifty Years of Investigative Reporting, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1984, 276.
- In late 1966 the New York Times began an inquiry on the numerous questions surrounding President Kennedy’s assassination that were not satisfactorily dealt with by the Warren Commission. “It was never completed,” author Jerry Policoff observes, “nor would the New York Times ever again question the findings of the Warren Commission.” When the story was being developed the lead reporter at the Times‘ Houston bureau “said that he and others came up with ‘a lot of unanswered questions’ that the Times didn’t bother to pursue. ‘I’d be off on a good lead and then somebody’d call me off and send me out to California on another story or something. We never really detached anyone for this. We weren’t really serious.’” Jerry Policoff, “The Media and the Murder of John Kennedy,” in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch and Russell Stetler, eds., The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond, New York: Vintage, 1976, 265.
- When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison embarked on an investigation of the JFK assassination in 1966 centering on Lee Harvey Oswald’s presence in New Orleans in the months leading up to November, 22, 1963, “he was cross-whipped with two hurricane blasts, one from Washington and one from New York,” historian James DiEugenio explains. The first, of course, was from the government, specifically the Central Intelligence Agency, the FBI, and to a lesser extent, the White House. The blast from New York was from the major mainstream media e.g. Time-Life and NBC. Those two communication giants were instrumental in making Garrison into a lightening rod for ridicule and criticism. This orchestrated campaign … was successful in diverting attention from what Garrison was uncovering by creating controversy about the DA himself.” DiEugenio, Preface, in William Davy, Let Justice Be Done: New Light on the Jim Garrison Investigation, Reston VA: Jordan Publishing, 1999.
- The CIA and other US intelligence agencies used the news media to sabotage Garrison’s 1966-69 independent investigation of the Kennedy assassination. Garrison presided over the only law enforcement agency with subpoena power to seriously delve into the intricate details surrounding JFK’s murder. One of Garrison’s key witnesses, Gordon Novel, fled New Orleans to avoid testifying before the Grand Jury assembled by Garrison. According to DiEugenio, CIA Director Allen “Dulles and the Agency would begin to connect the fugitive from New Orleans with over a dozen CIA friendly journalists who—in a blatant attempt to destroy Garrison’s reputation—would proceed to write up the most outrageous stories imaginable about the DA.” James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and The Garrison Case, Second Edition, New York: SkyHorse Publishing, 2012, 235.
- CIA officer Victor Marchetti recounted to author William Davy that in 1967 while attending staff meetings as an assistant to then-CIA Director Richard Helms, “Helms expressed great concerns over [former OSS officer, CIA operative and primary suspect in Jim Garrison's investigation Clay] Shaw’s predicament, asking his staff, ‘Are we giving them all the help we can down there?’” William Davy, Let Justice Be Done: New Light on the Jim Garrison Investigation, Reston VA: Jordan Publishing, 1999.
- The pejorative dimensions of the term “conspiracy theory” were introduced into the Western lexicon by CIA “media assets,” as evidenced in the design laid out by Document 1035-960 Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report, an Agency communiqué issued in early 1967 to Agency bureaus throughout the world at a time when attorney Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment was atop bestseller lists and New Orleans DA Garrison’s investigation of the Kennedy assassination began to gain traction.
- Time had close relations with the CIA stemming from the friendship of the magazine’s publisher Henry Luce and Eisenhower CIA chief Allen Dulles. When former newsman Richard Helms was appointed DCI in 1966 he “began to cultivate the press,” prompting journalists toward conclusions that placed the Agency in a positive light. As Time Washington correspondent Hugh Sidney recollects, “‘[w]ith [John] McCone and [Richard] Helms, we had a set-up when the magazine was doing something on the CIA, we went to them and put it before them … We were never misled.’ Similarly, when Newsweek decided in the fall of 1971 to do a cover story on Richard Helms and ‘The New Espionage,’ the magazine, according to a Newsweek staffer, went directly to the agency for much of the information. And the article … generally reflected the line that Helms was trying so hard to sell: that since the latter 1960s … the focus of attention and prestige within CIA’ had switched from the Clandestine Services to the analysis of intelligence, and that ‘the vast majority of recruits are bound for’ the Intelligence Directorate.” Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, 362-363.
- In 1970 Jim Garrison wrote and published the semi-autobiographical A Heritage of Stone, a work that examines how the New Orleans DA “discovered that the CIA operated within the borders of the United States, and how it took the CIA six months to reply to the Warren Commission’s question of whether Oswald and [Jack] Ruby had been with the Agency,” Garrison biographer and Temple University humanities professor Joan Mellen observes. “In response to A Heritage of Stone, the CIA rounded up its media assets” and the book was panned by reviewers writing for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun Times, and Life magazine. “John Leonard’s New York Times review went through a metamorphosis,” Mellen explains. “The original last paragraph challenged the Warren Report: ‘Something stinks about this whole affair,’ Leonard wrote. ‘Why were Kennedy’s neck organs not examined at Bethesda for evidence of a frontal shot? Why was his body whisked away to Washington before the legally required Texas inquest? Why?’ This paragraph evaporated in later editions of the Times. A third of a column gone, the review then ended: ‘Frankly I prefer to believe that the Warren Commission did a poor job, rather than a dishonest one. I like to think that Garrison invents monsters to explain incompetence.’” Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History, Washington DC: Potomac Books, 2005, 323, 324.
- CIA Deputy Director for Plans Cord Meyer Jr. appealed to Harper & Row president emeritus Cass Canfield Sr. over the book publisher’s pending release of Alfred McCoy’s The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, based on the author’s fieldwork and Yale PhD dissertation wherein he examined the CIA’s explicit role in the opium trade. “Claiming my book was a threat to national security,” McCoy recalls, “the CIA official had asked Harper & Row to suppress it. To his credit, Mr. Canfield had refused. But he had agreed to review the manuscript prior to publication.” Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Chicago Review Press, 2003, xx.
- Publication of The Secret Team, a book by US Air Force Colonel and Pentagon-CIA liaison L. Fletcher Prouty recounting the author’s firsthand knowledge of CIA black operations and espionage, was met with a wide scale censorship campaign in 1972. “The campaign to kill the book was nationwide and world-wide,” Prouty notes. “It was removed from the Library of Congress and from college libraries as letters I received attested all too frequently … I was a writer whose book had been cancelled by a major publisher [Prentice Hall] and a major paperback publisher [Ballantine Books] under the persuasive hand of the CIA.” L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, New York: SkyHorse Publishing, 2008, xii, xv.
- During the Pike Committee hearings in 1975 Congressman Otis Pike asked DCI William Colby, “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?” Colby responded, “This, I think, gets into the kind of details, Mr. Chairman, that I’d like to get into in executive session.” Once the chamber was cleared Colby admitted that in 1975 specifically “the CIA was using ‘media cover’ for eleven agents, many fewer than in the heyday of the cloak-and-pencil operations, but no amount of questioning would persuade him to talk about the publishers and network chieftains who had cooperated at the top.” Schorr, Clearing the Air, 275.
- “There is quite an incredible spread of relationships,” former CIA intelligence officer William Bader informed a US Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the CIA’s infiltration of the nation’s journalistic outlets. “You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are Agency people at the management level.” Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”
- In 1985 film historian and professor Joseph McBride came across a November 29, 1963 memorandum from J. Edgar Hoover, titled, “Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” wherein the FBI director stated that his agency provided two individuals with briefings, one of whom was “Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency.” ” When McBride queried the CIA with the memo a “PR man was tersely formal and opaque: ‘I can neither confirm nor deny.’ It was the standard response the agency gave when it dealt with its sources and methods,” journalist Russ Baker notes. When McBride published a story in The Nation, “The Man Who Wasn’t There, ‘George Bush,’ C.I.A. Operative,” the CIA came forward with a statement that the George Bush referenced in the FBI record “apparently” referenced a George William Bush, who filled a perfunctory night shift position at CIA headquarters that “would have been the appropriate place to receive such a report.” McBride tracked down George William Bush to confirm he was only employed briefly as a “probationary civil servant” who had “never received interagency briefings.” Shortly thereafter The Nation ran a second story by McBride wherein “the author provided evidence that the Central Intelligence Agency had foisted a lie on the American people … As with McBride’s previous story, this disclosure was greeted with the equivalent of a collective media yawn.” Since the episode researchers have found documents linking George H. W. Bush to the CIA as early as 1953. Russ Baker, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years, New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009, 7-12.
- Operation Gladio, the well-documented collaboration between Western spy agencies, including the CIA, and NATO involving coordinated terrorist shootings and bombings of civilian targets throughout Europe from the late 1960s through the 1980s, has been effectively expunged from major mainstream news outlets. A LexisNexis Academic search conducted in 2012 for “Operation Gladio” retrieved 31 articles in English language news media—most appearing in British newspapers. Only four articles discussing Gladio ever appeared in US publications—three in the New York Times and one brief mention in the Tampa Bay Times. With the exception of a 2009 BBC documentary, no network or cable news broadcast has ever referenced the state-sponsored terror operation. Almost all of the articles referencing Gladio appeared in 1990 when Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti publicly admitted Italy’s participation in the process. The New York Times downplayed any US involvement, misleadingly designating Gladio “an Italian creation” in a story buried on page A16. In reality, former CIA director William Colby revealed in his memoirs that covert paramilitaries were a significant agency undertaking set up after World War II, including “the smallest possible coterie of the most reliable people, in Washington [and] NATO.” James F. Tracy, “False Flag Terror and Conspiracies of Silence,” Global Research, August 10, 2012.
- Days before the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City DCI William Colby confided to his friend, Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp his personal concerns over the Militia and Patriot movement within the United States, then surging in popularity due to the use of the alternative media of that era–books, periodicals, cassette tapes, and radio broadcasts. “I watched as the Anti-War movement rendered it impossible for this country to conduct or win the Vietnam War,” Colby remarked. “I tell you, dear friend, that the Militia and Patriot movement in which, as an attorney, you have become one of the centerpieces, is far more significant and far more dangerous for American than the Anti-War movement ever was, if it is not intelligently dealt with. And I really mean this.” David Hoffman, The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror, Venice CA: Feral House, 1998, 367.
- Shortly after the appearance of journalist Gary Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series in the San Jose Mercury News chronicling the Agency’s involvement in drug trafficking, the CIA’s public affairs division embarked on a campaign to counter what it termed “a genuine public relations crisis for the Agency.” Webb was merely reporting to a large audience what had already been well documented by scholars such as Alfred McCoy and Peter Dale Scott, and the 1989 Kerry Committee Report on Iran-Contra—that the CIA had long been involved in the illegal transnational drug trade. Such findings were upheld in 1999 in a study by the CIA inspector general. Nevertheless, beginning shortly after Webb’s series ran, “CIA media spokesmen would remind reporters seeking comment that this series represented no real news,” a CIA internal organ noted, “in that similar charges were made in the 1980s and were investigated by the Congress and were found to be without substance. Reporters were encouraged to read the “Dark Alliance’ series closely and with a critical eye to what allegations could actually be backed with evidence.” http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0001372115.pdf
- On December 10, 2004 investigative journalist Gary Webb died of two .38 caliber gunshot wounds to the head. The coroner ruled the death a suicide. “Gary Webb was MURDERED,” concluded FBI senior special agent Ted Gunderson in 2005. “He (Webb) resisted the first shot [to the head that exited via jaw] so he was shot again with the second shot going into the head [brain].” Gunderson regards the theory that Webb could have managed to shoot himself twice as “impossible!” Charlene Fassa, “Gary Webb: More Pieces in the Suicided Puzzle,” Rense.com, December 11, 2005.
- The most revered journalists who receive “exclusive” information and access to the corridors of power are typically the most subservient to officialdom and often have intelligence ties. Those granted such access understand that they must likewise uphold government-sanctioned narratives. For example, the New York Times’ Tom Wicker reported on November 22, 1963 that President John F. Kennedy “was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam’s apple.” Yet his account went to press before the official story of a single assassin shooting from the rear became established. Wicker was chastised through “lost access, complaints to editors and publishers, social penalties, leaks to competitors, a variety of responses no one wants.” Barrie Zwicker, Towers of Deception: The Media Coverup of 9/11, Gabrioloa Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2006, 169-170.
- The CIA actively promotes a desirable public image of its history and function by advising the production of Hollywood vehicles, such as Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. The Agency retains “entertainment industry liaison officers” on its staff that “plant positive images about itself (in other words, propaganda) through our most popular forms of entertainment,” Tom Hayden explains in the LA Review of Books. “So natural has the CIA–entertainment connection become that few question its legal or moral ramifications. This is a government agency like no other; the truth of its operations is not subject to public examination. When the CIA’s hidden persuaders influence a Hollywood movie, it is using a popular medium to spin as favorable an image of itself as possible, or at least, prevent an unfavorable one from taking hold.” Tom Hayden, “Review of The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film and Television by Tricia Jenkins,” LA Review of Books, February 24, 2013,
- Former CIA case officer Robert David Steele states that CIA manipulation of news media is “worse” in the 2010s than in the late 1970s when Bernstein wrote “The CIA and the Media.” “The sad thing is that the CIA is very able to manipulate [the media] and it has financial arrangements with media, with Congress, with all others. But the other half of that coin is that the media is lazy.” James Tracy interview with Robert David Steele, August 2, 2014,
- A well-known fact is that broadcast journalist Anderson Cooper interned for the CIA while attending Yale as an undergraduate in the late 1980s. According to Wikipedia Cooper’s great uncle, William Henry Vanderbilt III, was an Executive Officer of the Special Operations Branch of the OSS under the spy organization’s founder William “Wild Bill” Donovan. While Wikipedia is an often dubious source, Vanderbilt’s OSS involvement would be in keeping with the OSS/CIA reputation of taking on highly affluent personnel for overseas derring-do. William Henry Vanderbilt III, Wikipedia.
- Veteran German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, author of the 2014 book Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalists) revealed how under the threat of job termination he was routinely compelled to publish articles written by intelligence agents using his byline. “I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service,” Ulfkotte explained in a recent interview with Russia Today. “German Journo: European Media Writing Pro-US Stories Under CIA Pressure,” RT, October 18, 2014.
- In 1999 the CIA established In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm seeking to “identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge information technologies that serve United States national security interests.” The firm has exercised financial relationships with internet platforms Americans use on a routine basis, including Google and Facebook. “If you want to keep up with Silicon Valley, you need to become part of Silicon Valley,” says Jim Rickards, an adviser to the U.S. intelligence community familiar with In-Q-Tel’s activities. “The best way to do that is have a budget because when you have a checkbook, everyone comes to you.” At one point IQT “catered largely to the needs of the CIA.” Today, however, “the firm supports many of the 17 agencies within the U.S. intelligence community, including the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate.” Matt Egan, “In-Q-Tel: A Glimpse Inside the CIA’s Venture Capital Arm,” FoxBusiness.com, June 14, 2013.
- At a 2012 conference held by In-Q-Tel CIA Director David Patraeus declared that the rapidly-developing “internet of things” and “smart home” will provide the CIA with the ability to spy on any US citizen should they become a “person of interest’ to the spy community,” Wired magazine reports. “‘Transformational’ is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies,’ Patraeus enthused, ‘particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft’ … ‘Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters — all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing,” Patraeus said, “the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.” Spencer Ackerman, “CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher,” Wired, March 15, 2012.
- In the summer of 2014 a $600 million computing cloud developed by Amazon Web Services for the CIA began servicing all 17 federal agencies comprising the intelligence community. “If the technology plays out as officials envision,” The Atlantic reports, “it will usher in a new era of cooperation and coordination, allowing agencies to share information and services much more easily and avoid the kind of intelligence gaps that preceded the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” “The Details About the CIA’s Deal With Amazon,” The Atlantic, July 17, 2014.
And the objective causes of fascism "renaissance" that we observe have less to do with "revival" fantasies of ‘rebirth’ of the society in crisis, than with the failure of neoliberalism as the ideology of modern "market economies." In a way fascism is a revolutionary ‘third way’ ideology, combining elements of conservatism and socialism, anti-materialist revision of Marxism which reflects synthesis of right wing nationalism (some researchers consider fascism as the most extreme form of nationalism) and trade unionism (syndicalism). The key fascist myth of unity and national identity oppose both capitalism and socialism. It also has specific flavor due to the fantasy of ‘national rebirth’ ("Make America Great Again" is the variation on the same theme).
In this sense the events after WWII proved that the merger of government and corporate power was not accidental and proved to have a staying power. Germany, Italy and Spain, each with its own national idiosyncrasies were simply pioneers in this direction. There are strong objections of using the term "fascism" due to its historical baggage (and first of the connection to all the crimes committed by Nazi Germany in WWII), but the ideology of neofascism now experience strong Renaissance in most European countries, the USA and GB.
Critics claim that the term lost any precision and in many respects become a catchall for any kind of totalitarianism and far right policies. But this is not completely true. What is true is that ideas of national socialism recently mutated in more modern forms of "inverted totalitarism" and national security state.
There are distinct new elements in those new political structures, which were absent in the classic fascist states. Some prominent element of classic fascist state such using violence to suppress opposition are now lost relevance. Moreover the dominance of "military industrial complex" is viewed by many as a new form of fascism, which was the essence of warning of President Eisenhower.
Other critics claim that the term became useless because it lacks strict definition. I disagree with this position. Despite clear deficiency the term "neofascism capture important class of social reaction again neoliberalism in various countries and as such a legitimate political/sociological term. It does have more or less "well structured" definition which allows to distinguish it from "classic fascism" on one side and "neoliberalism" on the other. Wikipedia defines the term stressing the neofascism possesses significant elements of fascist ideology, and defining what are those significant elements as:
Neo-fascism is a post–World War II ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, populism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism, anti-communism, anti-socialism, anti-Marxism, anti-anarchism, and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy. Allegations that a group is neo-fascist may be hotly contested, especially if the term is used as a political epithet.
You can see the Wikipedia authors experience difficulties with the definition. That's why they included the phases "usually" and "where relevant." So in their opinion three trait are more important then the other:
Classic fascism (as implemented in Germany by NSDAP and in Italy by Mussolini) can be viewed as a variant of ultra-nationalism which aspires to bring the renewal of a nation deeply in crisis and advocates the replacement of the corrupt liberal democracy with (supposedly temporary) authoritarian dictatorship under a strong leader with extraordinary powers (like in army).
At the same time "classic fascism" it was closely linked to the post WWI realities, especially for Germany. In many ways, Classic Fascism strongly correlates with the mental state of nation which is attacked by strong enemy, the enemy which has supporters inside the country.
But it is more then that. The distinct feature of fascism is its strong aversion to the excessive financialization of economy and banking, which fascist consider evil (in a way prosecution of Jews under Fascism was closely connected with their role in banking, not only as a repression against the ethnic group the refuses to assimilate). And this feature of national socialism now is instrumental in its revival, as financialization was the essence of neoliberalism. Which can be consider as the rule of financial oligarchy -- the same class of people against which original German fascist tried to fight, while masking it with the particular national identity, due to historical for Europe overrepresentation of Jew in financial industry.
Unlike Trotskyism and neoliberalism, fascism is always nationalistic, so attempt to equate neoliberalism and fascism is the attempt to ignore the core difference between them. That's why neofascism is on the rise due to the crisis of neoliberal globalization. It is true though, that neoliberalism carry elements of neofascism and represent a rich subtract on which neofascism can grow, because like situation after the WWI it creates mass of disenfranchised workers and small entrepreneurs, who are deprived of chances to be the valuable members of society
As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.
Both have the elements of Nietzschean Ubermench philosophy imbedded in hem
If one looks at NSDAP program of 1920, one can clearly see the requisite elements of fascist social movements. Paradoxically those demands now position the US neofascists to the left of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, which is in the pocket of financial oligarchy and is ready to privatize Social Security and Medicare to please its Wall Street sponsors. To say nothing about Republican Party:
The 25-point Program of the NSDAP
… … …
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
… … …
21.The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
In addition Classic Fascism typically promotes militarism and territorial or economic expansion as the way to deal with internal problems. In this sense it is indistinguishable from neoliberalism (and both have common roots in Trotskyism). Both consider violence including foreign wars a useful political tool. With neoliberalism openly advocating Trotskyite-type of "Permanent revolution" in countries the refuse to switch this social system.
Another important feature of fascism that distinguishes it from neoliberalism is that this ideology has strong suspicion the liberal democracy is just a tool for the dictate of financial oligarchy, which has all the money to buy politicians. In this sense neofascism starts when the party/movement that adhere to the fascism social program renounce violence and accepts parliamentary democracy as the "necessary evil", still striving to get to power using the election mechanisms and use for suppression of financial oligarchy, especially international investment banks and speculators like Soros. But instead of military coup d'état they accept the goal of winning the election within the constrains imposed by this model in Western states (although tremendous growth of political power of intelligence agencies, which really became "kingmakers:, and which in the core can be considered as new type of proto-fascist political parties, put important corrections into this consideration; in a way they stand in the direct opposition to the parliamentary system, like classic fascism)
In its essence any form of fascism is an attempt to simplify control of population by the elite, by "bribing" the dominant in the particular state nationality. It remains a viable right wing program for setting up a highly centralized regime with militaristic, nationalistic policies (especially external expansion, for example in the form of neoliberal empire expansion), merge of industrial and financial corporations with the government, total population control, rigid control of MSM by intelligence agencies, and "extra-judicial" methods of suppression of opposition, including McCarthyism witch hunts and "Russiagate"
In its essence any form of fascism is an attempt to simplify control of population by the elite, by "bribing" the dominant in the particular state nationality.
Neofascism essentially relax the same postulates of "classic fascism" making it more socially acceptable, but preserving the core resentment against financialization of the economy (but no longer associates it with the particular ethnic group) as well as immigration, viewing foreigners as a group which "steals" jobs and wealth from the core demographic group of the particular country.
Unlike "classic fascism", neofascism does not directly oppose to parliamentary democracy and is ready to work within parliamentary system to get to power. It does not advocate violence against political opponents as the primary means of suppressing the opposition, although it does not shut from using it when necessary or expedient.
At the same time modern technology polished the ways of suppression any opposition by other means (see Inverted Totalitarism == Managed Democracy == Neoliberalism ) so this difference is pretty superficial -- the level of spying on the population in any modern Western state is comparable with the level that existed in Germany under the rule of NSDAP.
The strongest common link is rampant militarism and exaggeration of external threat to the nation well-being (for example, the threat from Islamic terrorism), which makes it surprisingly close to the ideology of National Security State and not that different from neoliberalism (Fascism - Wikipedia ):
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilian and combatant. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.
In other words while classic fascism now is almost extinct, there are multiple and more viable mutations of far right nationalism (which experience renaissance due to impoverishment of population caused by neoliberal austerity) that are called by generic name of neofascism. And it proved to be highly adaptable ideology with higher survivability potential than classic Bolshevism. In almost all European countries and in the USA nationalist movements are on the rise and far right parties often enjoy success in elections. They come to power in several European states such as Poland, Ukraine, and several Baltic republics.
The most distinct feature of this set of political movements is obsessive preoccupation with militarism, community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood (Nation under attack meme) and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and the idea of national rejuvenation (as reflected in "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) slogan, although it originated in the Paleoconservatism movement which is not connected to fascist ideology of any kind).
After all, the concept of national rejuvenation after a deep economic/political crisis historically was one of the key reasons classic fascist regimes of the last century came to power. Both Mussolini and then Hitler espoused citizens’ duty to recover their respective nations ancient strength and glory from the situation of deep decline after the defeat in the WWI and reparations imposed. Both fought with valor in WWI.
The key question for particular country is:
"Do the country has an organized, committed nationalistic (please note that "exceptionalism" is a form of nationalism) militants, in alliance with traditional elites, who are ready to use extra-judicial methods (not necessary violence) with minimal legal restrains for internal cleansing of the society and external expansion?".
Without far right nationalists organized in military fashion as was the case in Ukraine it is difficult to classify a movement which adheres to those ideas and is as a fascist movement. But it can well be neofascist. The readiness to go to extra-legal means is the key distinction between neofascism (and any far right nationalism) and regular nationalism (which essentially adhere to "law and order" paradigm).
Both "Regular" nationalism, "national neoliberalism" followers (Trumpism) and economic nationalists still are adhering to the existing legal framework and fights for their ideas on election booth. Fascists cross this boundary (and that's why they often are called far-right). They despise traditional dual law enforcement (one for elite and one for common people) and oligarchic democracy (the democracy for only top 1% or less of population) and think that authoritarian model is preferable to the existing level of corruption in legal system as well as harsh punishment for transgression (not understanding that while the existing "far from being perfect" legal system might be eliminated, both injustice in the form of preferential treatment of the elite (which essentially is above the law) and corruption will remain; just the composition of the elite changes)
Another important distinction is presence of elements of social democratic requirements, requirements for social justice in their program: neofascists movements typically are more pro-middle class and, at least partially, pro working class then far right movements. One litmus test is the level of animosity toward financial oligarchy and "unearned" income. This is the key distinction of neofascism and "national neoliberalism" (Trumpism). Unlike neoliberals, which hare many trials with fascism and neofascism they view sovereignty of the nation as an "ultimate good" that need to be preserved and defended.
They are also anti-elite, and anti multinational corporations and transnational organizations like NAFTA or WTO. And especially against transnational financial oligarchy (in Nazism that degenerated into anti-Semitism as the percentage of Jews among top levels of financial oligarchy was always very high, but it is not necessary for a fascist movement to be anti-Semitic per se; other nationalities can serve as scapegoats).
Like classic economics, a typical neofascist movement distinguished between "earned" and "unearned" income and consider the later a sign of parasitism and decadence of the society. NSDAP program of 1920 explicitly stated
"Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery."
Without this point we can talk only about for-right nationalism or in case of "economic nationalism" and "national neoliberalism" (neoliberalism without globalization as to a certain extent professed by Trump administration).
The idea of Lebensraum - Wikipedia is inherent of fascist movements but typically is absent or is suppressed of neo-fascism movements: .
The German concept of Lebensraum (German pronunciation: [ˈleːbənsˌʁaʊm] "living space") comprises policies and practices of settler colonialism which proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. First popularized around 1901, Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918) originally, as the core element of the Septemberprogramm of territorial expansion. The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and Nazi Germany until the end of World War II.
And as far as external expansion goes, neoliberalism can definitely viewed as a form of neofascism ("Permanent War for Permanent Peace"), so there is a strong connection between neoliberalism and neofascism in foreign policy area and for this reason Neoconservatism should probably be viewed as a modern flavor of neofascism. See Professor Andrew Bacevich excellent book Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War
But, in reality it is not, even if it is used as a synonym of "far right nationalism", because most modern far right nationalism movement borrow key ideas of the three classic fascist regimes -- Mussolini in Italy, Nazism in Germany and Fracoism (falangism) in Spain. New is often well forgotten old. As Robert O. Paxton noted in his essay "The Five Stages of Fascism":
We cannot give up in the face of these difficulties. A real phenomenon exists. Indeed, fascism is the most original political novelty of the twentieth century, no less. ... If we cannot examine fascism synthetically, we risk being unable to understand this century, or the next.
We must have a word, and for lack of a better one, we must employ the word that Mussolini borrowed from the vocabulary of the Italian Left in 1919, before his movement had assumed its mature form. Obliged to use the term fascism, we ought to use it well.
Similarly there is a right for existence of the term neofascism, which is general denotes more aggressive and violent forms of far right nationalism, but at the same time expressing interests of lower middle and working class and having strong anti financial oligarchy sentiments (for example, distinguishing between earned and unearned income (rent)). This is a set of trends and far right political movements now observable in many countries which experienced neoliberal austerity, especially in Europe.
Like fascism and neoliberalism, in no way neofascism is a coherent ideology. It is often self-contradicting and contains mutually exclusive elements. That are several sometimes conflicting types of neofascism in modern societies:
Neofascism ideology is pretty fuzzy and flexible (remember that allies of Nazi Germany in WWII were Japanese, which were as far from Arian ethno type as we can get; while Nazi were adamantly anti-Slav, which represents very similar to Arian ethnic type).
All-in-all it represents a popular and rising in importance on the political scene post–World War II ideology, which proved to be more enduring and popular then the communist ideology. It well coexists with neoliberalism (and can be completely merged with it as in Chile under Pinochet). While "excesses" of classical fascism are rejected it still has the key elements of "national socialism" in the form of "socialism for 1%", if you wish.
There are multiple similar terms, such as military-industrial complex (neoconservatives can be viewed as lobbyists of military industrial complex, and as such neofascist at least in foreign policy strategy and goals), predator state, national security state, etc which essentially describe the same phenomenon, stressing different aspects of it.
While still adhering to the core postulates of fascism, neofascism is very flexible and thus more difficult to define precisely. It relies on achievement of modern technologies and first of all new possibility of surveillance. Neofascism replace physical suppression of internal opposition with MSM control (the situation which already is fully achieved in neoliberal societies). Opposition is simply pushed out of mainstream media into alternative media and ignored, but not physically suppressed.
Along with computers and communication technologies, other technological achievement plays in neofascism favor as well. for example war against weaker opponents now can be conducted with much less casualties and most via technological supremacy on the battlefield.
Similar the idea of racial/ethnic purity can be replaced by cultural "belonging", by rejection of speakers of alternative languages (and culture) in particular country. It can be Spanish in the USA, or Russian in Ukraine.
Neo-fascism also deploy more sophisticated forms of identity politics, than classic fascism. And it less oriented on open violence. Neo-fascists often reject ethnic-based identity policies replacing "ethnic nationalism" with the "cultural nationalism" based solely on the language and culture identifies.
Similar, the idea of one party rule system present in classic fascism can be replaced with two party system, producing the same effect and allowing to preserve parliamentary democracy, while achieving basically the same goals as one party system as both party candidates are selected by non-elected party functionaries, be it the "Deep state" in the form o intelligence agencies control of elections, or the "party elite", or some mixture of the two.
Mass authoritarian, far right party can now be replaced by personnel of intelligence agencies which serve the same purpose with intelligence agencies brass becoming political leaders of the movement, much like Nazi bonzes in the past.
Look how close to basic tenets of neofascism (if we assume that Arian nation is limited to financial, government and corporate oligarchy) is what James K Galbraith called the predator state (from the review by Thomas I Palley of the book in Asia Times Online, Aug 22, 2008):
Economist Jamie K Galbraith's recent book  describes modern (Bush-Cheney) Republicanism as creating a "predator state". Its predatory aspects are starkly visible in the gangs of corporate lobbyists who roam Washington DC, the Halliburton Iraq war procurement scandal and the corruption and incompetence that surrounded the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
However, the broad concept of a predator state needs qualification as we are really talking of an "American corporate" predator state. Thus, the predatory nature of contemporary US governance is quintessentially linked to corporations, and it is also a uniquely American phenomenon.
Kleptocratic predator states, such as Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Sese Seko Mobutu's Zaire in Africa, are fundamentally different. There is no equivalent in Europe, and none in East Asia where ruling elites have a sense of obligation to the nation even as they often enrich themselves illicitly. Nor is there an equivalent in Latin America because government there never reached an economic size proportional to that of government in the US.
It is important to understand the social origins of the American corporate predator state because understanding is a necessary part of developing responses for caging the predators and replacing them with another, better, order. Those origins clearly trace back to the military-industrial complex that president Dwight Eisenhower warned about in his final televised address to the nation on January 17, 1961.
That complex has captured politics and corrupted the business of government, including of course the conduct of national security policy. The fact that it has wrapped itself with the flag makes it impossible to confront without being charged as unpatriotic. Worst yet, its enormous enduring profitability has provided a model for imitation by other industrial complexes like Big Pharma and Big Oil.
The political success of these predators is clearly linked to money's role in politics. Money gives the power to buy the political process, and that power is defended by a gospel of free speech that takes no account of the fact that out-shouting someone is qualitatively equivalent to silencing them. Economics also comes to money's defense with its absurd myth of a market for ideas in which participants compete on a level playing field and truth is effortlessly sorted from error.
The American worship of business and businessmen, which Sinclair Lewis (Babbitt, 1922) wrote about long ago, also plays a role. This worship privileges business over thought and other activities, and is behind the dismissive sneer "if you're so smart, how come you're not rich?" As a result, Americans are all too willing to hand over their government to business predators. Today, it is in Goldman Sachs we trust.
Another feature of business worship is a tendency to conflate profit with free markets. That means the distinction between fair competition (which is good) and fat profits (which are bad) is lost, thereby providing cover for predators.
Lastly, there is the legacy of the Cold War which contributed to economic dumbing-down and suppression of awareness of class and class conflict. This suppression was seen as necessary for blunting the dangerous appeal of Soviet communism, but a consequence was to create blindness to the predators in our midst.
All of this reveals a deep deficit in America's social and economic understanding (some deficits really do matter). And as long as this deficit remains, the predators will have a starting-gate advantage in the game of political persuasion.
Yet, how to close the deficit and insert another understanding is an enormous challenge. There are deep institutional obstructions in the academy, the media, and the Democratic Party. Moreover, raising these issues may create unsettling cognitive dissonance that pushes voters into denial and a closer embrace of the predators.
In effect, there is a paradox to be solved. Lasting progressive political victory requires transforming understanding, but the immediate political incentives are aligned to discourage engagement with such a project.
Note: The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too, by James K Galbraith, Free Press, 2008.
Thomas I Palley is the founder of the Economics for Democratic and Open Societies Project.
Fascism is not a uniform doctrine. From the very beginning there were different flavors of it. In this sense attempt to distill key features of such regimes are difficult and non-rewarding task because fascism was always a national not universal (like Marxism) phenomenon. Such attempts as Arendt's leave much to be desired. Even within a single country there can be several competing version of fascism. They can be even hostile to such an extent that the supporters of one of fascism movement strive to completely destroy the supporters of the other.
Since 30-ies of XX century, there were four "classic" flavors of fascism: Italian fascism, Nazism, and Spanish Francoism(falangism) and (mostly Latin American) "induced fascism" régimes. All "classic" versions rely on mass political movement of the "middle class" making a claim to political power -- to the detriment of the traditional elites and "working classes". They were mildly hostile to monopolies and, sometimes, to financial oligarchy. For example, Nazi decried "unearned income" -- rentier capitalism. All those regimes were revolutionary in a sense that they accepted violence as the legitimate political tool in the struggle to get to power.
But even within them there are multiple and significant differences both in social base and proclaimed goals:
Mussolini started his political career as socialist and at one time was the editor of Avanti While associated with socialism, Mussolini's writings after 1913 indicated that he had abandoned Marxism and egalitarianism in favor of Nietzsche's Ubermensch concept and anti-egalitarianism. After being ousted by the Italian Socialist Party for his support of Italian intervention in 1914, Mussolini made a radical transformation, ending his support for class conflict and joining in support of revolutionary nationalism transcending class lines. Mussolini got his start in politics with the help of a £100 weekly wage (the equivalent of £6000 as of 2009) from the British security service MI5, to keep anti-war protestors at home and to publish pro-war propaganda.
After coming to power after "March on Rome" (27 and 28 October 1922), Mussolini start removing most of the political opposition
using secret police and by outlawing labor strikes. Power was consolidated by converting Italian state into
one party dictatorship through a series of laws. Mussolini enjoyed a wide support in the military and among the industrial and agrarian
elites. Mussolini was also supported by Catholic church. He later initiated an aggressive expansion (limited to Mediterranean region);
But all in all Italian fascism (many of who were former socialists, including Mussolini himself) were not hell bent on racial purity.
They simply viewed their "revolution" as a preventive act - to prevent the "bolshevization" of Italy; In the merger of the state
and the party the state was probably more dominant then the party. Nazism based was the urban "middle class" and first of
all small business owners; it has strong redistributive component and strives to rebuild the German state as a hierarchical technocratic
military industrial complex (country as a giant military factory); it was supported by a large part of industrialists, by German
military brass. It at least partially rejected religion replacing it with a specific flavor of "pan-German" mysticism, and the drive
for racial purity; its goal was a rapid modernization of the country after the crushing defeat in WWI. It put the state in the subordination
of the party, while like Bolshevism by-and-large merging the Party and the state.
In its racial categorization, Nazism viewed what it called the Aryan race as the master race of the world—a race that was superior to all other races. It viewed Aryans as being in racial conflict with a mixed race people, the Jews, whom Nazis identified as a dangerous enemy of the Aryans. It also viewed a number of other peoples as dangerous to the well-being of the Aryan race. In order to preserve the perceived racial purity of the Aryan race, a set of race laws were introduced in 1935 which came to be known as the Nuremberg Laws. At first these laws only prevented sexual relations and marriages between Germans and Jews, but were later extended to the "Gypsies, Negroes, and their bastard offspring", who were described by the Nazis as people of "alien blood".
Like Italian fascism Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, but supported the idea of "class struggle between nations", and sought to resolve internal class struggle in the nation while it identified Germany as a proletarian nation fighting against plutocratic nations. The Nazi Party had many working-class supporters and members, but its strongest appeal was to the middle class, especially small business owners. The financial collapse of the white collar middle-class of the 1920s also led to their strong support of Nazism. The Nazi Party Programme of 1920 guaranteed freedom for all religious denominations not hostile to the State and endorsed Positive Christianity to combat “the Jewish-materialist spirit” (read Marxism). The Nazis were initially highly hostile to Catholics. In 1933, extensive Nazi violence occurred against Catholics due to their association with the Centre Party and their opposition to the Nazi regime's sterilization laws. At the same time in propaganda, the Nazis used elements of Germany's Catholic history, in particular the German Catholic Teutonic Knights and their campaigns in Eastern Europe. The Nazis identified them as "sentinels" in the East against "Slavic chaos".
While Nazis benefitted from the first post-Depression economic upswing, their public works projects, job-procurement program, and subsidized home repair program reduced unemployment by as much as 40% in one year, a development which tempered the unfavorable psychological climate caused by the earlier economic crisis and encouraged Germans to support the regime. march in step with the regime. The Nazis also promised "progressive" social policies like a national labor service, state-provided health care, guaranteed pensions, and an agrarian settlement program.
The Nazis sought to gain support of workers by declaring May Day, a day celebrated by organized labor, to be a paid holiday and held celebrations on 1 May 1933 to honor German workers. Nazi were strongly against "non earned" income and financial sector in general which they considered to be parasitic.
The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and
Jewish influences. Nazi propaganda posters in working class districts emphasized anti-capitalism, such as one that said:
"The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Adolf
Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed disdain for capitalism, arguing that it holds nations ransom in the interests of
a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class. He opposed free market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy
in which community interests would be protected. Hitler told a party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day is the creation
of the Jews." On other occasion he said to Benito Mussolini that capitalism had "run its course". Hitler also said that the business
bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them." Hitler was personally disgusted with
the ruling bourgeois elites of Germany during the period of the Weimar Republic, who he referred to as "cowardly shits". A
number of other Nazis held even more strong revolutionary socialist and anti-capitalist beliefs, most prominently Ernst Röhm, the
leader of the Sturmabteilung. Another radical Nazi, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels had stressed the socialist character of Nazism,
and claimed in his diary in the 1920s that if he were to pick between Bolshevism and capitalism, he said "in final analysis", "it
would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism."
Because "induced" fascism was highly depended on a "democratic metropolis" it is often observed in varying degrees of "democratic decorum": there was a Parliament, multiparty system and periodic "elections". Of course, it was to a greater or lesser extent a sham (in Paraguay during the Stroessner the question of "cohabitation" of fascism with parliamentary democracy was solved simply and elegantly: in the country has a military regime, except for one day - election day).
In order to facilitate the creation of regimes "induced fascism" in third world countries the army, police and intelligence services have turned into some kind of fascist parties without the parties themselves and Nazi ideology became part of indoctrination in those organizations. In hindsight, after the military coup in Chile, it became clear that the diehard fascists in the Chilean army were much father to the right then the "civilian" fascist organizations in Chile. Same thing became clear in hindsight in relation to the Brazilian police and military counterintelligence.
"Induced" fascism represent a bridge between parliamentary democracies and the right-wing authoritarian (aka totalitarism) regimes, movements and doctrines, "blurring" the concept of fascism and making it "more acceptable" to liberals. So, the regime of Somoza in Nicaragua planted by the USA, ideologically was close to European fascism, and even helped the Uruguayan fascists to prepare their coup - and at the same time acted as a strategic US ally in the region and was formally at war with the "Axis powers".
In Europe, the first case of "induced" fascism was a post-war pro-British regime in Greece, where after the liberation of the country from German troops the civil war started. The British labor party denounced Churchill for his support in Greece "monarchist fascists" and "Nazi collaborators", but when they came in 1945 to power, themselves supported by the same "monarch-fascist" and "Nazi collaborators".
The political views of the "new right" coincided with the views of practitioners of neoliberalism in the era of Reaganomics and Thatcherism. Not by chance the Pinochet regime (a classic example of "induced, puppet fascism") is characterized as "Militant Thatcherism". Even the fundamental views publicly expressed by Thatcher and Pinochet, were often identical (e.g., he and the other refused to recognize the existence of society - which was, in fact, merely a repetition of the doctrine of Italian fascism). What parties and movements, connecting the idea of "new right" has achieved in recent years greater success in elections in Western Europe: the national front of Le Pen in France, the party of P. Fortuyn in the Netherlands, the freedom Party. Haider in Austria, etc. (revealing, incidentally, that the Freedom Party is included in the Liberal international!).
Other cases pre-war neofascism was monarchist far right regimes developed in countries of Eastern Europe. Rapid inclusion of these parties and regimes in the orbit of Italian and German influences have masked their identity, on the one hand, and did not allow them to develop into independent phenomenon.
There can me multiple fascism movements in the same country. In France before the war all three classic brand of fascism were well represented: French version of the Italian fascism ("francism", etc.), the French version of Nazism (French people's party, etc.), the French version of francoism ("capulary") and, finally, the original aristocratic elitist fascism "action française", close to the monarchist-fascism. Sometimes the supporters of the different flavors of fascism fight with each other. In Austria supporters of Italian fascism came to power in February 1934, but in July, the Nazis organized a putsch and killed Chancellor E. Dollfuss, and ended the fight by smashing austrofascism and initiating the Anschluss. In Hungary, the supporters of Italian fascism - hungarista led by Admiral Horthy was overthrown in 1944 by the Hungarian Nazis movement headed by Salashi. In Romania, the confrontation between supporters of Italian fascism and Nazism - "seleniumselenium", "jeleznovodask", Antonescu and Horia SIMA - has resulted in mutual mass terror .
After World war II the Western ruling elite has never repeated his pre-war mistakes and understood that fascism is a tricky bet in the fight against social revolution. So it was relegated as a tool for countries "About which we do not care" They understood that such a movement as "classical" fascism or other extremist movements of "middle class" easily get out of control. All post-war fascist regimes relied on mass movements. Such movements were outlawed in most Western countries.
As neofascism has a lot of common features with far right nationalism it is very difficult to say when one ends and another starts. Those terms can be used as synonyms, but I would suggest that neofascism is a specific flavor of far right nationalism that has anti-financial oligarchy bent. It is a more "socialist" version of far right nationalism and always was.
So far right nationalism a more generic term then neofascism: all neofascists are far right nationalists, but the reverse is not true.
Neofascism is more narrow concept that emphasizes/defines more features of the movement then far right nationalism. Typically neofascism movements are a more radical, more anti-democratic, more statist than an "average" far right nationalism movements. And their flavor of militaristic bent includes the idea of expanding the "living space"/empire for the particular nation (or country) by promoting rampant militarism (which also serves as a tool to "unify" the nation and suppress dissent). Like for example neoconservatives in the USA. Also neofascism has a certain flavor of "victimhood" which far right nationalism does not necessary possesses.
What is clear that there is a much larger political space for far right nationalist movements then for neofascist movements in modern societies. The backlash against neoliberal globalization now mainly take the form of far right nationalism, but not necessarily neo-fascism: many such far right movement are completely devoid of the hostility to financial oligarchy and unearned income.
So it's given that far right movements and their more specific case -- neofascism -- have many common features, many similarities:
A perception is manufactured that opposition to the power elite is tantamount to an attack on religion.
But there are some important differences.
Griffin, who is a professor of history and political theory at Oxford Brookes University, puts it best: "You can be a total
xenophobic racist male chauvinist bastard and still not be a fascist." For example, as long as Trump does not advocate the abolition
of America's democratic institutions and constitution, and their replacement by some sort of national security state, he, at least
technically, is not a fascist or neofascist. But at the same time calling the current political system corrupt and exaggerating the
level of the degradation of the US society as well as pushing for its "renewal" ("Make America great again" slogan) might still
qualify him as a neofascist.
Like communists, classic fascists promote violence as a legitimate political tool, but this is less true about neofascist. Classic fascism, Payne says, requires
"a philosophical valuing of violence, of Sorelian violence. [Fascists believe] that violence is really good for you, that it's the sort of thing that makes you a vital, alive, dedicated person, that it creates commitment. Fascism makes violence not just a political strategy, but also a philosophical principle. For fascists "war is the health of the nation".
That's mentality is unique to fascism. This feature is reduced and subdued in neofascism, but still is present.
Classic fascism also has some anti-clerical bent and typically promotes a specific secular, "political religion" in which the nation is considered a real, living, and yet sacred thing to be revered and protected, instead of traditional religion. This goes well beyond typical far right nationalism views on religion. Far right nationalists more commonly promote an existing religion (Vox). But those two trends can happily co-exists.
The idea of rejuvenation of the nation also is typical for both. But look more closely at the way Trump talks about rejuvenating America:
- "I will build the finest and most modern veterans hospitals in the world."
- "This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world."
- "Our highspeed Internet access is only 16th best in the world … The World Economic Forum ranks the US infrastructure as only the 12th best in the world."
These statements are much closer to the "I want my soccer team to win" version of patriotism — and much more concerned with the qualities of Donald Trump as the leader, than America the nation.
Fascism was the first ideology openly based on deception: "the governments that have emerged from the fascist movements never actually pursued policies that are economically populist and brought them to power". Fascist and neofascist governments are always pro-monopolies, not pro-people. They serve as the last bastion of financial oligarchy against popular discontent.
The governments that have emerged from the fascist movements never actually pursued policies that are economically populist and brought them to power
An important element of fascist deception is a specific flavor of identity politics. Neoliberal MSM brainwash people by demonizing specific categories of people, by running a campaign hypertrophied dehumanization of Untermensch. This idea was actually borrowed from the classic fascism.
Essentially this campaign is directed toward conditioning people to view "lower classes" as a category of cattle, much like in slavery. This tendency of "blaming poor" under neoliberalism is definitely a neofascist element of the neoliberal ideology
Redefinition of poverty as inferiority is clearly a neofascism element in the neoliberal societies
Socialism in national socialism exists only for Ubermensch. And for them (and for them only) it does contain almost all major socialist elements. This is undeniable if we analyze the NSDAP Party program announced by Hitler on February 20, 1920 (as fake as it was: in reality NSDAP leadeship never intended to persue those goals, they were added exclusively for winning the electorate).
It is also important to remember that some fascists leaders, such as Benito Mussolini (who previously was the editor in chief of Avate), previously were prominent figures in the social-democratic movement (Wikipedia)
The National Socialist Programme (aka the 25-point Programme and the 25-point Plan) was the party program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Originally the name of the party was the German Workers' Party (DAP) but on the same day of the announced party program it was renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), headed by Adolf Hitler. Hitler announced the party's program on 24 February 1920 in front of around 2000 people in the Munich Festsaal of the Hofbräuhaus. The National Socialist Program originated at a DAP congress in Vienna, then was taken to Munich, by the civil engineer and theoretician Rudolf Jung, who, having explicitly supported Hitler, had been expelled from Czechoslovakia, because of his political agitation.
... ... ...
- We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the people's right to self-determination.
- We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
- We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.
- Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
- Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
- The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
- We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
- Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
- All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
- The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
- Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
- In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
- We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
- We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
- We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
- We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
- We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
- We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
- We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
- The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
- The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
- We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
- We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race; b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language; c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
- We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.
- For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.
Neoliberalism demonstrate the resurgence of classic fascism tendencies with the sharp division between upper class (Ubermensch) and lower class, "inferior people" (Untermensch) and the associated cult of violence. Although in new slightly more moderate form, but with the same set of core ideas and principles.
In neofascism unrestricted violence, terror against "inferior people" is subdued. As the criteria nationality is often (but not completely) replaced with culture and especially the national language (language nationalism) and is directed almost exclusively to foreigners, immigrants and national minorities who continue to use "wrong" language because it is their mother tongue (for example, Russians in case of Far Right Forces in Ukraine).
In neoliberalism nationality is replaced by "creative abilities", which are understood as the ability of capital accumulation and self-enrichment. In cultural variant of neofascism the language and culture replace the race as a defining point of "belonging", and the key distinction between "Arian race" and Untermensch. Replacement of nationality with the cultural identity makes it closer to ultra-right republicanism as exists in the USA. It is also clearly visible in Ukrainian far right movement:
But all-in-all neofascism remains just a mutation of classic fascist ideology (yuricareport.com):
Call it Pseudo Fascism. Or, if you like, Fascism Lite. Happy-Face Fascism. Postmodern Fascism. But there is little doubt anymore why the shape of the "conservative movement” in the 21st century is so familiar and disturbing: Its architecture, its entire structure, has morphed into a not-so-faint hologram of 20th-century fascism.
...Unlike the genuine article, it presents itself under a normative, rather than a revolutionary, guise; and rather than openly exulting in violence, it pays lip service to law and order. Moreover, even in the areas where it resembles real fascism, the similarities are often more familial than exact. It is, in essence, less virulent and less violent, and thus more likely to gain broad acceptance within a longtime stable democratic system like that of the United States.
It is important to understand that neofascism inherited the major traits of fascism connected with creating a scapegoat nationality or anti-immigration sentiments, often induced by actual misbehavior of immigrants (such a rapes, beating of people by criminal gangs, etc) or large influx of immigrant from other nation in economic crisis (Immigrants in Europe, Russia, to lesser extent in other "countries of immigrants" such as USA, Australia, Canada, etc). At certain stages it can actually "return to the roots" and adopt violence as the key form of dealing with the opponents (see EuroMaidan )
The key element of any flavor of fascist ideology is rejection of liberalism and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy (and implicitly to the rule of law). It is the cult of "strong hand" the makes it similar to authoritarism. While officially neofascists parties no longer endorses violence as a chief means to silence the opposition, they often resort to it as a temporary mean to achieve their goals, and, especially, to come to power.
Allegations that a group is neofascist are typically hotly contested, especially if the term is used as a political epithet.
neofascism can be viewed as one of the forms of the "revolt of the elite", a mutation of corporatism that invariably emerges during acute economic crises and related loss of profitability of many businesses. While cannon fodder of neofascism are small business owners, the puppeteers always are large business owners and, especially, financial oligarchy and oligarchy connected to military-industrial complex. For the latter neofascism is an ideal regime.
That's why right now proto-fascist and neofascist groups and sentiments are on the rise in many countries including, but not limited USA, France, Germany, Holland, Russia, Poland, Greece, Ukraine, Hungary, Finland, Norway. In many cases neofascist parties such as Ukrainian Svoboda get enough votes to be represented in national parliaments (algemeiner.com/2013/05/24):
In Ukraine, the noisiest anti-Semitic group is the Svoboda ( "Freedom”) party. Established in 1991 as the "Social-National Party of Ukraine” under the SS-era symbol of the Wolfsangel. In 2004, with new leader Oleh Tyahnybok, the party renamed itself and adopted innocuous symbols.
That, however, didn’t change the Nazi characteristic of the party. Tyahnybok himself has stated on several occasions that the "Moscow-Jewish mafia” is running Ukraine. Other prominent party members have often used the derogatory, anti Jewish slur ”zhid”, including against Ukrainian-born American actress Mila Kunis, suggesting she was not a "real” Ukrainian because of her Jewish heritage.
Svoboda supporters include among their heroes leaders of pro-Nazi World War II organizations known for their atrocities against Jews and Poles, such as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), and the 14th Waffen-SS Galicia Division. (To Svoboda’s vocal displeasure, Poland’s parliament recently introduced a resolution condemning the OUN and the UPA for wartime massacres of Polish civilians.)
Here is another telling video:
Skinheads is also a prominent phenomenon which is typical for many European countries. They are definitely part of neofascism movement. This rage is directed toward immigrants. Torch processions borrowed from classic fascism now became common in many countries (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20929755)
7 January 2013 Last updated at 01:38 ET Help
A sudden rise in popularity of Ukraine's ultra-nationalist party, Svoboda, has caused concern both inside and outside the country.
Svoboda, which means "freedom" in Ukrainian, is allied with European far-right parties. But many observers warn that its views are extremist.
David Stern reports from Kiev.
Also popular are typical for classic fascism physical violence such as street fights with opponents. A new element is that now it can happen during football matches like recently in Poland: video was removed by Youtube
While neofascism is anti-democratic, anti-liberal, and corporatist, unlike classic fascism which openly declared itself as such, they deployed as thick smoke screen of propaganda to present itself in completely different light. The destruction of meaning by creating "empty phrases" combining opposite ideas has, as we have seen, become a prominent strategy deployed by the conservative movement.]
Another key element of neofascism is "vast, systemic, blanket collection of the personal data of innocent people." It often covered with a fig leaf of "fight against terrorism". DW.DE 09.01.2014
Like classic fascism neofascism remains rabidly anti-socialist. Actually socialists and communists, let's not forget, were among the first people imprisoned and "liquidated" by the Nazi regime.
Early on during the first term of the Bush presidency many progressives characterized Bush's statements and actions as "neofascist". It is also true that Bush II has some neofascist baggage, as Bush family did has some ties with fascist regimes in the past and the U.S. government found that Bush's grandfather had illegally aided the Nazis during the 30's. It's true that regime of Bush II has some neofascist leanings. It definitely introduced into public discourse and tried to implement in practice several elements of neofascist ideology. Some of them with some interesting innovations. For example, unlike classic fascism instead of mass mobilization Bush government preferred political passivity as prescribed by Inverted Totalitarism doctrine ("go shopping" was his famous recommendation after 9/11).
But full development of neofascist ideas and forming a popular party is impossible without acute economic distress
or political crisis (like the one in Ukraine) and a real economic crisis arrived only at the end of Bush Presidency (2008). So paradoxically the major implementer of Bush neofascist ideas and first of all the idea of total surveillance was the regime of Barack Obama. With a tea-party being a close proxy of radical neofascist parties in Eastern Europe. There is distinct racial element in it. Nobody will try to disprove the claim that it has mainly white middle class composition. And like European radical parties of neofascist orientation it endorses violence to achieve its goals. See Tea Party and right wing rage
But even if we assume that 9/11 was a false flag operation that is reminiscent of Reichstag Fire generally the USA neofascist elements were innovatively mixed with the ideas from the theoretical model called Inverted Totalitarism. Direct violence toward opponents never materialized. Just the pre-existing process of the conversion of the USA into National Security State dramatically increased. Now we know more about the new role assigned to NSA during this period.
American exeptionalism ideas promoted by Bush administration clearly resonate with the proto-fascist "... uber alles" ideas. The unique feature here is that they were integrated into the framework of globalist neoliberal regime. So it's more like "top 1% uber alles" then "The USA uber alles" ;-).
It should be stressed that some of the ideas inherent in neofascist doctrine are integral part of European culture. As Paxton describes them (Robert O. Paxton, "The Five Stages of Fascism," The Journal of Modern History 70 (March 1998): pp. 3-5.) in the following way:
...Feelings propel fascism more than thought does. We might call them mobilizing passions, since they function in fascist movements to recruit followers and in fascist regimes to "weld" the fascist "tribe" to its leader. The following mobilizing passions are present in fascisms, though they may sometimes be articulated only implicitly:
- The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual.
- The belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action against the group's enemies, internal as well as external.
- Dread of the group's decadence under the corrosive effect of individualistic and cosmopolitan [neoliberalism.
- Closer integration of the community within a brotherhood (fascio) whose unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary.
- An enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur of the group reinforces individual self-esteem.
- Authority of natural leaders (always male) throughout society, culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny.
- The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle.
Paxton's list makes easier to identify typical "passions" which are at play in proto-fascist environment, particularly during the debate over the Iraq war and the attacks on dissenters that occurred during it (Rush, Newspeak and Fascism An exegesis IV Tracking Fascism):
1. [Group primacy]: See, again, the Bush Doctrine. An extension of this sentiment is at play among those jingoes who argue that Americans may need to sacrifice some of their civil rights -- say, free speech -- during wartime.
2. [Victim mentality]: This meme is clearly present in all the appeals to the victims of Sept. 11 as justifications for the war. It is present at nearly all levels of the debate: from the White House, from the media, even from the jingoist entertainment industry (see, e.g., the lyric of Darryl Worley's extraordinarily popular country-western hit, "Have You Forgotten?": "Some say this country's just out looking for a fight / Well after 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right.").
3. [Dread of liberal decadence]: This meme has been stock in trade of the talk-radio crowd since at least 1994 -- at one time it focused primarily on the person of Bill Clinton -- and has reached ferocious levels during the runup to the war and after it, during which antiwar leftists have regularly and remorselessly been accused of treason.
4. [Group integration] and 5. [Group identity as personal validation] are, of course, among the primary purposes of the campaign to demonize liberals -- to simultaneously build a cohesive brotherhood of like-minded "conservatives" who might not agree on the details but are united in their loathing of all things liberal. It plays out in such localized manifestations as the KVI Radio 570th On-Air Cavalry, which has made a habit of deliberately invading antiwar protests with the express purpose of disrupting them and breaking them up. Sometimes, as they did recently in Bellingham, this is done with caravans of big trucks blaring their horns; and they are also accompanied by threatening rhetoric and acts of physical intimidation. They haven't yet bonded in violence -- someone did phone in a threat to sniper-shoot protesters -- but they are rapidly headed in that direction.
6. [Authority of leaders]: This needs hardly any further explanation, except to note that George W. Bush is actually surprisingly uncharismatic for someone who inspires as much rabid loyalty as he does. But then, that is part of the purpose of Bush's PR campaign stressing that he receives "divine guidance" -- it assures in his supporters' mind the notion that he is carrying out God's destiny for the nation, and for the conservative movement in particular.
7. [An aesthetic of violence]: One again needs only turn to the voluminous jingoes of Fox News or the jubilant warbloggers to find abundant examples of celebrations of the virtues -- many of them evidently aesthetic -- of the evidently just-completed war.
In 2002, Laurence W. Britt's Fascism Anyone? analyzed seven fascist regimes in order to find the common features that constitute "generic fascism". He selected the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. He found 14 common characteristics (reprinted below, with 6 additions by Umberto Eco) and concluded:
"Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not."
We think "maybe not." It's just a matter of degree. There is an ongoing transformation of the US in this particular direction.
It is difficult to tell when far right nationalistic group get brown color. Litmus text is the creation of paramilitary group (death squads, stormtroopers, etc) for repression of opponents and adoption of terror as a legitimate methods of struggle for power. Those paramilitary group exists outside law, the key interpreter of which became the party not the counts. Another telling sign is the creation of concentration camps.
Here are six more characteristics found in Umberto Eco's "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt," from New York Review of Books, 22 June 1995, pp.12-15.
Both Eastern and Western Europe are experiencing a new and important cultural and political development: the appearance of a new breed, new generation, of far right, extremist movements. These are some indications of the emergence of a new, emerging political forces in Europe which emerged as a reaction to neoliberalism with its dominance of globalized banking. That lead to paradoxical situation when many of Le Pen's votes come from former Red strongholds. In other word like in 20th and 30th the working class is, for very understandable reasons, is turning to nationalism as an antidote to casino capitalism enforced by the USA. So the USA neoliberal empire is the main precondition for resurgence As Slavoj Žižek noted:
The Ukrainian nationalist right is one instance of what is going on today from the Balkans to Scandinavia, from the US to Israel, from central Africa to India: ethnic and religious passions are exploding, and Enlightenment values receding.
These passions have always been there, lurking; what’s new is the outright shamelessness of their display.
... ... ...
One of the signs of this regression is a request often heard on the new European right for a more "balanced" view of the two "extremisms", the right and the left. We are repeatedly told that one should treat the extreme left (communism) the same way that Europe after the second world war treated the extreme right (the defeated fascists)
But in reality there is no balance here: the equation of fascism and communism secretly privileges fascism. Thus the right are heard to argue that fascism copied communism: before becoming a fascist, Mussolini was a socialist; Hitler, too, was a National Socialist; concentration camps and genocidal violence were features of the Soviet Union a decade before Nazis resorted to them; the annihilation of the Jews has a clear precedent in the annihilation of the class enemy, etc.
The point of these arguments is to assert that a moderate fascism was a justified response to the communist threat (a point made long ago by Ernst Nolte in his defence of Heidegger’s involvement with Nazism). In Slovenia, the right is advocating the rehabilitation of the anti-communist Home Guard which fought the partisans during the second world war: they made the difficult choice to collaborate with the Nazis in order to thwart the much greater evil of communism.
Among other condition that favor resurgence of such groups we can name such features of neoliberal regimes, what now dominate the continent as demographic pressures from immigrant labor, social dislocation due to dismantling of social security state, and economic pressures inherent in "dog eat dog" capitalism and outsourcing to lower wage countries advocated by neoliberalism. In many ways neoliberalism represents a perfect environment for nurturing neofascist movements.
Those pressures are very similar to pressures which used to exist in 20th and 30th of the last century. As before they stimulate the formation of a new generation of far right movements whose motives and characteristics while somewhat differ from the right wing groups of the early twentieth century what came to power in Italy, Germany and Spain are still driven by the same resentment of middle class and "Lumpenbourgeoisie". They use the same ideas of dominance of particular ethnic group. scapegoat in form of another ethnic group, glorification of state, using violence against opponents, limitations on civil rights in the name of giving the state more power to protect the populace from "destructive elements" within the society and external aggressors. Fall of "fist generation" fascist regimes did not destroy the movement which acquired strong roots in neoliberal societies across the globe.
They are different from classic far right nationalist of the past that the criteria of belonging is no longer ethnicity per se (although some elements, for example anti-Semitism and Russophobia, of this remained) but "cultural affiliation" and first of all the language. In other words they are not fascists, they are neofascists. But in Ukraine they are not only alive, they are particularly well. Ukraine is the first European state where element of neofascist Party were included in the government after putsch of February 22.
All that means that the huge rise of Ukrainian far right forces is not a unique and isolated phenomenon. Far right organizations that first crystallized around football ultras and skinheads are European-wide phenomenon. See for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG-2HdFdvkY
This process also includes Russia although level of suppression of nationalism and especially neofascism in Russia is probably one of the highest among European countries.
And it goes without saying that all major EU counties experience dramatic rise of far right forces too. That includes Germany, France, Sweden as well as usual suspects Hungary, Poland and Baltic states (Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia). The whole story of the EU since the Maastricht Treaty and the establishment of the Euro was about neoliberal conversion similar to the USA conversion. And this conversion destroyed standards of living of lower middle class, especially small merchants, across southern Europe. Now the Southern Europe have had enough and are going to send nationalists to the European Parliament (The Guardian, May 14, 2014):
This new wave of nationalism is different then the previous wave which arose in the beginning of XX century and which led to establishment of "classic" fascist regimes. It can be called "cultural nationalism" where not ethnicity, but cultural identity was put in the center of the nationalistic doctrine.
In France, Denmark and Finland, rightwing nationalist and racist parties are set to win more than 20% of the vote – with Geert Wilders' Muslim-baiting Freedom party not far behind in the Netherlands. So is the virulently anti-Roma and anti-Semitic Jobbik in Hungary, while the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party in Greece is on the way to winning its first Euro seats.In France, Denmark and Finland, rightwing nationalist and racist parties are set to win more than 20% of the vote – with Geert Wilders' Muslim-baiting Freedom party not far behind in the Netherlands. So is the virulently anti-Roma and antisemitic Jobbik in Hungary, while the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party in Greece is on the way to winning its first Euro seats.
For "cultural nationalism" a common identity is based more on acceptance for the language and the culture than on the racial solidarity (although it dies not exclude xenophobia). Due to the power of the USA and general alliance with the West, fewer of this movements and parties are openly anti-Semitic and if they are anti-Semitic then the stress is on refusal of Jews to accept the national culture, the charge similar to the change of "country less cosmopolitans" trials in the USSR in late 40th of the last century.
Ukrainian fascists love the Russia-hammering NATO, but detest the Russia-accommodating and supra-nationalistic EU.
And they aren’t alone. Fascism — and anti-EU sentiment — pervade parts of Europe that never felt Stalin’s wrath. In the last elections for the European Parliament, "eurosceptics” and xenophobic ultra-nationalists scored significant gains, led by Marine Le Pen, whose National Front took 25% of the French seats.
A lot of it has to do with the equivocal track record of globalized neo-liberal capitalism in the last decade. We’re all Pikettyists now, and it seems that among the most important outcomes of neo-liberalism are income inequality and oligarchs.
It is anathema to liberal democrats, but it should be acknowledged that fascism is catching on, largely as a result of a growing perception that neo-liberalism and globalization are failing to deliver the economic and social goods to a lot of people.
Democracy is seen as the plaything of oligarchs who manipulate the current system to secure and expand their wealth and power; liberal constitutions with their guarantees of minority rights appear to be recipes for national impotence. Transnational free markets in capital and goods breed local austerity, unemployment, and poverty. Democratic governments seem to follow the free market playbook, get into problems they can’t handle, and surrender their sovereignty to committees of Euro-financiers.
Fascism, with its exaltation of the particular, the emotional, and the undemocratic provides an impregnable ideological and political bulwark against these outside forces.
Fascism has become an important element in the politics of resistance: a force that obstructs imposition of the norms of globalization, and an ideology that justifies the protection of local interests against the demands of liberal democracy, transnational capital, and property and minority rights.
Maybe it’s neo-liberalism, not fascism, that is facing a crisis of legitimacy and acceptance.
So the idea that fascism can be treated as a delusional artifact of the 20th century and the challenge of fascism to the neo-liberal order can be ignored is, itself, wishful thinking.
... ... ...
For some, resentment will, inevitably, congeal around nationalism and the perception that fascist resistance, defiantly militant, uncompromising, and irrational, racial and undemocratic, exclusionary and brutal, is the best instrument to achieve local identity and agency—power– in an ever bigger, more dangerous, and less responsive continental order.
New nationalist movements and far right groups widely use Internet and have well established Web presence including such social sited as Facebook and Google++. They also establish cross-border links with similar parties. For example Ukrainian far-right group have links not only with Germany far right (which is natural for them), but paradoxically also with Polish far-right with which they theoretically should be bitter enemies and sometimes even with Russian neo-liberals (several of them visited EuroMaidan in "support missions") and far-right groups (despite the fact that Russian culture and by extension people are official cultural enemy of Ukrainian nationalism)
The story of 20th and 30th repeats again. Far right groups are nurtured by both government and part of the big business as the most adequate response to the challenging and poorly controlled political situation at home. That happened, for example, in Ukraine under Yanukovich who essentially nurtured his own demise. As Helena Smith reported about Greece (The Observer, [Jun 09, 2014):
It has been a bad week for democracy in Athens. All around this great Greek city, the politics of hate now lurk. On Friday I got a taste of it in the tiny Italian-style cafe I frequent off Syntagma Square.
It arrived in the form of two middle-aged men, both supporters of the neofascist Golden Dawn – and, by their own account, the holders of university degrees, well-travelled and well-informed. Over espressos, they began to engage in an animated discussion about all that is wrong with Greece.
The first, a self-described businessman decked out in designer suit, brogues and silk tie, blamed the country's economic collapse on malfeasance, corruption and uncontrolled immigration. "The only way to teach our filthy politicians is to bring in Golden Dawn," he trilled, his eyes locked in a fierce glare. "These gentlemen are patriots, proud Greek nationalists, and they know how to deal with the scum, the foreigners who never pay taxes, who steal our jobs, who have taken over our streets."
What makes Ukrainian experience more interesting is the Ukrainian far right forces are classic case of forces brought to the front stage and openly supported by the neoliberal government. They were covertly supported by all Ukrainian governments, but, especially, by pro-US "democratic" Yushchenko regime, since 1991 as a way to create "Ukrainian national identity". This is when they got open state support and Yushchenko even dared to bestow the title of hero of Ukraine to the leader of Ukrainian nationalists in WWII Stepan Bandera, who is guilty of serious crimes such an ethnic cleansing against Polish citizens and Jews.
Viktor Yushchenko, the president produced by the last American-supported Ukrainian uprising, the "Orange Revolution,” put the full weight of the ideological apparatus of the Ukrainian state into reinventing the history of Ukrainian complicity with Nazism into a "national liberation” mythology.
But paradoxically it was not Yushchenko, but Yanukovich regime and his financial and logistical support which essentially launch Svoboda into mainstream. As CounterPunch noted (The Durability of Ukrainian Fascism):
Ukrainian nationalists turned largely toward fascism, specifically toward a concept of "integral nationalism” that, in the absence of an acceptable national government, manifested itself in a national will residing in the spirit of its adherents, not expressed by the state or restrained by its laws, but embodied by a charismatic leader and exercised through his organization, whose legitimacy supersedes that of the state and whose commitment to violence makes it a law unto itself.
That leader, at least for many Ukrainians of the fascist persuasion, was Stepan Bandera. The organization, his OUN-B faction.
This state of affairs persists in today’s successor to the OUN-B, Pravy Sektor, with its fascist trappings, leader cult, and paramilitary arm. The "mainstreaming” of the second major fascist grouping, Svoboda, looks more like a strategic repackaging in order to strive for greater electoral success by hiding its fascist antecedents.
So, unfortunately for apologists for the current Kyiv regime, the correct description of these two groups is not "nationalist” or "ultranationalist”; it is "fascist”.
Fatally, the Ukrainian government has turned to fascist nationalism and heroes in order to forge a post-Soviet, essentially Ukrainian, identity for the post-1991 state
Paradoxically, part of Ukrainian far right groups, at least superficially, are pro-EU. It is less paradoxical then it sounds is we assume that the cultural affinity is the key to the new nationalism. Ukrainian nationalists cultural identity is based on strong, fanatic rejection of all things Russian demonstrating a perfect example of Narcissism of small differences -- the tendency to exaggerate the dissimilarities of those who resemble us in an effort to buttress our own self-regard...
An excellent discussion of why this is the case and why they are nurtured by the US government was provided in the article Charge of the Right Brigade: Ukraine and the Dynamics of Capitalist Insurrection from The Polemicist blog (March 19, 2014). I recommend to read this excellent analysis in full, but here is a (large) relevant quote:
To pretend that the ex-post-facto parliamentary maneuvers that ratified the result of this insurrection actually confer some kind of retroactive constitutional legitimacy on it is ludicrous. As Nicolai Petro points out, these actions were taken by "a Parliament that rules without any representation from the majority party – since most of the deputies of the east and the south of the country are afraid to set foot in Parliament… [and] all across the country, headquarters of parties are being sacked by their opponents,” by a parliament that outlawed the only effective remaining opposition party (the Communists) and that "consolidate[ed] the powers of the speaker of the Parliament and the acting president in a single individual, giving him greater powers than allowed under any Ukrainian constitution,” in a context where "Vigilante militias routinely attack and disperse public gatherings they disapprove of.”25 Please, let’s recognize these parliamentary acts as what they are – the ratification of an insurrection, in defiance of the extant constitutional order. Call them the first steps in a new, post-insurrection constitutional order if you want, but recognize the radical break they represent.
And why not call this what it is? Isn’t that what revolutionary change is all about – a radical break with the old order? To reprise what I said in a previous post on Egypt: An electoral process can be a thin facade of democracy and, effectively, a tool of disempowerment, justifying militant extra-electoral politics, or even insurrection. A serious revolutionary conjuncture, a real break into a new social order, usually involves both. It’s an unapologetic, forceful, seizure of power that seeks to be definitive and irreversible. (Of course, not every insurrection is a revolution, or even a step forward, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.)
As someone who accepts the revolutionary socialist argument, I do not object to extra-legal, extra-parliamentary, insurrectionary politics per se. And guess what? All the self-proclaimed liberal, conservative, moderate, non-violent, constitutional, parliamentary democratic thinkers, politicians and commentators who are proudly and loudly supporting what happened in Ukraine also do not object to extra-legal, extra-parliamentary, insurrectionary politics per se – they just don’t want to admit it. Like me, they will support an insurrection, depending on what it’s about. Unlike me, they will pretend it wasn’t really an insurrection at all, just another, maybe somewhat "messy,” but fundamentally non-violent, constitutionally-authorized transition within the rules of bourgeois parliamentary democracy. And that’s because, as the man said: We wouldn’t permit that in any Western capital, no matter how righteous the cause.
It’s quite amusing, until it gets sickening, to watch American leaders—who cling to the notion that a thin, corrupt, disempowering electoral process legitimizes them — embrace the forceful overthrow of a democratically-elected leader in a functioning parliamentary democracy while insisting they are doing no such thing.
Let’s recognize that virtually nobody really supports or opposes what happened in Ukraine, or anywhere else, because it was an insurrection, but because of what kind of insurrection it was – what it’s explicit and implicit socio-political objective was, what different kind of society and polity it was moving toward creating. And let’s recognize that the US would denounce, and help to crush, any insurrection, no matter how popular or righteous the cause, in which leftist forces played anything close to the prominent fighting role that right-wing, neofascist forced played in this one. If revolutionary anarcho-syndicalists had been the vanguard of the Maidan, Yanukovych would have been America’s "democratic” hero.
As for "democracy” (along with "nonviolent,” one of the most dishonestly abused words in the American political vocabulary), it certainly does not just mean having an election. It means power to the people. Neither Ukrainian oligarchs, nor the EU-IMF neo-liberal "technocrats,” nor the American government, nor NATO, want that. They have too much to lose.
It was a right-wing, imperialist insurrection, powered by fascist groups and permeated with fascist ideology.
The overthrow of Yanukovych was an insurrection accomplished by a political movement that was driven by popular socio-economic discontent and thoroughly imbued by "ultranationalist”—i.e., neofascist—ideology.
It was decidedly not a revolution, in the strong sense of the word. A revolutionary insurrection marks the beginning of a change in the social order. This movement did not, will not, and, given its foundations, could not, establish a popular government that will create anything like more widespread prosperity and deeper democracy, let alone a new social order.
It was a regime change, fuelled by popular discontent, powered by neofascist militants, and surreptitiously managed by American intelligence diplomats, with Ukrainian oligarchs maneuvering for ultimate control behind the scenes—factions that have different, sometimes internally contradictory, agendas. It will create a government that will be controlled by and benefit some Ukrainian oligarchs at the expense of others, that will benefit European and American capitalism at the (acknowledged, indeed promised!) cost of austerity and immiseration for Ukrainian working people, and that will benefit American and NATO plans for an ever-tightening military encirclement of Russia at the expense of possible war and perpetual tension for Ukraine.
The only possibility for a more serious, "revolutionary” break from neo-liberal standards of oligarchic-imperial rule in the near future would come from the neofascist groups, who indeed imagine themselves to have a radically different agenda. But guess what? Faced with any popular uprising against its policies, from the right or the left, the new neo-liberal, Euro-facing, Russia-hating, America-loving, Ukrainian government, and its international supporters, will trot out the bourgeois democratic principles that its leaders, of course, never really contravened, and insist, Berkut (by any other name) and all: We won’t permit that in our democratic, European capital, no matter how righteous the cause.
Is there anybody who honestly doubts any of this?
Brendan O’Neill makes the point quite nicely:
For what we have in Ukraine is not revolution, but regime change …As for the word ‘revolution’ … its deployment in Ukraine takes its bastardisation to a new low: there has of course been no replacement of one social order by another in Ukraine, or even the installment of a people’s government; instead various long-established parties in parliament, some of which are deeply unpopular among certain constituencies in Ukraine, are forming an interim government. Revolutionary? Hardly.
The Western debate and coverage … has certainly made externally generated regime change seem revolutionary, and the Western-assisted anti-democratic removal of an elected leader seem like an act of people’s democracy. It has exposed a severe dearth of independent critical thinking among the Western commentariat. …
The truth of what has happened in Ukraine is this: the EU and Washington have effectively brought about regime change, replacing an elected pro-Russian regime with an unelected, still-being-formed new government that is more amenable to the institutions of the West.26
Regarding the "fascism” question, Max Blumenthal’s Alternet piece, and Per Anders Rudling’s detailed scholarly study are indispensable sources. Rudling understates considerably, when he says: "The far-right tradition is particularly strong in western Ukraine.” The fascist currents in the Kiev movement are undeniable. They are represented in the parliament by the Svoboda (Freedom) Party (originally called the Social National Party). In December, 2012, the European Parliament condemned Svoboda for its "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views,” and urged other Ukrainian parties "not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party.”27
As Blumenthal notes, Svoboda’s leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, defines his mission as freeing his country from the "Muscovite-Jewish mafia.” His deputy, Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn founded a think tank named after a historical figure he admires greatly: The Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center. Svoboda’s – and, unfortunately, much of western Ukraine’s – "nationalism” is embodied in the revered figure of Stepan Bandera, a World War II-era Nazi collaborator who led the pro-fascist Organization of Ukrainian (OUN), which helped to form a Ukrainian division of the Waffen SS to fight with the Nazis against the Soviet Union. From 1942-1944, Yaroslav Stetsko, the "Prime Minister” of ONU-B (Bandera’s wing), who supported "bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine,” oversaw the killing of "more than 90,000 Poles and thousands of Jews” in western Ukraine. Banderists in Lvov circulated a pamphlet telling the city’s Jews: "We will lay your heads at Hitler’s feet.”28
After the war, Bandera’s Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) continued its fascist campaign for "a totalitarian, ethnically pure Europe,” engaging in a futile armed struggle against the Soviet Union, until KGB agents assassinated him in Munich in 1959. Nothing "neo” about this Nazi.
Viktor Yushchenko, the president produced by the last American-supported Ukrainian uprising, the "Orange Revolution,” put the full weight of the ideological apparatus of the Ukrainian state into reinventing the history of Ukrainian complicity with Nazism into a "national liberation” mythology. He "tasked a set of nationalistically minded historians” into "disseminating a sanitized, edifyingly patriotic version of the history of the ‘Ukrainian national liberation movement,’ the leaders of which were presented in iconographic form as heroic and saintly ﬁgures, martyrs of the nation.”
Thus, in 2010, against the protestation of the European Parliament—which he accused of having a "historical complex” — Yushchenko awarded Stepan Bandera the title of "Hero of Ukraine."29 As Rudling notes: "There was little protest from intellectuals who identify themselves as liberals.” It was the government of big, bad Yanukovych that later annulled the award.
And thus, still satisfied by their political research, Svoboda led a 15,000-person march in honor of Bandera in Kiev on January 1st of this year, with chants of "Ukraine above all” and "Bandera, come and bring order!” 30
Now, as a result of the insurrection, Svoboda, which won about 10% of the vote in the last election, has effectively muscled the much larger (34% of the last vote) Party of the Regions out of parliament, and seeks nationally to outlaw it and the Communist Party (13% of the vote), whose leader’s house was burned down. With the help of its Right Sector allies, these parties have already been banned in a number of regions. Svoboda now holds "key leadership positions in the parliament and law enforcement, four ministerial portfolios in the new government [including Prosecutor General and Deputy Prime Minister] and several appointed governorships.” Svoboda’s co-founder, Andriy Parubiy, is head of the National Security & Defense Council of the new, democratic, government of Ukraine.31
So, fourteen months after denouncing Svoboda for its "racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia,” European governments are gushing over the new "democracy” in Ukraine over which Svoboda presides. And, as the BBC reports: "Inside the columned central hall of Kiev's city council, an activist base of operations, hung a giant banner with a Celtic cross, a symbol of ‘white power,’ and an American confederate flag….and an immense portrait of Stepan Bandera.”32Keep in mind, too, Rudling’s point that the whole Banderist "national liberation” narrative "was well received in western Ukraine but was received coldly or met open hostility in the eastern and southern parts of the country.”
As Svoboda represents fascism in the parliament, Right Sector (Pravy Sektor) represented fascism in the maidan, and continues to do so with its intimidating tactics in the streets and administrative offices of Kiev and the regions, as well as from its new positions in government. Right Sector is a confederation of far-right groups such as Patriots of Ukraine, the Social-National Assembly, White Hammer, Stepan Bandera’s Trident, and the Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian People's Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO). Their favorite ensign is the wolfsangel--a favorite, too, of the Waffen SS--which was on display all over the maidan:
As Ukrainian journalist Oleg Shynkarenko points out, Right Sector leader, Dmytro Yarosh defines the group's creed thusly: "We are against degeneration and totalitarian liberalism, but we support traditional morals and family values, against the cult of profit and depravity.” Right Sector’s websites rail against the "liberal homodictatorship” of modern Western society.33 Blumenthal points out that Right Sector is: "linked to a constellation of international neofascist parties,” and "through the Alliance of European National Movements (AEMN), Right Sector is promising to lead its army of aimless, disillusioned young men on ‘a great European Reconquest’.” In some ways, the neofascist right does want power to the people—just the morally and ethnically pure people.
BBC did a decent report on the "Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine.” Again, maybe not so "neo.” The reporter, Gabriel Gatehouse, interviews Svoboda and Right Sector militants, meets a group called C14 (apparently an armed wing of Svoboda) under a portrait of Lenin in the Communist Party headquarters they had taken over, and shows two Svoboda MPs displaying "14” and "88” tokens. These numbers, which are often displayed in combination, and which appeared in graffiti throughout the maidan, have special fascist significance: "14” stands for from the Fourteen Words coined by an American white supremacist: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children” (there’s an alternate version, about "the White Aryan woman”); "88” represents a double of the eighth letter of the Latin alphabet, HH, for Heil Hitler. [I cannot make this stuff up.]
Yes, it depends what you’re fighting for.
My favorite is this 2½-minute tidbit from a young Right Sector gentleman, explaining the group’s, and his, affinity for "National Socialist themes,” and assuring his interviewer that they want a society that’s just "a little bit like” that "under Hitler”:
The leader of the Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh, is now the deputy head of the National Security Council, and is running for President, of Ukraine’s new, democratic, government.
You might also take a look at this video, where Right Sector leader Aleksandr Muzychko roughs up a local prosecutor to show him who’s the boss now, and threatens to have him lynched: "Shut the fuck up, you bitch! Your fucking time is over… If you think I am goodie because I’ve come without my rifle, you are gravely mistaken. I’ve come with a pistol. There are a few choice videos of Muzychko, who is also identified as a member of the "Wiking" unit of the Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO), another post-Banderist right-wing paramilitary group.
So there’s no question that fascists were part of the insurrection, and there is no question that they were crucial to its success. As Oleg Shynkarenko insists, the scenes of fighting resistance and advance were led by Right Sector and allied groups:[I]t was the far right that first started to talk back to Yanukovych in his own language. They were the first to throw Molotov cocktails and stones at police and to mount real and well-fortified barricades. They were amongst those who burned two military troop carriers that attacked the barricades on February 18. The Euromaidan won thanks to the resoluteness of people who were ready to fight rather than to negotiate in parliament when any negotiation became pointless.Nicolai Petro agrees, and points out the political ramifications:I ascribe a much greater role to the Right Sector…the spearhead of the revolution. … [T]he actual coup was accomplished thanks to the armed intervention of extreme nationalists, led by the Right Sector. And the fact that they were so instrumental in accomplishing this change of power has put them in the driver’s seat. From now on, whatever political decisions are arrived at will really be at the sufferance of the Right Sector.Let’s be clear, also, that these neofascist groups not only fought and defeated Yanokovych’s police, they attacked and drove away any political group from the left that tried to establish a presence in the maidan. The fascists made sure they controlled the radical politics of the square. Sascha, a member of AntiFascist Action Ukraine, a group that monitors and fights fascism in Ukraine, recounts in an interview published in mid-February:A group of 100 anarchists tried to arrange their own self-defense group, different Anarchist groups came together for a meeting on the Maidan. While they were meeting a group of Nazis came in a larger group, they had axes and baseball bats and sticks, helmets, they said it was their territory. They called the Anarchists things like Jews, blacks, Communists. There weren’t even any Communists, that was just an insult. The Anarchists weren’t expecting this and they left. People with other political views can’t stay in certain places, they aren’t tolerated.34And Mira, of the same group, adds:One of the worst things is that Pravy has this official structure. They are coordinated. You need passes to go certain places. They have the power to give or not give people permission to be active. We’re trying to be active but we have to avoid Nazis, and I’m not going to ask a Nazi for permission!...Early on a Stalinist tent was attacked by Nazis. One was sent to the hospital. Another student spoke out against fascism and he was attacked.Pravy Sektor got too much attention after the first violence, the media gave them popularity and they started to think they’re cool guys. Pravy existed before but now it’s growing and attracting a lot of new people.Ilya Budraitskis, a Russian Socialist who came to the maidan in January, tells us how the "ultranationalists” brutalized and evicted everyone from leftish Europhiles to anarchists:Another part of the left repetitively tried to join the movement, even after they were repetitively kicked out of it. Some of the "euro-enthusiastic” leftists came to Maidan in November with red (instead of blue) flag of the EU, with banners for free healthcare and education, and with feminist slogans. They were brutally attacked by Nazis. Then there was an episode when the far-right attacked the tent of the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine near the Maidan. A man on the stage said that there were some "provocateurs” and said that "men know what to do”; as a result, a mob of Nazis has broken ribs of the trade union activists, tore their tent with knives and stolen their property. The victims hadn’t been doing anything "leftist” per se, but they were members of the left movement, known to their political adversaries, and that was enough….[T]here is also another group of people who are often confused with the radical left. …who call themselves anarchists but actually have a very conservative political agenda full of machismo and xenophobia. After the protests have begun, they shifted to the right dramatically; they reached truce with the nazi groups and showered Molotov cocktails at the police together. Eventually, they parted ways with left movement finally.A week ago they, together with some actual leftists who wanted to "act”, decided to form an "anarchist sotnia [defense unit]” in the Maidan self-defence. In order to do that, they were prepared to give an oath to [Svoboda leader] Andriy Parubiy. But when they formed their ranks to do this, they were met by approximately 150 Svoboda fighters with baseball bats and axes. The fascists accused them of being racially impure and politically irrelevant and forced them out of Maidan.35So much for Professor Snyder’s agora.
Of course, the great majority of the people in the square are not fascists, but, for all the reasons of history and ideology discussed above, a lot of people in western Ukraine are susceptible to their charms. As Denis, from Kiev Autonomous Workers Union says: "[I]n the long run the rightist political hegemony is being reinforced,” because "That’s what happens when you don’t have a developed left movement and your liberals are too corrupt and ugly!” Here’s how he describes the rightward political momentum on the maidan:[Far right] ideology has really become more acceptable in the mainstream (which had initially been leaning to the right!). ... Of course, most protesters really say they want political pluralism, bourgeois democracy. … But at the same time the crowd at the Maidan revives some deeply buried pre-modern, medieval social practices like whipping post, lynching, reinforced traditional gender roles. This scary readiness to slip into barbarism is born from the general disenchantment with parliamentary politics and the ubiquitous nationalist mythology about the golden past, imposed in schools and media.The original Euromaidan agenda in November was a right liberal one, standing for the EU, "economic liberties” and bourgeois democracy. But even then the issues of multiculturalism, LGBT rights, workers’ rights and freedoms were severely repressed by the politically conscious far-right activists … [whose] political programme had always included critique of the EU’s "liberal fascism”. … The attackers didn’t represent the majority of protesters, but the majority was very susceptible to their political agenda which they had been aggressively pushing through…[P]eople are new to politics, they just "know” they are rightists and nationalists. And therefore they trust the more politically experienced leaders to express their views and formulate their programme for them. It just so happens that those leaders are nationalists or even Nazis. And they shift the centre of the political discourse even further to the right.But, first of all, their ideas are welcome among the apolitical crowd; second of all, they are very well organized, and also people love their "radicalism”. An average Ukrainian worker hates the police and the government but he will never fight them openly and risk his comfort. So he or she welcomes a "vanguard” which is ready to fight on their behalf; especially if that vanguard shares "good” patriotic values….And since the basic "common sense” had long ago been established on the nationalist fundamental assumptions, the radicalization goes only further in that direction.36As we all know, fascists don’t have to be a majority to determine outcomes, and their power to do so can increase very quickly under favorable conditions. Perhaps the most telling, and disturbing remark of the leftists cited in these interviews was this, from Sascha of AntiFascist Action Ukraine, a couple of weeks before the head of Right Sector became deputy head of the National Security and Defense Council: "If Pravy [Right Sector] has positions in a new government that would be really dangerous but that isn’t possible, they aren’t powerful enough.”
Oh, yes they are. Consider the stunning turn of events we have just witnessed: "the ascension of a genuinely fascist mass movement into the corridors of power” in a European country for the first time since WWII, greeted with a stunning non-chalance—nay, embraced as an exemplar of democracy—by the Western liberal democracies. University of Ottawa political scientist Ivan Katchanovski specifies: "The paramilitary right sector has de facto power at least in some Western Ukrainian regions,” and "The far right in Ukraine has now achieved the level of representation and influence that is unparalleled in Europe.”37
Then imagine, please, Professor Katchanovski’s last sentence with "left” substituted for "right,” and consider how unthinkable it is that any American government would be so welcoming of such a "democratic” outcome. The United States and its allied liberal democracies are, in other words, willing to accommodate very hard swings to the right in order to secure and/or extend the neo-liberal capitalist, and US/NATO imperialist, order, but will abide not an inch of movement toward resistance from the left—no matter how righteous or democratic the cause.
Intelligence agencies represent now a distinct and powerful political force with employees of those agencies as a surrogate of the authoritarian party that brought to power such leaders as Mussolini. And top brass as the leadership of the this quasi-party. In a way the tremendous growth of intelligences agencies creates state within the state and makes possible neofascism without mass political party. Professor Stephen Cohen aptly noted this newfound role of intelligence agencies in determining the results of the USA elections as well as the USA foreign policy in his article in Nation (US Congress has no Russian policy other than sanctions)
Oct 17, 2018
Inconvenient thoughts on Cold War and other news. Intelligence agencies, Nikki Haley, sanctions, and public opinion.
1. National intelligence agencies have long played major roles, often not entirely visible, in international politics. They are doing so again today, as is evident in several countries, from Russiagate in the United States and the murky Skripal assassination attempt in the UK to the apparent murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Turkey. Leaving aside what President Obama knew about Russiagate allegations against Donald Trump and when he knew it, the question arises as to whether these operations were ordered by President Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) or were " rogue " operations unknown in advance by the leaders and perhaps even directed against them.
There have been plenty of purely criminal and commercial " rogue " operations by intelligence agents in history, but also " rogue " ones that were purposefully political. We know, for example, that both Soviet and US intelligence agencies - or groups of agents - tried to disrupt the Eisenhower-Khrushchev détente of the late 1950s and early 1960s, and that some intelligence players tried to stop Khrushchev's formal recognition of West Germany, also in the early 1960s.
It is reasonable to ask, therefore, whether the attacks on Skripal and Khashoggi were " rogue " operations undertaken by political opponents of the leaders' policies at home or abroad, with the help of one or another intelligence agency or agents. Motive is a - perhaps the - crucial question. Why would Putin order such an operation in the UK at the very moment when his government had undertaken a major Western public-relations campaign in connection with the upcoming World Cup championship in Russia? And why would MbS risk a Khashoggi scandal as he was assiduously promoting his image abroad as an enlightened reform-minded Saudi leader?
Growth of censorship ad the level of control of MSM are another two signs of growing influence of intelligence agencies in political life of many countries and first of all the USA (Article Globalist Traitors Seek to Delete History--Who Are the Real Fascists OpEdNews )
We're living in a moment where we are seeing people adopting what used to be denounced as fascist policies--the shutting down of free speech, the destruction of opposition voices--and the people who are doing it are arguing that the president is a supporter of fascism. It is Orwellian...
... ... ...
Through the Foreign Intelligence Court (FISC), and a reciprocal intelligence-sharing partnership among the nations of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. called the "Five Eyes," the Obama administration manufactured, altered and misrepresented various pieces of evidence in an attempt to justify conducting surveillance on certain individual Americans. The Obama administration--in conjunction with the FBI, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and, yes, the CIA--employed the same process that is used to spy on foreigners deemed to be severe terror threats to America against American citizens... specifically, in this case, political opponents vying against the Clinton-Obama globalist cabal.
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline. [...]
A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Nov 12, 2020 | www.unz.com
Mefobills says: November 11, 2020 at 4:30 pm GMT • 7.2 hours ago 300 Words ↑
Indeed, one can't help but wonder whether the historic American nation would fare better under outright foreign occupation than a hostile elite which considers itself our rulers and treats us with open contempt, if not hatred.
Russia or China would not flood the historic American nation with "third world people" in order to chase after a dollar. A good argument could be made that China or Russia would be a better government for Heartland America than the "international" coastal elites.
The coastal elites are wedded to finance capitalism. This group of people want a thin veneer of Oligarchs (themselves) controlling a mixed race, or brown population in their factories. Finance Capital wants to make illicit gains. Finance capital could care less about improving labor ability of the native population.
The grouping is thus; 1) Coastal Elites/Wall Street/City of London/Private Banking/Atlantacism/Libertarian Free Market Economics aka finance capitalism . (In short, the coastal elites are for an "international world order" with them in charge, with them making their finance nut with usury, rents, and unearned income. Lying and cheating is ok, because only money matters. Their capital is fungible, meaning it can fly anywhere in the world to make gains, and to them labor has legs and is also fungible, to then lower prices – to make gains.)
Land Powers, such as China and Russia are not "international" in their thinking. Although they do some power projection into blue water as a form of defense. They are interested in improving their sovereign population.
The middle of America is land power, and is opposed to Atlantacism, rim theory, blue water navy power projection, importation of third world people, and export of jobs and factories.
The American system of economy of the founders was the first industrial capitalism, and the "credit of the nation" went toward infrastructure, public health, and improving the commons.
The Jew and English finance capitalism method, first combined together in 1694, and has always been at war with heartland America. The parasite is dug in deep.
Nov 09, 2020 | crookedtimber.org
Hidari 11.08.20 at 8:20 pm
Interesting piece by Beinart about the obvious question that isn't being asked: Why did Trump lose? After all he had the advantages of incumbency, until February the stock market was booming, wages were rising, things were going great.
Answer: because he was not nearly radical enough. Because he was a weak leader who was captured by the Republican elite (not the other way round). Also (rather ironic this) because he was and is a terrible negotiater. He continually caved into the likes of Mitch McConnell, and, well the rest is history.
Question: will 'super Trump' in 4 or 8 years time manage to follow the Eastern European template and create a genuine populist party? (economically social democratic, particularly concentrating on pensioners: extremely hostile to immigration, skeptical of environmental issues, culturally conservative?). If so the future is the Republicans' but it's a big if.
likbez 11.09.20 at 4:20 pm (no link)
@Hidari 11.08.20 at 8:20 pm
...he was a weak leader who was captured by the Republican elite (not the other way round). Also (rather ironic this) because he was and is a terrible negotiator. He continually caved into the likes of Mitch McConnell, and, well the rest is history.
All true. But Biden victory in some ways looks like Catch 22 for neoliberal Dems (Will the Democrats Ever Make Sense of This Week? – New Republic):
In sum, if the results we have hold, Joe Biden will win the election and preside over a divided Congress. A chastened and anxious Democratic caucus will continue to hold the House.
A triumphant Senate Republican caucus will obviously destroy his major legislative agenda. Biden will assuredly turn to policy by executive action, just as Barack Obama did late in his legislatively stymied administration.
When he does, Republicans will do all they can to send those actions to a 6–3 conservative Supreme Court Biden will be unable to pack or meaningfully reform.
In defeating Trump, Democrats will have avoided their worst-case scenario. Instead, they will have won the worst possible Biden victory, a political situation that will be a nightmare all its own.
Trump, with his "national neoliberalism," was an anomaly in its own right. And such things do not last long. So this is a kind of "return to normal" -- return to power of the "internationalist" faction of Oligarchy who is linked to globalization (and constitutes the majority of the US oligarchy), which was unexpectedly defeated in 2016 and since then foght tooth and nail for the return to power. And such "normalization" is the most logical outcome of the 2020 elections and is to be expected.
But while they now have the power, globalists do not have solutions to the country problems, and the crisis of neoliberalism (which started in 2008) will continue, the far-right nationalism will stay and may even gain strength. This suggests that in 2024 is somebody like Tucker Carlson will lead the ticket. And Tucker is a more dangerous opponent to neoliberal Dems than Trump ever been. "Trumpism without Trump" will live, so to speak.
That may spell troubles for the well-being of the PMC (professional and management class) to which we all belong.
I would add that the fact that Biden victory legitimized Russia-gate and abuse of their power by intelligence agencies is also a problem. I suspect that Neo-McCarthyism, in the long run, might backfire.
Nov 07, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
William Gruff , Nov 7 2020 13:40 utc | 24
"The seeds of this scheme were planted several months prior to the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton authorized a smear campaign against Trump..." --quoted by our host above.
In other words, this was initiated during the primaries, at which point Trump even being allowed to be a candidate in the general election was inconceivable. How could the Clinton campaign have known that the corporate mass media would be giving Trump hundreds of $millions in free advertising at that point? How could the Clinton campaign have known that the joke candidate could beat out serious career politicians? How could the Clinton campaign have known so early they would be facing off against the Great Orange Ogre in the general?
Obviously the 2016 elections were just as rigged and choreographed (despite backfiring dramatically) as the most recent one, but who could have done the choreography? What organization could get the "Operation Mockingbird" mass media to sing in chorus? What organization that is deeply intertwined with the State Department that Clinton was the head of also has long-running plans like color revolution preparations, proxy wars, and covert actions around the globe that would greatly benefit from a seamlessly smooth transition of imperial figureheads?
That would be the same organization that thinks crickets in Cuba are Soviet brain rays damaging its operatives' soft and fragile minds, so it really is no surprise that they screwed the pooch with their "brilliant plan" in 2016. They only managed to regain control of the imperial figurehead position in 2020 by using banana republic election fraud. Fortunately they have a lot of practice with that kind of work and they have Big Tech and the corporate mass media fully on board to help. It is quite obvious that they would have failed again otherwise.
Basically, we can take some comfort from the gross incompetence that the CIA has had on display for many years now.
Down South , Nov 7 2020 13:54 utc | 29William Gruff , Nov 7 2020 13:56 utc | 30
William Gruff @ 24
Timeline according to Wiki:Trump was declared the presumptive Republican nominee by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus on May 3.
In April 2016, an attorney for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier.
"The majority of Trump's recent tweets are currently censored. I don't care how misleading or even false they are. That's not for Twitter to arbitrate. People cheering this power-grab by unelected tech officials are authoritarian dupes" --quoted by our host
There is a shorter word for "authoritarian dupes" . It is "fascist" .
"Sure, we'll have fascism in this country, and we'll call it anti-fascism" " --Huey Long
Nov 07, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Nov 6 2020 18:58 utc | 113
Wow! Today's Global Times editorial about the election and its outcome is very perceptive in its entirety making it very hard to determine an excerpt. I decided on the center 4 paragraphs as they're a coherent whole:
"Every society has internal divergences and contradictions. The design of the US system indulges and even encourages the fermentation of contradictions. Mechanisms help maintain the balance between interests and power. For a long time, this performed relatively well, but new challenges are changing the conditions of US mechanisms, and changing relations between the effectiveness of US mechanisms and the difficulties US society faces.
"The fundamental change is that the US has been consuming its accumulated advantages against the backdrop of globalization. Its pattern of interests has been fixated, and the overall competitiveness of the country has been sliding. The welfare it has made for the people cannot match people's demands and expectations. The mechanism that distributes interests solidifies and further erodes social ability of promoting unity.
"In the internet era, identity politics is rising. People can easily feel that their rights are deprived because they are from a certain social class. Maintaining social unity has become an increasingly arduous and sensitive task. Obviously, the US needs political reforms more than many other countries to enhance its ability to promote unity.
"But in the past four years, the Trump administration, incited by the US election system, has pushed the country into a risky path where it enhances division to boost the existing pattern of political interests. There are so many social woes in US society, be it between different races and classes, between new immigrants and old ones, and between different regions, let alone partisan. But now the objective of society has been cast on Trump's reelection. This objective has to a great extent squeezed the room of US society to pursue maximum common interests."
But I really insist reading the entire editorial.
In an op/ed by a professor at the Center for American Studies of Fudan University, we learn what some close observers from outside see as the primary contradictions within the Outlaw US Empire:
"There are two main contradictions in the US. First, contradictions between the whites and ethnic minorities. The advantageous position of the whites continues to decrease and they would lose their dominance over the country in the future. This makes their tolerance and confidence in ethnic minorities decrease as well. The ratio of the population of ethnic minorities is rising. This increases their demand for equality and rights.
"It is normal for ethnic minorities to demand for corresponding political, social, economic and cultural positions, but this will pose a severe challenge to the cultural, religious and racial nature of the US. As the US population continues to lose balance, related conflicts will break out or even become a periodic and escalating crisis.
"Second, contradictions between elites and ordinary people. Supporters of the Democratic Party are mainly demotic elites who benefit from globalization and liberalization of the global economy, and those who support the Republican Party are middle- and lower-class people, and religious conservatives. This is very clear in the county-based electoral maps. Trump-supporting counties that are vast, under populated and economically backward, surround cities and counties that support the Democratic Party, while Democrat-dominated counties and cities use their economic and population advantages to lead the political pattern in some states. The contradictions between elites and ordinary people will not end with the election."
Not stated clearly IMO is that these contradictions are Centrifugal in their affects on the overall society thus impeding attempts to reform the polity and gain control over the forces exerting actual control that are beyond government.
Nov 07, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Nov 6 2020 20:26 utc | 131
The transcript of the Michael Hudson-Paul Jay podcast is now available here . Yes, it's a long read with much being a rehash of his many previous interviews. IMO, his newest most important point is the need for a revamped Constitution:
"Let's get back to fascism because that's very important. Around the time that Roosevelt made that comment , Trotsky analyzed fascism in Germany and Italy, and he said that fascism is what occurred when the socialists don't have a solution to the problems.
"I think we are indeed emerging in that kind of fascism today because you don't have the left or the progressive interests really coming up with a solution to the problems. And that's because the only kind of solution is so radical that it can't be solved within the existing political framework and the existing legal framework. There has to be the equivalent of a revolution. [If] It's not going to be an anti-fascist revolution; then it'll be a fascist revolution. What we're seeing is that kind of a slow revolution....
"Now and all throughout Europe, it was the upper house of government, the House of Lords, or the Senate that tried to block any kind of reform, not only leading to socialism, but that helped capitalism. There had to be a political revolution strengthening the House of Commons relative to the House of Lords. And that occurred in 1909-10 in England. Now, here you're going to have a similar constitutional crisis in order to do the socialist policies that you mentioned. The crisis is not only because there's federalism in the United States, states' rights that are written in the Constitution, to have an economy that can rescue the American industry, and rescue the American working class, you need to rewrite the Constitution.
"But the efforts to make plans for a constitutional convention have all been done by the ultra-right, by the Federalist Society, and by the people that you and I have made fun of for many years. And I don't see any movement on the left to say the situation is so serious that we need a radical rewrite of the Constitution in order to become really a parliamentary democracy that can provide the political context in order to introduce socialist policies ."[My Emphasis]
He's correct. When you have a Bernie Sanders being equated with Leftism, then you have no Left.
Nov 06, 2020 | crookedtimber.org
Hidari 10.22.20 at 5:32 pm
I'm not going to flog this particular horse to death, because, at this stage, if you are still seriously arguing that Trump is The New Hitler™ then there is no reasoning with you, but one of the innumerable differences between Trump's Republican Party and Hitler's Nazi Party (and Mussolini's Fascist Party etc.) was that the Nazis and Fascists were the 'New Kids on the Block'. In other words they are outsiders trying to 'break in' to the existing structure, usually with the help of massive ( non-state ) violence. And they were led by young, angry men, who bitterly resented the Establishment and simply demanded that they be allowed to lead (cf the fact that European fascists and Nazis invariably came to power after WW1: the view, common at the time, that this was a war when old men had led young men to their deaths, is highly significant here).
The American Republican Party on the other hand, is going on 200 years old, and is led by complacent, tired, wealthy old men. They are the Establishment.
The only way round this problem for those insisting that the United States, one of the oldest and most stable of all the Western Republics/democracies, now stands quivering on the verge of tyranny/civil war, is to claim that Trump is a radical, fundamentally different force in Western politics, that Trumpism has practically no antecedents (apart from Hitler etc.) and that Trump has radically and fundamentally transformed the Republican Party into something radically new.
Which is .obviously not true. There is little that Trump has done that Romney would not have done, most of Romney's supporters are also Trump's, and the amount of violence that Trump has unleashed (and the vast majority of this is state violence not non-state a huge difference between Trump and the Nazis) pales into insignificance when compared to what Bush Sr. did in similar circumstances, let alone LBJ/Nixon.
Far from terrifying the Establishment, Trump is openly ridiculed by it on late night TV (and, increasingly, daytime TV), and his inchoate and half-assed 'revolt' against Republican shibboleths has long since petered out: Trump now governs as a standard Republican, no ifs, ands or buts. You just need to ask yourself: what policy pronouncements has Trump made recently that Romney would not have made? The answer is that there are none. Romney might have managed Covid a bit better. That's it.
In any case, as has been tirelessly pointed out, there is simply no equivalent in the US Constitution for a 'total' Enabling Act of the kind that Hitler used. As Corey also points out, to describe the Nazi coup as 'constitutional' is a very big stretch: Hitler had murdered no small number of his political opponents by the time of a 'vote' which met no one's idea of 'free and fair'.
tl;dr The Republicans do not and will never rebel against the Establishment. They are the Establishment. Those who deny this are essentially arguing that the Republicans will overthrow themselves.
ph 10.23.20 at 7:49 am (no link)BlueHugh 10.23.20 at 6:20 pm ( 30 )
Welcome back, Corey and congrats on the piece.
@24 You're right. The idea that literally a fascist would permit his government, his supporters, family, and himself to be mocked on halloween pumpkins (some of these are great), on SNL, by late-night comedians, on the front page of the press and by a very substantial percentage of the population doesn't say much for his authoritarian credentials.
Re: the OP and New Yorker piece. Plenty of Dems are just as conservative as Republicans depending on the issue. Nor, do the older distinctions of conservative/liberal apply – if they ever did.
Reform act politicians and those after were much of a kind – branding various forms of sexist and elitist capitalism to appeal to a wealthy minority of like-minded bigots. The issues were opportunities to exploit sinecures and alliances, utterly un-related to any sense of the public good.
So, what do we get in 2020? At the end of the final debate we saw exactly the kind of choice we'd expect to see from any Republican and any Democrat of the modern era. Biden offered big government, higher taxes, and better equality of outcome. Trump warned that electing the Democrat would make the country less safe and send the economy over the cliff.
Based on the Frank Luntz independents post-debate response, Corey's sound analysis of the GOP electoral college strengths, and Biden's weakness among African-American males, in particular, my current call is a Trump electoral college victory similar to that in 2016, and a similar loss in the popular vote. Biden didn't do himself any favors tonight by taking a hard stance on getting rid of fossil fuels. Winning Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania just took a big hit.
The Luntz independents also wanted to know why the media has suddenly stopped talking about Biden's Burisma email problem – now that actual evidence has surfaced. RUSSIA DID IT AGAIN!!!! didn't get much traction with this particular group.
Biden succeeded in looking like the same polished, lifeless, pol from the past who voters know so well, and who does so little to win their support, especially when he's on the media loves to call Biden's 'A' game. He presented himself as the only professional politician on stage: slippery, defensive, and evasive. In doing so, Biden convinced the independent voters Luntz polled to choose Trump over Biden by a large majority.
From the Luntz group: "Words to describe Trump tonight: • "Controlled" • "Reserved" • "Poised" • "Con artist" • "Surprisingly presidential"
Words to describe Biden tonight: • "Vague" • "Unspecific" • "Elusive" • "Defensive" • "Grandfatherly"
Today's GOP stool consists of the the Plutocrats, the Theocrats, and the Yahoos. Bush the Lesser won by being a Chimera of the three; Trump is a Plutocrat who bought off the Theocrats and made himself King of the Yahoos.
Nov 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
jinn , Nov 5 2020 13:48 utc | 27
The elites may control who gets nominated but no matter how flawed or repugnant their candidate is or how obvious that the candidate was chosen for them the flocks that follow the candidates act as if they did the choosing.
Trump was given 10 times the free advertising than all the other primary candidates combined and yet his followers think they picked him.
And Biden will go down in history as the candidate who got more popular votes than any other candidate ever has and yet he is about as popular as a hemorrhoid.
Nov 05, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Rome, the USSR and Revolutionary France are all compelling analogies due to the hubristic cluelessness of their fractured elites as the pretensions of stability collapsed around them. Even though Nero didn't actually fiddle while Rome burned and Marie Antoinette didn't gush "Let them eat brioche" when notified that the peasants had no bread (or more accurately, could no longer afford it), these myths are handy encapsulations of the disconnect from reality that infested the elites in the last years before the deluge of non-linear chaos overwhelmed the regimes.
While historians gather evidence of tipping points such as pandemics, ecological damage, invasions, droughts, inflation, etc., the core dynamic is ultimately the loss of social cohesion within the ruling elites and in the social order at large.
As a generality, the permanence of the status quo is taken for granted by elites, who then feel free to squabble amongst themselves over the spoils of wealth and power. Distracted by their own infighting, the elites are blind to the erosion of the foundations of their power.
As coherence in the elites unravels, the ties uniting the elites with the masses unravel as well.
One camp within the elites recognizes the danger and seeks reforms , but the reforms are too little, too late, and in any event, the elites who cling most ardently to the past stability fight the reform movement to a standstill.
As social cohesion unravels, systems that once seemed immutable (i.e. linear ) suddenly display non-linear dynamics in which modest changes that would have made little difference in the past now unleash regime-shattering disorder.
So take your pick, America: what's the closest analogy? A sclerotic Politburo of elders living in the past, an elite fiddling while the nation disintegrates, or an elite so out of touch with reality that it claims inflation is zero while the populace can no longer afford bread?
They all lead to the same destination.
richsob , 1 hour agoHRH of Aquitaine 2.0 , 1 hour ago
I know a lot of history and I think we will go the route of Rome. We will have a slow slide into total failure from a debased currency, an over extended military, tax revolts, unmanageable immigration and an internal war among the elites.MAOUS , 31 minutes ago
My name is an indirect reference to France and the French Revolution.
When Pelosi was photo'd in front of two massive Sub Zero fridges with gourmet ice cream, that was the equivalent of "let them eat brioche." She is fvucking clueless. A tool that is barely coherent, much like Joe.
People see through it. The greed of the politicians, and their apparatchiks, the bureaucrats, is obvious to anyone willing to look. FFS apparatchiks can retire with six fixure salaries after being a government employee! People are sick to death of their arrogance, their greed, their out-and-out abuse of the taxpayer!
The other analogy, which I think is valid, is to ancient Rome. I was a philosophy major / Latin minor so took quite few courses involving the classes, reading the classics, or translating them. I also spent a semester in Rome, tramping through the Forum and walking underground and overground. In 1997 Rome was a beautiful city, mostly safe.
Anyhow, ancient Rome ended up debasing their currency, literally. Which the US (and other central banks) are doing with excessive money printing.
Excessive taxation drove away the tax base of ancient Rome. The first jingle keys event was there. Why? Taxes were too high. People will work hard if there is a profit incentive and they are able to earn a good return from their labor. Once that incentive was gone, people abandoned their farms and property and left. Where did they go? Away. Away from the tax collectors, which were richly rewarded for any taxes they were able to collect. I suppose at the end, the collection methods became quite brutal. At that point, when it is your money or your life, you throw the tax collector your money and flee with your life. You walk away from land that you love and start over.
Never an easy choice to abandon one's land and home. But that is exactly what happened.
Central bankers and governments, along with the common citizen, would do well to heed historical precedents.Omega Point , 1 hour ago
I see it more like The Godfather Part I & II. We were betrayed by the stupidest simpletons of our own family (citizenry) that sold us out for trinkets, false promises of grandeur and propaganda from Rival Mafia Families who wanted to rub our family out, kill our leader and take over. "I didn't know until today, it was Barzini all along." Yeah, but Fredo was the turn coat that made it all possible. Meet the simpletons of our Family known as your fellow American voter. "A Republic, if you can keep it." We lost it, kiss it goodbye. Say hello to the new Black Hand on the block.sbin , 1 hour ago
One of the best articles on ZH in a while. The elites are so full of hubris, they behave as if the state of affairs since the post-WWII era has always been the state of affairs throughout history and are immutable. They believe that they are cause of America's dominance, not the individuals who built this country on whose goodwill they are now quickly draining.
I think we're like Rome. Currency debasement, no border security, massively corrupt politicians, most of population on welfare, and games and circuses to distract from the rot.
The elites will soon be surprised how quickly things will decline, just as shocked as the Romans when the Visigoths came through the city walls and looted the Imperial City in 410 AD.play_arrowRKKA , 1 hour ago
The USSR was very similar with decrepit old party hacks ruining everything.
Unfortunately American exceptional lunatics will try to destroy the world before excepting reality.
Never been a group so corrupt and delusional with so much destructive weaponry.
Dr Strangelove is more appropriate.Max21c , 2 hours ago
In the summer of 1941, the 4th Panzer Division of Heinz Guderian, one of the most talented German tank generals, broke through to the Belarusian town of Krichev. Parts of the 13th Soviet Army were retreating. Only one gunner, Nikolai Sirotinin, did not retreat - very young, short, thin.
On that day, it was necessary to cover the withdrawal of troops. “There will be two people with a cannon here,” said the battery commander. Nikolai volunteered. The second was the commander himself.
On the morning of July 17, a column of German tanks appeared on the highway.
Nikolai took up a position on the hill right on the field. The cannon was sinking in the high rye, but he could clearly see the highway and the bridge over the river. When the lead tank reached the bridge, Nikolai knocked it out with the first shot. The second shell set fire to the armored personnel carrier that closed the column.
We must stop here. Because it is still not entirely clear why Nikolai was left alone at the cannon. But there are versions. He apparently had just the task - to create a "traffic jam" on the bridge, knocking out the head car of the Nazis. The lieutenant at the bridge and adjusted the fire, and then, disappeared. It is reliably known that the lieutenant was wounded and then he left towards the withdrawing positions. There is an assumption that Nikolai had to move away, having completed the task. But ... he had 60 rounds. And he stayed!
Two tanks tried to move the lead tank off the bridge, but they were also hit. The armored vehicle tried to cross the river not across the bridge. But she got stuck in a swampy shore, where another shell found her. Nikolai shot and shot, knocking out tank after tank ...
Guderian's tanks rested on Nikolai Sirotinin, like the Chinese wall, like the Brest fortress. Already 11 tanks and 6 armored personnel carriers were on fire! For almost two hours of this strange battle, the Germans could not understand where the gun was firing from. And when we reached the position of Nikolai, he had only three shells left. The Germans offered him to surrender. Nikolai responded by firing at them with a carbine.
This last battle was short-lived ...
11 tanks and 7 armored vehicles, 57 soldiers and officers were lost by the Nazis after the battle, where they were blocked by the Russian soldier Nikolai Sirotinin.
The inscription on the monument: "Here at dawn on July 17, 1941 entered into combat with a column of fascist tanks and in a two-hour battle repulsed all enemy attacks, senior artillery sergeant Nikolai Vladimirovich Sirotinin, who gave his life for the freedom and independence of our Motherland."
"After all, he is a Russian soldier, is such admiration necessary?" These words were written down in his diary by Chief Lieutenant of the 4th Panzer Division Henfeld: “July 17, 1941. Sokolnichi, near Krichev. An unknown Russian soldier was buried in the evening. He alone stood at the cannon, shot a convoy of our tanks and infantry for a long time, and died. Everyone was amazed at his courage ... Oberst (Colonel) before the grave said that if all the soldiers of the Fuehrer fought like this Russian soldier, they would have conquered the whole world! Three times they fired volleys from rifles. After all, he is a Russian soldier, is such admiration necessary? "
Ordinary people were ready to defend and die for the USSR. And who is Gorbachev, who destroyed the USSR. A traitor who betrayed everything and everyone. A stupid dilettante who imagines himself a world-class politician. The main drawback of the USSR was that the power was too concentrated in the hands of one person, who was trusted without question. But when people realized where he was leading the country, it was too late.ZeroTruth , 1 hour ago
It's a mix between Nazi Germany and its criminality and thievery and persecution machinery, and Bolshevist Russia and its criminality and thievery and persecution machinery and many third world banana republics and their criminality and thievery and political persecution machinery.
Face it Washingtonians are evil.ZeroTruth , 1 hour ago
Americuck in and of its entirety is just a criminal organization. I know a restaraunteur that started his business in the Bay Area selling drugs using a fleet of vehicles that had hidden compartments everywhere. Each vehicle was capable of holding up to half a key of yay and powdered molly already grammed up. Drivers were issued burner phones and given orders via dispatcher.
Last I checked, he had 7 restaurants that did amazing business and those vehicles were still on the road providing the other service. That's just one of the many I know of and it's small time compared to what the US government is doing.DeeDeeTwo , 2 hours ago
Americuck in and of its entirety is just a criminal organization. I know a restaraunteur that started his business in the Bay Area selling drugs using a fleet of vehicles that had hidden compartments everywhere. Each vehicle was capable of holding up to half a key of yay and powdered molly already grammed up. Drivers were issued burner phones and given orders via dispatcher.
Last I checked, he had 7 restaurants that did amazing business and those vehicles were still on the road providing the other service. That's just one of the many I know of and it's small time compared to what the US government is doing.TBT or not TBT , 2 hours ago
The elites, Big Tech, Media and Deep State threw the kitchen sink at this election and did not move the needle. Regardless of who is next President, nothing changes. This is a tribute to the stability of the American system. In fact, the pendulum is swinging against the subversives who are becoming increasingly reckless and discredited.
What did Huxley call the future country depicted in Brave New World?
Nov 05, 2020 | caucus99percent.com
Cassiodorus on Tue, 11/03/2020 - 9:14pm
1) Everyone is totally engaged in a debate over whether or not Donald Trump is a "fascist." Maybe he is. But, as I've pointed out in a previous diary , it's a weird sort of fascism that allows people the same freedom of speech and freedom of political action that they would have if Donald Trump were not President, and which in fact celebrates freedom . And indeed it is true that Donald Trump has shown what William I. Robinson calls "fascist tendencies." Robinson, for his part, projects "21st-century fascism" into the future. But, honestly, if this were 20th-century fascism, the type that actually came to fruition as fascism , you would not be reading this diary right now because it would have been censored out of existence. The state would be busy reimposing Jim Crow, and denying women rights in the manner specified in The Handmaid's Tale . It would have abolished democracy altogether, in a way that would prohibit those yelling the word "fascist" the loudest from voting him out of power. It took Adolf Hitler less than two months to establish a permanent dictatorship; Donald Trump has had four years at the pinnacle of power and does not appear to be even close to having the powers Der Fuhrer had. There is, by the way, a term for the ongoing dictatorship at the heart of our situation, the dictatorship that has persisted before Trump and during Trump and will persist after Trump; it's called "inverted totalitarianism," and it pervades the writings of Sheldon Wolin . Yet we are all obliged to call Trump a "fascist," in a sort of mandatory panic.
Saner voices have seen Donald Trump for what he is: an asshole and a troll. Yeah, let's vote him out of office, because who the f*ck likes being trolled? But those voices do not win the day, because there is nothing grandiose about not wanting to be trolled, nothing earth-shaking about saying "gee, aren't you tired of Trump's trolling of us? Let's get rid of him because he's a pest." There is also, I suppose, the attempts to abolish the Postal Service, privatize the public schools, and destroy the EPA. I put this stuff under "pest" because it's not clear that the Republicans under Biden won't try to do these same things under the radar. ("Under the radar," here, means "out of MSNBC's visual range.") The nice liberals with big egos thus appear immature for not being able to admit their (and indeed our) quotidian motive behind their (and indeed our) hatred of Trump.
2) The nice liberals with big egos are going to " Dump Trump, Then Battle Biden ." But there really is no precedent for the nice liberals with big egos actually taking on the party they've put so much energy into supporting so far, as against those evil Republicans. Is there going to be some point at which the nice liberals with big egos all say "okay, the Republicans are no longer worse, so you all have our permission to battle Biden"? It's easy to be skeptical about promises to do something that has never happened before, and that, given the way the system is set up, won't be likely to happen. The nice liberals with big egos need a contingency plan for when their vows to "battle Biden" do not reach audiences, and when the Biden administration tells us all "what are you going to do, vote Republican?". Such a plan would start, but not end, with the Movement for a People's Party .
3) The nice liberals with big egos still can't admit to the great forfeiture of Democratic Party power that happened under Obama. All branches of the Federal government, 12 governor's seats, and 900+ seats in state legislatures , from (D) to (R). It was the primary event of politics in this century, and it escapes their notice. When confronted with its reality, their explanations are lame to the point of not being credible. Come on, folks -- Obama preferred a party which didn't fight for anything YOU believed in, and all the while you were worshiping the ground upon which he walked. Admit it!
4) The nice liberals with big egos insist upon vast overestimates of the power of the Left in a situation in which the Left really has damned little in the way of any power at all. The Left had a lot of potential power in those two short periods in which Bernie Sanders was running for President. You could hear the conversations opening up -- Medicare for All, College for All, the Green New Deal. Okay, so let's go back to that atmosphere, and really put some enthusiasm into it. Or at the very least let's start with a realistic estimate of the power we have, and of the extent to which we've squandered that power by supporting neoliberals like Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Clinton Two.
So there it is. If the nice liberals with big egos want to restore my confidence in them, there's where they can start.
Nov 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Down South , Nov 1 2020 7:04 utc | 122
I keep on reading this narrative that there is no difference between Trump and Biden and no matter who you vote for the blob wins. That the effort to unseat Trump and overturn the 2016 election results, to derail his 2020 campaign is all some elaborate game of 52D chess that we are too stupid to understand.
Here is my problem with that narrative.
The political scene in the US is split between two factions 1) the US globalists (Democrats/Establishment Republicans/Deep State/Big Tech/MSM/WallStreet) and on the other side 2) US Nationalists (Trump/the deplorables).
When Trump was campaigning in 2016 he made it clear that he intended to bring back the supply chain to the US. All those manufacturing jobs that were outsourced to third world countries to maximise the profits of the large corporations we're going to be brought back and the way he intended on doing that was to exit free trade agreements that harmed US national interest and introduce protectionist policies (tariffs/ low corporate taxes etc) which would entice/induce/force manufacturers to open factories in the US again.
This horrified the globalists as they have for the past decades been implementing a controlled disintegration of the USThe great "liberalization" of world commerce began with a series of waves through the 1970s, and moved into high gear with the interest rate hikes of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in 1980-82, the effects of which both annihilated much of the small and medium sized entrepreneurs, opened the speculative gates into the "Savings and Loan" debacle and also helped cartelize mineral, food, and financial institutions into ever greater behemoths. Volcker himself described this process as the "controlled disintegration of the US economy" upon becoming Fed Chairman in 1978. The raising of interest rates to 20-21% not only shut down the life blood of much of the US economic base, but also threw the third world into greater debt slavery, as nations now had to pay usurious interest on US loans.https://thesaker.is/what-the-great-reset-architects-dont-want-you-to-understand-about-economics/
What is the eventual end goal of the globalists ?false solutions to a crisis of global proportions are being promoted in the form of a "Great Global Reset" which aims at creating a new economic order under the fog of COVID. This emerging "new order", as it is being promoted by Mark Carney, George Soros, Bill Gates and other minions of the City of London is shaped by a devout commitment to depopulation, world government and master-slave systems of social control.https://thesaker.is/one-last-chance-to-revive-americas-forgotten-constitutional-traditions-and-avoid-wwiii/
By attempting to tie the new system of "value" to economic practices which are designed to crush humanity's ability to sustain itself in the form of "reducing carbon footprints", "sustainable green energy", cap and trade, carbon taxes and green infrastructure bonds, humanity is being set up to accept a system of governance onto our children and grandchildren which will subject them to a dystopic world of fascism the likes of which even Hitler could not have dreamed.
Exiting NAFTA, implementing protectionist measures, lowering corporate taxes, starting a trade war with China (that is where the majority of the outsourced jobs went) he is trying to undo the controlled disintegration of the US. That is why the globalists hate him so much.
Oct 20, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
MARK CHAPMAN October 19, 2020 at 11:29 amCORTES October 19, 2020 at 3:23 pm
Well, well – hello, Chrystia Freeland, I'd like you to meet Andrzej Duda, President of Poland. What, your Grampy was a Nazi collaborator, too?? You're kidding me – why, we're like brother and sister!!
"Polish President Andrzej Duda pursues a Russophobic policy and actively supports Ukrainian nationalists, because one of his ancestors was a Nazi collaborator who served the Nazi invaders and took part in the massacres on the territory of Belarus.
Ukrainian publicist Miroslava Berdnik, previously persecuted by the SBU, reported this in her Telegram channel, the correspondent of PolitNavigator reports."
Eye witness account by an American immigrant of reaction in Sevastopol to events in the Maidan in 2014 at
"Auslander" 1.50pm on 19/10/20
The sequence of actions involving the "polite men in green" is different from other versions.
Oct 20, 2020 | www.unz.com
Matthew/Boston , says: October 13, 2020 at 11:51 pm GMT@GeeBeeMatthew/Boston , says: October 14, 2020 at 12:02 am GMT
I agree. I roll my eyes every time. It goes to show how deeply embedded the false narrative of NSDAP is. Many otherwise bright writers use this same example. Use the Bolshevism of the USSR instead.
Invest time in viewing 'The Greatest Story NEVER Told' or 'EUROPA: The Last Battle.' They're both long, but comprehensive.@Matthew/Boston
Bolshevism may not a good comparison to the common perception of Nazism as Hitler won over the loyalty of much of the German citizenry where Bolshevism was terror handed down to the population by the tyrannical minority at the top.
I lost all my editing time to a slow connection.
Oct 07, 2020 | failedevolution.blogspot.com
As we explained previously, what we see now in the United States with Trump, is a counter-attack by the part of the American capital against the globalist faction. The faction that is primarily consisted by the liberal plutocracy. Therefore, as the capitalist class splits, the capitalists around Trump are now taking with them the most conservative part of the American society, as they need electoral power. They have the money and their own media network. Their first big victory was Trump in the US presidency and this explains why the liberal media attack him so hard and so frequently.
The COVID-19 pandemic added more chaos in the ongoing civil war between capitalists and (as always), the working class is paying the price for the additional mess.The DNC establishment fought hard, one more time, to get rid of Bernie Sanders in order to impose its own - fully controllable and fully dedicated to the neoliberal status quo - Joe Biden/Kamala Harris duo. Obviously, this was an attempt by the corporate Democrats to challenge and beat Trump without harming neoliberal order through a Socialist like Sanders in the leadership of the Democratic Party. Still, the DNC establishment couldn't take full control of the whole situation as the most popular progressives, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, renewed their position in the party through big victories in the 2020 primaries. Furthermore, the progressive army came out stronger through significant additional victories like Cori Bush's.
Corporate Democrats' anxiety and fear that they could lose control over the party became quite evident during latest party convention, as they tried hard to "bury" their own progressives while gave plenty of time to neoliberal Republicans and war criminals to speak.
And, actually, this is the main reason that the corporate Democrats want so desperately to beat Trump in November's election.
With a potential Biden victory the corporate Dems will re-establish their position in the party against progressives, as they will be able to play the Trump-scare card for four more years.
During that time, they will get all the help they want from the liberal media to bury forever the most popular Socialist policies. Simply by claiming that the Trump nightmare could return in 2024. Therefore, they will demand "unity" from all party members under their own terms, in short, under full restoration of the neoliberal status quo. Under these circumstances, corporate Democrats will have plenty of time to assist the liberal plutocrats to take over directly the party in 2024.
On the contrary, with a potential Trump victory the Trump-scare card will be burned for good and corporate Democrats won't be able to use it as Trump won't be able to have another term in 2024.
In that case, corporate Democrats will receive additional pressure from the progressive wing and progressive voters, as these will demand radical changes inside the party towards popular policies. The liberal capitalist faction will face the serious threat to be left without political power, which by 2024, will be restricted to some moderate Republicans who are dedicated to the neoliberal doctrine. The dream of the liberal plutocrats to take over political power directly will die forever.
And this could be proved decisive for the outcome of the endo-capitalist war between the liberal plutocrats and the Trump-affiliated capitalists.
Oct 15, 2020 | www.unz.com
Hugo Silva , says: October 13, 2020 at 6:30 pm GMT@GhaliTRM , says: October 13, 2020 at 7:41 pm GMT
At this point American politics is a dispute among two Jewish factions, Trump is a pawn of the Zionist faction and was targeted for destruction by the Cosmopolitan faction. Whoever wins, we loose!@Ghali ary. The Israeli/Zionist elites care about their constituents opinions about as much as the elites in any group. ZERO. There's a big club and we ain't in it.
The Israeli/Zionist elites wanted war with Iran or slapping them back economically to the middle ages. Hillary was going to leave the Iran deal in place and Trump was going to tear it up.
Trump paid for his re-election by murdering Solemani. Trump felt he couldn't start a war in his first term so offered that up to get their support. He will be re-elected in big part because he solidified his position with them as the anti-Iran candidate.
Oct 15, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Submitted by Nauman Sadiq,
Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released an extraordinary statement on Tuesday, decrying a political scene he said "has moved away from spirited debate to a vile, vituperative, hate-filled morass, that is unbecoming of any free nation." "The world is watching America with abject horror," he added.
Romney tweeted his statement under the title "My thoughts on the current state of our politics." "I have stayed quiet," he said, "with the approach of the election." "But I'm troubled by our politics," the sole Republican to vote to impeach Trump added in his statement.
"The president calls the Democratic vice-presidential candidate 'a monster'. He repeatedly labels the Speaker of the House 'crazy.' He calls for the justice department to put the prior president in jail. He attacks the governor of Michigan on the very day a plot is discovered to kidnap her. Democrats launch blistering attacks of their own, though their presidential nominee refuses to stoop as low as others," Romney, a Utah senator who was the 2012 Republican nominee for president, complained in the statement.
Though superficially trying to appear "fair and balanced" in the didactic sermon patronizingly delivered by the only adult in the room full of political upstarts, Romney's perceptible bias in the polemical diatribe was hard not to be noticed.
It defies explanation if he didn't watch the presidential debate or consciously elided over the sordid episode where the Democratic presidential nominee contemptuously sneered at his political rival with derogatory epithets such as "a clown, a racist and Putin's puppy."
I'm not sure if Biden was high on meth during the debate, as Trump had repeatedly been insinuating, or he lacks basic etiquette to act like a dignified statesman, but only amphetamines could make a person take leave of his senses and insolently yell at the president of the US, "Will you shut up, man," while ironically complaining, "This is so unpresidential."
Though a longtime Republican senator, Mitt Romney's loyalty to the GOP was compromised due to a personal spat with Trump. In the Republican primaries of the 2016 US presidential elections, Romney severely castigated Trump, calling him "a phony and a fraud."
After Trump was elected president, he dangled the carrot of the secretary of state appointment to Romney, invited him to a dinner in a swanky New York restaurant, made him eat his words and fawn all over Trump like a servile toady. But later, he gave one of the most coveted appointments in the US bureaucratic hierarchy to oil executive Rex Tillerson.
Romney felt humiliated to the extent that in Trump's vulnerable moment, after impeachment proceedings were initiated against him in the Senate in February, Romney became the only US senator in the American political history who voted against his own Republican Party president.
Though lacking intellect and often ridiculed for frequent spelling errors on his Twitter timeline, such as "unpresidented" and "covfefe," implying he gets his news feed from television talk shows and rarely reads book and articles, Donald Trump is street smart and his anti-globalization agenda and down-to-earth attitude appeal to the American working classes.
Nevertheless, it's quite easy for the neuroscientists on the payroll of the national security establishment to manipulate the minds of such impressionable politicians and lead them by the nose to toe the line of the deep state, particularly on foreign policy matters. No wonder national security shills disparagingly sneer at the president as the "toddler-in-chief."
In 2017, a couple of caricatures went viral on social media. In one of those caricatures, Donald Trump was depicted as a child sitting on a chair and Vladimir Putin was shown whispering something into Trump's ears from behind. In the other, Trump was portrayed sitting in Steve Bannon's lap and the latter was shown mumbling into Trump's ears, "Who is the big boy now?" And Trump was shown replying, "I am the big boy."
The meaning conveyed by those cunningly crafted caricatures was to illustrate that Trump lacks the intelligence to think for himself and that he was being manipulated and played around by Putin and Bannon. Those caricatures must have affronted the vanity of Donald Trump to an extent that after the publication of those caricatures, he became ill-disposed toward Putin and sacked Bannon from his job as the White House Chief Strategist in August 2017, only seven months into the first year of the Trump presidency.
Bannon was the principal ideologue of the American alt-right movement. Though the alt-right agenda of the Trump presidency has been scuttled by the deep state, Trump's views regarding global politics and economics are starkly different from the establishment Democrats and Republicans pursuing neocolonial world order masqueraded as globalization and free trade.
Besides the Trump supporters in the United States, the far-right populist leaders in Europe are also exploiting popular resentment against free trade and globalization. The Brexiteers in the United Kingdom, the Yellow Vest protesters in France and the far-right movements in Germany and across Europe are a manifestation of a paradigm shift in the global economic order in which nationalist and protectionist slogans have replaced the free trade and globalization mantra of the nineties.
Donald Trump withdrawing the United States from multilateral treaties, restructuring trade agreements and initiating a trade war against China are meant to redress, at least cosmetically, the legitimate grievances of the American working classes against the wealth disparity created by laissez-faire capitalism and market fundamentalism.
Michael Crowley reported for the New York Times last month that American allies and former US Officials fear Trump could seek NATO exit in a second term. According to the report, "This summer, Mr. Trump's former national security adviser John R. Bolton published a book that described the president as repeatedly saying he wanted to quit the NATO alliance. Last month, Mr. Bolton speculated to a Spanish newspaper that Mr. Trump might even spring an 'October surprise' shortly before the election by declaring his intention to leave the alliance in a second term."
The report notes, "In a book published this week, Michael S. Schmidt, a New York Times reporter, wrote that Mr. Trump's former chief of staff John F. Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, told others that 'one of the most difficult tasks he faced with Trump was trying to stop him from pulling out of NATO.' One person who has heard Mr. Kelly speak in private settings confirmed that he had made such remarks."
Crowley adds, "Donald Trump now relies on 'a team of inexperienced bureaucrats' and has grown more confident and assertive, as he has already sacked seasoned national security advisers, including John F. Kelly; Jim Mattis, another retired four-star Marine general and Trump's first defense secretary; and H.R. McMaster, a retired three-star Army general and Trump's former national security adviser."
In fact, the Trump administration announced plans in July to withdraw 12,000 American troops from Germany and sought to cut funding for the Pentagon's European Deterrence Initiative. About half of the troops withdrawn from Germany were re-deployed in Europe, mainly in Italy and Poland, and the rest returned to the US.
Similarly, although full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan was originally scheduled for April next year, according to terms of peace deal reached with the Taliban on February 29, President Trump hastened the withdrawal process by making an electoral pledge this week that all troops should be "home by Christmas." "We should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas," he tweeted last week.
Even the arch-foes of the US in Afghanistan effusively praised President Trump's peace overtures. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told CBS News in a phone interview last week, "We hope he will win the election and wind up US military presence in Afghanistan."
The militant group also expressed concern about President Trump's bout with the coronavirus. "When we heard about Trump being COVID-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but it seems he is getting better," another Taliban senior leader confided to reporter Sami Yousafzai.
Moreover, Iran-backed militias recently announced "conditional" cease-fire against the US forces in Iraq on the condition that Washington present a timetable for the withdrawal of its troops. The US-led coalition has already departed from smaller bases across Iraq and promised to reduce its troop presence from 5,200 to 3,000 in the next couple of months, though Iraq's parliament passed a resolution urging the full withdrawal of US troops in January.
There is no denying the fact that the four years of the Trump presidency have been unusually tumultuous in the American political history, but if one takes a cursory look at the list of all the Trump aides who resigned or were otherwise sacked, almost all of them were national security officials.NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In fact, scores of former Republican national security officials recently made their preference public that they would vote in the upcoming US presidential elections for Democrat Joe Biden instead of Republican Donald Trump against party lines.
What does that imply? It is an incontrovertible proof that the latent conflict between the deep state and the elected representatives of the American people has come to a head during the Trump presidency.
Although far from being a vocal critic of the deep state himself, the working-class constituency that Trump represents has had enough with the global domination agenda of the national security establishment. The American electorate wants the US troops returned home, and wants to focus on national economy and redress wealth disparity instead of acting as global police waging "endless wars" thousands of miles away from the US territorial borders.
Addressing a convention of conservatives last year, Trump publicly castigated his own generals, much to the dismay of neoliberal chauvinists upholding American exceptionalism and militarism, by revealing: "I learn more sometimes from soldiers what's going on, than I do from generals. I do. I hate to say it. I tell the generals all the time."
At another occasion, he ruffled more feathers by telling the reporters: "I'm not saying the military's in love with me. The soldiers are. The top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy."
Oct 15, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
by Simon Black via Sovereign Man
American diplomat George Messersmith found himself in an awkward situation while attending a luncheon in Kiel, Germany in August of 1933.
As lunch came to a close, the attendees erupted into song with arms outstretched in the Nazi salute.
First they belted out Germany's national anthem, followed by the anthem of the Stormtroopers– the paramilitary "Brownshirts" who violently enforced Germany's new social rules.
Messersmith was the US Consul-General overseeing America's diplomatic ties with Germany, so he politely stood at attention. But he did not salute or sing along.
Germans were required by law to render the Nazi salute, especially during the anthem; Hitler had been awarded supreme executive authority only a few months before, and he made the mandatory salute law of the land.
Foreigners, however, were explicitly exempt from saluting or singing the anthem.
But that didn't help Messersmith.
Even though he was legally excused from making the Nazi salute, angry Brownshirts menacingly glared at him for not participating in their rituals.
Messersmith later wrote in his memoirs that he felt threatened, as if the Brownshirts were ready to attack him.
"I felt really quite fortunate that the incident took place within doors. . . For if it had been in a street gathering, or in an outdoor demonstration, no questions would have been asked as to who I was, and that I would have been mishandled is almost unquestionable."
Messersmith was one of the few US officials who grasped just how dangerous the Nazis were in 1933. Others had to witness it first hand before they understood.
A similar event unfolded when a US radio host and his family found themselves amidst an impromptu Nazi parade in Berlin.
And in order to avoid Hailing Hitler, they turned their backs to the parade and gazed into a store window.
But several Brownshirts quickly surrounded the family and demanded to know why they did not salute.
The family explained that they were from the US and didn't know the customs in Germany. But the Brownshirts didn't care. The family was assaulted as police officers watched and did nothing to stop the violence.
News of these sorts of incidents quickly made their way overseas, and foreigners read the about Americans traveling in Germany being savagely beaten or threatened for not engaging in Nazi rituals.
But more surprising is that many foreigners actually sided with the Nazis.
Even the daughter of the US Ambassador to Germany defended the Nazis and their Brownshirt enforcers.
She said that news reports of these assaults and beatings were "exaggerated by bitter, close-minded people" who ignored the "thrilling rebirth" Hitler had ushered in for Germany.
Of course, we know in retrospect that these early warning signs were not at all an exaggeration. They were a small preview for what would come next.
Today we are obviously in a different time dealing with totally different circumstances.
But it would be foolish to ignore the early warning signs and pretend as if what's happening now is not a preview for what could come next.
This is perhaps best illustrated by a CNN reporter in Kenosha, Wisconsin back in August who stood in front of burning cars and buildings, with a violent mob all around him, yet declared the protests "fiery but mostly peaceful."
This willful ignorance of the undercurrent coursing its way through the Western world will not save anyone from the destruction it brings.
For example, just this past Monday, "peaceful protesters" in Portland, Oregon celebrated Columbus Day with an "Indigenous People's Day of Rage."
They weren't even pretending to be peaceful. They called it what it is: RAGE. That's literally the name they gave to their own actions.
Hundreds of people dressed in all black, covered their faces, and armed themselves with shields and nightsticks. They marched their way through the city, smashed windows, and forced any witnesses to stop filming and delete photographs.
A man who filmed from his apartment's terrace had lasers shined in his eyes and was doused in some sort of liquid.
The protesters tore down statues of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. They smashed the windows of the Oregon Historical Society building, and unfurled a banner that said "stop honoring racist colonizer murderers."
Police did not even attempt to intervene until the rioters had been on the streets for hours and had already caused havoc and destruction.
(Ironically, much of the mainstream media still refuses to acknowledge that this group 'antifa'– the fascists who call themselves anti-fascists– even exists.)
It's obvious that a small, fringe, ideological minority has started to take control.
They have squashed civil discourse and free speech. Dissent is met with violence and intimidation. And if you dare to speak out, you become a target.
That could mean being "cancelled" by the Twitter mob. Or being accosted in public and forced to raise your fist. Several people have already been killed in protests across the nation.
When people like the former CEO of Twitter are calling for capitalists to be "lined up against the wall and shot," it's time to take the threat seriously.
This is far from the first time in history that a tiny fraction of the population has resorted to violence and extremism to force their agenda on an entire nation.
But you don't have to watch helplessly as the born-again Brownshirts destroy everything you have worked for.
The first step is to recognize that the radical movement will not simply go away on its own. This has been growing for some time, and history tells us that it could become much worse.NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Second, have a rock solid Plan B. This means deciding– in advance, when you're still calm and rational– what steps to take in order to secure your family's safety, your prosperity, and your freedom in a worst case scenario.
After all, you don't want to be thinking about your next move when some antifa thug 'peacefully' hurls a molotov cocktail through your window.
On another note We think gold could DOUBLE and silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES in the next few years.
That's why we published a new, 50-page long Ultimate Guide on Gold & Silver that you can download here .
Inside you'll learn...
Oct 01, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
n 1951, six years after the end of World War II, the political philosopher Hannah Arendt published The Origins of Totalitarianism , in an attempt to understand how such radical ideologies of both left and right had seized the minds of so many in the 20th century. Arendt's book used to be a staple in college history and political theory courses. With the end of the Cold War 30 years behind us, who today talks about totalitarianism? Almost no one -- and if they do, it's about Nazism, not communism.
Unsurprisingly, young Americans suffer from profound ignorance of what communism was, and is. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a nonprofit educational and research organization established by the U.S. Congress, carries out an annual survey of Americans to determine their attitudes toward communism, socialism, and Marxism in general. In 2019, the survey found that a startling number of Americans of the post-Cold War generations have favorable views of left-wing radicalism, and only 57 percent of Millennials believe that the Declaration of Independence offers a better guarantee of "freedom and equality" than The Communist Manifesto .
Some émigrés who grew up in Soviet-dominated societies are sounding the alarm about the West's dangerous drift into conditions like they once escaped. They feel it in their bones. Reading Arendt in the shadow of the extraordinary rise of identity-politics leftism and the broader crisis of liberal democracy is to confront a deeply unsettling truth: that these refugees from communism may be right.
What does contemporary America have in common with pre-Nazi Germany and pre-Soviet Russia? Arendt's analysis found a number of social, political, and cultural conditions that tilled the ground for those nations to welcome poisonous ideas.
Loneliness and Social Atomization
Totalitarian movements, said Arendt, are "mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals." She continues:
What prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world, is the fact that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience of the ever-growing masses of our century.
The political theorist wrote those words in the 1950s, a period we look back on as a golden age of community cohesion. Today, loneliness is widely recognized by scientists as a critical social and even medical problem. In the year 2000, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam published Bowling Alone , an acclaimed study documenting the steep decline of civil society since midcentury and the resulting atomization of America.
Since Putnam's book, we have experienced the rise of social media networks offering a facsimile of "connection." Yet we grow ever lonelier and more isolated. It is no coincidence that Millennials and members of Generation Z register much higher rates of loneliness than older Americans, as well as significantly greater support for socialism. It's as if they aspire to a politics that can replace the community they wish they had.
Sooner or later, loneliness and isolation are bound to have political effects. The masses supporting totalitarian movements, says Arendt, grew "out of the fragments of a highly atomized society whose competitive structure and concomitant loneliness of the individual had been held in check only through membership in a class."
A polity filled with alienated individuals who share little sense of community and purpose, and who lack civic trust, are prime targets for totalitarian ideologies and leaders who promise solidarity and meaning.
Losing Faith in Hierarchies and Institutions
Surveying the political scene in Germany during the 1920s, Arendt noted a "terrifying negative solidarity" among people from diverse classes, united in their belief that all political parties were populated by fools. Likewise, in late imperial Russia, Marxist radicals finally gained traction with the middle class when the Tsarist government failed miserably to deal with a catastrophic 1891-92 famine.
Are we today really so different? According to Gallup, Americans' confidence in their institutions -- political, media, religious, legal, medical, corporate -- is at historic lows across the board. Only the military, the police, and small businesses retain the strong confidence of over 50 percent. Democratic norms are under strain in many industrialized nations, with the support for mainstream parties of left and right in decline.
In Europe of the 1920s, says Arendt, the first indication of the coming totalitarianism was the failure of established parties to attract younger members, and the willingness of the passive masses to consider radical alternatives to discredited establishment parties.
A loss of faith in democratic politics is a sign of a deeper and broader instability. As radical individualism has become more pervasive in our consumerist-driven culture, people have ceased to look outside themselves to religion or other traditional sources of authoritative meaning.
But this imposes a terrible psychological burden on the individual. Many of them may seek deliverance as the alienated masses of pre-totalitarian Germany and Russia did: in the certainties and solidarity offered by totalitarian movements.
The Desire to Transgress and Destroy
The post-World War I generation of writers and artists were marked by their embrace and celebration of anti-cultural philosophies and acts as a way of demonstrating contempt for established hierarchies, institutions, and ways of thinking. Arendt said of some writers who glorified the will to power, "They read not Darwin but the Marquis de Sade."
Her point was that these authors did not avail themselves of respectable intellectual theories to justify their transgressiveness. They immersed themselves in what is basest in human nature and regarded doing so as acts of liberation. Arendt's judgment of the postwar elites who recklessly thumbed their noses at respectability could easily apply to those of our own day who shove aside liberal principles like fair play, race neutrality, free speech, and free association as obstacles to equality. Arendt wrote:
The members of the elite did not object at all to paying a price, the destruction of civilization, for the fun of seeing how those who had been excluded unjustly in the past forced their way into it.
One thinks of the university presidents and news media executives of our time who have abandoned professional standards and old-fashioned liberal values to embrace "antiracism" and other trendy left-wing causes. Some left-wing politicians and other progressive elites either cheered for the George Floyd race riots, or, like New York mayor Bill De Blasio, stood idly by as thuggish mobs looted and burned stores in the name of social justice.
Regarding transgressive sexuality as a social good was not an innovation of the sexual revolution. Like the contemporary West, late imperial Russia was also awash in what historian James Billington called "a preoccupation with sex that is quite without parallel in earlier Russian culture." Among the social and intellectual elite, sexual adventurism, celebrations of perversion, and all manner of sensuality was common. And not just among the elites: the laboring masses, alone in the city, with no church to bind their consciences with guilt, or village gossips to shame them, found comfort in sex.
The end of official censorship after the 1905 uprising opened the floodgates to erotic literature, a prefiguration of our century's technology-driven pornographic revolution. "The sensualism of the age was in a very intimate sense demonic," Billington writes, detailing how the figure of Satan became a Romantic hero for artists and musicians. They admired the diabolic willingness to stop at nothing to satisfy one's desires and to exercise one's will.
Propaganda and the Willingness to Believe Useful Lies
Heda Margolius Kovály, a disillusioned Czech communist whose husband was executed after a 1952 show trial, reflects on the willingness of people to turn their backs on the truth for the sake of an ideological cause: It is not hard for a totalitarian regime to keep people ignorant. Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity," for Party discipline, for conformity with the regime, for the greatness and glory of the Fatherland, or for any of the substitutes that are so convincingly offered, you cede your claim to the truth. Slowly, drop by drop, your life begins to ooze away just as surely as if you had slashed your wrists; you have voluntarily condemned yourself to helplessness.
You can surrender your moral responsibility to be honest out of misplaced idealism. You can also surrender it by hating others more than you love truth. In pre-totalitarian states, Arendt writes, hating "respectable society" was so narcotic, that elites were willing to accept "monstrous forgeries in historiography" for the sake of striking back at those who, in their view, had "excluded the underprivileged and oppressed from the memory of mankind."
For example, many who didn't really accept Marx's revisionist take on history -- that it is a manifestation of class struggle -- were willing to affirm it because it was a useful tool to punish those they despised. Consider the lavish praise with which elites have welcomed The New York Times 's "1619 Project," a vigorously revisionist attempt to make slavery the central fact of the American founding.
Despite the project's core claim (that the patriots fought the American Revolution to preserve slavery) having been thoroughly debunked, journalism's elite saw fit to award the project's director a Pulitzer Prize for her contribution.
Along those lines, propaganda helps change the world by creating a false impression of the way the world is. Writes Arendt, "The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world."
In 2019, Zach Goldberg, a political science PhD student at Georgia Tech, found that over a nine-year period, the rate of news stories using progressive jargon associated with left-wing critical theory and social justice concepts shot into the stratosphere. The mainstream media is framing the general public's understanding of news and events according to what was until very recently a radical ideology confined to left-wing intellectual elites.
A Mania for Ideology
Why are people so willing to believe demonstrable lies? The desperation alienated people have for a story that helps them make sense of their lives and tells them what to do explains it. For a man desperate to believe, totalitarian ideology is more precious than life itself. "He may even be willing to help in his own prosecution and frame his own death sentence if only his status as a member of the movement is not touched," Arendt wrote. Indeed, the files of the 1930s Stalinist show trials are full of false confessions by devout communists who were prepared to die rather than admit that communism was a lie.
Similarly, under the guise of antiracism training, U.S. corporations, institutions, and even churches are frog-marching their employees through courses in which whites and other ideologically disfavored people are compelled to confess their "privilege." Some do, eagerly.
One of contemporary progressivism's commonly used phrases -- the personal is political -- captures the totalitarian spirit, which seeks to infuse all aspects of life with political consciousness. Indeed, the Left today pushes its ideology ever deeper into the private realm, leaving fewer and fewer areas of daily life uncontested. This, warned Arendt, is a sign that a society is ripening for totalitarianism, because that is what totalitarianism essentially is: the politicization of everything.
Early in the Stalin era, N. V. Krylenko, a Soviet commissar (political officer), steamrolled over chess players who wanted to keep politics out of the game.
"We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess," he said. "We must condemn once and for all the formula 'chess for the sake of chess,' like the formula 'art for art's sake.' We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess."
A Society That Values Loyalty More Than Expertise
"Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intellect and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty," wrote Arendt.
All politicians prize loyalty, but few would regard it as the most important quality in government, and even fewer would admit it. But President Donald Trump is a rule-breaker in many ways. He once said, "I value loyalty above everything else -- more than brains, more than drive, and more than energy."
Trump's exaltation of personal loyalty over expertise is discreditable and corrupting. But how can liberals complain? Loyalty to the group or the tribe is at the core of leftist identity politics. This is at the root of "cancel culture," in which transgressors, however minor their infractions, find themselves cast into outer darkness.
Beyond cancel culture, which is reactive, institutions are embedding within their systems ideological tests to weed out dissenters. At universities within the University of California system, for example, teachers who want to apply for tenure-track positions have to affirm their commitment to "equity, diversity, and inclusion" -- and to have demonstrated it, even if it has nothing to do with their field.
De facto loyalty tests to diversity ideology are common in corporate America, and have now found their way into STEM faculties and publications, as well as into medical science.
A Soviet-born U.S. physician told me -- after I agreed not to use his name -- that social justice ideology is forcing physicians like him to ignore their medical training and judgment when it comes to transgender health. He said it is not permissible within his institution to advise gender dysphoric patients against treatments they desire, even when a physician believes it is not in that particular patient's health interest.
Intellectuals Are the Revolutionary Class
In our populist era, politicians and talk-radio polemicists can rile up a crowd by denouncing elites. Nevertheless, in most societies, intellectual and cultural elites determine its long-term direction.
"[T]he key actor in history is not individual genius but rather the network and the new institutions that are created out of those networks," writes sociologist James Davison Hunter. Though a revolutionary idea might emerge from the masses, says Hunter, "it does not gain traction until it is embraced and propagated by elites" working through their "well-developed networks and powerful institutions."
This is why it is critically important to keep an eye on intellectual discourse. Arendt warns that the twentieth-century totalitarian experience shows how a determined and skillful minority can come to rule over an indifferent and disengaged majority. In our time, most people regard the politically correct insanity of campus radicals as not worthy of attention. They mock them as "snowflakes" and "social justice warriors."
This is a serious mistake. In radicalizing the broader class of elites, social justice warriors (SJWs) are playing a similar historic role to the Bolsheviks in prerevolutionary Russia. SJW ranks are full of middle-class, secular, educated young people wracked by guilt and anxiety over their own privilege, alienated from their own traditions, and desperate to identify with something, or someone, to give them a sense of wholeness and purpose.
For them, the ideology of social justice -- as defined not by church teaching but by critical theorists in the academy -- functions as a pseudo-religion. Far from being confined to campuses and dry intellectual journals, SJW ideals are transforming elite institutions and networks of power and influence. They are marching through the institutions of bourgeois society, conquering them, and using them to transform the world. For example, when the LGBT cause was adopted by corporate America, its ultimate victory was assured.
To be sure, none of this means that totalitarianism is inevitable. But they do signify that the weaknesses in contemporary American society are consonant with a pre-totalitarian state. Like the imperial Russians, we Americans may well be living in a fog of self-deception about our own country's stability. It only takes a catalyst like war, economic depression, plague, or some other severe and prolonged crisis that brings the legitimacy of the liberal democratic order into question.
As Arendt warned more than half a century ago:
There is a great temptation to explain away the intrinsically incredible by means of liberal rationalizations. In each one of us, there lurks such a liberal, wheedling us with the voice of common sense. The road to totalitarian domination leads through many intermediate stages for which we can find numerous analogues and precedents. . . . What common sense and "normal people" refuse to believe is that everything is possible.
If totalitarianism comes, it will almost certainly not be Stalinism 2.0, with gulags, secret police, and an all-powerful central state. That would not be necessary. The power of surveillance technology, woke capitalism, and fear of losing bourgeois comfort and status will probably be enough to compel conformity by most.
At least at first, it will be a soft totalitarianism, more on the Brave New World model than the Nineteen Eighty-Four one -- but totalitarianism all the same.
A Czech immigrant to the U.S. who works in academia told me that this "is not supposed to be happening here" -- but it is.
"Any time I try to explain current events and their meaning to my friends or acquaintances, I am met with blank stares or downright nonsense," he says. His own young adult children, born in America and indoctrinated into identity-politics ideology by public schooling, think their father is an alarmist kook. Can anyone blame a man like this for concluding that Americans are going to have to learn about the evils of totalitarianism the hard way?
From the book LIVE NOT BY LIES by Rod Dreher, to be published on September 29, 2020 by Sentinel, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. Copyright © 2020 by Rod Dreher.
Augustine • a day agoEliavy Augustine • 21 hours ago
I grew up under a socialist authoritarian state and I recognized it in the US 20 years ago. In the Patriot Act, to be more precise. It was the very same kind of law that I saw enacted in the early 70s back home that turned the tide of the regime to full out repression. You're noticing it just now because authoritarianism became bipartisan, though you have been quite comfortable since your tribe started it.Feral Finster Eliavy • 13 hours ago
The week after 9/11, I wrote President Bush asking him not to let something like the Patriot Act happen. I never got a reply and wondered ever since if it went astray (it was via email) or if anyone even read it.
You are getting warmer.
I an not a 9/11 Truther, but 9/11 was hella convenient for those who wanted to saw things like the Bill of Rights as an outdated obstacle to Empire.
kenofken Feral Finster • 9 hours agoJust Stop Digging kenofken • 9 hours ago
The Bill of Rights got dumped in the drug war long before that.a Texas libertarian Just Stop Digging • 8 hours ago
<sigh> There are credible arguments to be made against the drug war, for sure, but how exactly did the Bill of Rights get "dumped"? OK I'm willing to concede that the Fourth Amendment got stretched beyond recognition to accommodate no-knock warrants and the like. Which of the rest of the Bill of Rights got dumped by the drug war?
If only liberals actually understood and believed in the 9th and 10th amendments, OTOH, we might be able to restore federal governance to something resembling sanity.Sean Whitney Just Stop Digging • 7 hours ago
Well it is clear those last two of the original amendments have been almost totally forgotten. To speak of them is near treason at this point.SimpleMachine88 Sean Whitney • 7 hours ago
Both the 9th and 10th Amendments were finally destroyed due to the drug war. The 2nd is collateral damage due to the increased use of home invasion raids by law enforcement see the "firearm enhancements". It can easily be argued that the increased militarization of law enforcement due to the drug war is a violation of the 3rd Amendment. The long sentences due given to people for possessing or selling a plant are a violation of the 8th Amendment. The right to a jury trial has been gutted via voir dire and the refusal of courts to recognize the natural right of all citizens to nullify unjust laws.
I am a liberal in the sense Patrick Henry was a liberal. We should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.Just Stop Digging Sean Whitney • 6 hours ago
It can't be easily argued that the drug war runs into the 3rd amendment, that is ridiculous. Nor is the 8th amendment really a great argument, although I do get where you're coming from.
It's obviously completely contemptuous of the idea of enumerated powers like you said before though. Why would you not mention the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, which had to be gutted for it, or the ways it runs afoul of the 14th, or basically ignores the precedent set by the 18th and 21st amendments.Mark Thomason Eliavy • 8 hours ago
I too see where you're coming from, though I think the 9th and 10th amendments were already in tatters long before the drug war began. For that blame the now 100 year plus build up of the administrative state (particularly under FDR and LBJ) and the Court's enabling of it through imaginative readings of the Commerce Clause, delegation of powers, etc. Also blame Congress's total dereliction of duty per the above.
Add on the scheme by which the Federal govt takes everyone's money, shuffles it around and then hands it back to the states, but only under the condition that they do what the Federal govt tells them to do. Thus no state actually gets to build/maintain roads, develop housing programs, expand educational access or testing, and essentially anything else without following a million federal edicts.JonF311 Augustine • 15 hours ago
Dubya's father had people who read such mail, and who answered it in his name. They seem to have passed on to him some sort of summaries of concerns.
I got from him one such answer.
The son never did that. Never.E.J. Smith JonF311 • 15 hours ago
The very fact that a website like this exists, and we comment on it, suggests that.. No, we are nit under Totalitarian oppression or even an authoritarian regime. Would Stalin or even Brezhnev have tolerated a TAC critical of the ruling party? How about Hitler, Mussolini or Franco?GaryH E.J. Smith • 11 hours ago
Excellent point. There are, however, concepts such as "controlled opposition" and "soft totalitarianism" as outlined recently in Rod Dreher's piece. The latter concerns me more.
As long as Americans believe that they are getting the carrot they will not notice the slow encroachment of the stick, particulary if it's in the hands of large mega-corporations.Just Stop Digging JonF311 • 15 hours ago
You, sir, are correct. The totalitarianism rampaging toward us is going to be a paradoxical mix of Sexual Revolution, Cultural Marxism, and Globalist Vampire Capitalism. It will feature elements that seem to have been predicted in Zamyatin's We , Huxley's Brave New World , and Orwell's 1984 . It also has been foretold in Robert Hugh Benson's Lord of the World .James Just Stop Digging • 6 hours ago
I'm sure you are well aware that Rod is not suggesting such a regime is here or coming. He has described how censorship will work / is working in painfully repetitive detail (because obviously people need to hear it over and over again).
Under soft totalitarianism, you will make the wrong response or refuse to affirm or refuse to attend the required re-education workshop and your job and livelihood will be gone. Don't pretend you don't understand Rod's argument.blej Augustine • 13 hours ago
Jonf is for the woke soft totalitarianism, a dangerous element in the church, we Orthodox Christian's need to be on guard with Catechumens , and their motives for joining the Church, as well as Cradle liberals who dominate institutions in jurisdictions like GOARCHWizard blej • 11 hours ago
The Patriot Act was always bipartisan. Please look at Congressional voting records before posting dumb stuff.Augustine blej • 10 hours ago • edited
Most really bad ideas are.blej Augustine • 8 hours ago
Who introduced and signed it into law again? Dumb stuff...Augustine blej • 6 hours ago
It had bipartisan support in Congress. Do you understand how the US legislative system works? Presidents don't unilaterally introduce and approve legislation.Mark Thomason Augustine • 8 hours ago
It wasn't introduced by Bush, but by a nobody Republican in Congress. The act has the paw marks of Republicans through and through. Just 3 Republican congressmen voted against. There's no point hiding behind the bipartisan curtain.Augustine Mark Thomason • 6 hours ago
There is much yet to be answered for in the Patriot Act origins and how it came to be passed before anyone voting on it had a chance to read it once much less review it with propper staffing.
That Act was sitting on a shelf, like a time bomb, waiting for its chance. I suspect it was part of the preparations for an apocalyptic, dystopian America after a nuclear war.
It was pulled off that shelf because it was what they had on the shelf, it was there so they used it.kenofken • 21 hours ago
And voted to renew it again and again.Mark B. kenofken • 12 hours ago • edited
"Can anyone blame a man like this for concluding that Americans are going to have to learn about the evils of totalitarianism the hard way?"
Americans have never learned anything the easy way. They don't learn the hard way either.
"Among the social and intellectual elite, sexual adventurism, celebrations of perversion, and all manner of sensuality was common."
Let no future commisar say that I didn't do my part for the revolution! I stand ready to humbly serve the people in the creation of an appropriate ministry for perversion.Kasoy • 17 hours ago
Those who will have less than five sexual partners a year and do not switch gender in over two years will be chastised for the term of 10 years by legislation.Kent Kasoy • 15 hours ago
When you remove God from your life, the inner desire implanted by God to look for the true meaning in life, & the desire to do good instead of evil remain strong. For most people, the "obvious" path is to give meaning to one's life is to follow the feel-good "social justice" road, a form of false humanism (for man & by man alone), ie, social justice without God that tries to create a paradise on earth (same way that communism tried to create a utopia without God).
Many young Americans no longer believe in God's relevance & His authority over their lives. This normally starts with the loss of respect for the authority of parents who represent God in the home (even Jesus was obedient to his mortal parents). The gradual destruction of the "domestic church", the family, in American homes is one of the immediate goals of radical agenda (eg, gender conflicts & confusion, gender id, gender choice, abortion, contraception, women liberation, etc) that results in increasing number of divorce & single-parent homes.
The only way to correct the path to a radical secular future is for people, esp the young, to regain their faith in God. The question is how. Evangelization is one. One can evangelize by words &or by acts. St Franscis of Assisi is often quoted to have said: When you evangelize, sometimes you need to use words. I think Rod is doing both through his books.richnice1975 Kent • 11 hours ago
If God isn't implanted in a child's mind at a young age, it most likely never will. People, in there 20's, who never went to church are unlikely to ever become Christians. If you don't believe Heaven and Hell exist, why do you need a Savior? Look at the number of young families with young children at Church, and consider how many aren't there. That's the future.dstraws richnice1975 • 11 hours ago
The idea of God doesn't need to be implanted in a child's mind. A child (and every person for that matter) intuitively knows that there has to be a Creator, an afterlife, and Divine Justice. As proof, I offer the fact that every civilization that has ever existed has had a religion with the aforementioned elements. Atheism did not appear until Marxism, and even then, in the Soviet Union / Russia, it did not succeed in eradicating faith and religion, which are as innate as love and sex.Wizard richnice1975 • 11 hours ago
Unfortunately for you atheism long predates Marxism. Look to the early Greeks for the first recorded instances of non-believers. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... for a overview.Fabricio González richnice1975 • 11 hours ago
They want it, they don't know it. Knowledge requires evidence. But when you want something bad enough, it's easy to regard your desire as evidence.richnice1975 Kasoy • 11 hours ago
What? Atheism is as old as ancient Greece, probably older.J Villain Kasoy • 9 hours ago
Kasoy, you hit the nail on the head. You basically echoed what I say to people all the time. You truly get it! God bless you!Wydra • 17 hours ago • edited
>"The only way to correct the path to a radical secular future is for people, esp the young, to regain their faith in God."
Exactly the thinking powering Daesh. What is wrong with people being able to decide for themselves what religion if any they want? Why is a secular state a radical idea? The US is a secular state and it has served the US well.David Bartlett Wydra • 14 hours ago
So Revolution or Civil War?
I keep hearing about one or the other, but only on the Internet.
I am of the opinion that we Americans are far too comfortable and have no stomach for privation.
We will continue to lurch along as always.Wydra David Bartlett • 13 hours ago
Does it really matter what "Americans" want? The very thesis of the article is that 'we' will do the bidding of the influential elites, regardless of whether we a) approve of their objectives, or b) are even aware of them. Like the article says, the vast majority of Americans mistakenly think that, so long as they have their routine, their job, their kids, their personal little patch of America complete with white picket fence, then, hey, how can things go wrong? "We" won't, wouldn't, couldn't, allow such a revolution or civil war to happen---why, there isn't even enough time to worry about it!
When a riotous mob of crazed BLM/ANTIFA soldiers comes marching up your peaceful street, you will become part of the 'revolution', like it or not.blej Wydra • 13 hours ago
I disagree with the dire assessment.
I don't see the fear or the desire of this anywhere but on the Internet.
Fair warning to the riotous mob - you should avoid my street during Mud Season. It can be pretty impassable if you're not used to it.peter mcloughlin • 17 hours ago
They almost always accompany each other.massappeal • 16 hours ago
Totalitarian Romanov Russia united with secular pluralist France against Germany in the lead-up to WWI. Similarly in WWII, totalitarian Marxist Russia united with the Western democracies to defeat Nazi Germany. The pattern is common place in history. Alliances reveal countries' motivations for war. And all are motivated by power.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...WilliamRD massappeal • 16 hours ago
I'll ask again (serious question): for conservatives who think we live in "Weimar America", isn't one of the major lessons for conservatives from Weimar Germany that when you're faced with the distasteful option of allying yourselves with liberals and the center-left, or allying yourselves with fascists and their street militias, it's important not to make the decision that German Nationalists did in the early 1930s?massappeal WilliamRD • 15 hours ago
The fascist are on the left. They always have been.WilliamRD massappeal • 15 hours ago
Thanks for your response, but no: https://www.britannica.com/...massappeal WilliamRD • 15 hours ago
I don't put much stock in Encyclopedias today. Like everything they've become PC.
Here's some actual. history on fascism
Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR
Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt
https://www.cato.org/public...WilliamRD massappeal • 14 hours ago
Yes, the Nazis and Fascists loved FDR which is why...they were allies of the US during World War II???blej massappeal • 13 hours ago
We were allied with one of the biggest mass murderers in history during World War 2. Joseph Stalin. Facts are facts and the facts are fascism is a leftist ideology.massappeal blej • 13 hours ago
To be fair, you can 'love' someone's ruling style and still go to war with them. Politics and warfare are about seizing power, not expressing admiration for the qualities of rivals.a Texas libertarian massappeal • 11 hours ago
To clarify, I didn't mean "love" in a personal or an emotional sense. In the case of World War II, democratic nations were opponents of fascist nations.Steve Naidamast massappeal • 10 hours ago
Before the war, many important people in America expressed approval of the fascist system and even Hitler.blej massappeal • 13 hours ago
I don't know what histories you have been reading but Adolph Hitler had no use for FDR as like many other European politicians of the day, they saw FDR as a relatively ignorant man.Aetius blej • 12 hours ago
The Nazis were basically 1848 (leftist) revolutionaries, who supported egalitarianism for German men and ethnonationalism (which was a very leftist idea when it was new). True reactionaries, like the King of Prussia in 1848, definitely did not share those values.BrotherJack Aetius • 11 hours ago • edited
Can someone explain to me what the point of these arguments are? I always see people saying the Nazis were leftists, but even if I agreed with the claim what difference does it make to massappeal's point?
Most commentators put the Nazis on the far right. They themselves considered Nazism to be a "third way" between Capitalism and Communism. It's clear that the defining traits of Nazism are totalitarianism, nationalism, social darwinism, and virulent anti-semitism. Like communism and other forms of Facism, it is a revolutionary political movement. They also supported massive government spending and social welfare programs for "aryans", in a kind of state-dominated capitalism. It is also true that Ernst Rohm and the SA wanted a socialist revolution to follow the Nazi's national revolution, but they were betrayed and Rohm was executed for being too radical.
There's the truth. Facts are Facts. So what if they are leftist or rightist? I really don't understand the value of this argument. Is this a way to link Democrats to Nazis? Seems as ridiculous as trying to link Republicans to them.Aetius BrotherJack • 11 hours ago
The point is obfuscation of reality from the US right, which has increasingly become enmeshed in world divorced from reality. Of course no respected historian places the Nazis as a Left ideology. There is some argument as to whether fascism/Nazism was Right, or neither left or right. But as an ideology, fascism and Nazism are illiberal, nationalist, and concerned with "natural hierarchies" which are anathema to "left" thought.
Anyone stating otherwise is either exceedingly stupid or not arguing in good faith. Either way, there is no point in engaging them or in giving them any platform to spout their nonsense. Shut them down, block them, mock them, and move on.
And conservatives wonder why they've "unwelcome" in academia...If you want to be taken seriously, you need to think seriously.a Texas libertarian Aetius • 10 hours ago • edited
Penetrating insight. Of course, I am sure you are right. I want to give people a chance to defend themselves though, because I would truly love to be proved wrong and shown something of which I am ignorant.Aetius a Texas libertarian • 10 hours ago
If you are honest in your search for the truth on this topic, please read Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's " Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse "
No where will you find a more comprehensive and correct analysis of the history and composition of the Left.a Texas libertarian Aetius • 10 hours ago • edited
I really appreciate the response. I read the synopsis and gather that the argument is somewhat similar to one which I have heard before, which is that all modern political movements are borne of the enlightenment, which is something I certainly agree with. There are certainly underpinnings under every modern party that find their root in the enlightenment.
The book you provided seems to be not quite that exact theory though, and of course I haven't read the whole thing...yet. But I honestly will, and I really appreciate the recommendation! Truth is truth, and it has no ideology. I will read it with an open mind.
Thanks again!a Texas libertarian a Texas libertarian • 10 hours ago
The history of right and left, nationalist and internationalist, liberal and conservative is very complex and confusing. And it is different in America than it is in Europe. America started out mostly Protestant and Liberal (in the classical sense), so any right wing or conservative movement in the US would have these foundations. In Europe, conservatives were Catholic and Monarchist.
But Monarchy gets a bad rap in American public schools and universities, dominated as they were by Protestant and Liberal thinking at their founding and by Progressive and Socialist thinking now.
Here is a definition of the Right by EvKL (in the book):"The true rightist is not a man who wants to go back to this or that institution for the sake of a return; he wants first to find out what is eternally true, eternally valid, and then either to restore or reinstall it, regardless of whether it seems obsolete, whether it is ancient, contemporary, or even without precedent, brand new, "ultramodern." Old truths can be rediscovered, entirely new ones found. The Man of the Right does not have a time-bound, but a sovereign mind. In case he is a Christian he is, in the words of the Apostle Peter, the steward of a Basileion Hierateuma, a Royal Priesthood"
And here the difference between Right and Left:"The right stands for liberty, a free, unprejudiced form of thinking, a readiness to preserve traditional values (provided they are true values), a balanced view of the nature of man, seeing in him neither beast nor angel, insisting also on the uniqueness of human beings who cannot be transformed into or treated as mere numbers or ciphers; but the left is the advocate of the opposite principles. It is the enemy of diversity and the fanatical promoter of identity. Uniformity is stressed in all leftist utopias, a paradise in which everybody should be the "same," where envy is dead, where the "enemy" either no longer exists, lives outside the gates, or is utterly humiliated. Leftism loathes differences, deviation, stratifications. Any hierarchy it accepts is only "functional." The term "one" is the keynote: There should be only one language, one race, one class, one ideology, one religion, one type of school, one law for everybody, one flag, one coat of arms and one centralized world state"Aetius a Texas libertarian • 6 hours ago
Also from "Leftism":"The rightists are "federalists" (in the European sense), "states' righters" since they believe in local rights and privileges, they stand for the principle of subsidiarity."a Texas libertarian Aetius • 5 hours ago
Beautiful quotes, my friend, I especially appreciate the latter one. I have not gotten far in the book, only 60 pages or so but I already find it fascinating, and I have gotten to that quote exactly, actually.
As a passing note, I will say that I doubt WilliamRD meant what you mean, though I could be mistaken. And I think defining Nazism as a leftist philosophy requires a semantic argument, which redefines "right" and "left" into something different than popular American political discourse defines it. And in fact, under these definitions, the Republican Party is at least partially leftist.
However, EvKL is clear that this is what he is doing, and you were clear yourself that we need to break out of these definitions. I couldn't agree more with you on that. Thanks for sending me the link, you've made me wiser.BrotherJack Aetius • 10 hours ago • edited
You are a rare and beautiful soul! I can't believe you've already read that far into the book. I will try and learn from your example, the next time someone sends me a link.
And yes, the Republican party has been infiltrated by Leftism. I'm going to give you a book link on this too, but you don't have to read it right away! Just download it, and put it away in your files for later. It's a true story that is important to know and it gets to the heart of the American Conservative / Neoconservative divide.
It's called, " The Betrayal of the American Right " by Murray Rothbarda Texas libertarian BrotherJack • 9 hours ago • edited
Fair enough. To me it's analogous to listening to someone try and argue that 1+1=7. I'm just not sure that someone attempting such a calculation has the rational faculties to provide anything worth hearing, and I don't like lending legitimacy to every silly position that a person can take. Life is short, and I prefer to hear from people who demonstrate that they're playing with a full deck and arguing in good faith. The "Leftists are the Real Racists" crowd is certainly neither of those.
Edit: And hilariously, there is an actual RW goofball on this article's comment section, posting Nazi/Fascist sympathies (@Raskolnik) . So, the proof is in the TAC comments I guess...BrotherJack a Texas libertarian • 9 hours ago
Are you arguing that Progressivism and Eugenics were not linked historically?a Texas libertarian BrotherJack • 9 hours ago
Again, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to think seriously:
https://www.aaihs.org/eugen...BrotherJack a Texas libertarian • 8 hours ago • edited
Lol. Wikipedia and a black racist journal? Seriously?a Texas libertarian BrotherJack • 8 hours ago
The genetic fallacy definition can be found many places. If you read it, you might sound a little less dumb in public. And the AAIHS is not a racist journal. I know anything with "African American" in it seems to set off a very fragile segment of aggrieved whites, but I'm sure you could judge the article based on its content. I'd link to some others, but given what you've said so far, it seems unlikely you have access to JSTOR or any other legitimate academic resources. At this point all you're really accomplishing is offering more evidence that Right Wingers are almost allergic to information that contradicts their indoctrination. There's a reason your numbers are falling in legitimate academic institutions, and it isn't due to the secret cabal of communists that seem to haunt your daydreams. It's that your positions are asinine and you're incapable of arguing effectively and supporting your positions with evidence.BrotherJack a Texas libertarian • 8 hours ago
I'm just applying the same rules to blacks as get applied to whites. Imagine what the ADL or SPLC would say of an online journal called "White Perspectives" that teaches "white history."blej BrotherJack • 8 hours ago
Good to know: you're just stupid.BrotherJack blej • 8 hours ago
If you're too much of a lazy coward for serious discussion, then just go away.a Texas libertarian BrotherJack • 8 hours ago
There's nothing serious about you.a Texas libertarian BrotherJack • 8 hours ago
Lol. There we go. I knew you had it in you.blej BrotherJack • 10 hours ago
I have not committed the genetic fallacy. I not only attack the source of Leftism. I attack it's present manifestation and the false Left / Right paradigm those in its service have constructed in order to lead us ever leftward.
Leftism's founding principle is equality. Stated synonymously, and with much historical affirmation, this means uniformity.
The modern Left supposedly prides itself on diversity but this diversity is only skin deep. It still craves uniformity. It has just learned that it needs brown skin in positions of power to supplant white nonconformance, it's main opponent. The Left cannot even tolerate the opinions of those it disagrees with. This is why it labels everyone who disagrees with it's radical social engineering program a deplorable or a racist or an outright Nazi.BrotherJack blej • 10 hours ago
An actual theocratic monarchist reactionary would consider Nazism to be leftist, and ideas of 'racial superiority' or 'racial guilt' or whatever to be very modern ideas.
Please expurgate your naïve realism - it's all a matter of perspective. To someone with current mores, the Nazis, a rehash of the ethno-nationalist 1848 Revolutions in Germany, are unspeakably reactionary. To someone with pre-Enlightenment values, they're beyond far left. Please read something written by someone who was a 'leftist' in his own day, and it will almost always be unspeakably reactionary by the contemporary standards of even those 'white supremacists' that you so hate. Here's some anti-immigrant racist Benjamin Franklin for you:
"Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind. "blej BrotherJack • 8 hours ago
This block of text is nothing but another incoherent rambling from a markedly unserious thinker. You've outed yourself repeatedly as an idiot or an ideologue. Either way, you're not worth another breath of response.a Texas libertarian BrotherJack • 10 hours ago
Whatever, coward.BrotherJack a Texas libertarian • 10 hours ago • edited
"Anyone stating otherwise is either exceedingly stupid or not arguing in good faith"
Smells like Projection and Leftism to me. But I repeat myself.a Texas libertarian BrotherJack • 10 hours ago
"Projection" is a safe word for simpletons who can't form an argument.BrotherJack a Texas libertarian • 10 hours ago
It's clear which one you think I am.a Texas libertarian BrotherJack • 9 hours ago
It doesn't really matter. You've demonstrated that you're utterly unserious. I don't care if it's because you're stupid or not.Jordan Anderson a Texas libertarian • 8 hours ago
Fair enough. Good bye.a Texas libertarian Jordan Anderson • 8 hours ago
Yes, if you simply throw out all logic and available evidence, Hitler and Mussolini were on the political left. And if you simply redefine the entire color spectrum, the sky is green and the sea is orange.
This is like History 101 people, get with the damn program.RAF BrotherJack • 10 hours ago
History 101, and it was taught to you by Marxists.
"get with the damn program"
Spoken like a Leftist.blej Aetius • 11 hours ago
Jack, if there is a nail and a head---you HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!
People do seem to try to put all of this in a left-right mindset which is more "tribal identity" than reality.
Broadly speaking ...repeat....broadly speaking----Russia and Stalin were an economic system-philosophy while Hitler carried on the German culture model of Martin Luther, which was much more GERMAN NATIONALISM -with a well documented anti-Semitism on steroids.
One was economic systems and the other one was nationalism. To put either into a leftist-rightist camp doesn't work with today's terminology.
The same way that it is not possible to call Trumpicans either conservative or liberal. The economic policies put in by Trump are reckless and certainly not conservative.
Labels are complicated.Wizard Aetius • 11 hours ago
The 'point' is to establish stigma by association. History is only useful in politics when it can used against one's enemies, either by associating with something valued or associating stigmatized history with one's enemies. It's also possible for history to be stigmatized due to its use by political enemies.a Texas libertarian Aetius • 10 hours ago • edited
The point is to score points for your tribe. I find the terms "left" and "right" increasingly useless. If they ever had value, that value is largely lost. This is especially true in the US, where left and right seem determined to degenerate into each's caricature of the other.a Texas libertarian massappeal • 11 hours ago
The point is to break out of the Left / Right paradigm as it's been presented to us by those who mean to rule us. Anybody who seriously opposes the Leftwing's steady march towards Communism, is labeled a far-right winger, and is put in the company of Nazis. They then become untouchable by normal people who have not devoted any time into historical or ideological inquiry.
This game forces normal people into the middle, and in the middle they pose no meaningful threat to the Leftward march of the establishment, because the middle cannot find the leverage to arrest its progress. The middle's only hope is to slow it down somewhat.Connecticut Farmer massappeal • 16 hours ago
Fascism has perhaps not been 'on the Left' because, historically it has always arisen to fight communism, which is the farthest Left you can get (so anything opposed to it seems, by comparison, Right), but it is fully a child of the radical Left nationalism born of the French Jacobins. It's certainly not a grandchild of the European monarchies, though conservatives have at times had to ally with it as the lesser of two evils when confronted by communism.massappeal Connecticut Farmer • 15 hours ago
In the end it was a catastrophic economic meltdown--in their case taking the form of metastatic inflation--which sent Germany off the edge of the cliff and into the abyss. So it will be with the US. Pray we don't have a recurrence of 2007. Or worse!Kent massappeal • 15 hours ago
Thanks for your response. Hyperinflation in Germany ended in 1923; Hitler came to power in 1933.
Inflation wasn't a cause (or result) of the 2007-08 recession, and it's not evident in our current recession either.massappeal Kent • 15 hours ago
There was a thing called the Great Depression that started in America but spread to Europe quickly in 1929. Hitler came to power when millions of German workers lost their jobs and had no way of supporting themselves and their families.Locksley massappeal • 12 hours ago
Yep. And Hitler came to power because German Nationalists (the conservative party) formed an alliance with him, rather than with the center-left and liberal parties.Connecticut Farmer massappeal • 13 hours ago
Nationalism, German or otherwise, is not particularly conservative. The most intelligent conservative since Burke was Prince Metternich, who regarded nationalism as his greatest enemy, especially German nationalism.massappeal Connecticut Farmer • 13 hours ago
Yes, the actual hyperinflation did indeed end around that time but by then the economic die had already been cast. The cumulative effect upon the German middle and, especially, the working class, farmers, "petite bourgeoisie" etc.,would devastate the country through the remainder of the 20s and into the 30s (my father and his parents, who were working class Social Democrats, had to get out by 1928 and were lucky to gain admittance into the US as the doors were being closed on immigration at the time). As to 2007 I totally agree that inflation was not a factor. I was evidently unclear but--that really wasn't my point. The absence of inflation notwithstanding, we know that the economy went into the soup in 2007--so much so that, to date, we have not fully recovered. My main point is to express the fear that if it were to happen again for whatever reason, if you factor in the "Kulturkampf" within which American society is currently embroiled we are going to have one HELL of a mess on our hands.Connecticut Farmer massappeal • 12 hours ago
And given that, isn't it all the more important to try to avoid the political mistakes German conservatives made in the early 1930s when they chose to ally themselves with the Nazis?totheleftofcentre massappeal • 12 hours ago
That's for sure!Lynx2015 massappeal • 11 hours ago
Yes, it is. As we see here, conservatives like Rod think they can control the extremists. No snark this time, they really believe that.
They couldn't even control Trump.massappeal Lynx2015 • 11 hours ago
I think the bigger concern is the alliance of the center left with two marxist movements especially considering the right cannot ally with nazis as there are no comparable nazi organizations availableLynx2015 massappeal • 10 hours ago
Thanks for your response. What are you referring to here---"the alliance of the center left with two marxist movements"?Disqus10021 Connecticut Farmer • 12 hours ago
One of the three co-founders of BLM stated in an 2015 interview that she, Patrice Collers, and one other cofounder, Alizia Garza, are trained marxists. If the leadership claims they are marxist, then what is the BLM movement?
See here: https://www.politifact.com/...
Anarchists and Marxists simply have different methods of achieving the same goal. For an example of anarchist goals, see the collectivist actions of the Catalonian anarchists during the Spanish Civil War.
These are both anti-democratic and dangerous movements which the center left is happy to work with.Steve Naidamast Disqus10021 • 10 hours ago
It was the ruinous inflation of 1923 COMBINED with the high unemployment in 1932 that encouraged millions of ordinary Germans to vote for the Nazis twice in 1932. Some wealthy Republicans seem to forget this as they lobby for more tax cuts and foreign aid to Israel. They also appear to forget that the period 1871-1914 was something of a "Golden Age" for German Jews. Germany's defeat in WWI AND the harsh peace treaty imposed on it by the other side were more than enough to offset the benefits of a new democratic constitution adopted in Weimar in 1919.
It is hard to believe that two decades ago, the US budget actually turned positive for a brief period of time, that the national debt was expected to be paid off in a decade or so and that some economists were wondering how the Fed would conduct monetary policy if there were no Treasury securities to buy and sell. They need not have worried. These days, the national debt is out of control. Instead of worrying about the future, I can take consolation in the fact that I have outlived (by more than a decade) all of my father's relatives who were still living in Poland in 1939. For them, the end of the line was an extermination camp called Belzec.Disqus10021 Steve Naidamast • 9 hours ago
It wasn't just the 1929 Depression that caused so much hardship in Germany. In 1933 after Adolph Hitler came to power and Germany was just beginning to crawl out of the shock of their own depression, the international Jewish Community (Zionists) launched its economic war on Germany, which native, German Jews pleaded with their western brethren to not do. Ignoring the German Jews requests, the economic war against Germany persisted, causing massive economic disruptions as the popularity of this endeavor was picked up around the world...Connecticut Farmer Disqus10021 • 8 hours ago
The first anti-Jewish measure put in place by Nazi Germany started on April 1, 1933 when Aryan Germans were encouraged by the government to boycott Jewish businesses in Germany. The boycott was the first of many anti-Jewish measures taken by the Nazis over the next 12 years. This boycott was followed on April 7, 1933 with the forced retirement of most non-Aryan (i.e. Jewish) civil servants in the country and a book burning of books by Jewish authors on May 10. There is a whole list of anti-Jewish measures taken by Nazi Germany in the museum catalog "Jews in German under Prussian Rule". Used copies are available at Amazon.
The economic response by Jews living outside Germany was a failure. It was the Battle of Stalingrad and the brutal Russian winter of 1942-43 that turned the tide of WWII in EuropeRaskolnik massappeal • 15 hours ago
Bit off topic but not long ago I read that of all the major industrial countries the one that supposedly suffered the least from the effects of the Depression-- was England!massappeal Raskolnik • 15 hours ago
The conservatives (right-liberals) have done nothing but ally with the left-liberals against the "fascists" (actual right wing) since 1945. Their entire raison d'etre is to lose gracefully while preventing the actual right wing from ever coming anywhere near power.Raskolnik massappeal • 15 hours ago • edited
Thanks for your response. So, are you suggesting conservatives should ally themselves with fascists?massappeal Raskolnik • 15 hours ago
Yes, if they actually care about accomplishing their stated policy goalsRaskolnik massappeal • 15 hours ago
Thanks for your direct and clear answer, making clear your support for fascism.Woland massappeal • 12 hours ago
You're welcomeBrotherJack Raskolnik • 12 hours ago • edited
And if you believe WilliamRD just above, fascism is a leftist ideology, and the natural enemy of conservatism.
The right should get its internal affairs in order, or we're gonna need some new labels in the near future.Raskolnik BrotherJack • 11 hours ago
Finally, full-throated support of fascism on TAC.
Well, if there is some "revolution", don't be surprised when you get the wall.BrotherJack Raskolnik • 10 hours ago
How exactly do you plan on accomplishing your "revolution" from the inside of a detainment camp?Raskolnik BrotherJack • 8 hours ago
Keep digging, Nazi.blej BrotherJack • 11 hours ago
I will, CommieBrotherJack blej • 10 hours ago
He won't be, but you definitely will be when you get it.Schopenhauer Raskolnik • 12 hours ago
Scary stuff, dork.Annie from Alaska massappeal • 14 hours ago
Thank god they serve some purpose then.massappeal Annie from Alaska • 14 hours ago
I would call that "overfitting," expecting to find exact matches among the parties involved. My lessons:
- people can be given scapegoats in lieu of hope. "Yes, we've gutted manufacturing and flooded the country with low-skill illegal labour, but what's keeping you down is systemic racism. There is a secret hatred for the colour of the skin inside all white people. They can't even see it themselves, but it's there. Just look at all these stories from the Jim Crow era and get angry about them again, and you'll find that if you don't for me you're not really black."
- nothing's more dangerous than a well-meaning good person convinced they're better than everyone else, led about by skilled propagandists with total control of news and entertainment.
- projection and false flag operations are at the top of the propagandist's toolbox. If you're "fighting racism," you can see race everywhere and treat it as the defining aspect of every person you meet and the source of all their opinions. If you're "fighting fascism" you can dress in black and run around starting fires, attacking Senators, and shooting people for their political beliefs. If you convince everyone "white supremacist terror groups" are the biggest threat to the country you can unleash rioters on every major city to fight one rather well-behaved seventeen-year-old in one city. You can unleash a steady stream of hoaxes: Russiagate, a short clip of the longer George Floyd video that obscures why he died, the Covington Catholic Smirk of Supremacy, bleach and "This is MAGA country." It doesn't matter. The bigger the better: people will always believe the big lie.
You should think about your own role in all this. What part of Weimar are you playing?Gaius Gracchus massappeal • 13 hours ago
Thanks for your thoughtful response. To answer your question, I play a small-to-the-point-of-insignificance role these days, trying to lower the political temperature in this time of pandemic, and trying to make the case for small 'd' democracy as the best (and highly imperfect) method for dealing with the challenges we face.
It's in that context that I find hope in the growing number of conservatives (most recently, former Montana governor and RNC chair Marc Racicot) who are placing "country over party" and stating their support for Biden, not because they agree with his policies but despite their disagreement with them.massappeal Gaius Gracchus • 13 hours ago
These folks are not putting "country over party". They are tied into the Uniparty ruled by the oligarchs doing the bidding of their masters.
Putting "country over party" would require them calling for the arrest of all those who were involved in the Russian collusion hoax, Spygate, and everything else, from Obama on down.
Putting "country over party" would require them to put the well-being of the citizens first and support an end to endless war and to support enforcing immigration law and fixing trade.
No, these every alleged Republican or conservative supporting Biden is showing that they are and have always been a fraud who doesn't believe what they preached and would rather continue in the good graces of the rich and powerful that really rule the country.Nate J Gaius Gracchus • 8 hours ago • edited
Thanks for stating your views so clearly.blej massappeal • 13 hours ago
Support for country over politics and personal gain. Going back to the "normalcy" of the pre-Trump political order. Pick one. You don't get both.
Anyone who tells you how important it is for "the good of the nation" to go back to the long list of careerist politicians, hacks, and establishment elite who have governed it towards its ruination must first make the case that the "norms" of American political culture were good and righteous or (even from a strictly amoral view) practically useful. They never do, though.
It's always asserted as if it is a self-evident fact that we need to go back to the days of Bushes, Clintons, and Bidens, but nobody can really explain why.massappeal blej • 13 hours ago
Leftists don't want us as allies, and the 'street militias' are almost entirely leftist. Institutional elites in Germany supported National Socialism, while in the US today they support leftists.Just Stop Digging massappeal • 12 hours ago • edited
Thanks for your response. Sure, there are those on the left who want nothing to do with centrists and conservatives. (Heck, some of them barely tolerate liberals.) But the Democratic party chose its most moderate candidate as its standard-bearer in this election, and Biden has made clear he welcomes the support of centrists and conservatives and Republicans.
(As for militias, per the FBI (not known as a bastion of liberalism) right-wing militias are by far the largest domestic terrorism threat.)massappeal Just Stop Digging • 12 hours ago
Like the Republican party in the Trump era, there is no longer such a thing as the Democratic party in its traditional sense. As the GOP is an empty vessel now filled with Trumpism, the Democratic party is an empty vessel being filled with progressivism (an ongoing process). The traditional Democrats (like old-school moderate African-Americans) who put Biden over the top in the primary are otherwise powerless in the party.
Biden has made it clear that he will not push back against the far Left in any way - in his refusal to comment on packing SCOTUS, ending the Senate filibuster, ending the electoral college (the lack of an answer to these being itself an answer), in his absorption of much of Bernie's platform into his own, in his silence on urban riots and looting until campaign people told him it was affecting polling (and his response since has been tepid at best).
He lied gleefully (Trumpily?) during the debate about the prog platform - his own campaign website lists support for GND and an expanded "reimagining" of the suburbs among many other progressive goals which Trump is too inarticulate and ignorant to frame sensible arguments against.
The Democrats are planning to govern on the basis of vengeance and revolution. The mood of the base could not be more clear.Just Stop Digging massappeal • 11 hours ago
Thanks for your response. Unlike the Republican party, the Democratic party still has a party platform that extends beyond (far beyond, 90 pages beyond) fealty to its party leader. As Biden won a majority of the delegates, the platform those delegates adopted reflects the views of the factions that chose Biden more than it does any other faction in the party.
Biden has pointedly and repeatedly distanced himself from the policy wishes (e.g., Medicare for All, Green New Deal, defund the police) of the left-wing of the Democratic party.marku52 Just Stop Digging • 11 hours agoVice President Biden knows there is no greater challenge facing our country and our world. Today, he is outlining a bold plan – a Clean Energy Revolution – to address this grave threat and lead the world in addressing the climate emergency.
Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.
https://joebiden.com/climat...Biden will implement the Obama-Biden Administration's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule requiring communities receiving certain federal funding to proactively examine housing patterns and identify and address policies that have a discriminatory effect. The Trump Administration suspended this rule in 2018.
https://joebiden.com/housing/Giving Americans a new choice, a public health insurance option like Medicare. If your insurance company isn't doing right by you, you should have another, better choice. Whether you're covered through your employer, buying your insurance on your own, or going without coverage altogether, the Biden Plan will give you the choice to purchase a public health insurance option like Medicare. As in Medicare, the Biden public option will reduce costs for patients by negotiating lower prices from hospitals and other health care providers. It also will better coordinate among all of a patient's doctors to improve the efficacy and quality of their care, and cover primary care without any co-payments. And it will bring relief to small businesses struggling to afford coverage for their employees.
and plenty more where that came fromblej massappeal • 11 hours ago • edited
BIden as a captive of the left? When he spent literally most of the debate kicking them?
Laughable. Biden is a moderate republican, or would be before the GOP went completely off the rails.totheleftofcentre massappeal • 12 hours ago
I don't deserve your thanks, kind sir. You're vastly overestimating the social importance of presidential elections, imo. And I don't believe the FBI. Every other institution in American society is virtue signaling support for the woke left, so why not them? They know who is going to run the country next year. Do you believe that the rioting and destruction this summer was caused by right-wingers? I have heard that conspiracy theory before, and I suppose it's the closest thing we'd ever get from leftists to an admission that the events were negative.
I think that there is definitely a strong double standard when it comes to media reporting and institutional acknowledgment of violence based on the demographics and politics of the perpetrator. There was a huge mass shooting in the city I live in last year, but the shooter (DeWayne Craddock) was black and had a stereotypically black given name. There was very little reporting on it as compared with the Texas church shooter that occurred at about the same time.JWJ massappeal • 12 hours ago
No, because we on the Left are always the greater evil.
The (few) bad tendencies of (some, very few) people on the Right can be contained and governed by the other conservatives.
/SNARKQballK JWJ • 12 hours ago • edited
In Germany, the national socialists and communists were battling for totalitarian control. Both of them were on the left. Dictatorship either way.
The real question today in the US is whether old fashioned liberals [belief in free speech, political discourse without threats or actual violence, natural American patriotism, etc] will disavow the violence and intimidation from the leftist totalitarianism that is the democrat party today.
The rioting, the burning, the street violence, the death threats of lining people against the wall, etc., etc., is pretty much all from the totalitarian left. I could give you hundreds of examples, the most recent the former CEO of Twitter wanting to shoot political opponents.
This hate-filled rhetoric from the totalitarian left is an attempt to dehumanize people they disagree with, to hate them. This is simply preparing for the stage that those the totalitarian left disagrees with should be sent to gulags at a minimum, or killed.
This is all with the approval and help of the "mainstream' democrat party. Denying this just makes you not credible.
p.s. Biden, at best, is a partial senile figurehead, whose function is to mask what the totalitarian left really wants to do.Disqus10021 QballK • 11 hours ago
Oh what Jonah Goldberg has wraught with this "NAZI's we're leftists" horseshit. I guess when you be been absolved of the notion that right wing thought had anything to do with the rise of fascism in Europe, you can say any horrible thing you'd like about people of another race, ethnicity, or religion ruining your pretty Lilly white country.massappeal JWJ • 11 hours ago
"As the eldest son of Bertha Krupp,
Alfried was destined by family tradition to become the sole heir of the
Krupp concern. An amateur photographer and Olympic sailor, he was an
early supporter of Nazism among German industrialists, joining the SS in
1931, and never disavowing his allegiance to Hitler."JWJ massappeal • 11 hours ago
Thanks for your response. In case anyone else still isn't clear, and just for the record, the Nazis were not "on the left". https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...Mark Thomason massappeal • 8 hours ago
The national socialists were on the left. You may lie about it, I can't stop you.
But what is definitely clear is the national socialists were brutal evil totalitarianists [new word?]. Just like the communist dictatorships in russia, china, cambodia, cuba, etc.
This is the leftists/wokesters blm antifa [the brownshirts of today] in the US, with the tacit/explicit approval of democrat leadership.massappeal Mark Thomason • 7 hours ago
They would not have been better off aligned with Stalin, which was the other side in their domestic political extremes. It too was rioting in the streets.
The middle got too narrow to survive. That does not mean the other extreme was an acceptable choice, much less a better choice.Daniel Baker massappeal • 7 hours ago
"The middle got too narrow to survive."
No. For example, the Nazis and the Communists *combined* only accounted for 40% of the parliamentary seats after the 1930 election. If the center-right, centrist, and center-left parties had formed an alliance, they could have governed the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...Unpaid correcter Daniel Baker • 7 hours ago
I'm not really a conservative, but I share many concerns and values with conservatives. I do agree that it's better to ally with liberals and the center-left than to join right-wing authoritarians, and for that reason I have, however reluctantly, cast my mail-in vote for Joe Biden.
That said, I think you misinterpret the choice that ultimately faced German nationalists in 1932. By that time, the liberals and center-left had shrunk to powerlessness at the national level, and the republic itself was dead in all but name. The choice as the German nationalists saw it, and very likely as it actually was, was to join the communist KPD or the fascist National Socialists, both of whom were determined to kill the republic. Even a friggin' restoration of the Kaiser would have found more support at that point than the continuation of a liberal center-left republic which had been thoroughly repudiated by all the strongest players.
In retrospect, we know that even the KPD might have been less bad than the National Socialists, because the KPD probably wouldn't have blundered into another world war like the National Socialists did (Stalin, after all, avoided war with the USA and UK). But that would have been hard for German nationalists to foresee in 1932. The obvious question for them in making their choice was "Whose death list am I on?" If you were a business owner, independent farmer, or churchman, your chance of survival seemed better under the National Socialists; if you were nonwhite, or gay, or Jewish (always remember many German Jews were fervently nationalist; some of the men murdered in the camps had won Iron Crosses in World War I), you would have a better chance of survival under the KPD. If the businessmen, farmers and churchmen could have foreseen that the National Socialists were going to throw away their lives in another pointless war, they might have taken their chances with the communists instead.
Switching now to modern America, it seems as hard to predict now as it was for the Germans in 1932 which party will get us into a massive bloodbath overseas. Trump talks the nonintervention talk sometimes, but he never withdraws troops, twice came within a micron of getting us into a war with Iran, and consistently behaves bellicosely with foreign powers. Biden's record in supporting the Iraq War and the Libya intervention show that a vote for Democrats is no sure vote for peace either. In any case, dying in a conventional war is a very remote risk for most Americans; our forces are too strong and technologically advanced. Nazi Germany lost seven times more dead just invading Poland than America lost in the whole Afghanistan war. The true nightmare scenario for America is nuclear war with Russia, and there's no dispute about which party is more hostile to Russia.
My point is, if we've truly reached 1932 Weimar, it's already too late to ally with liberals and the center-left. The far right and the far left were their only options, and both led to disaster.
My fervent hope is that we're still closer to 1929 Weimar than 1932. The republic is sick, perhaps dying, but not everyone has lost faith in it; below the level of the political and media elites, confidence in the republic is still strong. The US military still supports the republic to an extent the Reichswehr never did. Biden is no fire-breathing radical; he's an establishment man to his bones. He has no idea how to cure the republic, and his policies helped bring it to this low ebb, but at least he isn't out to murder it. That's why I was willing to vote for him. But it's merely a stopgap measure. The far left is busily taking over Biden's party, and far from resisting it, he sees it as a useful ally against the right. The far right, of course, has long been doing the same to the Republican Party. We may not have arrived yet at 1932's dreadful choice between cutthroats, but we are speeding down that road, and it is crazy to imagine that a mere presidential vote for either of these two clowns is going to change our course.
What will change our course? I have only the haziest idea, and I'm eagerly looking forward to Rod's book for suggestions.massappeal Daniel Baker • 7 hours ago
This is the best answer, but radicals will just look at your "whose death list am I in" argument and say "yep the bourgeoisie should die, and so should anyone who supports them".
That's why I don't even bother anymore.Just Stop Digging Daniel Baker • 6 hours ago
Thanks for your thoughtful and informative response.Disqus10021 Daniel Baker • 5 hours ago
Agreed that this is a thoughtful response. While I may even more reluctantly cast my ballot for a despicable lunatic instead, I relate to much of the above.Unpaid correcter massappeal • 7 hours ago
In the 1928 German elections, 15 political parties won seats in the Reichstag (parliament), with the Nazi party winning fewer than 3% of the seats. Germany's proportional system of allocating seats meant that even small parties could end up with a small number seats. Two years later, 15 parties again won seats in Reichstag elections. The Nazi party made the biggest gain in seats at the expense of more centrist parties. In both national elections held in 1932, 14 political parties won seats, with the Nazi party winning the most seats. The popularity of the Nazi party grew as economic conditions in the country worsened.
In 2020, the Covid-19 virus may have merely accelerated trends which were already in place in the US.seydlitz89 • 16 hours ago
That's a stupid false equivalency and a scarecrow argument in one, maybe even a no true scotsman to go with that. You're aware that there were several conservatives opposing Hitler, right? Opposition wasn't just carried out by the far-left, some of which were in the SA/The Nazi party themselves . See: strasserism.
Books, read themmarku52 seydlitz89 • 10 hours ago
Rod, I agree with you about Arendt and her classic work, the best work in political history/theory of the 20th Century imo. But there is a reason why no one quotes it today. You mention only the last chapter of TOoT, but in Part II she goes into great detail about how capitalism led to imperialism which used racism as a means to that end. The "mob" originates with those displaced by The Great Transformation (Polyani's term) brought about by capitalism and the rise of bourgeois society . . . it is this mob that later forms the basis for totalitarian movements. Arendt's analysis covers a period of about 400 years, not simply the aftermath of World War I which was a result of the crisis that had already begun, that is the dissolution of the nation state . . .a Texas libertarian seydlitz89 • 38 minutes ago
But that would be uncomfortable to point out, as it is the rise of right wing economics that was destroyed the middle class in this country, and lead us to this parlous state.
For a long time, the right has happily embraced the culture wars to hide the destruction of the libertarian economic policies, that as always are looking for a way to crush labor power.JonF311 • 15 hours ago
So capitalism and the rise of the bourgeois (middle class) led to totalitarianism?Just Stop Digging JonF311 • 15 hours ago
An anaylsis of the Communist takeover of Eastern Europe and East Asia that leaves out the World Wars is like an American history text that leaves out the Civil War. In every single Eurasian country from Hungary east to North Korea where the Communists came to power WWI and/or WWII was a key factor. No war, no Communist takeover. (And it regards to the Nazis in Germany WWI is also a crucial factor on their coming power)
What would play the role of those wars in our future if some manner of totalitarian government of the Left or Right junked the Constitution and seized power by force?Freespeak Just Stop Digging • 14 hours agoTo be sure, none of this means that totalitarianism is inevitable. But they do signify that the weaknesses in contemporary American society are consonant with a pre-totalitarian state. Like the imperial Russians, we Americans may well be living in a fog of self-deception about our own country's stability. It only takes a catalyst like war, economic depression, plague, or some other severe and prolonged crisis that brings the legitimacy of the liberal democratic order into question.
Again, why are you responding to an argument that Rod is not making? He didn't write The Handmaid's Tale,
What were the catalysts for Cuba or Venezuela? Or the many socialist regimes in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America during the postwar decades?Just Stop Digging Freespeak • 13 hours ago
Revolutions against outside imposed dictatorships left over from a soft imperialism.
Platt Amendment, Banana Wars, School of the Americas and coups for days set up the conditions for people to not trust there near neighbor oppose to its distant enemies during the Cold War and the legacies from it created the social conditions for. We as a state literally supported death squads in Central America. Leading to the weak states and strong gangs in the region. The seeds of any empire bear bitter fruits. It is also where the police state we now see was created and imported home.dstraws Just Stop Digging • 12 hours ago
As is so often the case, there are various partial truths in what you say but they don't add up to the simplistic conclusion. BTW Venezuela was a relatively wealthy and successful country when Chavez took over; the factors you list were long before and not involved. Rather what happened was existing inequities and problems were utilized to enable a power grab. In the same way that poor blacks and other minorities are being used to enable the current power grab, divide and conquer as always - in the end, they will be just as removed from power as they are now. Like all the woke white chicks, they are just considered useful idiots for the progressives seeking power.We as a state literally supported death squads in Central America. Leading to the weak states and strong gangs in the region. The seeds of any empire bear bitter fruits.
Not that simple. The weak states and strong gangs came first. The weak states and corrupt governments and deep inequities created the instabilities that motivated insurgencies. Lack of a rule of law and the inability of the state to protect you forces people to turn to (and form) gangs for protection. All of this played out against a backdrop of a global conflict between two empires, two ideologies which further fueled all the conflicts.
There were death squads and all sorts of other abuses on all sides. There are no clean hands in such a conflict. It was not possible to remain neutral unless you were Swiss.Just Stop Digging dstraws • 11 hours ago
All of the problems you cite concerning central america are an outgrowth of the "governments" the US government/business imposed on those countries. The societies of central and south america were and are highly stratified with "Europeans"--ancestry--occupying the highest rung and receiving the lions share of the wealth. That's the reason Castro and Chavez had such an easy time overthrowing the governments and why there is so much resistance to a return of the previous conditions.Freespeak Just Stop Digging • 11 hours ago
International relations and history are a lot more complicated than you think they are. The endless desire for Americans to find quick and dirty feel-good good vs bad answers to everything goes a long ways towards explaining the degrading of this society and its governance.
I note again that Venezuela was in a rather different state than pre-Castro Cuba. But yes having a large underclass that feels disconnected and deprived of what the rest of a society has goes provide fertile fuel for revolution.Schopenhauer Just Stop Digging • 12 hours ago
MS13 and Barrio 18 were born in the US from refugees fleeing our dirty wars in Central America. Poor wealth distribution leads to it. So glad you realize wealth focus is bad. Also oligarchs are bad. We supported those corrupted governments leading to the revolutions leading to the net result. Ever hear of United Fruit and the banana men? Imperial Companies support weak government because they can influence it.Just Stop Digging Schopenhauer • 11 hours ago
Well the catalyst for Cuba was Batista staging a coup, seizing power, and destroying the democratic process (with full US support) in 1952. Less than 10 years later, a popular revolution overthrew him. That revolution has proven a much tougher nut to crack. It's almost as if overthrowing democracy and giving into a strongman's appetite for power has consequences down the road.Ted JonF311 • 14 hours ago • edited
One could also say that trying to jump start / leap frog your way into equality and "justice" also has consequences down the road. A lesson that humans absolutely refuse to learn, thus condemning generation after generation into misery.
No one "gives into a strongman's appetite for power". People make choices based on incentives and possible outcomes. Rod uses the Franco example often. People often have to choose between two terrible outcomes - in which case they choose the one that has a better chance of their own survival or the survival of what they care about.Just Stop Digging Ted • 14 hours ago
I can't comment about east Asia because I don't now enough about it, but as the great historian John Lukacs never tired of saying, the only country in Europe where the Bolsheviks triumphed politically was Russia. The Spartacists and the Bela Kun horror fizzled out. After the second war the Communists needed the Red Army to set up puppets. There was no "revolution" in Poland, Czech, Hungary or anywhere because nobody wanted it. Yugoslavia may be a partial exception, but look what happened to Yugoslavia.Ted Just Stop Digging • 13 hours ago
Good point. I guess we could make the argument that the Red Army sweep over Eastern Europe and absorption of all those countries into the Soviet empire required WW2 to occur, but that seems like not the argument that Jon is making in response to Rod's thesis.Just Stop Digging Ted • 11 hours ago
I was agreeing with him. But "what would play the role of those wars in our future" would be...a war. Which Biden (or, the Pentagon) has up his sleeve ("America is Back"). Experto crede. Do you not believe that the Kagan/Rubin/Boot crowd would shy from a shooting war with Russia? Because I don't.Ted Just Stop Digging • 8 hours ago
Thankfully empty-headed blabbers like Rubin and Boot are well removed from actual power (and even, I would say, influence - in fact it is unclear to me why anyone publishes their rantings). The people with influence in a Biden administration will be people like Harris, Warner, AOC, etc. I don't think they're really aching for a war.
But the point is that you don't need a war - the catalyst can be another major event like economic depression, a global pandemic, etc, etc.Just Stop Digging Ted • 8 hours ago
Well, we're asking the who/whom question only one way, it seems to me. Everybody is rightly convinced that on social and economic issues AOC and Princess Tiger Lily will have the wheel in a Biden administration. But who's to say that in foreign policy Gersonism won't prevail? All these never Trumpers are going to be looking for their rewards. Remember, Hillary destroyed Libya as a resume enhancer. And the Army has gone left. One of the things Trump mideast deal has done is set up a Sunni/Shia showdown. Why not follow through?Ted Just Stop Digging • 7 hours ago
Fair enough. I suppose that's possible, and the young AOC type progs barely know where anything on the globe is outside the US so they might be happy to let the old "experts" take back over foreign policy. Not where their interests lie, for sure.
I disagree about the mideast deals, though - a Sunni vs Shia conflict has been baked into the cake from the beginning (see: Iran Iraq war), and it was Obama's crazy Iran deal that started everyone back on that path by strengthening Iran and trying to push it into place as a regional hegemon. That was never going to go down with the Sunni countries.
The apparently not actually so naive Kushner was able to take advantage of new incentives that Obama's machinations created. I see this as quite positive.Just Stop Digging Ted • 6 hours ago
We'll agree to disagree about the mideast, which I really just brought up e.g. The one they're really lusting for is a shooting war with Putin. Have you read Gerson on that subject? What's the outcome of Mrs. Sikorsky's bellicosity but that? What else has all this NATO expansion been for, anyway?Civis Romanus Sum Ted • 12 hours ago
Haven't read Gerson in a while. I see your point, though I don't really think any of these people are quite reckless enough to lust for a war with a nuclear power.
But nowadays I suppose anything is possible.Ted Civis Romanus Sum • 11 hours ago
Partially correct. Czechoslovakia was an exception: Communists came to power as a result of a free election in 1946. But it was something of an outlier, probably the most left-wing country in Europe.Disqus10021 JonF311 • 11 hours ago
Oh, "free election."dba12123 . Disqus10021 • 6 hours ago
It was Bush 43's costly Middle East adventures at a time when he was cutting income taxes that set the US economy on the terrible path it is on now. Our national debt is out of control. Many young people will leave college with massive student loan debt, poor job prospects and, in many areas, very expensive housing. We have paid and will continue to pay a very high price for trying to be the world's policeman.Rick Steven D. • 15 hours ago
Obama, the wild eyed leftist spender, cut the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit that W ran up with his tax cuts and catastrophic war down to 585 billion. By the end of '19, before any Covid-19 spending took place, Trump had run it back up to 984 billion. Growth has been a meager two tenths of one percent higher in the first three years of Trump's presidency than it was during the last three years of Obama and it has come at a high cost.Connecticut Farmer • 15 hours ago
"...which seeks to infuse all aspects of life with political Consciousness."
Which explains the absurd phenomenon of polically-correct stand-up comics. Guess what? They're not funny. 'Whimsy' won't get you belly laughs. Trump still gets the belly laughs. Even from me, and I hate his rotten stinking guts with the white hot fury of a thousand suns.
A hundred years ago, Newtonian physics got nuked. Goodbye ordered universe, hello entropy and chaos. And we've been mopping up the fallout ever since. Ironically, years before, The Enlightenment had already started this dissolution process. So can you blame Picasso and Joyce for just trying to see things as they really are(?)
Griel Marcus traces this process in his great book Lipstick Traces. From The Brethren of the Free Spirit to the Cathars to St. Just to the Paris Commune to Duchamp and right up to The Sex Pistols, we are either fallen, or trying to achieve the colliding energy of a mere collection of atoms. The Lettrists even took a cue from Finnegans Wake and carved up the damn language, for Chr--sakes. And they've been doing it ever since.
So can you blame the great Stockard Channing, in Six Degrees of Seperation, 1993, for meditating on a Kandinsky and then coming to the same conclusion that many of us poor benighted souls have in these absurd times: 'I am all random.'Kent • 15 hours ago
"...the personal is political..."
Haven't heard that one in a long time. It's sooo--"Sixties."WilliamRD • 15 hours ago
Arendt's fine. But I'll go with Carville's "It's the economy stupid".
When a young man who isn't "college material" has no economic future, he's going to find a way to make one. If it requires totalitarianism, so be it. Indeed, totalitarian ideologies can only flourish in an environment when bored, penniless young men have the time to read up on them.
Imagine all of those black guys rioting or white skinheads having to get up early in the morning for 10 hours of hard-work at the factory or on someone's roof. A couple of beers after work and your ready for bed, not revolution. Hence the great America of the '50's - the '80's.WilliamRD • 15 hours ago
Here's the former Chief Executive Officer of Twitter in all his glory.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1311472075903647750&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fembed%2Fcomments%2F%3Fbase%3Ddefault%26f%3Dtac1%26t_i%3D%26t_u%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Farticles%252Famerica-is-on-the-road-to-revolution%252F%26t_e%3D%26t_d%3DAmerica%2520is%2520on%2520The%2520Road%2520to%2520Revolution%2520%257C%2520The%2520American%2520Conservative%26t_t%3DAmerica%2520is%2520on%2520The%2520Road%2520to%2520Revolution%2520%257C%2520The%2520American%2520Conservative%26s_o%3Ddefault%26l%3Den%23version%3Dd716a1690aa4a08a02a6dcd8b6774c08&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550pxJust Stop Digging • 15 hours ago
Biden Staffer: Traditional Religious Beliefs Should Be 'Taboo' and 'Disqualifiers' for Public Office
https://pjmedia.com/electio...Ted Just Stop Digging • 14 hours ago
I have no idea what's coming, but we are trying to reduce our exposure by moving out of the city, as far as we can reasonably go for now until retirement. We are frantically trying to get our house on the market and hoping that thanks to the magic of "gentrification" (hopefully prospective buyers won't notice the giant "F*** Gentrifiers" spray painted on a nearby wall) we can trade our overvalued home into two properties - one in a distant town past the outer suburbs and another somewhere overseas where we can run to when things get really bad. That's the dream, at least. But the city we have already left and won't be going back.FL Transplant Just Stop Digging • an hour ago
Very close to our plan.KevinS • 14 hours ago • edited
I'm sure the overseas locations will be absolutely overjoyed to have a couple of US refugees, with no ties to the country or area, who don't speak the language or have any cultural understanding or background, and expect to instantly be fully integrated into the economic and social fabric, showing up.
Have you considered that you'll be akin to a Central American family moving into the outer suburb neighborhood you desire to live in, albeit one with more resources and legal status?CascadianPatriot KevinS • 4 hours ago • edited
"Trump's exaltation of personal loyalty over expertise is discreditable and corrupting. But how can liberals complain? Loyalty to the group or the tribe is at the core of leftist identity politics."
Whataboutism in our time!KevinS CascadianPatriot • 4 hours ago
It's not whataboutism if it's mutually true.
Besides, whataboutism never gets anyone anywhere good.WilliamRD • 14 hours ago
Rod has never articulated that rule.....Ted WilliamRD • 14 hours ago
"Progressive" Attacks on Capitalism Were Key to Hitler's Success
https://mises.org/library/p...EmpireLoyalist • 14 hours ago
The Horst Wessel Lied lyrics mention "Rotfront und Reaktion" as the enemies of National Socialism.Freespeak • 14 hours ago
Just when you thought the hypocrisy and the double-standard had reached the limits of what is humanly possible, Biden takes it up a notch.
After spending the last few months tearing up cities and threatening to burn down the country if they don't win in November, the Democrats now accuse Trump of putting the Proud Boys on stand-by???
Even my dog is laughing at this.
[How do these kooky communists even get elected to dog-catcher???]Enoch Lambert • 14 hours ago
Sliver legion or SA?
Just saying both sides are playing this game. One is just doing it with more guns and state security support. The left has greater cultural focus cause those are the positions that interest them. This is the creation of capitalism.Just Stop Digging Enoch Lambert • 14 hours ago
If Rod paid more attention to all the data and not just those that feed his hysteria, he'd learn that there are all kinds of backlash within liberal and far left circles to the excesses he rightly decries. In fact, I think there is more self-correction and self-regulation going on within "the left" than on Rod's side of the spectrumBanBait Just Stop Digging • 12 hours ago
Do you have any examples of this self correction? I've been living in a far left neighborhood in a permanent liberal Democratic city for decades, and I don't see it (well now we fled so I can't speak for what happens next).
There are occasionally people who will whisper something in my ear or my wife's ear that suggests they recognize some lunacy that's going on. But they would never admit that publicly. And all evidence suggests there are still very few of such people.
The whole point of Rod's thesis is that the vast majority of people will go along with the tide even if they don't believe it - they will live their lives by lies. Very few people have the courage to take a stand in such circumstances, as history makes all too clear. The progressive left, again as has been made clear over and over, now owns all the institutions that matter in the US - with woke capitalism being the final crown. What Rod says is coming, is coming.D Moor Enoch Lambert • 13 hours ago
If Biden wins, 98% of North America is going to become an instant 2nd Amendment Sanctuary.Ted Enoch Lambert • 12 hours ago
Elaborate? Are there links you can share??R.C. Smith • 14 hours ago
Say hello to all your friends on planet Venus.Schopenhauer R.C. Smith • 12 hours ago
Without the '65 "immigration reform" act none of this would be happening. This isn't the result of personal loneliness, it's the inevitable result of becoming, in Eugene McCarthy's phrase, a colony of the world. The radical turn to the left is a direct result of anti-white bloc voting by immigrants. (Indeed you have to be willfully blind not to notice the high percentage of spokesmen for the extreme left who are immigrants or the children of immigrants.) This is a race war against white America, in which the cultural establishment and the government they shape are the leading protagonists. Classic racist colonialism, with the bizarre twist that perhaps a third of the white population supports the annihilation of their own peoples and cultures. For the others it's simply a Scramble For America, a rush to get money, territory, and power with the natives footing the bill.R.C. Smith Schopenhauer • 8 hours ago
Who wants to be the one to tell this guy that many of us lefty children of immigrant parents are white? As were our parents. Amazing, I know!massappeal R.C. Smith • 7 hours ago
Irrelevant. It's the immigrant vote that puts them over. The vast majority of immigration is non-white. It's immigration that has California not electing a Republican to statewide office in 15 years, and nothing else. Don't take my word for it, the left itself has been telling Republicans for decades that the demographics are against them. It's an acknowledgement of the reality of identity bloc voting and the reason they support open borders. In any case, I mentioned you when I wrote about that mentally ill third of whites that supports self-annihilation.RAF • 13 hours ago
Tweak a few words at the fringes and this could have been written 100 years ago by a nativist about the Italians and the Jews and the Poles.Kingo Gondo • 13 hours ago
Mr. Dreher! Now you are on the right course. GERMANY!!!!
Eric Hoffer wrote the best book on this subject in the early 50s Mass Movements
Some of these quotes are relevant.
The book is priceless to understand this topic..
"""It is probably as true that violence breeds fanaticism as that fanaticism begets violence. Fanatical orthodoxy is in all movements a late development. There is hardly an example of a mass movement achieving vast proportions and a durable organization solely by persuasion. It was a temporal sword that made Christianity a world religion. Conquest and conversion were hand in hand. Reformation made headways only where it gained the backing of the ruling prince or local government. The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgivings. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than to bestow upon the world something we already have. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others.
A true believer is eternally incomplete and eternally insecure.
Mass movements do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. A full blown mass movement is a ruthless affair, and its management is in the hands of ruthless fanatics. A Luther who when first defying the established church, spoke feelingly of "the poor, simple, common folk," proclaimed later when he allied with the German princelings, that "God would prefer to suffer to government to exist no matter how evil, rather than allow the rabble to riot, not matter how justified they are in doing so."
"Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil."
However, the freedom the masses crave is not freedom of self-expression and self-realization, but the freedom from the intolerable burden of an autonomous existence. They want freedom from the arduous responsibility of realizing their ineffectual selves and shouldering the blame for the blemished product. They do not want freedom of conscience, but faith -- blind, authoritarian faith. """"""mw006 Kingo Gondo • 8 hours ago
Biden of course is scarcely a totalitarian figure--Trump is more suited to that role. But Biden would fit nicely as a von Hindenburg for the Loony Left.massappeal mw006 • 7 hours ago
How in the hell is Trump a totalitarian figure? I hear this calumny hurled at him time and time again, but without any specifics. Tell me, what specific totalitarian actions has he actually taken?Krystal Sumner • 13 hours ago • edited
Support for violent white supremacist groups. Using the Dept. of Justice to target political enemies. Adopting a Republican platform that consists solely of fealty to the party leader.BanBait • 12 hours ago
Over the past 6 months or so, my husband has been listening to a lot of Jordan Peterson and I have definitely noticed a shift in his thinking. A good one! I, myself, just finished listening to his book, 12 Rules For Life and am now going through his Podcast episodes. It's quite fascinating! Rogan has also received a lot of flak for having Peterson on his show several times.
I went and listened to the episodes with Abigail Shrier and Douglas Murray (at your suggestion) and now have their books (as well as your's) sitting in my audible library.Revanchist • 12 hours ago
Most of what you say is true, save for the usefulness of the "experts", the credentialed ones who have shown themselves to be absolute morons, incompetents and political hacks. (Think, Fauci.)massappeal Revanchist • 7 hours ago
Imagine if one hundred years ago you told the founding stock of this nation that every American institution would be weaponized against their own history and heritage. Imagine if you told them our universities, media, churches and immigration system were all being used to demonize and demographically displace their own posterity. They must be rolling over in their graves because that is exactly what is happening.FL Transplant massappeal • an hour ago
In 1920? Large numbers of them absolutely would have believed it. In fact, millions of them *did* believe it. The country was being overrun by Italians, Poles, Greeks, Serbs, Russians. A frightening number of them were Jews and Catholics. They smelled funny, spoke weird languages, had bizarre beliefs and customs, cooked and ate strange foods. They were lazy bums who were taking all our jobs. At a rally in Rhode Island, the Grand Imperial Wizard proclaimed to thousands that the KKK stood for undying opposition to "Koons, Kikes, & Katholics".
And it's come true! Look, for example, who's on the Supreme Court.EmpireLoyalist • 12 hours ago • edited
Not to mention that the Jews were over-running colleges. Keeping them out required changes to admissions practices to make things other than pure academic ability deciding factors. Hence the emphasis on "the whole person", where a good background, good family, athletic ability, and being someone you'd want to associate with in your club began to over-ride performance on the academic tests that had previously been used to determine admissions.FL Transplant EmpireLoyalist • an hour ago
Just soft totalitarianism? That seems incredibly pollyann-ish - delusionally optimistic.
If Biden wins, the USA, the EU and Red China will move swiftly to exterminate the remnants of Christian Civilisation - and anybody associated with it.
Bishop Vigano seems to share this view. ( https://www.lifesitenews.co...
[Anyway, we ALREADY have "soft totalitarianism". Need proof? Just go down to your HR department and tell them that you believe homosexual activity is immoral.]
As much as somebody may dislike Trump's personality, Biden is just not an option.
Biden = ethno-cultural extinction
As adults, we don't get to indulge our own childish sensitivities. We don't get to participate in this political fantasy-land alt-universe - where monstrous evil is praised as virtuous, and goodness is labelled as vice.Room_237 • 12 hours ago • edited
Just go down to your HR department and tell them that you believe homosexual activity is immoral.
I imagine you'll get a reaction similar to that if you went down to HR and ranted about how sex outside of marriage is immoral, or lectured how sodomy is a crime against nature and its practitioners deserve to burn in Hell.WilliamRD Room_237 • 11 hours ago
I used to have a Ukrainian woman on my staff. When my younger staff all started in 2016 expressing support for Sanders she freaked. Then she freaked over Trump.
We are screwed. My decision to vote for Biden is predicated upon the hope that a boring gaff prone Biden presidency will allow a return to normalcy.Room_237 WilliamRD • 10 hours ago
A vote for Biden is a vote for the radical totalitarian left. Packing the supreme court. Ending the Senate Filibuster and open borders. The country as we know it will be over. Certain end of the First and Second amendments. I don't find you credible at all
Is it? We have seen Biden in public life for the past 48 years. He is no conservative but a radical totalitarian? No -- that is not him.
I'll take him over the incompetence and general horribleness of Trump anyday.
Sep 28, 2020 | dergipark.org.tr
Formation of the ruling classes has a close relation with the level of civilization and the type of society. Ruling class under every condition try to reproduce itself particularly by domination on political forces like power, wealth and the ruling class tends to be come hereditary. In fact, descents of ruling class members have a high life chances to have the traits necessary to be a ruling class member (Mosca 1939, pp. 60-61). In general, prior to democracy, membership of ruling class was not only de facto but also de jure. In democracy, de jure transfer of political possession to descendants of ruling class members impossible and not legitimized but it is now de facto.
According to Mosca, historically, ruling class try to justify its existence and policies by using some universal moral principles, superiority etc., lately, scientific theory and knowledge like Social Darwinism, division of labor is also employed for the same purposes. Mosca particularly rejects these two theses to use in political purposes. To Mosca, at a certain level of civilization, ruling classes do not justify their power exclusively by de facto possession of it, but try to find a moral and legal basis for it. This legal and moral basis or principles on which the power of the political class rests is called "political formula" by Mosca. The formula has a unique structure in all societies.
"lTjhe political formula must be based on the special beliefs and the strongest sentiments of the current social group or at least upon the beliefs and sentiments of the particular portion of that group which hold political preeminence"(Mosca 1939, p.71,72).
In fact ruling class like Pareto's elite strata consist of two strata: (a) the highest stratum; and (b) second stratum. The highest stratum is the core of the ruling class but it could not sufficiently lead and direct the society unless the second stratum helps. Second stratum is the larger than the higher stratum in number and has all the capacities of leadership in the country. Even autocratic systems do have it. Not only political but also any type of social organization needs the second stratum in order to be possible (Mosca 1939, p.404, 430).
The members of the ruling class are recruited almost entirely from the dominant, majority group in the society. If the society has a number of minorities and if this rule is not followed due to weaknesses of dominant group, political system can meet serious political crisis. The same thing occurs when there are considerable differences between in the culture, and in customs of the ruling class and subject classes (Mosca 1939, p.l05,106-7).
Weaknesses of dominant group in society and isolation of lower classes from the ruling classes can lead to political upheaval in the country and as a result of this upheaval subject classes' representatives can have places in the ruling class. Because when isolation takes place, another ruling class emerges among the subject classes that often hostile to the old ruling class (Mosca 1939, pp. 107- 8). Furthermore, due to reciprocal isolation of classes, the character of upper classes change, they become weak in bold and aggressiveness and richer in "soft" remissive individuals. On the same track, when there is fragmentation in the society, new groups form and each one of them makes up of its own leaders and followers. In fact, revolutions are another source of replacement of ruling class (Mosca 1939, p.163, 199).
When Mosca compares the political systems, he says that communist and socialist societies would beyond any doubt managed by officials and he sees these regimes as utopia. On democracy, he says, although gradual increase of universal suffrage, actual power has remained partly in wealthiest and the middle classes. At the same time, for Mosca, middle class is necessary for democracy, and when middle class declines, politic regimes in democratic countries turns to a plutocratic dictatorship, or bureaucratic dictatorship. (Mosca 1939, p.391).
According to Mosca, ruling class has a responsive character to social change in the society and there is a close relation between level of civilization and character of ruling classes. According to these two complementary proposition, it can be said that ruling class is subject of social change rather than actor of it. For example, change in division of labor from lower to higher and change in political force from military to wealth have changed the type of state from federal to bureaucratic state (Mosca 1939, p. 81, 83 ). There it seems that Mosca admits a linear social change in history, as opposite to Pareto.
As seen, Mosca's theory is basically based on organized minorities' superiority over unorganized majority. This organized minority consists of ruling class, but for Mosca it is not necessarily mean that always interest of ruling class and subject classes are different. To him ,in contrast they coincide many times. He saw the future of socialist system by saying that it will be governed by officials.
This feature of socialist system is well documented by Milovon Dijilas in his work: New Classes. But Mosca failed to see that one day, majority will also be able to organize. As C. W. Mills pointed put, democratic western societies have experienced important transformations: (1) from the organized minority and unorganized majority to relatively unorganized minority and organized majority, and (2) from the elite state to an organized state.( Mills 1965, pp. 161-162).
Therefore minorities and elites in today's society are less powerful than majorities. Elites have relatively lost their privileges, and more importantly, their monopoly over society.
Dec 30, 2016 | peterturchin.com
elites , norms , social change , structural-demographic 72 Comments
Intra-elite competition is one of the most important factors explaining massive waves of social and political instability, which periodically afflict complex, state-level societies. This idea was proposed by Jack Goldstone nearly 30 years ago . Goldstone tested it empirically by analyzing the structural precursors of the English Civil War, the French Revolution, and seventeenth century's crises in Turkey and China. Other researchers (including Sergey Nefedov, Andrey Korotayev, and myself) extended Goldstone's theory and tested it in such different societies as Ancient Rome, Egypt, and Mesopotamia; medieval England, France, and China; the European revolutions of 1848 and the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917; and the Arab Spring uprisings. Closer to home, recent research indicates that the stability of modern democratic societies is also undermined by excessive competition among the elites (see Ages of Discord for a structural-demographic analysis of American history). Why is intra-elite competition such an important driver of instability?
Elites are a small proportion of the population (on the order of 1 percent) who concentrate social power in their hands (see my previous post and especially its discussion in the comments that reveal the complex dimensions of this concept). In the United States, for example, they include (but are not limited to) elected politicians, top civil service bureaucrats, and the owners and managers of Fortune 500 companies (see Who Rules America? ).
As individual elites retire, they are replaced from the pool of elite aspirants . There are always more elite aspirants than positions for them to occupy. Intra-elite competition is the process that sorts aspirants into successful elites and aspirants whose ambition to enter the elite ranks is frustrated. Competition among the elites occurs on multiple levels. Thus, lower-ranked elites (for example, state representatives) may also be aspirants for the next level (e.g., U.S. Congress), and so on, all the way up to POTUS.
Moderate intra-elite competition need not be harmful to an orderly and efficient functioning of the society; in fact, it's usually beneficial because it results in better-qualified candidates being selected. Additionally, competition can help weed out incompetent or corrupt office-holders. However, it is important to keep in mind that the social effects of elite competition depend critically on the norms and institutions that regulate it and channel it into such societally productive forms.
Excessive elite competition, on the other hand, results in increasing social and political instability. The supply of power positions in a society is relatively, or even absolutely, inelastic. For example, there are only 435 U.S. Representatives, 100 Senators, and one President. A great expansion in the numbers of elite aspirants means that increasingly large numbers of them are frustrated, and some of those, the more ambitious and ruthless ones, turn into counter-elites . In other words, masses of frustrated elite aspirants become breeding grounds for radical groups and revolutionary movements.
Another consequence of excessive competition among elite aspirants is its effect on the social norms regulating politically acceptable conduct. Norms are effective only as long as the majority follows them, and violators are punished. Maintaining such norms is the job for the elites themselves.
Intense intra-elite competition, however, leads to the rise of rival power networks, which increasingly subvert the rules of political engagement to get ahead of the opposition. Instead of competing on their own merits, or the merits of their political platforms, candidates increasingly rely on "dirty tricks" such as character assassination (and, in historical cases, literal assassination). As a result, excessive competition results in the unraveling of prosocial, cooperative norms (this is a general phenomenon that is not limited to political life).
Death of Gaius Gracchus (François Topino-Lebrun) Source
Intra-elite competition, thus, has a nonlinear effect on social function: moderate levels are good, excessive levels are bad. What are the social forces leading to excessive competition?
Because the supply of power positions is relatively inelastic, most of the action is on the demand side. Simply put, it is the excessive expansion of elite aspirant numbers (or "elite overproduction") that drives up intra-elite competition. Let's again use the contemporary America as an example to illustrate this idea (although, I emphasize, similar social processes have operated in all complex large-scale human societies since they arose some 5,000 years ago).
There are two main "pumps" producing aspirants for elite positions in America: education and wealth. On the education side, of particular importance are the law degree (for a political career) and the MBA (to climb the corporate ladder). Over the past four decades, according to the American Bar Association, the number of lawyers tripled from 400,000 to 1.2 million. The number of MBAs conferred by business schools over the same period grew six-fold (details in Ages of Discord ).
On the wealth side we see a similar expansion of numbers, driven by growing inequality of income and wealth over the last 40 years. The proverbial "1 percent" becomes "2 percent", then "3 percent" For example, today there are five times as many households with wealth exceeding $10 million (in 1995 dollars), compared to 1980. Some of these wealth-holders give money to candidates, but others choose to run for political office themselves.
Elite overproduction in the US has already driven up the intensity of intra-elite competition. A reasonable proxy for escalating political competition here is the total cost of election for congressional races, which has grown (in inflation-adjusted dollars) from $2.4 billion in 1998 to $4.3 billion in 2016 ( Center for Responsive Politics ). Another clear sign is the unraveling of social norms regulating political discourse and process that has become glaringly obvious during the 2016 presidential election.
Analysis of past societies indicates that, if intra-elite competition is allowed to escalate, it will increasingly take more violent forms. A typical outcome of this process is a massive outbreak of political violence, often ending in a state collapse, a revolution, or a civil war (or all of the above).
... .. ..72 Comments
- Gene Anderson December 30, 2016 at 5:43 pm
Works for China too. One can see two main sources: The Imperial family, which with vast-scale polygyny grew inordinately in a short time; and the examination system, producing more and more successful candidates over time (this was a problem mainly after Song greatly expanded the exams). The poor Imperial family deserves some pity–toward the end of a dynasty you had all these 13th cousins 10 times removed starving to death on the Russian frontier. (I exaggerate only slightly. By the end of the empire in 1911, there were tens of thousands of Imperial relatives.) Naturally the competition got pretty fierce late in the dynasties. When the empire thrived, the system could blot all these people up, and find places for them. When the empire was going down hill, or conflicted, it meant trouble.
- pseudoerasmus December 30, 2016 at 5:51 pm
I believe Peter Turchin is deeply mistaken about elite competition in modern societies. I repeat my comment on intra-elite competition from a previous post:
In an agrarian society, elite wealth was based on land, more specifically, on extracting a fraction of the output of the commoners working the land. When there was a demographic crisis (land-labour ratio fell and immiseration set in), elite incomes fell, and elites sought to maintain their lifestyles by increasing the rate of extraction. But squeezing peasants even more when there's already a demographic crisis only exacerbates popular immiseration. At some point the only way for elites to increase, or even just preserve, their incomes was at the expense of other elites. Thus you have elite fragmentation and internecine competition. And thus sociopolitical instability. Makes a lot of sense. It fits a lot of historical cases.
However, this theory makes no sense in modern industrial societies.
(1) Wealth is no longer fixed in the long run. Modern economies reliably grow at 1-2% rates. Much of that growth is concentrated at the top, even when measured income inequality is relatively low. So the competitive pressure within elites is much less than in any agrarian society governed by Malthusian-Ricardian-Brennerian-Goldstone-Turchin cycles.
(2) Besides, in a modern society, you need *more*, not less, intra-elite cooperation (a) in order to increase economic inequality; (b) in order for the elites to capture a greater share of the economic growth; (c) in order for capitalists reduce the bargaining power of labour; and (d) in order for elites to capture the state.
In fact, politics in a modern society is a pretty small part of the field in which elites can play compared with anti-competitive practices -- i.e., collusion, mergers, monopolies, trusts, and other ways of reducing competition and concentrating power in the supply of goods and the demand for labour. These are all acts of elite cooperation. Capitalists are, right now, in unprecedented unity. They agree on unions, immigration, wages, trade, regulations, etc. That unity is necessary to generate the inequality in the first place.
Therefore, state capture and rent-seeking are now *cooperative*: conspiracies to rig the rules and increase markups against the public interest require collusion. Owners of one mobile telephony operator don't have to clash with the owners of another mobile telephony operator: they can band together to lobby the government. Compared with the rise of monopoly concentration, elites wrangling over Trump or Brexit is a sideshow.
Almost everybody who is concerned about rising inequality implicitly recognises this: from Krugman to Stiglitz to Milanovic to even Turchin's friends at Evonomics, they have argued that inequality stems in great measure from anti-competitive practises.
It's contradictory to bemoan the spread of the 'neoliberal' ethos, and simultaneously talk about elite fragmentation. The evidence Turchin marshalls for elite fragmentation is basically the bimodal distribution of lawyers' incomes, and the degree of legislative polarisation. He ignores the much wider evidence of capitalist unity and concentration in support of 'neoliberal' policies.
- Fernando E.Mora December 31, 2016 at 4:05 am
I think you must read Fred Hirsch's "Social Limits to Growth" to understand the difference between the always possible growth in MATERIALl wealth and the (no-)growth of POSITIONAL wealth in which Peter's point can also be solidly (and perhaps more accurately) based.
- pseudoerasmus December 31, 2016 at 8:16 am
I would certainly agree that if economic growth were zero or negative, PT's elite competition theory might make more sense. Which is why I think SD theory is still quite applicable to many contemporary developing countries, such as those in the Arab world. Also, the collapse into civil wars in many African countries in the 1980s and 1990s was preceded by a large expansion of educated people at the same time economic growth more or less came to a halt.
- Peter Turchin January 1, 2017 at 7:17 pm
This comment requires a lengthier rebuttal, but for now just two points:
1. In the blog post I specifically used the political elites to illustrate my major point. Your response, unfortunately, is a standard economic one that measures everything in money. As I said, I will probably have to write another post to explain why this is wrong-headed.
2. Why do you assume that the "capitalist class" will be automatically able to cooperate to impose their will on the rest of the society? There is, after all, the problem of collective action.
- Stephen Morris January 1, 2017 at 8:04 pm
Speaking as a former investment banker involved in the privatisation of public assets – who has seen at first hand generations of politicians captured by business interests – I suggest that anyone with direct experience of this matter would realise that any collective action problem faced by the capitalist class in negligible in comparison which the collective action problem faced by citizens under the non-democratic system of purely "elective" goverrnment (i.e. "government-by-politicians').
- pseudoerasmus January 1, 2017 at 8:04 pm
Re #1 -- No, I do not measure everything in money, so please do not write a whole post as though that's what I argued. I said that elites now *collude* to capture the political process, which they do. They don't need to compete for political positions because they cooperate in capturing it. Goldman Sachs has access to the Treasury department whether the party in power is Republican or Democratic. (Besides, you also use some money proxies for intra-elite competition/cooperation: the distribution of lawyers' salaries, or the Great Merger Movement.)
Re #2 -- I do not assume it. The evidence is overwhelming that concentration is increasing, markups are rising, monopoly power is expanding. All of that is evidence of intra-capitalist cooperation and unity.
- pseudoerasmus January 1, 2017 at 8:11 pm
Peter Turchin frequently cites the work of Martin Gilens, who has repeatedly shown that public policy largely reflects the preferences of the very richest of US society. That's not elite competition. That's elite cooperation in capturing of the political process. The problem with Turchin's framework is that he sees even modern societies through the Roman framework of Optimates v. Populares.
- edwardturner January 2, 2017 at 11:52 am
pseudoerasmus, I pretty much agree with what you say. However, while elites have colluded to capture the political process we might not expect them to all agree on what to do with the political process once it has been captured.
There is no intra-capitalist unity. Some elites shouldn't even be called capitalists because the monopoly power they seek completely eliminates the free market. Other elites who want to control the political process do want a free market. They are in conflict.
The common thread here is the presence of powerful elites who cooperate. Historically the monopoly power elites have cooperated without much resistence but the free market elites have begun to cooperate against them and have had success in the election of Donald Trump.
If it is people power we want then the general trend will look like cooperation as whoever wins the conflict will be cooperating economic elites.
- Steve Roth January 2, 2017 at 9:41 am
I question whether there is a qualitative difference today. It's still about the claims embodied by "wealth," and the power those claims impart to wealthholders. The mechanisms are different, but the wealth/power relationships are pretty much the same.
The crux, in my view, is concentration of wealth (hence power). Which has the virtue of being nicely quantifiable, in concept if not necessarily in practice.
My favorite graph of this:
As concentration increases and the "elite" gets smaller, the rope-ladder hanging down from the elite gets shorter and rattier. eg: The 90% were always excluded. Now the 2%-10% are. That change could result in a different type or intensity of social conflict.
On the other hand that intra-"elite" competition might just be a by-product and analytical distraction. The elite vs "the rest" is the issue, and all we need to look at is the size of the elite. That could be nicely encapsulated in a "wealth concentration" metric.
Problem is getting a consistent measure of that wealth concentration. Hell, the U.S. national accounts didn't even tally wealth until 2006, and still don't even touch on wealth distribution.
Assembling such a (validly consistent) measure across historical societies would be tough. Atkinson, Wolff, Piketty&Co, etc. have managed over recent decades to assemble data on richer countries going back a century or so. Perhaps one could do similar for the Roman Empire, at least roughly? But across many societies and millennia? Tough.
- pseudoerasmus January 2, 2017 at 10:39 am
In agrarian societies, the wealth that conferred status -- land and state offices -- were fixed in the long run. In modern societies, the supply of status positions is not fixed and is in fact highly elastic.
- Steve Roth January 2, 2017 at 11:10 am
Yes the quantity of wealth was fixed. But I'm talking about the concentration of wealth and power. Compare a society in which the 1% has all the wealth and (real) power, compared to one where it's more broadly distributed among the 10%.
IOW, whaddaya mean by "elite," buster?
- >the supply of status positions is not fixed and is in fact highly elastic
Totally agree. Increasing wealth does not mean that the quantity of status positions is increasing. The absolute or percentage count of "the elite" could shrink (wealth could concentrate) even as wealth increases.
Increasing wealth might be presumed to give more entree to aspirants than a fixed-wealth scenario, but I just have no idea whether that is actually the case.
- Dick Burkhart December 30, 2016 at 6:47 pm
You claim that "wealth is no longer fixed in the long run", yet that claim is the most fundamental fallacy of contemporary economics. "Limits-to-growth" is not a choice but a fact of science. Already the global economy is stagnating, mostly for this reason, and it is headed toward contraction sometime during the coming generation, despite all the hype about new technologies.
The concept of "ecological overshoot and collapse" applies to human ecology too. We're certainly in overshoot, so some form of collapse is coming (even if a technological miracle occurred, like cheap energy from nuclear fusion, it would only postpone the day of reckoning).
As to "intra-elite competition", it is well underway in much of the upper middle class and the 1%, according to the statistics documented by Peter Turchin above. But it is just revving up among the super-elites – the billionaire class, with Trump being the first really visible eruption. In fact, Donald Trump's election is the perfect example of how this competition plays out once it hits the main stage. So don't confuse tactical cooperation among increasingly greedy factions of the elites with the kind of yawning political fractures that are now opening up as unscrupulous opportunists like Trump discover that they can exploit a disgruntled part of the populace to "trump" the more conventional elites. And as "limits-to-growth" blocks the customary relief valve of expansion, then elite exploitation and popular revolt will increase until something there is some kind of show stopper.
- Dick Burkhart December 30, 2016 at 8:29 pm
Like most economists, you've got it totally backward: The non-material part is completely dependent on cheap resources, especially cheap, and compatible ecosystem conditions. Those resources only seem to disappear from the economy, because they are so cheap. But, as in the rest of nature, all that complexity comes from the surplus of energy and other resources.
After all, we could not live without good air. Yet it costs nothing most of the time, so doesn't even enter into conventional economics.
- pseudoerasmus December 30, 2016 at 9:04 pm
Well, Dick Burkhart, as I said earlier, even if ecological exhaustion and collapse were coming, (a) that is not related to current economic problems; and (b) it's also not part of Peter Turchin's diagnosis.
- Dick Burkhart December 31, 2016 at 9:19 pm
In fact climate change is already taking an increasing economic toll – from extreme weather events, ocean acidification, desertification in some areas, etc. These costs could increase rapidly if certain tipping points are reached.
But, yes, the larger immediate effects are coming from resource depletion, especially the peaking of conventional oil in 2006. Unconventional oil, like tar sands and fracked oil, is much more expensive, hence produces less wealth, less economic growth. Even much of the newer conventional oil is less productive, as it is often harder to find or requires tertiary methods of recovery. Similar dynamics apply to coal, natural gas, and many other resources, except that depletion may not be as far advanced as for oil. Economic growth has slowed dramatically even in China, despite their phony growth numbers, and I expect increasing political turmoil there, too, over the next decade or two.
When an imperial economy can longer expand easily, all of Peter's dynamics come into play with greater force, not just the elite competition, but the increasing exploitation of the common people in order to maintain elite expansion. The latter has been going on since Reagan in the form of escalating economic inequality. = popular immiseration.
- Paolo Ghirri December 31, 2016 at 2:34 pm
"current problems have nothing to do with anything ecological or resource constraints."
yes they have: for a pre industrial civilization what is vital is energy surplus, energy surplus that came from agriculture production. so as an example 18 have to work to produce food and 2 can live as soldier, priest and so on.
for a industrial civilization energy surplus came from oil. from 1973 to 2016 the energy surplus pro-capita is falling: in a developed country the pro capita surplus now is 75% lower than in 1973.
the gap is covered with debt. so in the short run we have: 1) energy price escalation (in real term the 2016 average oil price is the double of 2000) 2) agricultural stress: more frequent spike in food price, combined with food shortfall in the most vulnerable country (arab spring: food price in 2011 are 229% higher than the 2000-2004 average) 3) energy sprawl: investment in energy infrascructure will absorb rising proportion 4) economic stagnation: fail to recover from setbacks as robustly as it has in the past 5) inflation
with the single exception of inflation (but if we check only necessary to live item i'm not so sure) all of the above features has already become firnly established in recent years, wich underlines the point that energy-surplus economy has reached its tipping point
- Terry Lowman December 30, 2016 at 7:20 pm
The reason the elites cooperate is to get a leg up in the competition. It recently occurred to me that the Forbes 400 list of America's wealthiest families gives people a rank, a competitor. Without the list, one might be complacent with a mere $3 billion, but knowing others have tens of billions, makes you a "just ran". Better tune up your capitalist machine so you can outshine everyone else, right?
- Peter Turchin January 1, 2017 at 7:19 pm
The supply of "status" is by its nature inelastic. There is only one top person in anything, and only ten in the Top 10.
- edwardturner January 2, 2017 at 11:57 am
True but people who cannot be the king of general things will be happy to be known as the king of their specialism.
The more specialisms that exist for people to get to the top of the more stable a society will be.
- edwardturner January 2, 2017 at 12:02 pm
you could say that the king of the military is the king of kings but in the age of nuclear buttons it's simply boring. you can't blow anything up without getting blown up yourself. you can use non-nuclear military power but non-nuclear power in the age we are living in only wins you the war, it doesn't win you the war and the peace. to win the peace today you need to be king of something other than the military.
- Rick Derris December 30, 2016 at 9:50 pm
I liked the intra-elite discussions in "Ages of Discord" and it made me an even more strident believer in term limits. At least moving people out of the Congress after eight years will "free up" some space for other elite aspirants. I don't care if your politics are on the side of Strom Thurmond or Ted Kennedy – both were in the Congress for far too long.
Of course, term limits did nothing to keep a 2nd Cuomo out of the NY Governor's mansion, but at least it means we only have to watch one Cuomo on CNN.
- Rich December 31, 2016 at 1:09 am
Pseudoerasmus, good arguments. The consolidation of money, as well as markets, is very large right now and it does seem like that would take coordination of an ownership class or at least similar lines of thinking among those elites. But, are we talking about a different set of elites? There may be different populations of elites: capitalist and political. Personally, I think the proxies Peter use describe a political elite population rather than a capitalist elite population. The two combine for many, but there may be distinct capitalist and political populations with each having distinct behavior patterns. The worrisome insight for me is that it's the political elites that end up bringing us to our knees.
- pseudoerasmus December 31, 2016 at 7:43 am
"Personally, I think the proxies Peter use describe a political elite population rather than a capitalist elite population.
Political elites are the proxies PT uses as evidence for his theory, but as he himself says, "American power holders are wealth holders". And I believe the definition I have effectively used here, "owners of capital", is consistent with his concept of elites or magnates in Secular Cycles -- a book I admire tremendously.
Note also that PT uses the Great Merger Movement in US history (1895-1905) as evidence of the beginnings of elite cooperation. Well, another wave of capital concentration has existed now for decades, since the 1980s.
- Rich Howard December 31, 2016 at 4:40 pm
Political elites may be more likely to be rich, but the rich is a larger population with only a fraction politically aspirant. PT'S model relates political aspirants to political breakdown. And because it works so well, in so many cases, it suggests there is a more universal social process at work than rich/poor, unemployment rates, too many weapons, resource depletion etc.
- Jason December 31, 2016 at 7:42 am
I like the theory but isn't there more to the story. On one side you have elite aspirant overproduction. On the other side, you have increasing concentration of power -- the iron law of oligarchy (in the sense of this wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy )
Your average Congressman is not as powerful today as he was 100 years ago. Cabinet members used to do something of substance and now act more like front men, while policy making is centralized in the White House. You have more and more aspirants for fewer and fewer positions of substance. That ramps up intensity of competition even more than just over-production of JDs and MBAs.
Plus the barriers to entry for competition has lowered too. Now celebrities fight with JDs for political positions. Rap stars compete with MBAs for business tycoon success.
At all levels of society, you have greater and greater competition for fewer and fewer rewards. Hyper-competition all around. Now perhaps the competition at the gateway to the elite is particularly important because elites are important, and failure to get in makes them the aspirants powerful disgruntled people, but I think the mechanism is more than just over-production of JDs and MBAs.
I think it might have started as a well intentioned project to increase the quality of our elites by introducing competition and lowering barriers to entry. And at the the same time, increasing the rewards to winners (incentivizing max effort). Result though is brutal intra-elite fighting. Particularly in times of overall lowered growth.
- Peter Turchin January 1, 2017 at 7:24 pm
Agreed, the overproduction of elites developed in parallel with the change in social norms that extolled competition and downplayed cooperation. But these two dynamics may be causally related -- it's not a pure coincidence that the two trends developed in parallel.
- Ross Hartshorn December 31, 2016 at 1:43 pm
One point I haven't seen discussed much is that the number of "powerful" positions is fixed, by law, but not unchangeable. For example, in the 19th century it was arguably more important to be a city councilman or state legislator than a Congressmen, because more actual decisions were being made at the city and state level and the percentage of the economy under the control of the federal government was smaller. If there is less federal largesse to distribute, then there is less power in helping to decide how it is distributed. It is somewhat analogous to why being a U.S. Senator now is more important than being a U.N. functionary; the United Nations may represent a larger domain, but it has a lot less control over that domain than a national government.
Thus, one would expect that the more centralized control of a region is, the more intra-elite competition there will be, because there are fewer positions which really matter. A modern example of this might be that the transfer of power from national to European Union administration would result in more intra-elite competition. On the other hand, devolving power back down to a lower level would result in more positions that have some power, and less competition for each.
- Jason January 1, 2017 at 12:49 am
That's exactly what I was getting at too, Ross. The number of good positions available depends on the power gradient of the society. How much power is centralized vs distributed. The whole Iron Law of Oligarchy developed in recognition that over time, power tends to centralize, so it's not fixed by law and unchangeable for all time. It's not so much inequality between ordinary people and the elite, but among elites.
Plus it ossifies, in that these enhanced elite positions are then passed out patrilineally, which results in fewer actual positions being open to aspirants.
The net result is heightened competition for entry and promotion within the elite, with more and more of the victories happening by methods outside the norm, e.g. dirty tricks, patronage, fake news etc.
This probably happens in all societies, but growth (creating more opportunities), wars (resetting the table), inefficiency (placating the failed aspirants with consolation prizes) keep internal collapse at bay. It's when you have a dynamic of High Inequality, Low Growth, High Efficiency / Lean, No Wars that Elite Competition starts getting out of hand.
(I say this despite hating wars, but you can't argue with their effect on resetting the table. Hate bribes/corruption too, but things like congressional pork barrels kept congressman feeling important and in-line. Efficiency is also a self evident good, but that means no consolation prizes for failure. Growth may eventually run into limits due to carrying capacity of ecosystem .).
To me, it resembles a game of musical chairs with too few chairs, and when the music is playing much too fast. As Chuck Prince famously said in the Global Financial Crisis: "As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance." Whether or not dancing is destructive, elites have to keep dancing to keep their chair.
- Ross Hartshorn January 1, 2017 at 6:00 pm
I also hate wars, but I am reminded of Mancur Olson's theory that nations recovering from a major disaster or a major military defeat usually have above-average growth for a few decades. The idea is that when, as with the South in the U.S. after the Civil War or with Germany and Japan after WWII, the elite in society have suffered a setback so severe that their hold on society is disrupted, there will be a period during which they are less able to set government policy in their favor rather than the collective welfare.
SDT would have a somewhat different explanation of this. I agree with you that rapid growth would be another way to reduce the intra-elite competition; it seems the most likely explanation for the "missing" peak in non-governmental violence in the U.S. in the 1820's that Peter Turchin pointed out earlier.
- Peter Turchin January 1, 2017 at 7:32 pm
Historically, rapid growth coupled with equitable redistribution of its gains is typically associated with peaceful and internally stable periods. But you need both (growth and equity).
- Ross Hartshorn December 31, 2016 at 1:52 pm
This idea is kind of half-formed, but I'll put it out there. It seems to me that one of the most important factors in intra-elite competition, is the degree of skill of the frustrated aspirants. If there are lots of people who want to be elite but can't crack the system to get in, that may not be a problem if those frustrated aspirants aren't particularly good at organization, motivation, leadership, etc.
If, on the other hand, the frustrated aspirants are nearly as good at this sort of thing as those actually in power, and especially if they are better at it than the incumbents (who somehow through tradition or family connections or what-have-you remain on top), then you have a much better chance of the frustrated aspirants being able to kick up trouble.
Of course, part of being good at leadership is getting the opportunity to practice, and a post-secondary education almost always includes some practice at a more professional set of social skills. But if the people getting spots in power remain better at political organization than the people who don't, it is less likely to result in disruption, I think. It seems that trouble would come when the ruling elite is either not especially good at leading (e.g. they inherited their position or bought their way in with somebody else's money), or they were good at leading in a previous time, and changes in society or technology have changed what skills are necessary for leadership.
In all these cases, I think "good at leadership" would be a relative term, which is to say the current elite relative to the frustrated aspirants. How you could measure such skill, of course, is the key question about which I have as of yet nothing to say (I did say the idea was half-formed).
- steven t johnson January 1, 2017 at 8:10 am
Although intra-elite competition and inter-elite competition are conceptually distinct, is that true in practice? Is Carlos Slim an intraelite competitor with Jeff Bezos, in the form of rivalry between the New York Times and the Washington Post? If this is interelite competition, how does structural-demographic theory address the issues of how external factors impinge on the cycle? (I'm a little shaky on how interior and exterior are defined in the first place. As for example, was there a cycle for Burgundy?)
- Peter Turchin January 1, 2017 at 7:34 pm
Unlike "intra-elite competition", "inter-elite competition" is not a concept in SDT (and like you I would be hard put to think what it could refer to).
- edwardturner January 1, 2017 at 12:34 pm
The supply of power positions in a society is relatively, or even absolutely, inelastic. For example, there are only 435 U.S. Representatives, 100 Senators, and one President.
This is not quite true. The supply of power positions can be elastic to a point.
How about the growth in number of CEOs and NGOs and the heads of INGOs over the last 50 years? So-called non-state actors have become powerful as they influence the law-making processes in a variety of ways.
These big chiefs are positions of power and influence. In many cases, they call the shots and Presidents and Prime Ministers are only the PR guys.
The US President is not the most powerful person in the world. He doesn't have the highest security clearance in the United States. He is not allowed to know everything.
The idea the US President is the most powerful man is a claim based on a theory of how the US political system works in idealised sense, and on simple US nationalism.
The fact that the supply of power positions is elastic – that there has been a flouresence of alternative power structures to the state hierarchy – suggests that wealth can to a degree put off or delay elite competition.
It is only when the rug is pulled from under the alternative prestigious hierarchies and the state tries to dominate all on its own – that is when problems will begin. Keep the funding going, maintain non-state avenues for prestige and create even more, the fluoresence will continue.
- edwardturner January 1, 2017 at 12:36 pm
interested readers might like to read my report for Cliodynamics: Why Has the Number of International Non-Governmental Organizations Exploded since 1960?
- Nikhil ns January 1, 2017 at 4:12 pm
A point made in arthashastra, that fight among princes is more dangerous than fight among commoners. However, I wud like to ask what predictions are u unable to do. There is no real knowledge which doesnt admit what its limitations are, or admits inability to explain something. Even in physics, where humans have gained incredible knowledge, there is much to know. Also, on issue of religion, could one argue that but for christianity & islam world wud have devekped faster as information in math/science wud have gathered pace, exchanged between different lands easily.Thank you.
- Peter Turchin January 1, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Interesting that Arthashastra foresees a major message of the SDT.
On the role of religion there are a lot of recent books from the cultural evolutionary perspective, including David Wilson, Ara Norenzayan, and Dominic Johnson (I might also mention my own Ultrasociety).
- Dick Burkhart January 1, 2017 at 11:16 pm
Even direct democracy is not a cure-all. Here in Washington State, our initiative and referendum process has been corrupted at times by big money interests: First put together a sophisticated campaign around some catch phrases that will have popular support on a topic where the opposition, even if widespread, is likely to be diffuse. Then sneak in some coded language that privileges a wealthy special interest. Then use paid signature gatherers. Then assemble a massive advertising campaign, one that will outspend the likely opposition, maybe even by 10 to 1.
Certain people get very good at this and quickly learn to sell their services to the highest bidder. The current master of such campaign here is a guy named Tim Eyman, and he has been quite successful. But some companies, like Costco, have done the same thing all by themselves.
Moral: You need to get "money out of politics" in all ways, and it's a never ending battle until you've eliminated concentrated wealth and power itself.
- Peter Turchin January 2, 2017 at 10:01 pm
Stephen Morris: you will find my response in an old post:
- Jason January 2, 2017 at 9:35 am
Prof Turchin, is there any data on the Supply of Elite Positions in Historic Societies?
It doesn't feel instinctively right that it's inelastic, but perhaps there's really the case. It feels slightly more likely to be right to say that it's capped somehow (inelastic as to upside, more elastic as to downside).
But it seems like the sort of thing you should be able to answer with a History Database. Has there been any attempts to measure this?
- Peter Turchin January 2, 2017 at 10:06 pm
In fact, your are in luck, because we provide such statistics for a number of historical societies in Secular Cycles
Note, I didn't say it was inelastic. In most cases, it's relatively inelastic, so that the growth in the number of aspirants greatly overmatches the growth in the supply of the positions. Only in few instances the supply is absolutely inelastic (only one POTUS).
- Jonathan January 6, 2017 at 1:21 pm
Deficiencies in the concept of elite competition
Let's start with the definition of elite: "small proportion of the population that concentrates power in their hands"
His theory lacks an aspect that must be fundamental before even proceeding in a discussion on the "dynamics" of the elites and is that it is not able to explain in a satisfactory way the origin of the so-called "elites". According to its definition it seems that the elites are rather the manifestation of a particular phenomenon that is "concentration of power"; A phenomenon that manifests itself socially in the form of the so-called "elite", which hereafter I call the ruling class (I think it is a terminology in which we can all agree).
But if we assume that the dominant classes are only a manifestation of the phenomenon of the concentration of power, our attention must first be fixed in that aspect so we try to break it down into its fundamental parts
. Apparently the concept of power gives to understand the concept of dominion (some will have other words in mind but as surely they closely resemble the concept of domain I think that it suffices to refer us to this one) and we do not refer to any type of domain but to a domain Of social nature, a social domain. We will now say that this social domain manifests itself in the form of economic and political dominion, I think we will agree on this point.
Now let us collect the fruits of these arguments. We have a different and more precise definition, which in no way invalidates the original, and we say: The ruling class is that small proportion of the population that concentrates economic and political dominion in their hands. I believe that we will agree that economic dominance is nothing but greater possession of capital and that political dominance is but a major influence on a state structure (the word "state" is used in a modern sense).
Now we have: the ruling class is that small proportion of the population that concentrates the greatest possession of capital and the greatest influence within a state structure in their hands. The last part of " in your hands" is understood by what we can eliminate it and we have the following:
The ruling class is that small proportion of the population that concentrates the greatest possession of capital and the greatest influence on a state structure.
Now the possession of capital depends on its production or of the association with someone who produces capital. And it is revealed to us that the ruling class, apart from having influence in a state structure, needs to produce capital or be associated with someone who produces capital directly or indirectly.
Thanks to this we see clearly that competition between elites is a competition for economic benefits and influence. Obviously the economic aspect is more significant than the aspect of influence. It follows that a fall in economic profits, ie a fall in capital production (a crisis), would directly or indirectly exacerbate the competition for greater economic benefits, that is, increase the number of aspirants to elitist . The competition of elites is not the cause of the crisis is one of the consequences of the crisis.
- Jonathan January 6, 2017 at 2:40 pm
I must make a small correction in my analysis. By capital I wanted to let you understand profit, so the use of that term in this argument is actually inappropriate because I wanted to use the word capital in a Marxist sense.
- Federico January 8, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Hello Dr Turchin, I was wondering if you are familiar with Richard Lachmann's "elite conflict theory". It is a verbal theory, but one that he has successfully used to explain fiscal crises, hegemonic cycles, and the rise of modern capitalist economies. What do you think about it?
- Shaun Bartone February 27, 2017 at 3:47 pm
I wonder if any of the commentators here have considered that the [neoliberal] cabal now in power in the US (not elsewhere) are not in power to "take power" except for a temporary period. They don't want to run the federal government, they want to destroy it, except for the police state and the military.
They want to eliminate the EPA, vacate the State Dept and many other Depts, except for a few high-placed cronies, wipe all financial, labour, consumer and environmental regulations off the books; eliminate or reduce to a bare minimum federal health insurance, medicaid, medicare and Social Security, crush public education, privatize everything they can sell, and so on. They are not in power to "govern" but to destroy government. This is all being done with a fairly unified agenda: to free "the market" from any restrictions whatsoever, so that they -- global elites -- can make as much money as possible. It's a cabal of global corporations, militarists, Christian sovereign white supremacists, fossil fuel giants and bankers, and I think there's a high degree of cooperation for the agenda. The revolution is the cabal run by Trump/Bannon who are more extreme and ideological than any previous faction, who have no tolerance for compromise. They have an apocalyptic vision of grinding it all down to a bare minimum police state.
Sep 24, 2020 | www.nytimes.com
Dr B San Diego Sept. 20Wouldn't the conspiracy theories and concerns about antifa be lessened if progresses were as vitriolic about violence committed in the name of equity, diversity and inclusion as they are about violence committed in support of MAGA? Would the right have anything to crow about if the NYT was as critical of physical altercations caused by social justice warriors as they are of white supremacists? Wouldn't we all have more trust in MSM if they investigated the facts before accusing Nick Sandman of racism or claiming a garbage pull was a noose? One sided reporting and editorials like these fan the flames rather than squelch them.
Ralphie CT Sept. 20It's amazing. You can write a column in the NY Times full of conspiracy theories -- all fully believed by the left -- and accuse the right of being prone to believing conspiracy theories. From Russia - collusion to rubes in the red states --a majority of dems share a set of beliefs that are as delusional as anything a small group on the right might believe. But, that's Kristof and the Ny Times for you.
Richard Vermont Sept. 20People seemed to have lost a sense of what is plausible. While few of us know the news first hand, we have to both trust and evaluate what is reported. Nothing is absolute. Jurors are asked to decide cases beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how I feel taking in the news. But within that sliver of doubt, within the fact that nothing is absolute is where conspiracy theories begin to fester. It is where some have found solace to confirm what they want to choose to believe despite how much there might be to question that. Events like this create an opportunism to demonize those you hate and in doing so the essence of what we should be debating is lost. How to prevent these fires in the first place? We will probably continue to debate it despite the evidence on climate change, whether there is a deep state trying to discredit Trump, whether the seriousness of covid is a hoax. Yes there is no absolute certainty but there is taking an educated guess as opposed to an emotional response. I'll go with the educated guess. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I will say it is a duck and accept that sliver of possibility I might be wrong.
Neel Krishnan Brooklyn, NY Sept. 20The social fabric has unraveled, y'all pundits need to catch up.Steve Fankuchen Oakland, CA Sept. 20Why do people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories?" It's actually quite simple. Take QAnon for example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with any religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while offering a path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential elements of cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever you believe will be "validated." "Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories, merely assertions. A theory is subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where truth has no inherent monetary value, don't expect it. Why the rapid spread? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability = Profit That is the business model of the internet, a medium where "news" is whatever will produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and until the youngest generation developes a means of communication that does not depend on megacorporations, nothing will change. In the Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had no honest access to the traditional media, created its own, the "alternative press." Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their own way to communicate that is reliable. It is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition" becomes an actual threat to the profits of Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of their ilk, they will be cut off.RP NYC Sept. 20The antifa movement has grown since the 2016 United States presidential election. As of August 2017, approximately 200 groups existed, of varying sizes and levels of activity. It is particularly present in the Pacific Northwest. WikipediaMark Nuckols Moscow Sept. 20Well, Americans are notoriously gullible.
Steve Griffith Oakland, CA Sept. 20In an age when the US Justice Department is anything but just, more closely resembling something akin to "just us," I call to mind Thomas Jefferson, in a somewhat different context: "I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just."The Poet McTeagle California Sept. 20We spend hundred of billions of dollars every year on the types of weapons that won WWII, while the real threat to our Republic and yes, our civilization, is ,,, It's funny and tragic, simultaneously.Sigmond C. Monster Point Magu Sept. 20Antifa has done a lot of things. They have chosen to step into the arena. Whether they did it or not, this is accusation is a result of wading into the fight. If Antifa doesnt like to be accused of things and cant handle it, then Antifa should step off. Or does Antifa only want praise? Because that isnt going to happen. Many people dont like Antifa nor trust Antifa. And rightfully so. Ask any career criminal how many times they've been wrongfully accused of something. If an individual or group doesnt want to be accused of things, then dont get involved from the start.Larry Klein Walnut Creek Ca Sept. 20When people are uneducated, they do not understand what is happening around them. So they make up explanations to calm their uncertainty...JQGALT Philly Sept. 20Except that about a dozen people have been arrested and charged with starting the forest fires. Shouting "without evidence!" doesn't make it so. Facts matter.
Andy MD Sept. 20@JQGALT There are always people who are setting fires whether accidentally or intentionally. Do you have any proof that these arsonists were politically motivated I any way ?99percent downtown Sept. 20Why does NYT bend over to support Antifa? Kristof's 2nd headline should be changed to: "Absolute Defense of Antifa is a symptom of a deeper unraveling, and a sign of danger ahead." We know for a fact: BLM/Antifa destroyed thousands of buildings across the country in the last 90 days. Literally thousands. Minneapolis alone lost 700: https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/06/16/minneapolis-issues-map-showing-extent-of-buildings-damaged-in-unrest-over-george-floyds-death / We know for a fact: At least 6 arsonists set fires in Oregon - one of which was the largest outbreak: https://www.oregonlive.com/wildfires/2020/09/rash-of-oregon-arson-cases-fuel-fear-conspiracy-theories-during-devastating-wildfires.html We are justified to assume: Other fires were set by arsonists, but were not caught. One man all alone with a pack of matches is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to be Antifa. But common sense supports what we believe in our own hearts: the individual radical arsonists are most likely Antifa. Why does NYT bend over to support Antifa? 9 Recommend ShareThomas Shapley Washington State Sept. 20Yet the Almeda fire in Oregon that destroyed more than 2,300 homes was, according to NYT reporting, caused by human activity and is subject of a "criminal investigation." Perhaps it would be wise to reserve total judgment until that investigation is completed.
Observer of the Zeitgeist Middle America Sept. 20Who needs rumors? The organization showed what it is made of when it created its free zone in downtown Seattle and had the highest crime and murder rate per capita in its short life in the country.
joe atl Sept. 20Rational people know that Antifa is not staring forest fires. However, burning and looting and using fireworks as weapons in the recent riots make even the dumbest claims of Trump supporters more believable.LV USA Sept. 20Leftwing activists have literally been arrested for starting some of these fires. There is video of arsonists being caught, yet the media ignores this, and actively denies it. Gee, why could that be?
Andy MD Sept. 20@LV Do you have any proof that these people were were left wing activist or just the kind of people who are always starting fires ad they have in the past ?
Cloudy San Francisco Sept. 20Oh, I guess all those videos of protesters in Portland burning down police stations were fake. Good to know.
me again NYC- SF Sept. 20The [neoliberal] left spends 24/7 preaching to their choir about Trump fascists dictatorship, an illegal government installed by a foreign power, destroying the constitution while preparing to seize power and ignore coming election results. There is a zero factual evidence for it, such as a refusal to follow judicial injunctions for example, but their well educated audiences are buying it whole day long. So what is so baffling that a rural audience after watching night after night Portland burning by arson and accompanied by "peaceful protest" graphics on TV would buy into arson speculations and rumors and ignore your disclaimers?
Socrates Verona, N.J. Sept. 20Facebook needs to be regulated since it has effectively organ-harvested the critical thinking skills of a significant portion of the population. It'd be better if thinking people simply deleted Facebook and let Facebook shrink and become the right-wing agit-prop tool that it truly is. Mark Zuckerberg is happy to to destabilize society with his little toy invention. You'd think with all that money, he could afford a conscience. What a wrecking ball Facebook is.
Reasonable Orlando Sept. 20"All this rumormongering leaves me feeling that the social fabric is unraveling, as if the shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." Ya think?
AU San Diego, CA Sept. 20@California Scientist Amen. We are more like an international terminal at this point. A bunch of people gathered by happenstance, heading in different directions, and often with very little in common.
Steve Bolger New York City Sept. 20@California Scientist: It is even worse than when Adlai Stevenson noted that there aren't enough educated people to elect a liberal government in the US.MegWright Kansas City Sept. 20@LV - The point is that "urbanites" aren't able to boss anyone around. It's the low population rural areas that have outsize political power thanks to the unfortunate design of our government. Every state gets two senators, regardless of population, and that also factors into the allocation of Electoral College votes, so that an EC vote from WY is worth 4 times as much as an EC vote from CA, for example. In 2016, Senate Democrats got 20 million more votes than Senate Republicans, yet Republicans kept control. In 2018, Senate Democrats got "only" 11.5 million more votes, and consequently lost seats. We're being governed by a minority in may areas of the country, and nationally, yet the "rural rubes" or whatever you want to call them, insist that they don't have nearly enough power.
M CA Sept. 20Six accused of starting Oregon blazes amid devastating wildfire season - NYPostRobert Out west Sept. 20Nice try at making it seem these loons started the big fires. https://www.oregonlive.com/wildfires/2020/09/rash-of-oregon-arson-cases-fuel-fear-conspiracy-theories-during-devastating-wildfires.html They're loons, okay? Just loons.
Rolfe Shaker Heights Ohio Sept. 20Strange that anyone living in or just knowing the west would NOT know that arsonists could not burn down huge chunks of forest if they where not so very dry.
Augury Unhappy Bird Watcher, State of Grave Doubt Sept. 20The ugly truth of Oregon's political past is asserting itself...we aren't in "Portlandia" anymore Nick.
Victor Yokohama Sept. 20The social fabric in the United States was never tightly knit and tolerance has always been in short supply...
Dang Vermont Sept. 20The adage "A sucker is born every day" has never rung truer. That people believe these rumors says a whole lot about how gullible many people are...
Schrodinger Northern California Sept. 20Ominous! There are two information ecosystems in this country and Americans increasingly live in different realities. Much of the media is in the business of massaging the egos of their readers by feeding them stories that confirm their biases and make them feel clever. There is less and less fact based news and more and more propaganda. A lot of people aren't really interested in facts. They just want to be told how right they are and how stupid and evil the people who disagree with them are. Media corporations are providing the market with what it desires, and what it desires is poisonous.JRM Melbourne Sept. 20The fires and storms, the pandemic, stupid conspiracy theories, Black Lives Matter, Trump and his sycophants...
Ilene Bilenky Ridgway, CO Sept. 20There is a reptilian brain need to believe this nonsense and to propagate it- because the believers are so terrified of the facts of the truth (and the lack of knowing what might be done to address those facts). The people who are true believers are pointless to discuss. They are too frightened. They need to believe this stuff. It is hopeless to address them. Dark times, indeed.
stormy raleigh Sept. 20With the natural buildup of combustible matter, combined with houses everywhere now and little land management, these fires will happen and will cause problems. Lots of things can start them and they will.Len Arends California Sept. 20You left out "a century of zero-tolerance policies toward wildland fires (creating precariously dense underbrush), and resistance to traditional controlled burning at the human/wilderness interface". It's not the whole story, but neither is climate change which, due to global technological leveling, is evermore the responsibility of China and India than Western civilization. Signed, a moderate progressive endlessly frustrated with breathless liberalism
Cenvalman Fresno, CA Sept. 20If only there were no arsonists. Here is a video of a woman who found a man on her property with matches in his hand (and no cigarettes, which was his excuse for having matches in his hand). She made a citizen's arrest. This happened in peaceful Oregon. Don't listen if you can't handle harsh language by a woman who is trying to save her property. Arson is real, and it is no joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJW_M4pBCnY A man was arrested for arson in Southern Oregon. His fire damaged or destroyed numerous homes. https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-charged-arson-connection-almeda-fire-southern-oregon/story?id=72960208 Rumors of antifa notwithstanding, people in Oregon were looking for arsonists because there are arsonists.Steve Fankuchen Oakland, CA Sept. 20"Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories, merely assertions. A theory is subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where truth has no inherent monetary value, don't expect it. To paraphrase President Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability = Prominence That is the business model of the internet, a medium where "news" is whatever will produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and until the youngest generation developes a means of communication that does not depend on megacorporations, nothing will change. In the Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had no honest access to the traditional media, created its own, the "alternative press." Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their own way to communicate that is reliable. It is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition" becomes an actual threat to the profits of Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of their ilk, they will be cut off. As to why people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories", it's actually quite simple. Take QAnon for example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with any religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while offering a path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential elements of cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever you believe will be "validated."
Steve Fankuchen Oakland, CA Sept. 20"Conspiracy theories" are, for the most part, not theories, merely assertions. A theory is subject to proof and disproof by evidence. In a world where truth has no inherent monetary value, don't expect it. To paraphrase President Clinton, "It's the internet, Stupid!" Follow the money: Agenda + Clickbaitability = Prominence That is the business model of the internet, a medium where "news" is whatever will produce the most clicks. As in profit. Unless and until the youngest generation developes a means of communication that does not depend on megacorporations, nothing will change. In the Sixties, a generation which disbelieved and had no honest access to the traditional media, created its own, the "alternative press." Hopefully, today's teenagers will develope their own way to communicate that is reliable. It is 100% guaranteed that if their "opposition" becomes an actual threat to the profits of Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter, and the rest of their ilk, they will be cut off. As to why people attach themselves to "conspiracy theories", it's actually quite simple. Take QAnon for example: it is functionally just another religion competing for adherents. As with any religion, it offers its believers an explanation of what they deem is wrong while offering a path to right those wrongs. Certainty and simplicity: those are the essential elements of cults/religion/bumpersticker politics. And the internet guarantees that whatever you believe will be "validated."AU San Diego, CA Sept. 20" All this rumormongering leaves me feeling that the social fabric is unraveling, as if the shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." You betcha. (Palin doesn't look half bad compared to the current batch.) It's a simple formula: social media driven disinformation + extreme capitalism which leaves us with no real will to address it + legitimate grievances like racism and financial insecurity = craziness on all sides, fanned by a president whose personal agenda takes precedence over absolutely everything. All societies are constantly dealing with potentially destabilizing threats. Their institutions, media, leadership, and understanding of a common good are their immune system. Ours is compromised, we are destabilized.Ludmilla Wightman Princeton NJ Sept. 20How about a judicious Forrest management? We live in a period of global warming because of our planet axis precision, aggravated by the presence of an unprecedented population explosion needing more water, more food, the production of which needs more arable land, cutting trees, displacing wild animals, exhausting the aquifer. Cutting trees increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. More people in India, more cattle emitting methane, more old fashioned way of cooking food and producing more CO2 ... Permanent frost melting also sends more methane in the atmosphere ... The climate is extremely complex to permit exact modeling, but it is clear that if we want to stay healthy, it is vital to regularly clear our western forests of dead wood in order to prevent today's disaster of millions of people, particularly children with asthma and old people breathing the heavily polluted air. It is time to move to solar, wind power, electric trucks, cars etc. The technology is here. Let's hope that Biden will support clean air as means to better health. If all these years instead of using abstract terms like global warming or climate change, we have been appealing to people to keep the air clean in order to have better health, perhaps they would have stopped buying the behemoths cars, producing so much pollution?
Peter Texas Sept. 20As Nicholas and many readers on this page already know, this commentary is more evidence of how needlessly and recklessly polarized our country has become. When tribal instincts push people to look for anything - fact, fiction or fantasy - on social media or "rage commentary" that supports and validates their identities they will glom onto it faster than maggots on dead flesh. It is a sad state of affairs when so many people of all political persuasions will not take the time - even a few minutes - to question and investigate the latest "truth" being promoted. The new culture of low information consumers seems to be spreading as fast as a pandemic despite the heroic efforts of honest journalism. I wonder if low information consumption was so endemic to the citizens of Ancient Rome and Greece - long before Twitter, Facebook and Rage TV? People, please take a moment to "click" one step further to see if the latest conspiracy story is true. Why help propagate lies? It will only come back to haunt you, or your children.ST New York, NY Sept. 20Antifa or not, at least some of the big fires have been started by arsonists. Of this fact we have video proof. By downplaying or even denying it, the media are just as bad as the conspiracy theorists in promoting disinformation.
Bob Koelle Livermore, CA Sept. 20This reminds me of a time when people saw "Reds" behind anything that was going wrong in the country. Nothing new, but just as pathetically paranoid. I wonder how many people, or their parents, fit into both groups?
AT Idaho Sept. 20Here's another urban myth. Ok, more a lefty myth. That we can just keep adding people to this country (urban, suburban, rural, big city, anywhere and everywhere) and it won't have any effect. With the corollary that it's just a matter of "green new deal" or everybody getting a Prius or the dummies in the sticks realizing climate change is real and then we can just go on like this forever. We can't. Not only is our much hated lifestyle, which from what I can see, nobody really wants to give up, killing us, but believing 330 million Americans that add 2-3 million more a year is not a problem at all. Our entire way of life: endless population and economic growth is unsustainable. We don't need to wait until 2050 to see it. Just step outside.Robert Out west Sept. 20It is very difficult to teach people that "research," doesn't mean you go to some TV show or website you like and root around for stuff that tells you what you want to hear. One prob seems to be really simple: it takes actual work to do it right. Another is that research, done well, has an ugly habit of forcing you to think at least a little about whether your own ideas make any sense. And a third is that people really, really don't like it when their political views start getting contradicted by reality. It seems to be easier to change reality than to change views, even a little. Oh, and another prob? Too few Americans really read anything worth reading. I'm all for funsies (and I've probably read more crummy science fiction than all y'all put together) but one of the joys of walking around in Paris is seeing that the kiosks and bookstores still sell a ton of stuff on philosophy, lit, economics, and that everywhere, people actually read them. Books teach thought. Newsmax don't.Steve Bolger New York City Sept. 20@Beer Can Boyd: As a native-born American, I think the US fell down when the Congress put "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1953, ostensibly to preclude anyone thinking about Godless communism, and gave itself a stroke.
J. Park Seattle Sept. 20We, all of us, need to stop accepting assertions without a source of any sort identified.
Donald Florida Sept. 20... So much for our useless 750 Billion dollar military budget.
Joe Smith Chicago Sept. 20Societies are supposed to evolve. Instead, we are descending backwards into the age of witch hunts.
Pop PA Sept. 20Amazing how ,close minded people become when, for them, everything is political.
Toto Looking for Dorothy Sept. 20The melting pot burned over. It is now a word salad. But appears there is a method to the madness. It is hard for the world to tell the madness from the methodARL Texas Sept. 20@Carolyn then there are the lies and the demonization of China and Russia by both parties to top it off. How can voters believe anything and decide before they vote?
Harcourt Florida Sept. 20 Times PickSupporting this atmosphere of potential violence are some of my republican friends. They are mostly educated and not stupid. Yet they continue to support a man whom I think holds the responsibility for most of the violence if it comes. Now I want to get down to my point about these supporters. I believe they have succumbed to a cult-like dynamic. I say this because no rational person could possibly support Trump. Religious cults create this same addiction and irrationality. When my friends disagree with me, they try to put our friendship hostage to no further discussion of politics. They are unwilling to even be confronted with objections to their support of Trump. I have decided that I can always make new friends. What I do not want to do is take on the task of building a new country because I stayed silent.Robbie J. Miami Florida Sept. 20@Harcourt "They are mostly educated and not stupid." In my opinion, educated persons who behave as you describe never benefited from their education. Even worse, to me it seems like persons who behave like that are of the opinion that what they learnt in school is only for the purpose of writing the exams they needed to pass to get out of school. It was all just noise to them.
CA Vermont Sept. 20 Times PickYou nailed it. There is no longer "a shared reality" in America. So we have wildly different views of who Joe Biden and Donald Trump are. And how serious climate change is. And whether it's important to wear a mask. And if left-wing anarchists set forest fires. Thank you, Internet. Thank you, social media barons who refuse to ban Russian propaganda and manipulated videos. Thank you FCC that does not rein in Fox News and their promotion of lies. Who will step in and stop this madness?AU San Diego, CA Sept. 20@CA I agree with you completely except for the refusal to stop Russian interference. We can't. We can't unless we stop US interference in the process. The problem is that US interference, and rumor mongering, are the business model of these platforms which happen to be some of our largest companies. Extreme capitalism is preventing us from addressing any and all issues propagated by these companies. Russia is just a speck.
Objectivist Mass. Sept. 20Antifa adherents and wildfires ? Seems pretty far-fetched. Even ridiculous. But setting fire to occupied apartment buildings in Portland ? Oh yes, definitely. It happened, and more is on the menu, as well as municipal and federal buildings. Don't believe it ? Read the news releases for yourself, on the Portland Police Bureau's website.
James Thurber Mountain View, CA Sept. 20An excellent discussion of the perils of social media. Although newspapers, TV, radio, magazines have a historical principal of "generally" telling the truth, social media has opened up the world to every single Tom, Dick and Harry who with to spread their message. I believe that how we, as a nation, as a species, handle social media will define what happens over the next decade.vw pgh Sept. 20The state of this country is absolutely terrifying. While the shift to ever more conservative, insular, xenophobic, coroporate-controlled government has been going on for years, with the faux election of trump democracy is what has become fake, while common sense, empathy, and both fiscal and environmental responsibility have virtually disappeared. The US has gone off the deep end...
Mike S. Eugene, OR Sept. 20 Times PickOne of my neighbors has a bumper sticker that Covid is a Scamdemic and Plandemic...
Andy Makar Mason County WA Sept. 20Years ago I read a science fiction short story that is unsettling in its analogy to this situation. I starts with aliens visiting the Earth and accidently leaving behind a device that can allow metal to be manipulated by softening it, then hardening it. The device gets copied and mass produced. When they returned a year later, they come back and cannot fathom how their device could have resulted in anarchy. THAT is the internet. 5 Recommend ShareGP Oakland Sept. 20@Andy Makar One supposes that is a reference to the origins of metalworking? And the societal changes it produced? Not bad.
GP Oakland Sept. 20Let me ask you all a question. If your neighbor told you the fire in a nearby Oregon town was started by antifa, how would you disprove it? Since you cannot provide evidence for a negative statement, it's difficult. There is actually some evidence that antifa did start the fire: a voice said it on the radio, and tv showed them lighting fireworks in Portland. This isn't very good evidence, but it is evidence, and you can't produce any evidence that antifa did not do it (because there can't be any.) So you are in the position of asking your neighbor to look at the quality of the evidence. This is something very few outside the legal and scientific world are capable of. But that is all you have. Ultimately, it really does go back to belief. How many of us could independently prove that the earth turns around the sun? Those of us who aren't astronomers choose to accept this belief based on what we've been told, and that's how it is with antifa starting the fires.
Blaise Descartes Seattle Sept. 20Kristof is afraid that fires in the West represent the new normal. The evidence suggests that this fear is well-founded. He is concerned about the government's paralysis. That is partly due to Trump, who stands a good chance of being reelected on November 3. He is worried about ordinary citizens seeking oversimplified answers and finding them in the conspiracy theories presenting the fire as the work of antifa. I am more worried about the breakdown in credibility of news sources like the NY Times, which finds itself in competition with Fox News and a host of online sources. Indeed, you-tube and facebook will select news stories for you, confirming whatever bias you bring to your reading of the news. There is no guarantee that democracy will survive. One of the things that keeps me up at night is the realization that not only the right, but the left, is subject to oversimplified presentations of global warming. Global warming is a consequence of too much population growth. But as we argue over freedoms for LGBTQ minorities liberals have neglected the importance of freedom of speech. And voices which have warned about population growth have been simply ignored by the left. It isn't enough to shift from Fords using gasoline to Teslas running on electricity. We also need to control population growth. The population of earth will double again by 2072 if current rates continue. Population growth threatens to overwhelm the attempts to move to clean energy. 2 Recommend
secular socialist dem Bettendorf, IA Sept. 20The scientific consensus will also conclude that not allowing wildfires to burn compounds the problem. While what I am about to type is not science, continued development in fire prone areas amplifies and compounds every aspect of the problem. From my perspective the system has evolved to socializing cost and privatizing cost in every way. I don't see it getting better, until such time as individuals are held accountable this should be considered normal.deb inWA Sept. 20@secular socialist dem PG&E just paid billions in fines and PLEADED GUILTY in starting last year's Paradise fire. They also have already admitted fault in several fires started by their faulty, untended grid. "Individuals" don't need to be held accountable unless there are rules in place for them to follow regarding wildfire. There already are. Most already do. Why do folks act so proud about their 'anti-science' opinion? It's not like this conversation isn't ongoing; nobody argues that development in fire prone areas' carries risks. So does rebuilding in Oklahoma, Florida and Louisiana..... You're right (although confused) about socializing RISK and privatizing PROFIT. See PG&E above.S Day Texas Sept. 20Unsure how people lighting fires directly indicates climate change is corroborated. The fellow who was arrested in Tacoma, WA: https://thepostmillennial.com/antifa-activist-charged-for-fire-set-in-washington Looking to past wildfires, like the one's in Montana & Idaho in 2008, 5.5 million acres were burned and certain interest groups advocated for them to burn out because it's apart of the natural cycle. Federal government shouldn't send assistance unless it's possibly to communities in threat of burning, who are humans to say we ought to stop mother nature? It's natural to let these fires burn, if you try to hinder it's course you are stopping the cycle.Doug Terry Maryland, Washington DC metro Sept. 20 Times PickWhy do people believe wild stupid things more than actual facts? Partly it is because they like the wild stupid thing more, it gives them some weird comfort. It is also because people are busying with their lives and don't have time to gather enough information to counter the wild rumor that flies around faster than the speed of sound. The most important aspect of successful conspiracy theories is they impart to the person holding them the idea that they are smarter than other people and have "cracked the code" that explains everything or a lot of big things that people don't understand. Reading, thinking, considering and re-considering can seem like hard work, particularly if it is foreign to one's experience and life training. Why not just lock on to a cool idea that comes around, even if it is weird? .Murphy San Francisco Sept. 20 Times Pick
.. ... ...This story highlights for me an equally growing problem, the "selective framing" by media outlets on the left and right (NYT and Fox as just two examples). To read Mr Kristof's version, you may believe that arsonists are wild figments of the unhinged radical right imagination. To read the same story on Fox, Antifa arsonists are working their way up your street.
Kristin Portland, OR Sept. 20 Times Pick"...the shared understanding of reality that is the basis for any society is eroding." And yet reality still exist. Normally, if someone starts to exhibit the kind of behavior that these "vigilantes" are - screaming about boogeymen, thinking people are out to get them, engaging in aggressive behavior based on paranoid fantasies, creating self-reinforcing delusions, becoming obsessed with baseless conspiracy theories - we would rightly diagnose them as being mentally ill, and to the extent that they represent a danger to others, confine them. I don't think we can afford to see this as just a time of extreme differences of opinion. Facts, truth and reality are still actual, tangible things. And those who have become so disassociated from them that they are stopping vehicles and hunting down their fellow citizen need to be dealt with appropriately.
phornbein Colorado Sept. 20We have been witnessing the start of the Second Civil War in America. If we accept the definition of a civil war as a conflict between factions of citizens for either secession or control of the government--including organizations within the existing government--then we are in the beginning stages of a Second Civil War. The question is what the level of violence will be (not will there be violence, but how much violence). We are beginning to see indications of that level. When naturally or accidentally caused wildfires are attributed to one faction as a way to stoke the fires of civil violence, then physical violence between factions is a heartbeat away simply because of the falsity and extremity of the accusations. The era of peaceful protest has passed because of the intensity of feelings on both sides; the anger produced when a government begins denying civil rights, e.g., Freedom of Speech and the Right to Assemble, through legal actions where protest organizers could be charged with sedition (see Barr's comments, 9/16/2020, NYT), which then suggests that all protests become illegal, the fires of violence are stoked. With a heavily-armed populace on both sides, gunfire is a hair-trigger pull away. If Trump and the Republican's intention was to remake America in their image (I leave it to you to supply that image), they are succeeding. If Putin's intention was to bring down America, he is succeeding. If Xi's intention was to dominate the world, he is on that path. Vote 33 Recommend ShareJumblegym Longmont CO Sept. 20@phornbein They may have already done it. Keep your powder dry.
Mac New York Sept. 20The social fabric has unraveled. Aided and abetted by the world of the social networks....Brooklyncowgirl USA. Sept. 20... There's an old saying "Those who the gods would destroy they first make mad." I have come to the conclusion that America has gone qute a long way down that road.Jontavious Atlanta Sept. 20And yet, Mr. Kristoff, you never make mention of the real threat that groups like Antifa and other radical left rioters pose to this country (forgetting about attacks on federal buildings in Portland? Attempts to firebomb courthouses? Violence against law enforcement officers?). No, instead it's always Trump, or Trump supporters who are your focus. I do not know whether Antifa has been involved in any of these recent fires, but I do know that these violent elements on the left pose a massive danger to our democracy. You are correct about one thing, though: We should brace ourselves. It's just "what" we need to brace for that is off mark in your article...Jean CA Sept. 19It's heartbreaking to watch these three West Coast states burned. For days, the sky was red and the air was unbreathable. But the saddest part was the feeling of helplessness.
Aram Hollman Arlington, MA Sept. 1940 years ago, I hitchhiked around the Pacific Northwest during the summer after Mt. St. Helens blew up. Mt. Rainier was ash-coated, as were the wild blueberries I often ate. Epic and Biblical are words inadequate to describe that destruction near Mt. St. Helens, with millions of huge, old trees blown down, piles of mud, and rivers diverted. Yet I and others knew that eventually, that land would regrow, and it did.Stephanie Wood Montclair NJ Sept. 20I see a lot of egotism and self-love on both sides. The so-called progressives in our community are breeding at baby boom levels, driving SUVs, and, before the pandemic, you'd see a dozen school buses idling outside every school. Development is out of control as people flee from the city, and people flee from here, or downsize, and breed and breed and breed. Two years ago, we had a flash flood and our street was under water, and there was a lot of damage all over town. Hurricane Irene in 2011 left many with over a foot of water in their basements. And let's not even start on Sandy. My friend lives in Pensacola; their downtown area is under three or four feet of water from Hurricane Sally. It's not just fire, it's floods, and it's not just the GOP which is the problem...Ted Magnuson Portland OR Sept. 19That the fires have become a political football is well covered in this piece. As was the climate change crisis...
John Brown Idaho Sept. 19I don't blame anyone for guarding their roads if they think arsonists are about. The Tillamook Burn was larger and more devastating than these fires but are we to blame climate change ? Environmentalists and Liberals who do not even live out West, who did not rely upon Logging, placed their concerns about the Spotted Owl and Virgin Forests about the danger of Forest Fires and the livelihood of Loggers and the Towns and Peoples who depended upon Logging. Managed Logging of Forests is not an inherently evil act. Clearing the bush and dead trees is not bad in and of itself. Let Logging companies responsibly manage sections of the Forrests, let Towns clear fire breaks around their perimeters. Place large Water towers in strategic points throughout the Forests, huge mounds of dirt/sand/gravel next to them so that the Firefighters have what they need to fight the fires. Force developers to build houses 50 feet apart. Require fireproof roofs, require thinning of trees in housing developments. Require volunteer Fire Departments in every neighborhood so that if they do nothing else, they can cut a fire break, water down the grasses around their neighborhoods, chase and extinguish embers, something/anything versus fleeing their homes without putting up a fight.
Robert Seattle Sept. 19"... dry conditions exacerbated by climate change coupled with an unusual windstorm ..." May I add that a couple of other things have also contributed to making the fires worse or making them harder to manage? For a century or so, in California, Oregon and Washington we have not been letting the normal, periodic fires burn. Consequently, a great deal of fuel has built up on the forest floor. Second, folks have increasingly been building homes or even neighborhoods in places which have historically seen such normal, periodic fires.
Elizabeth CA Sept. 20@Robert Yes. But now controlled burns are a bit problematic, given the droughts, the heat, the massive fuel loads from all the dead trees. It's just so easy for the controlled burns to get out of control.
Carver Oregon Sept. 19Hi, I am from Clackamas County metro. Every time a FaceBook "Friend" (and I personally know all of mine) posted a rumor, I tried to find the footage from any of our 4 local news stations to depute their post but they just shared another one. One said she didn't trust KGW 8 the local NBC station and when I told her the same story was on KPTV 12, the local Fox station. She said, "I'm just stressed"M.i. Estner Wayland, MA Sept. 19@David Biesecker Remember that half the people are of below average intelligence. That may answer the existence of the small percentage of conspiracy theorists. One problem is social media provides free and outsized loudspeaker systems that enables them to find each other.
GreenSpirit Pacific Northwest Sept. 19@M.i. Estner First, let me identify myself as a liberal Democrat who has a masters degree. I find it more than disheartening when half of the country, or half of rural or not formally educated folks are said to have low intelligent quotas, critical thinking skills or analytical abilities. You better believe that when a highly trained Eastern Oregon firefighter is assessing how to save peoples lives, homes and land, has to quickly act with their many faceted skill set and are calling on abilities you or I would not be able to fathom. Same with farmers of large pieces of complicated crops and land. Same with city managers, librarians, and social workers for the elderly--all having low city budgets. What about the veterinarians, doctors and nurses in rural areas? This is exactly the same as calling Black or Hispanics people of lower intelligence. And, there are different types of intelligence. I know a literary critic, a liberal Democrat, who doesn't have the critical thinking skills to run her own home or raise her children. If you look, you can see these same differences in any group. It has to do with the way people are raised, what they are using their skill sets for, what information they are used to consuming, money, ideology, etc...And it has to do with being devalued for growing your food, producing your meat, chicken and eggs. I'm not excusing the violence, guns, racism and hatred. These divides have been with us for ages. Please don't stoke the fires.
Usok Houston Sept. 19If we have a selfish federal government, then we will have selfish states and people. Everyone is for himself or herself. No one will think about other people or public good. It all started from the topKathy Lollock Santa Rosa, CA Sept. 19In 2017, 2018, and 2019 northern California's new phenomenon of forceful 40 to 60 miles per hour winds - in Fall, no less - caused old and aging electrical equipment to malfunction. As a consequence, too much of Santa Rosa burnt to the ground, and the entire town of Paradise ceased to exist. This year during the heat of a hotter than usual summer following yet another dry winter, we had dry lightning strikes from Sonoma County to Santa Clara County and beyond.
Stuck on a mountain New England Sept. 19Yes, the science is clear and you fail to mention it. The forest fires reach critical mass and spread because of the surplus of dead or dying trees. They are there because the federal government essentially no longer allows logging on its vast landholdings and also fails to allow controlled burns to clean out the tinderbox. I won't bother attaching a link because any Google search proves the point. Why focus on hysteria and rumermongering among the Deplorables? Come on, Mr. Kristof, you were a Deplorable once (when you were a kid growing up in the countryside) as was I. Please defend them sometimes, particularly when the actual causes are so well documented.
Jorn Sagebrush Country Sept. 19@Stuck on a mountain Western States are working to clear the brush from forests where, due to our previous incomplete understanding of forest ecology, fires were suppressed for a century. However, the cost is astronomical and there are millions of acres left to clear. Spending their entire forest management budgets fighting current wildfires doesn't help. We've been doing controlled burns for decades but in many areas, they're now too dangerous. Dry forests and a dense understory can quickly turn a "controlled burn" into a conflagration. Many ranchers and timber companies who profit from our state and national forests seem unwilling to pay to keep those forests healthy. People who live in or near forests mostly have incomes too low to pay for forest management. The National Forest Service, Department of the Interior and USDA have made some progress, but the problem is huge. Saying we can prevent forest fires by allowing larger timber harvests is an oversimplification. No solution to this complex issue will be simple, perfect or cheap.
Glenn Ribotsky Queens Sept. 19Wacky conspiracy theories to explain seemingly bizarre and unusual occurrences have been around since the dawn of human cognition. But in an electronic/social media age, these get spread even faster than a wind-blown fire climbs a canyon hillside. Previously, they were spread one set of ears at a time; now millions of eyes can read them every second. And that is a major part of the problem.
DeHypnotist West Linn, Oregon Sept. 19As a grad student in sociology, having lived through the 60s and participated in the counterculture, I was deeply intrigued by the social construction of reality - how we come to share a taken-for-granted world. This is a long-standing concern within sociological social psychology. We examined how language, interpersonal communications, media and social structure shaped ones perception of one's self, what is real, what's important. At the time, however, this was considered theoretical and academic. 40 years later, understanding how Americans' realities have come to diverge is no longer armchair social science. It's urgent and in our faces, as is the question of how can we heal this terrible fracturing of our world?
Alex B Newton, MA Sept. 19@DeHypnotist Yes. When studying for the degree in and then teaching sociology in my early years, I learned that, too. But, I have to admit, it's actually taken all the decades of life since then, and now the obvious confirmation of it by this current 'reality' to actually realize, deep down in my guts, that we 'make up' our so-called 'social reality' simply to serve the most basic of biological requirements: the need to dominate in the deadly completion with the other 'tribes' of our species just to survive. We are, after all, animals like all the others, no matter how much we blab about how much 'smarter' we are.
Metaecongary Show Low, AZ Sept. 20@Alex B The primal driver, deep in the core of our brain, is usefully thought of as "reptilian." Cold-blooded. Egoistic. Hedonistic. And, in extreme cases, narcissistic, and, heaven forbid when all three are present...
Linda Anchorage Sept. 19I lived for a few years in Brazil when it was a dictatorship. The similarities between Brazil and what is happening in the US is startling. The police were being used to quell peaceful protesters and the justice system co-opted by authorities, fear mongering were present, just as now in the US....
Lois Ruble San Diego Sept. 19I didn't live in the US from 1977-1999, only visiting on short trips. That enabled me to see changes in society that were slow and not seen by those residing here. And when I came back permanently I could feel immediately a deep change....
JD Athey Oregon Sept. 20@Thomas Murphy 'Pandering to the lowest common denominator is how they play their game, and always have:'Agoldstein Pdx Sept. 19Perhaps an apt metaphor for the "danger sign ahead" is the approach of a Category three hurricane and it's increasing in intensity. One of the stark disconnects is between the message in an article like this and the politicians and citizens who are little concerned about tempering rhetoric and elevating the importance of eschewing misinformation. We are in the Misinformation Age and the victims of a cyber war, evolving into a civil war.Giogio Houston Sept. 20@ML What is happening here? These are the beginnings of what happened in Germany in the 30s. Over there the reason was the loss of WWI. Here, is the obvious decline of the American lifestyle and we have not seen anything yet. The range of the economic decline is covered by 7 trillion dollars in phony money. I fervently hope and pray that is not too late to stop the process. All men and women of goodwill have to rally to restore a sane, and one, country . Stay safe! It is going to get worse before it gets better.
grennan green bay Sept. 19@FunkyIrishman Right on. Water is an enormous issue waiting to happen here -- and Wisconsin is estimated to have between 10 and 20 percent of the world's fresh water (depending on how it's calculated and whether that includes some of Lakes Michigan and Superior. A Dept. of Climate, Weather and Water would be a logical cabinet department.
poslug Cambridge Sept. 20@FunkyIrishman And polluting the potable water continues sometimes by the most resolvable modern approaches: sewers and water treatment plants. Reagan ended federal funding for sewers leaving septic systems (and now ancient sewers) where sewers would lead to protected fresh water. All the medicines, chemicals, and toxins seep unseen but very real into fresh and also salt water. We are not a modern nation any more.
Sep 23, 2020 | www.nytimes.com
Augury Unhappy Bird Watcher, State of Grave Doubt Sept. 20
Oregon's racial demographics White alone, percent 86.7% Black or African American alone, percent 2.2% Alabama's racial demographics White alone, percent 69.1% Black or African American alone, percent26.8%
Sep 21, 2020 | angrybearblog.com
Likbez , September 21, 2020 1:59 pm
THX. Perhaps Nationalist Socialist was taken too literally there. In practice, Fascism was actually devoutly anti-socialist.
Yes, if was designed and supported as a tool of suppression of socialist movement. As an instrument of suppression of socialist ideas. Still it borrowed, at least on the program level, some elements of the programs of socialist parties.
Hitler and Mussolini were important leaders, but their movements succeeded through gaining the favor of the middle class masses and the ruling elites. They won that favor by their basic program. Of course neither had a formal written platform (Nazism's "unalterable" 25 Points became a joke, while Mussolini boasted about the untheoretical nature of his movement in its early years), but their basic intentions emerged clearly from their speeches and even more so from the style and slogans of their movements.
They proposed to exalt national power by building a dictatorially integrated national community on the model of methods and moods familiar from World War 1. They also benefited from being in the right countries at the right time to advance a plausible alternative political approach
But simultaneously it tried to attract some socialists into his ranks. BTW Mussolini was the editor-in-chief of Avante, so he was the leading figure in Italian socialist movement before his metamorphose into a fascist. From Wikipedia:
He had become one of Italy's most prominent socialists. In September 1911, Mussolini participated in a riot, led by socialists, against the Italian war in Libya. He bitterly denounced Italy's "imperialist war", an action that earned him a five-month jail term. After his release, he helped expel Ivanoe Bonomi and Leonida Bissolati from the Socialist Party, as they were two "revisionists" who had supported the war.
He was rewarded the editorship of the Socialist Party newspaper Avanti! Under his leadership, its circulation soon rose from 20,000 to 100,000. John Gunther in 1940 called him "one of the best journalists alive"; Mussolini was a working reporter while preparing for the March on Rome, and wrote for the Hearst News Service until 1935.
Mussolini was so familiar with Marxist literature that in his own writings he would not only quote from well-known Marxist works but also from the relatively obscure works. During this period Mussolini considered himself a Marxist and he described Marx as "the greatest of all theorists of socialism."
Sep 19, 2020 | thesaker.is
By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog
While the world's attention is absorbed by tectonic shifts unfolding across America as "a perfect storm of civil war, and military coup threatens to undo both the elections and the very foundations of the republic itself , something very ominous has appeared "off of the radar" of most onlookers. This something is a financial collapse of the trans-Atlantic banks that threatens to unleash chaos upon the world. It is this collapse that underlies the desperate efforts being made by the neo-con drive for total war with Russia, China and other members of the growing Mutlipolar Alliance today.
In recent articles, I have mentioned that the Bank of England-led "solution" to this oncoming financial blowout of the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble is being pushed under the cover of a "Great Global Reset" which is an ugly and desperate effort to use COVID-19 as a cover for the imposition of a new post-covid world order operating system. Since the new "rules" of this new system are very similar to the 1923 Bank of England "solution" to Germany's economic chaos which eventually required a fascist governance mechanism to impose it onto the masses, I wish to take a deeper look at the causes and effects of Weimar Germany's completely un-necessary collapse into hyperinflation and chaos during the period of 1919-1923.
In this essay, I will go further to examine how those same architects of hyperfinflation came close to establishing a global bankers' dictatorship in 1933 and how that early attempt at a New World Order was fortunately derailed through a bold fight which has been written out of popular history books.
We will investigate in depth how a major war broke out within America led by anti-imperial patriots in opposition to the forces of Wall Street and London's Deep State and we will examine how this clash of paradigms came to a head in 1943-1945.
This historical study is not being conducted for entertainment, nor should this be seen as a purely academic exercise, but is being created for the simple fact that the world is coming to a total systemic meltdown and unless certain suppressed facts of 20 th century history are brought to light, then those forces who have destroyed our collective memory of what we once were will remain in the drivers seat as society is carried into a new age of fascism and world war.
Versailles and the Destruction of Germany
Britain had been the leading hand behind the orchestration of WWI and the destruction of the potential German-Russian-American-Ottoman alliance that had begun to take form by the late 19 th century as foolish Kaiser Wilhelm discovered (though sadly too late) when he said: "the world will be engulfed in the most terrible of wars, the ultimate aim of which is the ruin of Germany. England, France and Russia have conspired for our annihilation that is the naked truth of the situation which was slowly but surely created by Edward VII".
Just as the British oligarchy managed the war, so too did they organize the reparations conference in France which, among other things, imposed impossible debt repayments upon a defeated Germany and created the League of Nations which was meant to become the instrument for a "post-nation state world order". Lloyd George led the British delegation alongside his assistant Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), Leo Amery, Lord Robert Cecil and Lord John Maynard Keynes who have a long term agenda to bring about a global dictatorship. All of these figures were members of the newly emerging Round Table Movement, that had taken full control of Britain by ousting Asquith in 1916 , and which is at the heart of today's "deep state".
After the 1918 Armistice dismantled Germany's army and navy, the once powerful nation was now forced to pay the impossible sum of 132 billion gold marks to the victors and had to give up territories representing 10% of its population (Alsace-Loraine, Ruhr, and North Silesia) which made up 15% of its arable land, 12% of its livestock, 74% of its iron ore, 63% of its zinc production, and 26% of its coal. Germany also had to give up 8000 locomotives, 225 000 railcars and all of its colonies. It was a field day of modern pillage.
Germany was left with very few options. Taxes were increased and imports were cut entirely while exports were increased. This policy (reminiscent of the IMF austerity techniques in use today) failed entirely as both fell 60%. Germany gave up half of its gold supply and still barely a dent was made in the debt payments. By June 1920 the decision was made to begin a new strategy: increase the printing press . Rather than the "miracle cure" which desperate monetarists foolishly believed it would be, this solution resulted in an asymptotic devaluation of the currency into hyperinflation. From June 1920 to October 1923 the money supply in circulation skyrocketed from 68.1 gold marks to 496.6 quintillion gold marks. In June 1922, 300 marks exchanged $1 US and in November 1923, it took 42 trillion marks to get $1 US! Images are still available of Germans pushing wheelbarrows of cash down the street, just to buy a stick of butter and bread (1Kg of Bread sold for $428 billion marks in 1923).
With the currency's loss of value, industrial output fell by 50%, unemployment rose to over 30% and food intake collapsed by over half of pre-war levels. German director Fritz Lang's 1922 film Dr. Mabuse (The Gambler) exposed the insanity of German population's collapse into speculative insanity as those who had the means began betting against the German mark in order to protect themselves thus only helping to collapse the mark from within. This is very reminiscent of those Americans today short selling the US dollar rather than fighting for a systemic solution.
There was resistance.
The dark effects of Versailles were not unknown and Germany's Nazi-stained destiny was anything but pre-determined. It is a provable fact often left out of history books that patriotic forces from Russia, America and Germany attempted courageously to change the tragic trajectory of hyperinflation and fascism which WOULD HAVE prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII had their efforts not been sabotaged.
From America itself, a new Presidential team under the leadership of William Harding quickly reversed the pro-League of Nations agenda of the rabidly anglophile President Woodrow Wilson. A leading US industrialist named Washington Baker Vanderclip who had led in the world's largest trade agreement in history with Russia to the tune of $3 billion in 1920 had called Wilson "an autocrat at the inspiration of the British government." Unlike Wilson, President Harding both supported the US-Russia trade deal and undermined the League of Nations by re-enforcing America's sovereignty, declaring bi-lateral treaties with Russia, Hungary and Austria outside of the league's control in 1921. The newly-formed British Roundtable Movement in America (set up as the Council on Foreign Relations ) were not pleased.
Just as Harding was maneuvering to recognize the Soviet Union and establish an entente with Lenin, the great president ate some "bad oysters" and died on August 2, 1923. While no autopsy was ever conducted, his death brought a decade of Anglophile Wall Street control into America and ended all opposition to World Government from the Presidency. This period resulted in the speculation-driven bubble of the roaring 20s whose crash on black Friday in 1929 nearly unleashed a fascist hell in America.
The Russia-Germany Rapallo Treaty is De-Railed
After months of organizing, leading representatives of Russia and Germany agreed to an alternative solution to the Versailles Treaty which would have given new life to Germany's patriots and established a powerful Russia-German friendship in Europe that would have upset other nefarious agendas.
Under the leadership of German Industrialist and Foreign Minster Walter Rathenau, and his counterpart Russian Foreign Minister Georgi Chicherin, the treaty was signed in Rapallo, Italy on April 16, 1922 premised upon the forgiveness of all war debts and a renouncement of all territorial claims from either side. The treaty said Russia and Germany would "co-operate in a spirit of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries."
When Rathenau was assassinated by a terrorist cell called the Organization Consul on June 24, 1922 the success of the Rapallo Treaty lost its steam and the nation fell into a deeper wave of chaos and money printing. The Organization Consul had taken the lead in the murder of over 354 German political figures between 1919-1923, and when they were banned in 1922, the group merely changed its name and morphed into other German paramilitary groups (such as the Freikorps) becoming the military arm of the new National Socialist Party.
1923: City of London's Solution is imposed
When the hyperinflationary blowout of Germany resulted in total un-governability of the state, a solution took the form of the Wall Street authored "Dawes Plan" which necessitated the use of a London-trained golem by the name of Hjalmar Schacht. First introduced as Currency Commissioner in November 1923 and soon President of the Reichsbank, Schacht's first act was to visit Bank of England's governor Montagu Norman in London who provided Schacht a blueprint for proceeding with Germany's restructuring. Schacht returned to "solve" the crisis with the very same poison that caused it.
First announcing a new currency called the "rentenmark" set on a fixed value exchanging 1 trillion reichsmarks for 1 new rentenmark, Germans were robbed yet again. This new currency would operate under "new rules" never before seen in Germany's history: Mass privatizations resulted in Anglo-American conglomerates purchasing state enterprises. IG Farben, Thyssen, Union Banking, Brown Brothers Harriman, Standard Oil, JP Morgan and Union Banking took control Germany's finances, mining and industrial interests under the supervision of John Foster Dulles, Montagu Norman, Averill Harriman and other deep state actors. This was famously exposed in the 1961 film Judgement at Nuremburg by Stanley Kramer.
Schacht next cut credit to industries, raised taxes and imposed mass austerity on "useless spending". 390 000 civil servants were fired, unions and collective bargaining was destroyed and wages were slashed by 15%.
As one can imagine, this destruction of life after the hell of Versailles was intolerable and civil unrest began to boil over in ways that even the powerful London-Wall Street bankers (and their mercenaries) couldn't control. An enforcer was needed unhindered by the republic's democratic institutions to force Schacht's economics onto the people. An up-and-coming rabble rousing failed painter who had made waves in a Beerhall Putsch on November 8, 1923 was perfect.
One Last Attempt to Save Germany
Though Hitler grew in power over the coming decade of Schachtian economics, one last republican effort was made to prevent Germany from plunging into a fascist hell in the form of the November 1932 election victory of General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor of Germany . Schleicher had been a co-architect of Rapallo alongside Rathenau a decade earlier and was a strong proponent of the Friedrich List Society's program of public works and internal improvements promoted by industrialist Wilhelm Lautenbach. The Nazi party's public support collapsed and it found itself bankrupt. Hitler had fallen into depression and was even contemplating suicide when "a legal coup" was unleashed by the Anglo-American elite resulting in Wall Street funds pouring into Nazi coffers.
By January 30, 1933 Hitler gained Chancellorship where he quickly took dictatorial powers under the "state of emergency" caused by the burning of the Reichstag in March 1933. By 1934 the Night of the Long Knives saw General Schleicher and hundreds of other German patriots assassinated and it was only a few years until the City of London-Wall Street Frankenstein monster stormed across the world.
How the 1929 Crash was Manufactured
While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.
The bubbles of the 1920s were unleashed with the early death of President William Harding in 1923 and grew under the careful guidance of JP Morgan's President Coolidge and financier Andrew Mellon (Treasury Secretary) who de-regulated the banks, imposed austerity onto the country, and cooked up a scheme for Broker loans allowing speculators to borrow 90% on their stock. Wall Street was deregulated, investments into the real economy were halted during the 1920s and insanity became the norm. In 1925 broker loans totalled $1.5 billion and grew to $2.6 billion in 1926 and hit $5.7 billion by the end of 1927. By 1928, the stock market was overvalued fourfold!
When the bubble was sufficiently inflated, a moment was decided upon to coordinate a mass "calling in" of the broker loans. Predictably, no one could pay them resulting in a collapse of the markets. Those "in the know" cleaned up with JP Morgan's "preferred clients", and other financial behemoths selling before the crash and then buying up the physical assets of America for pennies on the dollar. One notable person who made his fortune in this manner was Prescott Bush of Brown Brothers Harriman, who went onto bailout a bankrupt Nazi party in 1932. These financiers had a tight allegiance with the City of London and coordinated their operations through the private central banking system of America's Federal Reserve and Bank of International Settlements.
The Living Hell that was the Great Depression
Throughout the Great depression, the population was pushed to its limits making America highly susceptible to fascism as unemployment skyrocketed to 25%, industrial capacity collapsed by 70%, and agricultural prices collapsed far below the cost of production accelerating foreclosures and suicide. Life savings were lost as 4000 banks failed.
This despair was replicated across Europe and Canada with eugenics-loving fascists gaining popularity across the board. England saw the rise of Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists in 1932, English Canada had its own fascist solution with the Rhodes Scholar "Fabian Society" League of Social Reconstruction (which later took over the Liberal Party) calling for the "scientific management of society". Time magazine had featured Il Duce over 6 times by 1932 and people were being told by that corporate fascism was the economic solution to all of America's economic woes.
In the midst of the crisis, the City of London removed itself from the gold standard in 1931 which was a crippling blow to the USA, as it resulted in a flight of gold from America causing a deeper contraction of the money supply and thus inability to respond to the depression. British goods simultaneously swamped the USA crushing what little production was left.
It was in this atmosphere that one of the least understood battles unfolded in 1933.
1932: A Bankers' Dictatorship is Attempted
In Germany, a surprise victory of Gen. Kurt Schleicher caused the defeat of the London-directed Nazi party in December 1932 threatening to break Germany free of Central Bank tyranny. A few weeks before Schleicher's victory, Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency in America threatening to regulate the private banks and assert national sovereignty over finance.
Seeing their plans for global fascism slipping away, the City of London announced that a new global system controlled by Central Banks had to be created post haste. Their objective was to use the economic crisis as an excuse to remove from nation states any power over monetary policy, while enhancing the power of Independent Central Banks as enforcers of "balanced global budgets". elaborate
In December 1932, an economic conference "to stabilize the world economy " was organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and Bank of England. The BIS was set up as "the Central Bank of Central Banks" in 1930 in order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany- long after WWII began . The London Economic Conference brought together 64 nations of the world under a controlled environment chaired by the British Prime Minister and opened by the King himself.
A resolution passed by the Conference's Monetary Committee stated:
"The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks, with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution" and that "the conference wish to reaffirm the great utility of close and continuous cooperation between Central Banks. The Bank of International Settlements should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an instrument for common action."
Echoing the Bank of England's modern fixation with "mathematical equilibrium", the resolutions stated that the new global gold standard controlled by central banks was needed "to maintain a fundamental equilibrium in the balance of payments" of countries. The idea was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own development.
FDR Torpedoes the London Conference
Chancellor Schleicher's resistance to a bankers' dictatorship was resolved by a "soft coup" ousting the patriotic leader in favor of Adolph Hitler (under the control of a Bank of England toy named Hjalmar Schacht) in January 1933 with Schleicher assassinated the following year. In America, an assassination attempt on Roosevelt was thwarted on February 15, 1933 when a woman knocked the gun out of the hand of an anarchist-freemason in Miami resulting in the death of Chicago's Mayor Cermak.
Without FDR's dead body, the London conference met an insurmountable barrier, as FDR refused to permit any American cooperation. Roosevelt recognized the necessity for a new international system, but he also knew that it had to be organized by sovereign nation states subservient to the general welfare of the people and not central banks dedicated to the welfare of the oligarchy. Before any international changes could occur, nation states castrated from the effects of the depression had to first recover economically in order to stay above the power of the financiers.
By May 1933, the London Conference crumbled when FDR complained that the conference's inability to address the real issues of the crisis is "a catastrophe amounting to a world tragedy" and that fixation with short term stability were "old fetishes of so-called international bankers". FDR continued "The United States seeks the kind of dollar which a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we hope to attain in the near future. That objective means more to the good of other nations than a fixed ratio for a month or two. Exchange rate fixing is not the true answer."
The British drafted an official statement saying "the American statement on stabilization rendered it entirely useless to continue the conference."
FDR's War on Wall Street
The new president laid down the gauntlet in his inaugural speech on March 4 th saying: "The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit".
FDR declared a war on Wall Street on several levels, beginning with his support of the Pecorra Commission which sent thousands of bankers to prison, and exposed the criminal activities of the top tier of Wall Street's power structure who manipulated the depression, buying political offices and pushing fascism. Ferdinand Pecorra who ran the commission called out the deep state when he said "this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States."
Pecorra's highly publicized success empowered FDR to impose sweeping regulation in the form of 1) Glass-Steagall bank separation , 2) bankruptcy re-organization and 3) the creation of the Security Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street. Most importantly, FDR disempowered the London-controlled Federal Reserve by installing his own man as Chair (Industrialist Mariner Eccles) who forced it to obey national commands for the first time since 1913, while creating an "alternative" lending mechanism outside of Fed control called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which became the number one lender to infrastructure in America throughout the 1930s.
One of the most controversial policies for which FDR is demonized today was his abolishment of the gold standard. The gold standard itself constricted the money supply to a strict exchange of gold per paper dollar, thus preventing the construction of internal improvements needed to revive industrial capacity and put the millions of unemployed back to work for which no financial resources existed . It's manipulation by international financiers made it a weapon of destruction rather than creation at this time. Since commodity prices had fallen lower than the costs of production, it was vital to increase the price of goods under a form of "controlled inflation" so that factories and farms could become solvent and unfortunately the gold standard held that back. FDR imposed protective tariffs to favor agro-industrial recovery on all fronts ending years of rapacious free trade.
FDR stated his political-economic philosophy in 1934: "the old fallacious notion of the bankers on the one side and the government on the other side, as being more or less equal and independent units, has passed away. Government by the necessity of things must be the leader, must be the judge, of the conflicting interests of all groups in the community, including bankers."
The Real New Deal
Once liberated from the shackles of the central banks, FDR and his allies were able to start a genuine recovery by restoring confidence in banking. Within 31 days of his bank holiday, 75% of banks were operational and the FDIC was created to insure deposits. Four million people were given immediate work, and hundreds of libraries, schools and hospitals were built and staffed- All funded through the RFC. FDR's first fireside chat was vital in rebuilding confidence in the government and banks, serving even today as a strong lesson in banking which central bankers don't want you to learn about.
From 1933-1939, 45 000 infrastructure projects were built. The many "local" projects were governed, like China's Belt and Road Initiative today, under a "grand design" which FDR termed the "Four Quarters" featuring zones of megaprojects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority area in the south east, the Columbia River Treaty zone on the northwest, the St Laurence Seaway zone on the North east, and Hoover Dam/Colorado zone on the Southwest. These projects were transformative in ways money could never measure as the Tennessee area's literacy rose from 20% in 1932 to 80% in 1950, and racist backwater holes of the south became the bedrock for America's aerospace industry due to the abundant and cheap hydropower. As I had already reported on the Saker , FDR was not a Keynesian (although it cannot be argued that hives of Rhodes Scholars and Fabians penetrating his administration certainly were).
Wall Street Sabotages the New Deal
Those who criticize the New Deal today ignore the fact that its failures have more to do with Wall Street sabotage than anything intrinsic to the program. For example, JP Morgan tool Lewis Douglass (U.S. Budget Director) forced the closure of the Civil Works Administration in 1934 resulting in the firing of all 4 million workers.
Wall Street did everything it could to choke the economy at every turn. In 1931, NY banks loans to the real economy amounted to $38.1 billion which dropped to only $20.3 billion by 1935. Where NY banks had 29% of their funds in US bonds and securities in 1929, this had risen to 58% which cut off the government from being able to issue productive credit to the real economy.
When, in 1937, FDR's Treasury Secretary persuaded him to cancel public works to see if the economy "could stand on its own two feet", Wall Street pulled credit out of the economy collapsing the Industrial production index from 110 to 85 erasing seven years' worth of gain, while steel fell from 80% capacity back to depression levels of 19%. Two million jobs were lost and the Dow Jones lost 39% of its value. This was no different from kicking the crutches out from a patient in rehabilitation and it was not lost on anyone that those doing the kicking were openly supporting Fascism in Europe. Bush patriarch Prescott Bush, then representing Brown Brothers Harriman was found guilty for trading with the enemy in 1942!
Coup Attempt in America Thwarted
The bankers didn't limit themselves to financial sabotage during this time, but also attempted a fascist military coup which was exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler in his congressional testimony of November 20, 1934. Butler had testified that the plan was begun in the Summer of 1933 and organized by Wall Street financiers who tried to use him as a puppet dictator leading 500 000 American Legion members to storm the White House. As Butler spoke, those same financiers had just set up an anti-New Deal organization called the American Liberty League which fought to keep America out of the war in defense of an Anglo-Nazi fascist global government which they wished to partner with.
The American Liberty league only changed tune when it became evident that Hitler had become a disobedient Frankenstein monster who wasn't content in a subservient position to Britain's idea of a New World Order. In response to the Liberty League's agenda, FDR said "some speak of a New World Order, but it is not new and it is not order".
FDR's Anti-Colonial Post-War Vision
One of the greatest living testimonies to FDR's anti-colonial vision is contained in a little known 1946 book authored by his son Elliot Roosevelt who, as his father's confidante and aide, was privy to some of the most sensitive meetings his father participated in throughout the war. Seeing the collapse of the post-war vision upon FDR's April 12, 1945 death and the emergence of a pro-Churchill presidency under Harry Truman, who lost no time in dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan, ushering in a Soviet witch hunt at home and launching a Cold War abroad, Elliot authored 'As He Saw It' (1946) in order to create a living testimony to the potential that was lost upon his father's passing.
As Elliot said of his motive to write his book:
"The decision to write this book was taken more recently and impelled by urgent events. Winston Churchill's speech at Fulton, Missouri, had a hand in this decision, the growing stockpile of American atom bombs is a compelling factor; all the signs of growing disunity among the leading nations of the world, all the broken promises, all the renascent power politics of greedy and desperate imperialism were my spurs in this undertaking And I have seen the promises violated, and the conditions summarily and cynically disregarded, and the structure of peace disavowed I am writing this, then, to you who agree with me that the path he charted has been most grievously -- and deliberately -- forsaken."
The Four Freedoms
Even before America had entered the war, the principles of international harmony which FDR enunciated in his January 6, 1941 Four Freedoms speech to the U.S. Congress served as the guiding light through every battle for the next 4.5 years. In this speech FDR said:
"In future days, which we seek to secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
"The first is the freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
"The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.
"The third is the freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.
"The fourth is freedom from fear -- which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.
"That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
"To that new order, we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
"Since the beginning of American history, we have been engaged in change -- in a perpetual peaceful revolution -- a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions -- without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
"This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or to keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose."
Upon hearing these Freedoms outlined, American painter Norman Rockwell was inspired to paint four masterpieces that were displayed across America and conveyed the beauty of FDR's spirit to all citizens.
FDR's patriotic Vice President (and the man who SHOULD have been president in 1948) Henry Wallace outlined FDR's vision in a passionate video address to the people in 1942 which should also be watched by all world citizens today:
Churchill vs FDR: The Clash of Two Paradigms
Elliot's account of the 1941-1945 clash of paradigms between his father and Churchill are invaluable both for their ability to shed light into the true noble constitutional character of America personified in the person of Roosevelt but also in demonstrating the beautiful potential of a world that SHOULD HAVE BEEN had certain unnatural events not intervened to derail the evolution of our species into an age of win-win cooperation, creative reason and harmony.
In As He Saw It, Elliot documents a conversation he had with his father at the beginning of America's entry into WWII, who made his anti-colonial intentions clear as day saying:
"I'm talking about another war, Elliott. I'm talking about what will happen to our world, if after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery!
"Don't think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn't been for the shortsighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now.
"One sentence, Elliott. Then I'm going to kick you out of here. I'm tired. This is the sentence: When we've won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France's imperialistic ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its imperial ambitions."
This clash came to a head during a major confrontation between FDR and Churchill during the January 24, 1943 Casablanca Conference in Morocco. At this event, Elliot documents how his father first confronted Churchill's belief in the maintenance of the British Empire's preferential trade agreements upon which it's looting system was founded:
"Of course," he [FDR] remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, "of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade."
He paused. The P.M.'s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.
"No artificial barriers," Father pursued. "As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition." His eye wandered innocently around the room.
Churchill shifted in his armchair. "The British Empire trade agreements" he began heavily, "are -- "
Father broke in. "Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It's because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are."
Churchill's neck reddened and he crouched forward. "Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England's ministers."
"You see," said Father slowly, "it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.
"I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can't be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now -- "
"Who's talking eighteenth-century methods?"
"Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation -- by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community."
Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill's aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.
"You mentioned India," he growled.
"Yes. I can't believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy."
"What about the Philippines?"
"I'm glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they've gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down "
"There can be no tampering with the Empire's economic agreements."
"They're artificial "
"They're the foundation of our greatness."
"The peace," said Father firmly, "cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany's attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?"
It was an argument that could have no resolution between these two men
The following day, Elliot describes how the conversation continued between the two men with Churchill stating:
"Mr. President," he cried, "I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite of that" -- and his forefinger waved -- "in spite of that, we know that you constitute our only hope. And" -- his voice sank dramatically -- "you know that we know it. You know that we know that without America, the Empire won't stand."
Churchill admitted, in that moment, that he knew the peace could only be won according to precepts which the United States of America would lay down. And in saying what he did, he was acknowledging that British colonial policy would be a dead duck, and British attempts to dominate world trade would be a dead duck, and British ambitions to play off the U.S.S.R. against the U.S.A. would be a dead duck. Or would have been, if Father had lived."
This story was delivered in full during an August 15 lecture by the author:
FDR's Post-War Vision Destroyed
While FDR's struggle did change the course of history, his early death during the first months of his fourth term resulted in a fascist perversion of his post-war vision.
Rather than see the IMF, World Bank or UN used as instruments for the internationalization of the New Deal principles to promote long term, low interest loans for the industrial development of former colonies, FDR's allies were ousted from power over his dead body, and they were recaptured by the same forces who attempted to steer the world towards a Central Banking Dictatorship in 1933.
The American Liberty League spawned into various "patriotic" anti-communist organizations which took power with the FBI and McCarthyism under the fog of the Cold War. This is the structure that Eisenhower warned about when he called out "the Military Industrial Complex" in 1960 and which John Kennedy did battle with during his 900 days as president .
This is the structure which is out to destroy President Donald Trump and undo the November elections under a military coup and Civil War out of fear that a new FDR impulse is beginning to be revived in America which may align with the 21 st Century international New Deal emerging from China's Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian alliance. French Finance Minister Bruno LeMaire and Marc Carney have stated their fear that if the Green New Deal isn't imposed by the west , then the New Silk Road and yuan will become the basis for the new world system.
The Bank of England-authored Green New Deal being pushed under the fog of COVID-19's Great Green Global Reset which promise to impose draconian constraints on humanity's carrying capacity in defense of saving nature from humanity have nothing to do with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and they have less to do with the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. These are merely central bankers' wet dreams for depopulation and fascism "with a democratic face" which their 1923 and 1933 efforts failed to achieve and can only be imposed if people remain blind to their own recent history.
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk , and has authored 3 volumes of 'Untold History of Canada' book series . In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation
Taras 77 on September 19, 2020 , · at 6:16 pm EST/EDTB.F. on September 21, 2020 , · at 2:26 am EST/EDT
Remarkably detailed information, spot on=the bankers.
Still trying to wade thru and digest;
Thank you!Tommy Apeiron on September 19, 2020 , · at 7:17 pm EST/EDT
Yes, a very interesting article, which explains much, but not everything. The question which need’s to be asked is who was FDR and how did he become President, ie. why was he permitted to become President. It should be taken into account that he was a 33 degree freemason, just like Truman. So, what really happened during the 1930’s ? The impression is that the US elite during that period was not united, being heterogeneous.
In 1917 Wall Street bankers finance the Russian “revolution”, when Lenin is brought to Russia from Switzerland, where he was living the high life, and when he was given 20 million dollars in gold to start an insurrection known as a “revolution”. The intent was to create a communist central government which would control Russian industry, raw materials and finances, and present them on a silver platter to Western bankers. The additional intent was the break up of Russia. The federal system was introduced, and artificial states like Ukraine were created within that system. These banker aspirations collapsed in 1924 when their puppet Lenin dies from syphilis and when Stalin assumes control, introducing industrialization.
The bankers then turn to Germany, when in 1925 an obscure character by the name of Adolf Hitler pops up. Before he is bestowed with power in 1933, the bankers in 1931 open the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, right next to the German border. It was this Bank which financed Hitler, his economic and banking “miracles”, as well as his upcoming war. As for Wall Street corporations, they of course invested in Germany, like Henry Ford, who built truck factories which provided the German Army with transport. Without Anglo-American involvement, there is no way that Hitler could have started World War Two. And what was the intention of Anglo-American bankers ? The break up and plundering of Russia, something that Stalin prevented, and something that in our age Putin also prevented.
And the US ? The bankers were obviously impressed what their puppet Adolf Hitler achieved, introducing dictatorship and at the same time placating the masses. They wanted the same thing in the US. This of course had to be prevented, as had the bankers succeeded with their planned fascist coup d’etat, then the game would have been up, as it would become obvious who was financing and controlling Hitler. I think that over this issue the US elite became divided. The group which backed FDR prevailed, as they wanted a covert modus operandi.
And FDR ? When did he join World War Two ? In December of 1941, when Stalin brought more than a million troops from Manchuria to Moscow, and when it became apparent that Hitler would be defeated, as he was. The Anglo-American elites feared that Russian troops would end up in Paris, as they did in 1814, when Napoleon was defeated. This, of course, had to be prevented. Also Hitler, the banker puppet, needed to be saved. His suicide in 1945 was more than suspicious, with historians “forgetting” to mention that his bunker had four escape tunnels (Hitler ostensibly commits suicide, while all of his staff manage to escape, with historians failing to explain how they did this. Did they, perhaps, use the four escape tunnels ?).
And what do we have today ? Unfortunately we have more of the same. What began in 1917 with the Russian revolution is still active. The Anglo-American bankers cannot forget their aim of breaking up and plundering Russia. Unfortunately for them, their little plan is taking too long. Their Praetorian Guard, NATO, is costing them billions. In 1971 Nixon takes the dollar off the gold standard, opening the way for mass printing and financial collapse, as mentioned in this article. On the other hand, Russia and it’s ally China have been stockpiling gold for years, preparing to introduce gold backed rubles and yuans, which of course needs to be prevented. The latest political machinations with Belarus and with Navalny in Russia are repeat performances of 1917, the West hoping for new insurrecions, ie. “revolutions”, where “democratic” leaders would be installed, little Guaidos. I think the West will see a financial crash first.John Mason on September 19, 2020 , · at 10:48 pm EST/EDT
“This is the structure which is out to destroy President Donald Trump and undo the November elections under a military coup and Civil War out of fear that a new FDR impulse is beginning to be revived in America which may align with the 21st Century international New Deal emerging from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian alliance.”
I was with you until that sentence. Trump is in no way the new Franklin Roosevelt. He was put into office by a cabal of Zionists and banksters, the very same “money changers” that Roosevelt railed about in the 1930s, the very same that Jesus threw out of the Temple. They never forgave him for that, to this very day.
With the likes of Sheldon Adelson throwing “thirty pieces of silver” at him in the last days of the 2016 election and pulling strings with the Kosher Nostra to get him elected, Trump reciprocated by cancelling the Iran nuclear deal. That has set the stage for the war that will be the end of the USA as we know it. With the COVID-19 plandemic bearing down on us as well, Heaven only knows how this will all turn out.Bro 93 on September 19, 2020 , · at 11:04 pm EST/EDT
Agree with you 100%; Trump is part and parcel of the so called deep state and his actions have verified his status, like you the article is very good until the second last paragraph referring to Trump.Tommy Apeiron on September 20, 2020 , · at 8:42 am EST/EDT
It’s more complicated than that, Tommy.
In fact it’s a rather Slippery Conceptual Slope and there are a great many…especially Commonwealth Lefties that just can’t seem to keep their footing….and slide right (or left, as the case may be) off The Path….so reliably …as programmed by the Masters of Ideological Left/Right Mind Control.
But there’s HOPE:
Today’s Anti-Mask anti-Lockdown demonstration in London’s Trafalgar Square:
Is that a Red MAGA hat on one of the demonstrators??? (sarc)
Finally, more of y’all are getting it……AND ..not slipping and sliding off course as predictably….and obediently…. as before.Little Black Duck on September 21, 2020 , · at 12:47 am EST/EDT
You’re right, Bro, it is more complicated than that. It’s more complicated than we could even begin to understand. But, understand this: We have troops in the Middle East because Israel wants them there, pure and simple. Even Trump understands that. We are threatening Iran because Israel wants us to. The Likudniks and Zionists who Trump has surrounded himself with are driving the USA into a war with Iran and Russia that no one but them really want. It’s all part of their crazy “end times” ideology. The “synagogue of Satan” is prepared to march us all right over a cliff. Americans of faith need to get their heads out their asses and put a stop to this madness.Tommy Apeiron on September 21, 2020 , · at 7:58 am EST/EDT
Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer?
The bad guys are godless bastards and don’t want to die in a firestorm I wouldn’t think.
They are practicing divide and rule to the extent that we let them.emersonreturn on September 20, 2020 , · at 12:42 pm EST/EDT
I’m thinking the “bad guys” aren’t even human anymore, maybe some AI profit algorithm like what controls the hedge funds these days. They certainly have no use for most humans, although they may keep a few of us around as pets.Snow Leopard on September 20, 2020 , · at 6:37 pm EST/EDT
absolutely agree. i’m not sure why ehert believes trump is anything but a tool but he’s put this idea forth in several essays now. i also do not fully agree with cabal signing on with the bri, yes, undoubtedly they will have to but china (russia as well) are well acquainted with the cabal & will have no illusions about their ends. if or rather when the cabal realizes it has no choice but to join it will be as a very controlled minor player never to be trusted. neither china nor russia has suffered this long journey to recovery to then hand its control over to the cabal yet again. i read last week (middleeastmonitor i believe) that egypt is about to teach chinese in its schools. the world is indeed changing.Bobm on September 21, 2020 , · at 2:42 am EST/EDT
Regarding Trump; the Saker has covered this issue well in a recent post. It is not a matter of what we think of Trump. It is a matter of what the banking Cabal thinks of him. They make it pretty obvious that they regard him as insufficiently under their own control. They fear his loyalty to America. He is not as totally bought as the democrats. This for them is a threat. The cabal wants a President that is totally under their control. For them Trump does not cut it. So they cleverly provide as much ammunition in their controlled media as they can find to reinforce the people’s dislike of him. Not a difficult task obviously. Divide and rule works. Particularly in America where politics is reduced to a personality contest.pablo on September 20, 2020 , · at 6:17 pm EST/EDT
It’s complicated? No, the truth is just obscured by all the theater. It’s something like this …
For the first time in decades we have a potus that is not directly serving the ptb. This is intolerable for the ptb, hence the deep state revolt against him.
Trump got into office because he promised the likudniks things that the ptb denied to them because they conflicted with their interests
But on the issue of “the great replacement”, Trump is an obstacle to the ptb.Little Black Duck on September 21, 2020 , · at 12:41 am EST/EDT
nearly every name ,company,movement, politician mentioned in the article is connected by freemasonry and “the money changers” . When individually looked at its readily available to see. but when asked to step back and see a bigger world view. it becomes tin foil time cognitive palsy for most.
trump ? just look at his photo ops with satans sidekick himself kissinger.Grieved on September 19, 2020 , · at 8:16 pm EST/EDT
Yes, but to what extent is that needed in order to stay in the game?
President Kennedy tried a more aggressive approach.RMM on September 20, 2020 , · at 12:19 pm EST/EDT
Thank you. Matthew Ehret, for your scholarly detail, and your persistence in trying to present this story, in a world that has whitewashed it out of the culture. This long piece was to my mind one of your best presentations yet. We should all be very grateful.
I had watched Wallace’s speech before, but this time, in the context you provided, it became stunningly clear that the FDR school of thought regarded the socialist revolution as a real thing around the world, and as a very American thing, ongoing for a century and a half here, and not yet completed, as the revolution of the worker towards freedom from want continued – and was intended to continue.
And this all should have continued, except that those who love money do not hesitate for one second to kill anyone whom they deem it expedient to kill – perhaps this is the truest lesson of all that the people must always hold in their thinking.
What a different world we could be living in today but for the greed of a few people who all along have regarded the rest of humanity as nothing. No wonder they hate China, for continuing that revolution that they killed in the United States – IF, in fact, it has been killed.
Our revolution continues – the President’s man told us so. And they will kill anyone they have to in order to defeat this revolution – our best general told us so.
Thank you for the continual reminders, Matthew Ehret.Connor on September 19, 2020 , · at 8:34 pm EST/EDT
The hatred of China is recent, and currently over-dramatized by Trump, mostly for own reasons. And the neocons still think there are means to “contain” China’s economic growth (they will fail’), while Russia’s sabotage of an increasing number of their evil plots around the world is hard to prevent.
Consequently, Russia remains the greater threat for the empire, as Putin has been increasingly frustrating their second biggest tool for control after the $ – regime change. Belarus, Venezuela, Syria, to which should be added Turkey, and other less known spanners in the wheels.
And of course, Crimea, which the regime-changers refuse to get over…
Worse of all: the new weapons.
And to add insult to injury, the vaccine with the nose-thumb name, Sputnik V.
The cumulative effect of these steps is proving so irritating that Matthew Ehret’s warning about a neocon-driven “total war with Russia, China…” should be taken seriously.
Certainly Putin does, if this statement is anything to go by:
“And since Dec. 2019, the first strategic missile regiment with the Avangard system has been on full combat alert.” (See here for context: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64058 )Paul Smith on September 20, 2020 , · at 1:24 am EST/EDT
Excellent historical link up of City of London + Wall st + JSOC/CIA/Deep state. At present it seems to be the Left is Right and the Right is Left. Again like it was over 90+ years ago the distraction of a DEM v GOP ensures we lose sight of the bigger picture.Katherine on September 20, 2020 , · at 9:45 pm EST/EDT
Better link for the Banking with H—-r https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x537w3ldjole on September 21, 2020 , · at 2:00 am EST/EDT
the adverts are a bit annoying but it looks as though there is no other way to view this film other than the link provided.
The info on how sovereign wealth (gold) was stolen is incredible. Just moved from one vault to the other at either the BIS or the Bank of England!! And gold stolen from Czechoslovakia, Austria, and POland was used by the Reich to make interest and dividend payments to the Bank of England!
Really great film WW2 footage that I haven’t seen elsewhere, and interviews with members of the Greatest Generation, many of them intelligent women who were on the scene.
A great companion film to The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire.
The takeaway: Don’t trust bankers! Especially not international bankers. The summary at the end is: They like to have a quiet life, just keep making money regardless of who is in power or who wins. They all fraternized throughout the war. Especially Chase. That is Rockefeller, in case you forgot . . .
KatherineZidar on September 20, 2020 , · at 12:04 am EST/EDT
They did not stole Gold reserves of Austria. Fake news.Robert Shule on September 20, 2020 , · at 3:16 am EST/EDT
Thank you. Amazing text and great insights into original documents. I have learned a lot from the text and the links. Many things mentioned in the text, I have heard before, by reading Episodes on Oriental Review (it is on the list of news sources on the top of this page), written by Nikolay Starikov. However, Starikov being a Russian, can hardly be used as a reference in discussions with readers from US. Now I have another source to point to – a fellow Canadian, eh :-)
Thank you againGeneva Observer on September 20, 2020 , · at 3:13 pm EST/EDT
History all very well, but I believe we have a situation in the world today unlike anything mankind has experienced in the past. Thus, most unfortuneately there exists no guidance, no lessons that could be learned from. In the course of the last century world population has exponentially grown to a size that the planet cannot comfortably support. Energy, nature, social, and economic systems are being stressed beyond their limits as humankind is out to drown in its own guano. The problem is not in our ability to produce, but in our inability to get rid of the excess, i.e. the byproducts. The West’s culture of glutten provides no avail. Scientists know this, and have been warning for quite a long time, but too few are listening. So yes, as Mr. Ehret points out we are in a slow motion world order meltdown in many dimensions, but not because of political machinations (although the political machinations certainly aid the quandary.) Rather, at the root, it is because of technical-biological formations overwhelming the world’s natuaral orders, and these formations also promise to overwhelm any world order that the planet’s oligarchies are willing to accept . Our world leaders are totally lost. They do not know what to do as there is no past history they can grasp on to even if they cared to do so. China’s belt and road inititive is hardly a solution as it will only exasperate the basic problem of a world seriously overpopulated wanting to live like one hundred million gluttonous Americans did fifty years ago.
I only feel for the young people who will inherit this mess as the older generations have become too decrepit to even acknowledge the situation.Nussiminen on September 20, 2020 , · at 3:45 am EST/EDT
In 1949 when Chairman Mao came to power, the population numbered about 1.0 billion, the average life expectancy was 42 years, literacy was about 2%, opium addiction was about 25%. Health care was non-existant except to a privileged few. Children had to look after their elderly parents.
Today the population is 1.4 billion, average life expectancy is 78 years, literacy is about 98% and opium addiction is almost irrelevant.
You will not read this from the priests at the Club of Rome. It is not in their interest.
You should be celebrating one of the most extra-ordinary successes in history. Over 500 million people have been lifted from a life of abject poverty to a decent standard of living with education, health care and a pension, in other words, a life worth living.
The world population will obviously have to rise as people live longer. This was one reason for the one child policy that was persistently applied in China for decades. This does create a burden on the care of elderly. Technology makes it less so.
China is converting its electricity plants from coal to gas and nuclear, greatly reducing air and water pollution. China is not just a low wage country. It has learned over the last decades to be the most efficient, high quality producer of goods and services.
Above all their belt and road initiative offers a great deal for its partners, a win-win situation. No other developed nation offers so much hence the trade war.Gerry on September 20, 2020 , · at 12:10 pm EST/EDT
”In June 1922, 300 marks exchanged $1 US and in November 1923, it took 42 trillion marks to get $1 US!”
Matthew Ehret doesn’t mention it, but what started the monstrous hyperinflation instantly was the occupation of the Ruhr by French and Belgian troops (January 1923) as ”due compensation” for Germany defaulting on war reparation payments. Germany found herself asset-stripped of her own industry and, without any colonies to rob blind, resorted to print money with no backing. This is something which ominously haunts the collective West ever since: What will happen if and when the Oppressor Nations — now deindustrialised and with abysmal birth stats (except in immigrant communities) — can’t coerce other countries and peoples into upholding any of this ’post-industrial’ nonsense anymore? Fascism is a consummate expression of militant parasitism, with or without any racist depravities pertaining to it.
Matthew Ehret is dead right about the remedy: Kick out rapacious speculative finance and join the BRI project which will eradicate poverty, hunger, and war by creating durable infrastructure. The neocon filth doesn’t even qualify as fascists. They are anti-Life, pure and simple.Paul on September 20, 2020 , · at 4:40 am EST/EDT
I remember reading years ago a sentence from Keynes about the disaster that was Versailles:
“Men will not always die quietly…In their distress they may overturn the remnants of organization, and submerge civilization itself.”
“but who can say… in what direction men will seek at last to escape their misfortunes.”
Unbelievable, how bankers gamble with the worlds population and then came what? The nuclear deterrent, “MAD” lol and the cry for a one world government.
and now O look their all pointing their ICBM’s at us?Anonymous on September 20, 2020 , · at 6:26 pm EST/EDT
I wonder what the modern day “Reichstagsbrand” would look like.Dr.NG Maroudas on September 20, 2020 , · at 11:55 pm EST/EDT
“… I wonder what the modern day “Reichstagsbrand” would look like …”
This is how:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/14/20/0D7A129100000578-3690818-image-a-84_1468523552255.jpgHarry_Red on September 20, 2020 , · at 5:11 am EST/EDT
Right, Con-911 was the 21st century Reichstagsbrand. And it has been followed as the night follows the day by Con-19, the 21st century version of Gleich-Gestaltung (Uniform Viewpoint) with Lockdown, Mass Incarceration of suspects, and biological Reprogramming with forcible injection of genetic material.Roberto on September 20, 2020 , · at 6:22 am EST/EDT
Fascinating article and very well written. Leaning more towards scholarly work.
The shear evil, cunning and intelligence of the British Elite is amazing and unprecedented from a historical perspective.
Hence the “Anglo“ in the Anglo-Zionist Empire (Alliance).Jean-Pierre James Elsener on September 21, 2020 , · at 5:03 am EST/EDT
Please would you link, point to any reference for this:
“A leading US industrialist named Washington Baker Vanderclip ….agreement in history with Russia to the tune of $3 billion in 1920”common man on September 20, 2020 , · at 6:42 am EST/EDT
Washington Baker Vanderclip was seemingly president of the Elkhart Masonic Mutual Life Association from Elkhart, Indiana ( https://tinyurl.com/y2vnjktc ).
I guess the guy in question is not Vanderclip but a business man named ‘Washington Baker Vanderlip’.
Vanderlip was also known as ‘The Khan from Kamchatka’.
He was often confused by the Russians with the banker Frank Vanderlip from the First National City Bank. Might well be the case they were under the impression dealing with the banker when matter of fact they were talking to the business man.
W.B. Vanderlip acted as a kind of semi-official US ambassador before the US established diplomatic relations with the back then Soviet Union in 1933.
You shall find numerous references by searching for ‘The Khan from Kamchatka’ in history books from the time of the Russian revolution.djole on September 20, 2020 , · at 7:39 am EST/EDT
Absolutely brilliant. To be read and reread. I will recommend it to my family and friends. A must to understand the dangers and opportunities of the current situation. Thank You Mr Ehret.Tsader on September 20, 2020 , · at 11:04 am EST/EDT
Is there any chance that someone put together in the same format of article, connection between City and catholic Kuria in Vatikan. This would than cover everything.
ThanksSerbian girl on September 20, 2020 , · at 11:10 am EST/EDT
Yeah sure, lots of details but also lots none factual details that have been randomly connected to events at the author’s discretion without any references to back up the claims, especially when it comes to National Socialistic Germany and Hitler. Usually, a topic that has been willfully ignored academically as well as scientifically since its destruction.
Hence, we always get to hear the same nonsense over and overAnonymous on September 20, 2020 , · at 6:55 pm EST/EDT
Reading this article one gets the impression it was exclusively foreign money that funded the rise of Hitler.
Why is there no mention of prominent domestic funding?
Kurt von Schroeder a German banker from Cologne who participated in the financing of the Nazi party and was a director of the Keppler Circle (together with Hjalmar Schacht ) which grouped together German businessmen who were sympathetic to the Nazis.
August Thyssen the German industrialist bought the “Brown House” in Munich which became the Nazi HQ. The imposing building basically functioned as “state within a state” in the Weimar Republic.
Albert Voegler, the founder of Vereinigte Stahlwerk AG funded the Nazis and was one of the main beneficiaries of re-armament.
Also, not sure how one can describe Kurt Von Schleicher, a Nazi who paved the way for Hitler to become Chancellor, as a “patriot”?Pamela on September 20, 2020 , · at 12:13 pm EST/EDT
Wilhelm Keppler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Keppler
Keppler Kreis – Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft (Circle of Friends of the Economy): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freundeskreis_der_Wirtschaft
Kurt Baron von Schröder: https://museenkoeln.de/NS-DOKUMENTAtionszentrum/medien/abb/368/4443_6530.jpg , https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Freiherr_von_Schr%C3%B6der
Braunes Haus, München: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-17059%2C_M%C3%BCnchen%2C_Braunes_Haus.jpg
etc…djole on September 20, 2020 , · at 1:48 pm EST/EDT
“Britain was the leading in hand behind (..) WWI”
“the British oligarchy managed the war,”
It makes it hard for me to continue reading this. I’m sick to death of this total refusal to take a tiny bit of trouble to examine what is meant by “Britain”. The Island of Britain holds 3 people; the Cymraeg, the Gaelic and the AngloSaxon.
Since the AngloSaxon, more accurately designated from genetic studied as Franco-Germanic hybrids – invaded the land before the turn of the millenia under the pretext of coming to aid the Cymraeg who inhabited and owned the entire island up to the northern border with Pictish and Gaelic tribes, and were under attack by the same Picts – but took and relabeled stolen land “Angle-Land”, the Island has been dominated by the AngloSaxons and a few aristocratic Normans, known after a few hundred years as “English”.
To the Cymraeg they are still “Saxons”.
Every ruling power over the island since those days has been English. Few Gaels or Celts have been in any position of power, since the concept of Aristocracy was absorbed by the English by their Norman forbears and to this day is clung to like immovable glue. The attitude of English aristocracy towards us has been one of utter contempt and loathing. Only one Cymraeg was ever Prime Minister and that was the highly charismatic David Lloyd George, for whom English was a second language. He fought and fought against all those moneyed powers stop WWI, and when he failed because of the power of group action, did all he could to prevent the worst excesses.
The people being talked of here are primarily the English Aristocracy and Landed “Gentry” as they call themselves, which includes the Royal Family line [primarily Germanic, brought in by that Aristocracy to make sure the Gaelic or Scottish in line for the throne didn’t inherit it], and the City of London, a city and power unto itself. It’s the entire unimaginably wealthy class, which is not subject to most of the Laws of Britain, being a power unto itself; it is comprised of Jewish, English and other power-brokers and oligarchs.
There are NO “oligarchs ” who are Celtic or Gaelic.
So – forget we exist if you want, but for Gods sake stop just grouping us with our first and only real enemy, the English, under the title THEY invented —- “Britain”.Anonymous on September 20, 2020 , · at 2:33 pm EST/EDT
Thumb up. Can you write an article on this topic for the Saker blog so everyone can see what it is about.
Thank youKapricorn4 on September 21, 2020 , · at 3:00 am EST/EDT
Just watched a movie about the IRA from the mid 80’s. How is it that they were lamenting about the ”British” and not the ”English” and that on the walls of Belfast it read ”Beware Brits”?Uncle Bob on September 21, 2020 , · at 3:37 am EST/EDT
The people of Northern Ireland are Protestant Christians, who split off from the Roman Catholics of Eire in 1920.
This has been the major cause of the violence in Belfast ever since. The Catholics wish to unite with Eire (Southern Ireland), but the Protestants want to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland having representation in Westminster.Katherine on September 20, 2020 , · at 5:54 pm EST/EDT
That is partly correct.But the Catholic population is around 45% of the country.And the Protestant around 55%.When the British kept the 6 counties they went too far. Fermanagh,and Tyrone,were very majority Catholic.And Derry and Armagh,were close to half Catholic.Of the other two,Down was around a third Catholic in its South region. And the industrial Antrim with Belfast,had large workingclass Catholic ghetto’s in Belfast. Had they cut the borders by a lot they could have had a mostly Protestant area.But to do so would leave only a tiny area to them.And they wanted a bigger region.Katerina on September 20, 2020 , · at 6:10 pm EST/EDT
I don’t think that Ehret has to undertake a genetic study of the British Isles before he can write up this analysis of the role of the British ruling class/oligarchy/monarchy in fomenting both WW1 and WW2.
I too would like to see more documentation of US-Russian cooperation between the wars.
From my recent reading I think Ehret does miss an important point regarding WW1, which is the role of the hawk faction in Austro-Hungary and its failed plan to do a surgical “cakewalk” type of punishment of Serbia for the assassination in Sarejevo (Franz Ferdinand had actually been a “dove” re Serbia). But the fact was that militarists in both Germany and Russia wanted war and put tremendous pressure on both Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas, his cousin, to go to war. Possibly also in Britain. Britain certainly did fear the growing clout of quickly industrializing Germany and wanted to nip it in the bud. And Churchill was salivating over gaining territory and control for Britain from the Ottoman Empire
Especially as Germany was already building the Berlin-Baghdad Railway, which would have provided access to the newly discovered oil fields of the Ottoman Empire (now Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Germany certainly had the brainpower in chemistry, physics, engineering, etc. to complete the railroad as far as the Persian Gulf and to develop the oil fields and develop and manage all of the refinery infrastructure and processes.
Then there was that little issue of a Jewish homeland. Unfortunately David Lloyd George, for all of his good deeds at home, can be practically be described as a militant Christian Zionist. The Palestine idea was always there in the background as Britain teed up for the Great One. Arguably the Balfour Declaration would have gone nowhere without the active support of George to create a Jewish enclave, and British imperial toehold, in the Middle East. Please, we should not assume that the imperialists were unable to read maps.
But back to Britain and the postwar era, a very relevant complement to Ehret’s analysis is this excellent documentary film, about the creation of offshore tax havens by the City of London:
The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire
KatherinePamela on September 20, 2020 , · at 12:21 pm EST/EDT
Pamela, we seem to be “on same page” quite a few times and what is remarkable, that is exactly what riles me when they say “British”, when the obvious evil doers are the English! Plain and simple, but most people fail to make that distinction. By the way, I have promised Saker another essay on that very subject – the global evil that eminated and continues to eminate from that particular “race”, group or whatever one can call them. That oppressive, domineering, imperialistic mindset that believes only in subjugation and enslavement of others and that is why there is such deep, all-consuming hatred towards Russia and Russians, who are radically opposite to them in their understanding of living in this world. I want to address that and expand on it. Give me a month or so. : )Anonymous on September 20, 2020 , · at 1:09 pm EST/EDT
If you truly want to understand the causes of Hyperinflation I can suggest no better source than Mike Moloney’s “GoldSilver.com” site. He presents plenty of graphs and economic history to show exactly how it is caused, what trends it is a part of , and why it is now totally unavoidable.
Regarding this piece, I have nothing to say for anyone who says that David Lloyd George, the first and best true Socialist P.M. the people of the British Isle ever had, and who formed what was the best Welfare state before it was ruined, was part of a drive for Global domination. He was in a position of power as P.M. and therefor was a part of many Committee’s but to suggest this ardent socialist and fighter for the rights of man was a side kick to Globalism is just beyond discussion.Per/Norway on September 20, 2020 , · at 2:16 pm EST/EDT
The Anglo American Empire is certainly desperate–like a rabid beast frothing at the mouth.
As such, America increasingly lashes out with geopolitical provocations and threats, as it feels its global hegemony slipping through its grasp.
Amid mounting domestic crisis, US imperialism lashes out at Russia and China
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/01/pers-s01.html?view=printKapricorn4 on September 20, 2020 , · at 8:24 pm EST/EDT
Here is a Roosevelt As he saw it link that you do not need an archive. org account to read.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.81973/page/n19/mode/2upJamshyd on September 21, 2020 , · at 12:40 am EST/EDT
This article is an excellent narrative concerning international politics. However, contrary to accepted financial wisdom, the rise of Germany from 1933 onwards under Hitler was not financed by international bankers. Quite the opposite in fact,
The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 had imposed draconian war reparations on Germany, because they had just lost the 1914-18 world war and had to be punished by the international bankers. It was they who caused the hyperinflation of the German Mark that occurred in 1922 in order to pay off the war loans incurred by France and England by printing more and more money that Germany had to borrow at interest. This caused the breakdown of the German economy with massive unemployment and the social discontent that led to the eventual rise of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany.
In 1933 Hitler canceled Germany’s debts and created debt free money as Treasury certificates that were paid to the German workforce for work done and/or materials supplied. This enabled the rejuvenation of the German economy building railroads, autobahns and the manufacture of war materiel resulting in full employment and prosperity to the nation.
The international bankers were aghast at this transformation and that is why Britain declared war on Germany in 1939, since the rise of German power would threaten to destroy the British Empire.Serbian girl on September 21, 2020 , · at 8:40 am EST/EDT
This is correct. The Germans went against the banks. That is why today we equate Nazi Germany with mad racist baby eaters.
I don’t believe we have ever been told the true history of WW2.Cyril on September 20, 2020 , · at 11:03 pm EST/EDT
Kaprocorn, Hitler’s rise was fuelled by credit. Read up on MEFOBILLS. It was a deferred payment system. He did not “create debt free money”. Credit will give you an economic high for a while…Hitler milked it for what it was worth and then just before the debts became due, he waged Blitzkrieg and stole his neighbors’ gold reserves.
Jamshyd, since Hitler was financed by bankers how was he “against the bankers”?? And, yes the Nazis were racist baby eaters.
Btw, Hitler also supported the cause of Zionism. Haavara agreement promoted the settlement of Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine.
Thank you, Matthew Ehret, for a fine work.
Until now, I have never heard of FDR’s Four Freedoms (freedom of speech; freedom of worship; freedom from want; and freedom from fear (of war, e.g.)). My ignorance probably says something about the overwhelming completeness of the Banksters’ Putsch that occurred after FDR’s death.
Learning about the Four Freedoms reminds me of the soaring opening phrases of the United Nations Charter:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind ….
This is completely consistent with the Four Freedoms. I see now that FDR must have been one of the primary creators of the UN — an enormous achievement. The UN Charter, and the Four Freedoms, should be celebrated throughout the USA. I wonder why they aren’t?
Sep 20, 2020 | angrybearblog.com
I try to avoid these terms like "fascism," but it has become clear that Donald J. Trump actively seeks to become an at least authoritarian leader of the US...
Bert Schlitz , September 20, 2020 3:49 pm
Fascism??? Nope. Zionism, yup. It's a form.September 20, 2020 6:44 pmTerry , September 20, 2020 7:28 pm
We probably need to distinguish between fascism and neo-fascism. Those are two different social models.
Fascism proper name is "national socialism." It is different from "national neoliberalism" as advocated by Trump. In many ways, Classic Fascism strongly correlates with the mental state of nation which is attacked by strong enemy, the enemy which has supporters inside the country. It was also a revolt against financial oligarchy while masking it with the particular national identity, due to historical for Europe over-representation of Jews in financial industry. The distinct feature of fascism is its strong aversion to the excessive financialization of economy and banking, which fascists consider evil.
Often it is also connected with the attempt of modernization of the country "from above."
The classic fascism involve charismatic leader, unhinged militarism, cult of the army, unhinged nationalism and cult of personal scarifies in the name of the country, violence against opponents and the rejection of parliamentary democracy.
National socialism model of the state was the first which emphasized the key role on intelligence agencies in suppressing of the dissent and as a tool of infiltration into opposition. Surveillance of the population became vital state function. It was fascism that invented the role of intelligence agencies as the major part of oppressive apparatus of the state. It re-invented "political police" on a new level in the form of Gestapo.
For the most part (and that's why many researchers do not consider Franco regime as a proper fascist state) t also was defined by openly proclaimed goal of external expansion. In this sense it is not unlike neoliberal states with the only difference in tools -- direct army occupation vs. indirect occupation via financial capital penetration and subjugation of nation via debt and the control of its elite (debt slave mechanism)
Scapegoated ethnic minorities was typical only for selected national variants and first of all for the German variant, (where it were Jews and Gypsies.)
BTW the formal program of NSDAP (not that they intended to implement it) was to the left of the current Democratic Party Platform
The 25-point Program of the NSDAP
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
21.The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
Neo-fascism is something very different and less defined. It is unclear if Trump's "national neoliberalism" can be classified as neo-fascism (which in a very simplified meaning is fascism within the bounds of parliamentary democracy) . I am not an expert on the topic. But clearly several things simply do not match. First of all is should strives, at least on the level of program, to raise the standard of living of lower 80% of population. This is not the case with Trump.Bert Schlitz , September 20, 2020 8:26 pm
...Mostly, I am concerned that SCOTUS will become a rubber stamp for the oligarchs...
I do not know whether it is fascism, neither whatever or just the " law of the jungle", but it is bad.
Classical Fascism is just socialism, with violent tribalism. Soviet Russia went into this as well by 1928, became known as social fascism as they starved nonrussian areas of the Soviet to industrialize rapidly in roughly 10 years.
What's stupidly called neofascism now is just zionist/conservative authoritarianism. Progressive authoritarianism is from Millsian liberalism, which many people do not get.
Fred C. Dobbs September 21, 2020 11:34 am
'Classical Fascism is just socialism, with violent tribalism.'
Fascism, as instituted by Benito Mussolini, is certainly NOT 'just socialism'. Wikipedia: Italian Fascism (Italian: fascismo italiano), also known as Classical Fascism or simply Fascism, is the original fascist ideology as developed in Italy by Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. The ideology is associated with a series of two political parties led by Benito Mussolini …
Ron (RC) Weakley (A.K.A., Darryl For A While At EV) September 21, 2020 12:11 pm @Fred,
THX. Perhaps Nationalist Socialist was taken too literally there. In practice, Fascism was actually devoutly anti=socialist.
Also, congrats on your Boston Globe post given a thread.
Sep 20, 2020 | townhall.com
In May of 2017, President Trump did the right thing and fired FBI Director James Comey, the individual at the center of the attempt to overturn the 2016 election results. Comey orchestrated the spying efforts on President Trump and his campaign, which included the FBI improperly applying for four separate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrants to eavesdrop on campaign aide Carter Page. He also authorized a politically motivated investigation into Lt. General Michael Flynn and encouraged the entrapment of Flynn by his FBI agents in an infamous White House interview.
Clearly, Comey was a disastrous FBI Director; however, the President made a terrible choice when he replaced him with Christopher Wray, a bureaucrat who has not reformed the agency in any meaningful way. He also seems to be incapable of identifying the real threats that are facing the country.
In testimony on Thursday before the House Homeland Security Committee, Wray made a series of remarkable claims. He stated that Antifa is not a group but is more of "an ideology or maybe a movement." He also refused to identify Chinese efforts to interrupt the 2020 election and again focused attention on activities from Russia.
With these remarks, Wray is doing the bidding of the Democrats and following their talking points. Regarding Antifa violence, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), claimed it was a "myth."
me title=CARTOONS | MICHAEL RAMIREZ VIEW CARTOON
Nadler has been in his congressional cocoon for too long. Antifa has been active for several years, but since the death of George Floyd on May 25, it has intensified its activities around the country. Millions of Americans have seen the frequent and disturbing video footage of rioting and looting throughout the country. According to U.S. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), "there have been more than 550 declared riots, many stoked by extremists, Antifa and the BLM (Black Lives Matter) organization."
In his comments to Wray at the committee meeting, Crenshaw also noted the rioters have done an extensive amount of damage. He stated that "between one and two billion dollars of insurance claims will be paid out. That doesn't come close to measuring the actual and true damage to people's lives, not even close."
Crenshaw is right as many of our urban areas, such as New York, Washington D.C., Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland among others have been devastated by a series of violent protests. In the past few months, scores of monuments have been destroyed, and significant damage has been done to businesses and public buildings. The group has also attacked innocent civilians and targeted police officers. As Crenshaw asserted in this rebuttal to Wray, Antifa matches the definition of a domestic terrorist organization.
Sep 17, 2020 | www.unz.com
America went through its own bout of Dionysian intoxication in the days following May 25, when a Minneapolis cop by the name of Derek Chauvin knelt on the neck of a 46-year-old Black man by the name of George Floyd, causing his death. Corrupted by 66 years of bad education, America's Black Lumpenproletariat erupted in an orgy of rioting that brought the rule of law to an end in many of America's large cities. As of this writing, Antifa, a group which Donald Trump has designated a domestic terrorist organization, is still in control of a six-square block section of downtown Seattle, which they have designated the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone." In Minneapolis, the town where the rioting started, their Pentheus, Mayor Jacob Frey, was denounced by one of the Bacchant women who spoke in the name of Black Lives Matter after he refused to defund the Minneapolis police department. Frey was not torn limb from limb, but he was expelled from the crowd and had to take refuge with the police he was ordered to defund.
The race riots of May and June 2020 were only the latest installment of what might be called the regime of governance by crisis which began four years ago, when the Deep State decided to do whatever was necessary to depose Donald Trump. That campaign began with Russiagate, followed by the impeachment, followed by the hate speech campaign of 2019 which sought to ban "unwanted content" from the Internet, followed by the Covid-19 pandemic. What united all of these crises was oligarch unhappiness with the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States and a desire to replace the institutions of representative government with ad hoc committees of crisis managers masquerading as scientific experts and/or aggrieved minorities.
By now it should be obvious that the racial narrative writes itself whenever a Black man dies at the hands of a white cop. Floyd's body was still warm when the mainstream media took up the story which had already been written and declared him a saint, complete with halo and wings. In reality, Floyd was a violent felon who died with traces of fentanyl and cocaine in his system, but the BBC described him as someone who "was simply trying to live life as any other American, in search of betterment in the face of both personal and societal challenges."  He then became "the latest totem of the ills that plague the country in 2020." After growing in wisdom, age, and grace, Floyd's life suddenly "took a different turn, with a string of arrests for theft and drug possession culminating in an armed robbery charge in 2007, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison." Missing from the BBC account was any mention of Floyd's incarceration, drug dealing, violence against pregnant women or his role as a porn star,  but no one needed to tell a graduate of America's public school system that he was witnessing the latest installment of the ongoing saga of American racism in action.
... ... ...
Both sides of the racial conflict which George Floyd's death ignited were controlled by Jews. The ADL has consistently played a double game by condemning the racial violence that their training seminars have created. According to the Democratic Socialists of America, "The police violence happening tonight in Minneapolis is straight out of the IDF playbook," adding, "US cops train in Israel."  After the death of George Floyd, the ADL, eager to avoid any association with the violence their police seminars wrought among Blacks, tweeted: "As we continue to fight for justice for #GeorgeFloyd, we also need to fight for justice for #BreonnaTaylor, who was murdered in her own home by police. We need justice for everyone who has been a victim of racist policing & violence." 
At the same time that the ADL was demanding justice for George Floyd, they made no mention of the death of Iyad Hallaq, an autistic Palestinian man who was gunned down after pleading for his life while on the way to his special education class in occupied East Jerusalem.  The Electronic Intifada, which did mention Hallaq's death, then singled out the Anti-Defamation league as "a major player in the industry of bringing US police junkets to Israel for 'counterterrorism' and other kinds of joint training." 
Docile Negroes at traditionally Jewish organizations like the NAACP routinely get praised for their work against racism, but as soon as Black Lives Matter began its Black solidarity with Palestine campaign, the Israeli government and its lobbies in America attempted to disrupt the Black Lives Matter movement in retaliation. In 2018 Al Jazeera's documentary The Lobby -- USA revealed how The Israel Project "pulled strings behind the scenes to get a Black Lives Matter fundraiser at a New York City nightclub canceled." 
So on the one hand we have American policemen being trained to treat their fellow citizens in the same way that Israelis treat Palestinians, including the knee holds that will subdue and sometimes kill them. This explains the white cop side of the equation. But on the other hand, we have George Soros funding Black Lives Matter and the insurrections which follow incidents of police brutality as the black side of the equation. Taken together both Jewish-funded groups perpetuate the cycle of increasing violent racial conflict in America, while remaining all the while invisible.
Black Lives Matter was a reincarnation of the Black-Jewish Alliance, which began with the founding of the ADL after the lynching of Leo Frank and has continued to this day, with time-outs taken for the World Wars of the 20th century. Shortly after World War II, Louis Wirth, a Jewish sociologist from the University of Chicago began implementing his plan to "integrate" housing in Chicago. When Chicago's ethnic neighborhoods understood that "integration" was a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, riots ensued, beginning with the Airport Park riots of 1947 and culminating in the arrival of Martin Luther King in Marquette Park almost 20 years later. As one more indication that Black Lives Matter was the reincarnation of the Black-Jewish Alliance, Alicia Garza, one of the founders of Black Lives Matter, was born in 1981 to a white Jewish father and a Black mother.
Black Lives Matter was funded by George Soros to promote race war in the United States, but BLM also promoted sexual deviance, another cause dear to the heart of the world's most prominent Hungarian Jewish philanthropist. In their recently published manifesto, BLM situates its attempt to be "unapologetically Black in our positioning" within a matrix of sexual deviance, including attempts "to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk," by disrupting "the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" and putting in its place a "queer-affirming network." 
If that jargon sounds familiar, it's because it stems from the university gender studies programs which provide the matrix from which groups like BLM and Antifa get both their ideas and their recruits. The ultimate cause of the uprising which took place in city after city in the wake of George Floyd's death was bad education. Beginning in the late 1980s, literature departments had been taken over by "tenured radicals" who have used critical theory, derived from thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, and Gramsci, to undermine the validity of all structures of authority. This essentially Nietzschean transvaluation of all values transferred moral superiority to anyone who could claim oppression according to oligarchic endorsed categories like race and gender, allowing the tenured radicals to take over one department after another and, more importantly, allowing the proliferation of new departments, invariably ending in "studies," as in gender studies, which drove the traditional liberal arts from academe turning traditional universities into Maoist inspired re-education camps. The takeover of academe reached its bitter culmination when Antifa led groups of disaffected, badly educated young people, who were aware of nothing more significant than their grievances, into the streets in what became an uncanny replication of the Chinese cultural revolution of 1966. One of the most unlikely leaders of that revolution in China was an American Jew from Charleston, South Carolina by the name of Sidney Rittenberg.
The academic pedigree of Rittenberg's successors became apparent when Antifa warlord Joseph Alcoff got apprehended in Philadelphia in 2017 for assaulting a group of Hispanic Marines. Alcoff's arrest shed light on one of the main figures in a society that remained literally faceless because of their habit of wearing masks at the protests they disrupted by their violence. Alcoff, who was known as the leader of Antifa in Washington, DC, was the child of radical academics and had co-authored an academic paper with his mother Linda Alcoff in Volume 79 of Science and Society in the special issue on "Red and Black: Marxist Encounters with Anarchism," entitled "Autonomism in Theory and Practice."  Radical theory in the mind of Linda Alcoff led to violent praxis in the life of her son. As with Black Lives Matter, the ADL has played a double game with Antifa, condemning its tactics while at the same time defending it against accusations that it was morally equivalent to the "white supremacists" it attacked in the streets of Charlottesville in 2017.
Continuity between the generations was made possible by the Jewish revolutionary spirit. The fact that Alcoff was a Jew got suppressed in virtually every mainstream account of his activity,  which sanitized his communist connections by linking him to the Democratic Party through figures like Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters. Alcoff was more forthright when he spoke in his own voice, saying on one Youtube video, "I'm a Communist, motherf***er," before spitting into the camera.  Christians for truth portrayed Alcoff as "a self-styled modern-day Leon Trotsky" and attributed the suppression of his ethnic identity to the fact that "Antifa's political manifestations are funded by the billionaire Jew, George Soros." 
Andy Ngo, who was severely beaten by Antifa thugs in Portland in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, claims that "prominent media figures and politicians glamorize and even promote Antifa as a movement for a just cause. CNN's Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon have defended Antifa on-air. Chuck Todd invited Antifa ideologue Mark Bray onto Meet the Press to explain why Antifa's political violence is "ethical."  Ngo goes on to mention Joseph Alcoff as one of the most visible figures in what is otherwise a clandestine organization, and claims that he had access to Democrat Representative Maxine Waters in 2016.  He also mentions Adam Rothstein, who is associated with the Rose City Antifa group which assaulted him in 2016. Rothstein conducted a series of "secret lectures" at a Portland bookstore where local recruits learned how to "heckle" opponents and make them "look ridiculous, make them feel outnumbered," and convinced that the "Trump thing is gonna go by the wayside." 
Armed with political clout of this magnitude, Antifa can easily overwhelm local police forces, which is what happened in Portland in 2016. The result is that "city government and police lack the political will to protect citizens." What happened in Seattle in 2020 with the creation of the "Capital Hill Autonomous Zone" was only the logical conclusion to what began in Portland in 2016 and spread all over the Pacific Northwest, "where Antifa is especially active." In its attempt to destabilize and destroy the nation state and its sovereign borders, Antifa drew support from "mainstream progressive politicians, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who normalize hatred of border enforcement and sovereignty as such." 
Antifa has continued to be successful in disrupting local government and thwarting police attempts to bring them under control because it is a Jewish organization which can always count on favorable press from the Jewish-controlled mainstream media, which renders the connection invisible. The same cannot be said for the Jewish press, which cites Antifa's Jewishness with thinly-disguised ethnic pride.
When Donald Trump referred to Antifa as a terrorist organization, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz came to their defense, "Trump's Attacks on Antifa Are Attacks on Jews."  According to an article which appeared in the Forward , Antifa activism "is an affirmation of Jewish identity, both religious and secular"  which stretches all the way back to 1897 with the founding of Bundism, which "sought to organize the working-class Jews of Russia, Poland, and Lithuania."  After members of a specifically Jewish Antifa group defaced a plaque in New York City honoring the president of Vichy France Philippe Petain, they left a note which defended the rationale behind their act of vandalism:
With Monday's actions, Jewish antifascists and allied forces have served notice that fascist apologism will not be tolerated in our city in 2019; that anti-Semitic ideology and violence will be confronted with Jewish solidarity and strength; and that the Holocaust will be remembered not only with sadness and grief but also with righteous anger and action: 'We will never forget. We will never forgive.' 
In the final analysis, Antifa is a Jewish organization in the same way that Bolshevism and Neoconservatism were Jewish political movements. Not every member of Antifa is a Jew, but Jews invariably find their ways into leadership roles in places like Portland, Washington, DC, and even in China, as was the case during the Cultural Revolution of 1966, because they have an advantage over non-Jews in embodying the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit which is the hidden grammar of all revolutionary movements.
This is just an excerpt of the full article available in the September 2020 issue of Culture Wars magazine. Please purchase the digital download of the magazine below to read the full article .
T. Weed , says: September 15, 2020 at 2:39 am GMTJoe Levantine , says: September 15, 2020 at 1:52 pm GMT
I just read it in Culture Wars magazine. Thank you, Mr. Jones, very informative, one of your best.MrTea , says: September 16, 2020 at 9:15 pm GMT
Great meticulous research but Dr. Jones. I wonder which of his books traces the history of the forever revolutionaries two and half millennia back.Carlton Meyer , says: Website September 17, 2020 at 4:22 am GMT
Interesting article, not the least surprising the Usual Suspects are playing both sides. Like WW2?
One picky point is the Yanez shooting, the victim did have a gun, he had a permit for it. He didn't show his hands and died with his hand near the gun. This was the one his GF put out on Facebook Live to it incited two police massacres right away, the one everybody knows about in Dallas (where they killed the shooter with a robot bomb) an another in Louisiana.
I'm a witness the SF Bay Area as a model of the racial obsession/gender bending schemes. What a mess the place is–the signature of the Left-wing establishment that runs the place is how the education system fails to fulfill the simple market demands for labor in their own locale, at the high end Silicon Valley runs on Indian/Pakistani B-1s and at the other the booming (until now) construction business runs on mostly imported Hispanics.
They spend more per pupil than the rest of the world and the whole system runs on immigration.Colin Wright , says: Website September 17, 2020 at 4:32 am GMT
I couldn't finish this article after reading this garbage:
"Floyd was a violent felon who died with traces of fentanyl and cocaine in his system"
It was announced two weeks ago that he had a lethal dose. His toxicology report was finally made public and shows that he had a lethal dose of the dangerous pain killer fentanyl in his system. This caused his lungs to fill with fluid, which explains why he told arriving cops "I Can't Breath" and did not cooperate as he was delusional and dying. The cops wrestled him to the ground and cuffed him as he died from a fentanyl overdose. Floyd would have died right there even if the cops had not shown up.
This is why coroners wait for toxicology results before declaring the cause of death, but in this case he bowed to political pressure and announced his death was caused by the knee to the neck. This news is so big that our corporate media, which has promoted the riots, refuses to air the truth. Details can be read here. https://spectator.org/minnesota-v-derek-chauvin-et-al-the-prosecutions-dirty-little-secret/
In fair and normal world, the accused cops would be immediately freed and rehired with a bad mark for Chauvin using an improper neck hold. Let's see what happens, but I don't expect justice.Hang All Text Drivers , says: September 17, 2020 at 5:22 am GMT
' a Minneapolis cop by the name of Derek Chauvin knelt on the neck of a 46-year-old Black man by the name of George Floyd, causing his death '
Is that a fact?Tsar Nicholas , says: September 17, 2020 at 8:40 am GMT
Floyd said "i can't breathe" several times BEFORE he was put on the ground. The cops did nothing wrong and were trying to help him. It's all another monstrous media lie like the mueller report and jussie smollett and rayshard brooks and the covington kids and bubba wallace and the KY gun range video.Malla , says: September 17, 2020 at 9:16 am GMT
Hey, Dr Jones, don't you realise that favourably referencing Jewish Voice for Peace is anti-semitic?Jake , says: September 17, 2020 at 11:11 am GMT
The American Deep State can destroy anti-fa if it wanted. Hunting down all the leaders of this terrorist organization is not that hard. But of course the American Deep State will not do so because anti-fa is a branch of the deep state, just like how Hollywood and the media are (& have been for a long time) arms of the American (Globalist) deep state.Jake , says: September 17, 2020 at 11:52 am GMT
This is one of Jones' many indispensable articles. The opening alone is required reading of anyone slightly bothered by what is going on. Dionysius sparks sexual revolution, and it leads to debauched riot and murder and then to either social collapse or else brutal tyranny.
The American Left and the Neocons both demand tyranny, as brutal as possible. They serve anti-Christ.
It is either Christ and Christendom or the chaos of anti-Christ.
If Jones would realize that the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II are at best impotent before Dionysius and return to Tradition, he could serve much better.TGD , says: September 17, 2020 at 3:28 pm GMT
It cannot be repeated too much: we live in the Anglo-Zionist Empire 2.0. The first phase of Anglo-Zionist Empire was the British Empire. The Brit WASP Empire spread philoSemitism across the globe: cultural Zionism that was the inherent fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy that was the final and most defining part of Modern English, and Anglophone Protestant, culture.
The reality is that we are in the eyes of the Anglo-Zionist Empire's elites what Irish Catholic were to archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell and what Palestinians are to Israelis. They wish us exterminated or made serfs forever, and the base reason predates Freud, Darwin, Marx and the French Revolution. It is Judaizing heresy birthing monsters to war against historic Christianity and peoples who have any legacy in the building and maintenance of Christendom and therefore do not serve Zionism.
WASP culture serves Zionism and always will.
When Kevin McDonald realizes all of that and the necessary inferences, his work will become worth the effort.
There's a sure way to curb the influence that certain (((individuals))) have on American culture and politics; it's called the "wealth tax." It's a tax on the assets of the rich and also on foundations set up to circumvent the inheritance tax. Both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren proposed a wealth tax but it is not included in Biden's platform. Instead, he's proposed raising the maximum income tax rate to 39.6%. There are lots of loopholes that individuals can utilize to reduce their income tax obligations. It won't stop their meddling in social and political affairs. Only a very stiff wealth tax (at least 10% per year) will curb their meddling.
Sep 17, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
...As I have written, Antifa is more of a movement than a specific organization. However, it has long been the "Keyser Söze" of the anti-free speech movement , a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association.
Wray stated "And we have quite a number - and I've said this quite consistently since my first time appearing before this committee - we have any number of properly predicated investigations into what we would describe as violent anarchist extremists and some of those individuals self-identify with Antifa. "
Wray was adamant: "Antifa is a real thing. It's not a fiction" and, while it is not a conventional organization as opposed to a movement, they have arrested people who admit that they are Antifa.
... ... ..
George Washington University student Jason Charter has been charged as the alleged "ringleader" of efforts to take down statues across the capital. Charter has been an active Antifa member on campus for years.
Sep 17, 2020 | orwell1984366490226.wordpress.com
The State Department can designate foreign organizations as terrorist organizations, but there is no law governing domestic organizations. At the moment, it is unclear what President Trump's tweet refers to in concrete legal steps. The Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism, but there are no federal crimes tied to domestic terror.
Trump said in July of 2019 that he was considering declaring Antifa an "Organization of Terror."
Another challenge is the nature of Antifa, which is less of an organization, with structure and leaders, than a decentralized movement. Antifa is a global movement largely made up of anarchists, socialists, and other left-wing groups that oppose right-wing authoritarianism and white supremacy, sometimes violently . Unlike other radical groups, there is no controlling organizational structure, choosing instead to operate semi-autonomously and without leaders.
Antifa is known for its black-bloc protest tactics, where protestors wear all black and cover up their face so that they can't be identified by police or right-wing opponents.
Antifa's name comes from the pre-World War 2 German group Antifaschistische Aktion, which resisted the Nazi German state, and birthed the design of Antifa's now infamous flag.
Sep 11, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Michael Tracey via UnHerd.com,
The Left justifies extreme and violent action by framing Trump as an existential threat to America...
It might not seem immediately apparent that Joe Biden would have anything in common with insurrectionary anarchists. After all, Biden has been deeply entrenched in the uppermost echelons of American political power for nearly five decades straight -- whereas insurrectionary anarchists generally seek to overthrow those systems, by violent force if necessary.
The former Vice-President is not exactly the type you would imagine clad in all-black combat-style street apparel, hurling commercial-grade fireworks at police officers. Rather, he drafted the infamous 1994 omnibus crime bill in concert with the National Association of Police Organizations. He is even known to venerate the arcane institutionalist ethos of the US Senate -- whereas to insurrectionary anarchists, such institutions could only be tools of oppression.
But the Trump Era has an odd way of bringing about unexpected ideological convergences. In the announcement video that formally kicked off his 2020 presidential campaign, Biden paid homage to what he called the "courageous group of Americans" who descended upon Charlottesville, VA in August 2017 to confront an assembly of Right-wing rally-goers. Among that "courageous group" were Left-wing activist factions broadly classified under the banner of "antifa".
For Biden, what transpired in Charlottesville was a "defining moment," and formed the basis for his decision to launch a third campaign for the presidency at age 76. While Biden did herald generic American idealism in that announcement video -- which would be anathema to most insurrectionary anarchists -- in the gravity he assigned to the Charlottesville episode, he also affirmed a core tenet of the "antifa" worldview: the notion that a uniquely pressing fascistic threat has gripped the country, and crushing this threat is a matter of unparalleled world-historic urgency.
Certainly, if you picked any "antifa" member at random, there'd be an almost 0% chance that they would express any kind of personal enthusiasm for Joe Biden. But there'd be a virtually 100% chance that they'd express a great deal of enthusiasm for the theory that "fascism" is an accurate characterisation of America's current state of governance. Biden would be similarly enthused to present a variation of this analysis, albeit from a slightly different ideological angle. He typically intones things like, "This is not who we are", rather than "All Cops Are Bastards".
Still, where Biden is united with "antifa" is in assigning such outsized importance to the role of small-time "fascist" agitators like the ones who gathered that weekend three years ago in Charlottesville (despite ultimately being outnumbered by Left-wing activists) on account of the validation they are purported to have received from Donald Trump. For both Biden and "antifa," this dynamic constitutes the chief prism through which contemporary American political affairs must be viewed.
And for both Biden and "antifa," this mode of analysis has been hugely successful. "Antifa" has succeeded in stoking nationwide insurrection