you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]poopdawg15 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I was just on twitter looking at some of the videos of screeching antifa imbeciles protesting Andy Ngô. One Portland idiot girl was repeatedly shrieking "fascist....fascist!" It made me think this idiot doesn't know any better, doesn't know any more than the one damn word. So I went to the Encyclopedia Britannica and got really a pretty watered-down definition of "Fascism." I decided to turn to Ludendorff, to see what he has to say on the subject. I think the second chapter "Systems based upon Force and Systems of Alliance" of his book "The Coming War" (1931) is one of the most informative I've read, and I found pgs. 31-40 very instructive about Fascism. I'm including the link. For those for whom nine pages is too long, his essential thesis is Fascism is an instrument of the Catholic Church. A quote, "The more clearsighted among the Germans indeed had long since perceived the sham nature of the friction between the Vatican and Mussolini. They know now that Fascism is the offspring of the Jesuits and the trump card of the latter in their game with the Grand Orient of France."

[–]socks 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Sorry to argue - but this comment doesn't address a number of the traditional definitions of fascism, not to mention the various approaches to fascism over the years. Moreover, OP's link to, below, is to a Libertarian opinion on what he thinks fascism has been, and much of that is wrong. There are also significant holes in that history. You note problems that are related to fascism, but do not explicitly refute the person you don't like in Portland. Fascism - in practice - has been an authoritarian nationalist worker's program, and traditionally against liberalism, democracy, Marxism, and anarchism. It's not that complicated. Perhaps you'd prefer that people you hate refer instead to 'neo-fascism', which may explain the legitimate concerns of the girls in Portland. If you would rather give up your freedom, your democratic rights, in order to shine the shoes of the 1%, then you'll love neo-fascism.

[–]Jesus 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Fascism, if we define National socialism as such, was fervently anti-Bolshevik, anti-usury and anti-Judaic. It was largely, an authoritarian nationalist workers party that allowed private property via labor but prevented property capture by speculation and usury. Hence, the SS throwing the Warburgs out of Germany and arresting and expelling Rothschilds and seizing their assets.

Mussoliniynism was fascism but was largey neutral on Jews and even married a Jewess and appointed many revisionist Zionists in his ranks during the Ethiopian campaign.

Neo-fascism is largely a 1% ideology. That is, the rich and powerful, the international corporatists, impose their rule on everyone else. Neo-fascism is not traditional workers fascism, neo-conservatism is not conservatism, and neo-liberalism is not liberalism in the sense of Napoleonism that introduced liberalism to society and military at large, counter to the rigid structure of the Prussian army.

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Read anything by Feder. This will give you a good idea of what National Socialism and Fascism was, even though the NS made many critiques against Mussoliniynism. Hitler took many ideas from Feder but demoted Feder and hired Schacht to revamp the economy. It worked well but Hitler realized around 1938 that Schacht was a working as liaison to the allies. Hitler's SS threw Schacht in Dachu AND hitler rehired Feder's student Walther Funk. Federism was far more left in policy than Schacht.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Remember, anyone can be a neo-fascist. Originally, fascism was simply a nationalistic traditional workers party that believed that every person had a stake in the state corporation. They were fervently anti-radical individualism and anti-liberal in regards to the liberalism of private speculation. Fascism almost always leads to Authoritarianism. But in its original def. it was simply a traditional mainly rural workers party of whom were markedly anti-Bolshevik/marxist.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for this. I almost tagged you in my response, to see what you'd offer here.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My favorite is when libertarians claim National Socialism was actually marxism.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


Libertarians are - for me - more annoying than Republicans, because their core arguments tend to focus on selfishness, part of which arose when many of these people were kids or young adults in the "me, me, me" era of the 1970s and early 80s, reading Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. They make terrible public servants because they don't want to do anything for the public they're supposed to repsresent.

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What fascism is and where it came from:

TL;DR A man liked socialism, but he saw some parts that could be improved. So he changed about 10% of it and rebranded as fascism.

[–]poopdawg15 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hope you'll give the nine pages I've recommended a go

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ludendorff mentions the Jesuits but only in their alliance with Jews and freemasons. There are two Jesuitical societiesand both dispise the other. The trad. Catholic Jesuits were largely a military order of the Church showing piety but also preaching the gospel as far and wide on earth. Some of their adventures were certainly unorthodox and they had their faults and dirty violent history. The other society was the memorialists (Crypto-Jews). Jesuit Jews which the Catholics deemed an infiltration in the late 16th century and as a countermeasure imposed blood purity laws because they believed many were desecrating Christ's name and subverting the society to climb to the higher ranks of power for their own self-serving interests.

Today, the Jesuit pope, as evidenced by Maurice Pinay, promotes talmudism. Talmudic Jews are Theocratic religious fascists.

Ludendorff writes:

The secret of tke influence of the Jesuits and how to put an end to it which I weote in collaboratiom with my wife, I showed how supemational forces such as the inner circles of the Jews and freemasons and the leading ecclesiastics of the Church of Rome and their capitalistic representatives in the world of finance were planning the destruction of these Esau-like nations of the world, whose existence, like that of mayflies, is bounded by the setting sun.

Firstly, Catholics are completely against freemasonry; Jesuit Jews are not. Secondly, talmudists openly say they wish to destroy Esau and the West. So, today's Catholic church has been entirely taken over by Talmudists.

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

On the flip side, the Marxist idea of "Liberation" (effectively, any revolution against the hegemony, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-racism and all similar strains of utopian thought) was also embraced in some parts of the Catholic church, especially in Central & South America during the later 20th century. Most notably, the Sandinista movement of Nicaragua. Pope JPII was a wise critic of these movements, recognizing that our attempts to establish heaven on earth could only be done by force, and paradoxically result in a hell of our own creation. As a Pole, he would surely know.

Just look up Marxism Liberation and see how quickly you get to "Liberation Theology".