Im pasting there here which I wrote a couple days ago in another forum to someone who has fallen victim to the modern claptrap about “fascism”, and about how the Nazis were really the worst ever. Let’s think about this. Maybe you’ll find some new sources of information and question what you really know, or should believe. (whomever you are, dear reader…)
First, regarding English history. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this but the beginning of the takeover there happened with William of Orange whose family became the new royal house, who allowed the country’s finances to be Judaized. Before that, the sprout was Cromwell and the Jew Bill (readers, don’t get mad. That’s the actual name of the bill. The definition of “finance” was changed in short order, btw.) if you want to read some English economic history on this time, look for Paper Against Gold and other tracts by Cobbett. Let’s just ff to the Victorian era, and how Victoria in her old age was taken advantage of, despite her worries about how strong Jewish power was getting at home, and by that I mean that she was totally keen on their manipulation of the financial markets and their ambitions concerning property and lordships. Her sons were poops, and the rest is history. England got PWNED (the common people got pwned, as did Ireland, and continue to get pwned in all sorts of diabolical new ways, all made possible by the mammon) as the gamers say - and its erstwhile colony the recently formed Corporation called “THE UNITED STATES” since 1871 was quick to follow, as its financial markets were plagued by London’s schemers over and over again. Btw, they put the hit on Lincoln just like Kennedy because Lincoln issued greenbacks and was not going to allow the style of carpetbagging of the Old South like the corrupt Grant did. See my posts Here and Here. To hear more about the Jews in Victoria’s reign, watch this video which is nothing more than a verbatim reading of an article published in a Jewish newspaper by a Jewish Australian in the 40’s. If you look for it on the web, or inside YT, it doesn’t even appear (but here it is).
On to the paragraph that caught my eye in the link you posted. My unofficial comments in aqua. The comments responded to were from a blog called Prussiagate by “Will Zoll”. …(which is trash, imo).
Germany would implement the socialist principles that the people wanted [needed], by issuing contracts to perform the tasks needed to achieve that end. Those contracts would be issued to none other than some of the largest corporations on the planet. So was born the Fascist Nazi regime. (I suppose he considers the Jewish Weimar Republic far superior, with Germans as slaves to foreign bankers. He doesn’t tell you that for the first years, certain German needs in commerce were indeed contracted with British and American corporations, of course, why shouldn’t they do business ? He is suggesting that business should not be done with them. Meanwhile, Hitler’s success was celebrated in parts of the U.S. and Britian and certainly in much of Europe. Until the enemies hatched their plans to bring him down, and the path to WWII started…but before this, what is his point? The German money was totally destroyed and had to be uplifted. He’s using the fake nominalist claptrap term “fascist” - a term invented as a nonsense codeword by international financiers, who didn’t like native groups with political power owning their own businesses) - side note. You want to understand what was going on? read Theodor Fritsch (Riddle of the Jew’s Success) or E. Michael Jones (Barren Metal), or what Dorothy Sayers said in her concerns about post-war Britain in “Creed or Chaos”, or the machinations of the NWO taking place in the US, for ex. David Martin’s Forrestal book) I would add that you need to consider Blessed Karl of Austria at this time, and why he was backstabbed by the Allies, and what was the Cahtolic guild system and why the bankers hated this last of the HRE’s. (rec: Charles Coulombe book) - you see, according to the thoughts of these types who scream “fascist”, is the voice of the Bolshevist and Banker, the voice ofBabylon’sCabalists in the Middle Ages.. always waiting to usher in its golden age when Christian economy could be overthrown by sifting lies and promises into the minds of the ignorant, and using commerce and state tensions to deprecate them, push them into “national” allegiances, and split them into parts that may war against one another)
The psychology of fascism was first documented by Wilhelm Reich’s, “The Mass Psychosis of Fascism”. Hitler had the book publicly burnt and Reich fled Germany, finally reaching the US. Oddly enough, in stark contrast to the 1st Amendment, the FDA ordered ALL of Reich’s books be destroyed in the 1950s. Were the US and Germany already in lock-step? (Wilhelm Reich was a psycho fringe character. He was Jewish, and he hated German Christians. He hated Christians because he was a pervert and had very odd beliefs. Nobody took his work seriously and he was banned by FDA for fraud. Citing Reich as some sort of authority of anything let alone history - a field he never even studied - really shows you the true colors of this blogger!)
After the historic economic hardship and violence faced by the German people, fascism arrived as a solution, not a problem. Amidst the current violence, economic misery and moral depravity, fascism also provided the answer. It provided jobs, crushed the violence in the streets, banned the homosexuality and rampant drug-use from its streets.
Problem. Reaction. Solution. The Prussians were not gone; they were just invisible. (what a load of horse manure. He’s appropriating the Masonic Hegelian Dialiectic to the natural reaction against evil that was subjugating Europeans. I suppose today he thinks of the Yellow Vest movement in the same way? And today’s yellow vesters haven’t experienced 1/10th the problems and destitution and death experienced by early 20th century Europeans. Bad old Prussians again. LOL. This guy sounds like Theodore N. Kaufman, for pete’s sake. He doesn’t tell you who brought the moral corruption of Germans, does he? Of course not, though they be the same who brought it Germany post-war, and to us). rec. read - Benton L. Bradberry, Curtis B. Dall, Pat Buchanan, David Hoggan (must-hear show about the suppressed Hoggan book- “Hiter the Peacemaker”) and consider what Patton had to sayabout it and what happened to him.
The mass psychosis had the Germans moving in lock-step (ooo, sounds like he just watched jackbooters in an episode of ‘Prussians Bad’ [sic.] on the “Hstory Channel” there, and it gave him nightmares. Poor Baby.) ; in fear of falling back into the abyss of the 20s; brimming with the false empowerment Hitler had given them. (Hitler’s was not a false empowerment until the war) This false empowerment would see them remain silent in front of the greatest atrocities to occur in human history. (Holocaust !!! Thanks for reminding me !!!) Consider, that if everyone commits a war crime, then no one does. This is lock-step; this the virus of fascism; this was a nation under mass psychosis. (Nyet. The psychosis was in Russia (Bolshevism) and in the UK/US (Judeo-Masonic ambitions for a New World Order, unfolding before our eyes -rec. authors (Louis Marschalko, Leslie Fry, Elizabeth Dilling, Leon de Poncins, Count Cherep-Spiridovich, A.K. Chesterton, Admiral Ramsay, William Guy Carr, Msgr. George F. Dillon, Bella Dodd, Augustin Barruel, John Robison, Christopher Bollyn, Arnold Leese, Fr. Andrew O’Brien, Osman Bey, Paul and Phillip Collins, David Hawkes, etc. ad nauseum).
If I get one person to read or review one name from my response, or think deeply about anything I’ve said, it was worth my time to post this. Peace and Blessings to ALL men of GOOD WILL, especially those with the Fear of the Lord in their hearts and a true longing for better times than those we live in.
----second part----
What I meant by the term being “fake” and nominalist, isn’t the original Italian term, or the philosophical concept of fascism as it was expounded by Gentile and Mussolini in the late 19th and early 20th century, no. What I was describing is the postwar liberal revisionism that has BECOME the instantaneous meme/egregor in the mind of the poorly educated English-speaking public - and that is the one you’re thinking of, and making judgements upon. In historical and sociological reality, fascism was both a reactionary movement and a nascent ideology, although it never got the chance to develop and grow, as it was constantly being thwarted, misrepresented, and ultimately, destroyed by the liberal powers of the Allies. It was a reaction against both independent high finance, that rootless and illegitimate method of transferring and inculcating prosperity for the effendiof directed, weaponized capitalism (still hidden in deceitful theories), and the base communism and anarchism, both of which were powerful movements and very real threats to the countries at hand. Fascism as it was envisioned was a positive force meant to repel and safeguard the society from those foreign movements. To the degree which its initial applications of power may have over-emphasized state/business cooperation, one should consider the necessity, because the bankers, the anarchists, and the communists, the revolutionaries and the masons all wanted these things - which fascism stripped away from them. Hence, fascism was the sworn enemy of them all, and ultimately it was defeated militarily by those forces, when the United States entered the war. Ergo, we have a tiny amount of time by which to judge it, and it was never allowed to bear fruit over time without a challenge on every side, everywhere.
What’s the difference between that real fascism in history and today’s meme? Everything, really. And yet still, not as much difference as the rift of ownership. Ownership is what made the difference and all these battles are about said ownership. Today’s “fascists” are the victors of the war, but they rose to power over us not by embracing real fascism, but by defeating it with liberalism, independent finance, and the rejection of ethnic and religious affections that previously bonded peoples and lands, those that were the actual roots of the original fascism. Fascism was wise to these matters. It knew - already well - that capitalism and the libertaralisation of economy into the hands of capitalists would result in a full swing back to communism directed by the said capitalists - as that was already transpiring, not only today, but even then, operationally, as the revolutions were financed by bankers (and, no, the National Socialists were not funded by them, as disinfo props will tell you), now, the bankers, having captured or replaced the aristocracies, having captured or replaced the natural nations, and having captured the bounty of the earth, seek to enthrall the masses with either lies of actual participation within the system (being a “player” in the game), or, as that has become less believeable, with promises of protection and allocation of goods and services - these being the necessities and habitual services which they already command, or allow to merely apparently “come into play” for their own benefit, having stolen them already through their very own machinations over time. The only power which can restrict them, outside of conscience, is the state. Hence, it is stressed by them and taught that the state must not restrict their endeavours, and to instill among the naive that the state be prohibited from a position of financial authority. Once the state itself is captured, state power is again assumed, but the ownership hast changed thoroughly. The masses turn to the state in their dearth, but they do not turn to the natural state, but rather, this time, they turn to the usurpers.
Presently, three books come to mind beyond those which I posted about in the previous reply. First, the actual “Doctine of Fascism” as it was promulgated by Mussolini. He wrote the second part, Giovanni Gentile the first. (link). Second, would be Joseph Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, (link)which told us how capitalism would result in a socialist order, through the workings of “creative destruction” directed by the new elites, those who rose to power via the debt-loan and workings of national wars, and dependency and corruption of the old elites. It is a complex economic work but it really shows how capitalism is not what people thought it was. As Fritsch wrote (in book I mentioned before), capitalism IS the debt-loan. That is where it all began to take hold. That is what brought us this new order, and as the new order grows to encompass all aspects of life, the preservation of those elites to power cannot be called fascism with any honest appreciation of history - because this is precisely what fascists were organized to prohibit. Like the Catholic monarchies before them, capital was the enemy when capital was in the hands of the Jews because their application and “creation” of capital was unprincipled, stripped of moral duty, barren of natural labor, and distributed within their circle, not shared with the masses.
Consider, for example, the difference between the Sephardim and the Ashkenazi, as it was playing out in 19th century America. The Sephardim were very put-off and indignant toward the incoming Ashkenazi. I’ll reference this quote because it speaks of the rift between morality and business that was manifesting, even among the branches of Judaism at the time (although the larger battle was between Catholics and Protestants/Jews): "The newer immigrants were poor, they needed baths, they worked as foot peddlers, they spoke with accents. They lacked the social status that the Jewish first families had achieved, the breeding, the education, yet they called themselves brethren. They judged a man by the success of his enterprises rather than by his “engagements with God” - The Grandees, America’s
- The Grandees, America’s Sephardic Elite, Chapter 14 “The New Jews Versus the Old”, (p.198) describing the earlier parts of the 19th century in the U.S., before the Ashkenazim rose to prominence (late 19th). This last sentence above really sums of the break that severed European (and American) economics from the religion of the people, and the various systems and laws and education of the people would all follow that fork in the road - away from the old ethical, Catholic understanding of economics, to the nihilistic, powermongering and unfettered libertine application of the money-power. One might also consider the thoughts of someone such as Stuyvesant, in 1654 New Amsterdam (this was quoted in the above link also, but what follows is laid outhere) - because this describes how again, it was the Dutch REPUBLIC, not the Spanish Crown (which held the Netherlands right before) that weakened to the will of “shareholders” in the company, and allowed amoral finance into the colony - and the rest is history, and slavery followed. Once more in the same book, on p. 244, is another interesting and revealing historical tidbit: “Albert Cardozo was a snob — ^which may have been at the root of many of his troubles— and keeping up with the Joneses was one of his preoccupations. In the 1880’s the family to keep up with was, of all people, that of Joseph Seligman, the German Jew who had arrived in New York in the 1830’s with one hundred dollars sewn in the seat of his pants, had started off as a foot peddler in Pennsylvania, and had succeeded to the extent that he now headed an international banking house that did business with the Rothschilds.” - this begs the question, how did a penniless, uneducated, non-English speaking German Ashkenazi (Cardozos were Sephardi) come to head a banking house that was connected to the Rothschilds, if not but by conspiracy? Seligman is Guggenheim is Lehman is(…).
Lastly I want to point you to a work by Yuri Slezkine. “One reason the twentieth century became the Jewish Century is that Hitler’s attempt to put his vision into practice led to the canonization of the Nazis as absolute evil and the reemergence of the Jews as universal victims. The other reasons have to do with the collapse of the Russian Empire’s Pale of Settlement and the three messianic pilgrimages that followed: the Jewish migration to the United States, the most consistent version of liberalism; the Jewish migration to Palestine, the Promised Land of secularized Jew-ishness; and the Jewish migration to the cities of the Soviet Union, a world free of both capitalism and tribalism (or so it seemed). This book is an attempt to tell the story of the Jewish Age and explain its origins and implications…” - from the Princeton University introduction - The Jewish Century. Alas, history never stops moving. And we’re all trying to come to grips with these matters, like how to use money, who should own money, what is in the best interest of people, and why are things the way they are? Should we have an adult conversation and deliberation on these matters, or should we accept at face value revisionist fairy tales contrived by imps, and sleights of hand performed by pilferers presented as thaumaturgists?
