“…if we wish to master the past in the sense of mastering the present, we are confronted with the task of clearing out all the ideological junk in order to make the conditio humana visible once again.”
Eric Voegelin[i]
“He [Socrates] was in no hurry for his associates to become eloquent or capable or inventive; he thought that they ought first to acquire a sense of responsibility, because he considered that without this the possession of those other faculties made them more unscrupulous and more capable of wrongdoing.”
Xenophon, Memoirs of Socrates[ii]
Willem Sassen, a Dutch journalist and former SS officer who fled to Buenos Aires, Argentina, after World War II, made recordings of SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann in 1957. Eichmann, who was also hiding in Argentina, had been an organizer of the Holocaust for SD Chief Reinhard Heydrich. Eichmann probably thought it was safe bragging to a fellow Nazi about killing Jews; but the bragging would become evidence in a trial after Eichmann was snatched off the streets of Buenos Aires by Mossad agents in 1960. The Israelis acquired a 700-page transcript from the Sassen tapes. While Eichmann defended himself by saying that he was simply following Hitler’s orders, we all know that a facilitator of mass murder is guilty even if the order came from the highest authority. In the Sassen transcript, Eichmann explained, “Jews who are fit to work should be sent to work. Jews who are not fit to work must be sent to the Final Solution, period.” To this admission he added, “If we had killed 10.3 million Jews, I would say with satisfaction, ‘Good, we destroyed an enemy.’ Then we would have fulfilled our mission.”[iii]
The exact number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is not known. What we know, without any doubt, is that millions of Jews, from all over Europe, were despoiled of their property, forced into ghettos and shipped to concentration camps. Millions died in those camps and ghettos. Adolf Eichmann testified that Hitler had given an extermination order to SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich. We also have an audio recording of Heinrich Himmler’s 1943 Posen speech, where the Reichsführer-SS not only admitted to a massacre of Jewish civilians, but we hear him painting the atrocity as the most glorious part of his organization’s history.[iv] Listening to Himmler’s speech on tape, we see a chain of reasoning that links ideology to mass murder. Here is an excerpt, exemplifying the murderous logic of National Socialism:
“One basic principle must be the absolute rule for the SS man: we must be honest, decent, loyal and comradely to members of our own blood and to nobody else. What happens to a Russian, to a Czech, does not interest me in the slightest. What nations can offer in the way of good blood of our type, we will take, if necessary, by kidnapping their children and raising them here with us. Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our Kultur, otherwise, it is of no interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only in so far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished. We shall never be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans, who are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude toward animals, will also assume a decent attitude towards these human animals. But it is a crime against our own blood to worry about them and give them ideals, thus causing our sons and grandsons to have a more difficult time with them. When somebody comes to me and says, ‘I cannot dig the anti-tank ditch with women and children, it is inhuman, for it would kill them,’ then I have to say, ‘You are a murderer of your own blood because if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and they are sons of German mothers. They are our own blood.’ That is what I want to instill in the SS and what I believe to have instilled into them as one of the most sacred laws of the future. Our concern, our duty, is to our people and our blood. It is for them that we must provide and plan, work and fight, nothing else. We can be indifferent to everything else. I wish the SS to adopt this attitude to the problem of all foreign, non-Germanic peoples, especially Russians. All else is vain, fraud against our own nation and an obstacle to the early winning of the war.”[v]
In this speech Himmler shows that the SS is not a Christian organization. It is not even pagan. There are no spiritual values in this speech. Himmler’s position is racial imperialism, having nothing in common with the West’s philosophic or theological traditions. Himmler postulates the existence of “human animals” who will be sacrificed for the sake of German blood. There is no chivalry toward the weak, toward women and children, and there is no rule of law. There is only violence toward everyone who is not German.
Today we have another view, which is also wrong, where Europe’s borders are erased and everyone in Africa and the Middle East is allowed to flood into Europe. One might say that the admission of millions of Muslims into Europe represents a guilty delayed reaction to Nazism. And now there is a counter-reaction in which people fail to find a middle way. It seems we have forgotten Aristotle’s “golden mean” – the doctrine that virtue is a midpoint between two extremes.
In fact, our survival depends on adopting the “golden mean.” Europe and America’s great enemy is Russia. Vladimir Putin does not want us to discover the “golden mean.” He wants to encourage an extreme woke view on the left, and a Himmler-type view on the right. The other day a talk radio caller on the John Moore Show was very upset with my support for NATO and Ukraine. He began his hostile questioning by saying, “I am America First.” What this signified for him was an absolute lack of concern for Ukraine, Europe, Taiwan, Japan, etc. He only cared about America, everyone else could jump in a lake. To paraphrase Himmler, “What happens to … [other countries] does not interest me in the slightest.” Because of his over-exposure to Russian disinformation, this caller did not realize that America’s survival is tied up with the survival of Ukraine, Europe, Taiwan, Japan, etc. A brotherhood of nations is possible, as long as there is mutual respect.
Himmler’s idea was “Fortress Europa,” just as this caller’s idea was “Fortress America.” If we say to the world, “We don’t care about you,” the world will answer, “We don’t care about you, either.” And the world, collectively, will fall to Russian and Chinese conquest (one country at a time). Imagine the effect, then, of antisemitism in this mix. The usefulness of antisemitism for Russian grand strategy should be obvious. If you can get people to embrace anti-Jewish conspiracy theory, you can provoke them into a host of stupid moves. Antisemites see Israel as the greatest threat to America. The more Russia can convert Americans to antisemitism, the more their political attention and energy can be diverted away from the Russian threat and to the nonsense of conspiracy theory.
If antisemitism is mainstreamed in our political culture, we will begin to see a revival of Nazi ideas. And this is what we are facing today. This must be opposed because Nazi ideology is evil. Consider, once again, Heinrich Himmler’s Posen speech where he introduced a “very difficult topic.” That topic was none other than the Final Solution of the Jewish question. “Among ourselves,” he said, “it should be expressed once very candidly, even though we will never speak publicly about it…. I mean now the Jewish evacuation … the extermination [Ausrottung] of the Jewish people.” Himmler then explained, “Most of you know what it means when 100 corpses lie together, when 500 lie there or when 1,000 lie there…. This is a never written and never to be written page of glory in our history.” Himmler then explained the logic of killing Jewish women and children:
“For I did not consider myself justified in exterminating the men … and then allowing their children to grow up to wreak vengeance on our children and grandchildren. The difficult decision had to be taken to make these people disappear from the face of the earth. For the organization [i.e., the SS] that had to carry out this duty it was the most difficult that we have ever had to undertake.”[vi]
The audio tape of this speech is available. It has been authenticated. These words were spoken by Himmler. What more can we say? And yet, we have antisemitic conspiracy theories (cherished by the Nazis) being recycled by American podcasters. If Adolf Eichmann were alive today, he would be pleased by the rhetoric of Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Stew Peters, and Col. Douglas Macgregor. These fools are dropping hints about a Jewish world conspiracy (which was a cornerstone of Nazi ideology). Hannah Arendt famously used the phrase, “banality of evil” in describing Adolf Eichmann.[vii] Today we are seeing a renewal of Jew hatred. Today we have podcasters like Nick Fuentes saying publicly that “Hitler was cool.”[viii] Rather than categorizing the new antisemites under the concept “banality of evil” we might invoke a more precise phrase: the evil of imbecility. This is not the imbecility of a congenital idiot or a person of moderate intellectual disability. This is the imbecility of otherwise intelligent individuals who have willfully chosen to breathe new life into an evil ideology. They have opted for intellectual shortcuts, lies and misrepresentations. They have invested their charm and energy in a formerly defunct branch of the New Religion. This religion is all around us, spreading cancer-like through the body politic. It spreads because people want shortcuts. The most virulent strains of the New Religion were inspired by the “scientific socialist,” Karl Marx, and the antisemite Adolf Hitler. We must not forget that Marx wrote an antisemitic tract, “On the Jewish Question,” in which he argued that modern civil society had a Jewish character, that commercial society is “Jewish” because it is driven by money. This was an idea Hitler took up in the 1920s as part of his “National Socialism.”
With dialectical materialism you get the Bolsheviks eradicating the bourgeoisie (i.e., capitalists, bankers, and entrepreneurs). With antisemitism you get the National Socialists eradicating the Jews (i.e., capitalists, bankers, etc.). The difference between Bolshevism (communism) and National Socialism is largely semantic. Both branches of the New Religion agree. It is merely a question of which label you use for the people you put against the wall. Eric Voegelin wrote,
“Ideologies, whether Positivist, or Marxist, or National Socialist, indulge in constructions that are intellectually not tenable. That raises the question of why people who otherwise are not quite stupid, and who have the secondary virtues of being quite honest in their daily affairs, indulge in intellectual dishonesty…?”[ix]
Here we must think of Saint-Juste, the most zealous advocate of terror during the French Revolution. “We must not only punish traitors,” he said, “but all people who are not enthusiastic. There are only two kinds of citizens: the good and the bad. The Republic owes to the good its protection. To the bad it owes only death.”[x] This is the logic behind all the political massacres of the twentieth century. One finds it in the Communist Manifesto that inspired Lenin’s revolution in Russia. One finds it in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. To put a blood libel on the Jews, or aristocrats, or the bourgeoisie, or the Americans, is the work of aspiring mass murderers. Political lies, blood libels, and conspiracy theories set up situations where people can be lined against the wall and shot, or guillotined, or gassed. “A further reason for my hatred of National Socialism and other ideologies is quite a primitive one,” wrote Eric Voegelin. “I have an aversion to killing people for the fun of it.”[xi] According to Voegelin, “The fun consists in gaining a pseudo-identity through asserting one’s power, optimally by killing somebody – a pseudo-identity that serves as a substitute for the human self that has been lost.”[xii]
When darkness surrounds your premises, and the facts do not turn out to be factual, and your speculations dissolve into a tissue of nothingness – what excuse will you make? Will you say that the Jews killed John Kennedy or Charlie Kirk? Why accuse the Jews of murder in the first place? Is there some sentence of death that you want to carry out by your own hand? Of course, Charlie Kirk booted Nick Fuentes out of a Turning Point USA conference last year. Undoubtedly, it was on account of Nick’s antisemitism. And now we have this narrative that Charlie Kirk was murdered by Mossad because he offered some tepid criticism of Israel.
Today the old blood libel against the Jews is being reinvigorated and reshaped. In the Middle Ages the Jews were accused of murdering Christian children, torturing the consecrated wafer, and poisoning wells. Norman Cohen noted, “It is true that popes and bishops frequently and emphatically condemned these fabrications; but the lower clergy continued to propagate them, and in the end they came to be generally believed.”[xiii] Cohen further explained, “there was talk of a secret Jewish government – a council of rabbis, located in Moslem Spain, which was supposed to be directing an underground war against Christendom and employing sorcery as its principal weapon.”[xiv]
Hysterical antisemitic narratives have blamed Jews for crop failures, plagues, World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great Depression, 9/11, etc. Blaming the Jews has a long history. Such blame is always brutal and simplistic, unfair and illogical. Yet, these narratives have been cherished by those who lack philosophical nuance and historical knowledge. We might ask why so many people prefer something erroneous and simplistic. The answer is simple. People are tempted to accept ideological shortcuts because they are intellectually lazy. In respect of this, accepting a lie in place of the truth is a sin. As human beings we have a responsibility to admit our ignorance and discover the truth. Yet many people are averse to this responsibility. They readily adopt ideologies, patterns of thought and action that are faulty, untrue, or otherwise harmful. In other words, they blindly follow an ideology and play the part of a monkey; for a monkey can be trained to do many tricks; but some tricks go beyond mere monkey business. For example, the trick of working out train schedules for delivering Jews to concentration camps, or calculating a lethal dose of Zyklon B.[xv]
The unexamined life has this against it: Like Adolf Eichmann, anyone can pretend ignorance and say that they were just following orders. Anyone can embrace banality, ignorance, and brutal stupidity; yet human beings are responsible when they accept lies and participate in mass murder. Aristotle said that rationality is the crucial differentiating characteristic of a human being. Anyone who abdicates that responsibility in favor of becoming a monkey has committed a sin. A very grave sin. Now cast a glance at the rising stars of our rightwing social media. How many monkeys do you see? The most dangerous politicians and journalists in this category are those whose specialty has been misdirection by false context; for they are subtler than those who misrepresent by outright lies. Alex Jones, for example, is especially dangerous and effective because he mangles context by way of conspiracy theory, which changes every news story into something it is not. Stew Peters is another unnatural monster in this category, always spewing antisemitic sewage. With conspiracy theory as an overlay, these types can make an evil dictator appear as a liberator. One of their favorite themes is that Jewish bankers (the Rothschilds) are behind all the wars, all the crimes, and all the problems we face today. In their rhetoric, America’s defensive shield over the free world is sometimes depicted as part of a wider conspiracy to kill billions of people. Here is where Jones and Peters are anti-American. With these monkey-men, every war and every economic downturn is seen as something that has been carefully engineered by the “banksters.” Listening to Jones and Peters, you might think that wars only occur because of Jewish finance capital. Here, again, we find ourselves sunk in the old blood libel.
Why study history or political science when Jones and Peters can tell you all about the “globalists.” For antisemites, the word “globalist” means “Jewish banker.” Does everyone understand the deception this entails? A searcher after truth must be clean in his language, or the monkeys will drag him onto their train with trainwreck impending. Jones and Peters regularly blast the very mechanism that gives America its high standard of living; that is, they malign investment capital exactly as Marx and Engels did in their Communist Manifesto.[xvi] While socialists break down Western civilization from the left, rightwing conspiracists break down Western civilization from the right, diverting suspicion away from America’s real enemies by firing on clay pigeons (i.e., the alleged Jewish malefactors of great wealth). Alex Jones, for example, is incapable of distinguishing a socialist change agent, like George Soros, from the rest of the financial community.
The game that is being played, on the level of grand strategy, is a complicated one. But all the larger moving parts in this game are visible. They must be visible because you cannot hide major moves on the big board. Antisemitism, in all its guises, subtle and unsubtle, is one of the largest moves of all. The trick to advancing antisemitism in a world inoculated against antisemitism by the horrors of the Holocaust, is gradualism. What else could Pepe the Frog signify? Pepe is often associated with the boiling frog experiment. Supposedly, if you turn up the heat gradually the frog does not realize he will soon boil – a metaphor for political gradualism. Bring in antisemitism gradually and the rightwing frogs won’t realize they are becoming antisemitic until they are already boiling. Jones and Peters have slowly turned up their narrative on Pepe. It is painful to watch as they bloviate self-importantly, puffing themselves as heroes fighting the “evil globalists.” With a wink here and a nod there, the Rothschilds are mentioned. Jeffrey Epstein is mentioned. George Soros is mentioned. Jewish names keep popping up. It is painful because millions of Americans are believing them (long before the antisemitic meaning is appreciated). Bizarre as it may seem, everything here segues neatly into selling overpriced supplements.[xvii]
Of course, the conspiracist right does not have a monopoly on monkey business. There are monkeys on the left – as anyone can see. The left has been spellbound by the dialectical materialist denomination of Karl Marx and its offshoots. This religion first came to power in Russia, in 1917. In America the high priests of this denomination, adapting it to American circumstances, rule over the Democratic Party. Here they parade themselves as grand moralists – though they have no morality. In fact, they are political criminals (i.e., plunderers and destroyers). They believe in the ever-filled purse of Government largesse (according to the Cloward-Piven strategy).[xviii] This largess is bankrupting America’s cities, states, and the Federal Government. This bankruptcy is part of the revolutionary process. A suicidal instinct permeates the rabble that forms the base of the Democratic party. The leaders of this party advocate open borders, Critical Race Theory, and the global warming hoax. They increasingly prefer gangsters to the police, drug addiction to sobriety, homeless parasites to hardworking citizens. Placing the incapable on the backs of the capable, they rejoice in their love for humanity. But they are monkeys, singing John Lennon’s “Imagine” as God is declared dead and treason is celebrated as the last sacrament.
More than half a century after their “war on poverty,” the streets of many cities are clogged with homeless drug addicts and schizophrenics. The stench from the excrement envelops San Francisco and other towns of the West Coast. Meanwhile, the “war on drugs” has been a failure. Deaths from overdoses continue to rise as Chinese fentanyl pours over the border. Do the welfare programs of the Federal Government achieve anything? Failure is followed by failure. Wasteful spending is followed by more wasteful spending.
With massive increases in social spending there is less money available for defense spending. This is one reason the balance of power is shifting against the West. We are told that America spends more on defense than any other nation, but this is yet another deception. In 1960 U.S. defense spending was 52 percent of the federal budget, representing 9 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Today U.S. defense spending is approximately 13 percent of the total U.S. federal budget and about 3.4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By these measurements, defense spending is way down.
Meanwhile, Russia and China have intentionally skewed their military spending numbers by accounting tricks, like omitting military salaries, or by neglecting to properly translate Russian or Chinese costs into American dollar equivalents. American defense spending is therefore made to seem far greater in comparison. In truth, the United States is not building as many weapons as China.[xix] We do not have as many missiles or nuclear warheads as Russia. With its war mobilization, Russia is preparing to construct a massive arsenal while America dithers.
Political philosopher Eric Voegelin used the term “second reality” to describe people who no longer live in real reality. The leading narratives of the past thirty years are based on lies or misunderstandings. Our media airwaves are filled with false narratives that promote dangerous fantasies – like the fantasy that America is the only superpower; or Francis Fukuyama’s nonsense about the “end of history”; or the alleged benefits of a society with open borders. There is also the widespread delusion that we can bring down global temperatures with extortionate taxation and environmental regulations.[xx]
“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence,” said William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879) in a famous lecture to the Metaphysical Society (UK) in 1876. To make his point, Clifford described a shipowner who was “about to send to sea an emigrant ship.” The ship was suspected to be old and no longer seaworthy. Ignoring the danger to passengers and crew, the shipowner decided to rely on Providence. Surely God would protect the many families taking passage on this leaky bucket of rotten planks. And when the ship sank mid-ocean, with the loss of all passengers and crew, the shipowner collected his insurance money. “What shall we say of him?” asked Clifford. [xxi]
When lives are at stake, the person responsible for a ship or a nation cannot free himself from guilt by claiming ignorance. “No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is truly insignificant,” noted Clifford; “it prepares us to receive more of its like … and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our innermost thoughts, which may some day explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character forever.”[xxii] Continuing on, Clifford argued that no man’s belief “is a private matter which concerns himself alone.”
The truth is precious and requires conservation. It is, in Clifford’s words, an “heirloom which every succeeding generation inherits as a precious deposit.” It is, he said, a “sacred trust to be handed on … not unchanged but enlarged and purified…. An awful privilege, and an awful responsibility, that we should help to create the world in which posterity will live.”[xxiii] In his summary, Clifford noted that a man who “keeps down and pushes away any doubts … and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked… – the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.”[xxiv]
“If this judgment seems harsh,” added Clifford, “when applied to those simple souls who have never known better, who have been brought up from the cradle with a horror of doubt, and taught that their eternal welfare depends on what they believe, then it leads to the very serious question, Who has made Israel to sin?”[xxv] Clifford then quoted a sentence from Milton: “A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believes things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determine, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes a heresy.”[xxvi]
Clifford also quoted Coleridge, who wrote, “He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or Church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.” In such matters we should never say, I am a busy man. I have no time for inquiries. I have no time for the long course of study required to really know something. At some point the question may be one of life or death – or something touching on the death of the soul. It is wrong to believe on unworthy evidence, said Clifford, “without also saying what evidence is worthy….”[xxvii]
And now, because we have accepted unworthy men and their unworthy evidence, we have entered a danger zone unlike any other. Some people are beginning to realize that a storm is coming. Fear has begun to make itself felt: (1) fear of being cancelled (by cancel culture); (2) fear of being plundered by inflation and taxation; (3) fear of enemies; leading to (4) a reversion to tribalism, antisemitism, and barbarism. And then (5) an unworthy path to absolute power. Suddenly, we find ourselves in Weimar.
The Weimar Republic was created in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles. Under this setup Germany was forced to pay war reparations. Its military was severely reduced in size. The country was defenseless. Its territory was taken by hostile neighbors. Then came the runaway inflation of 1921-23 which ended in hyperinflation. Savings were wiped out. Businesses collapsed. A tremendous feeling of instability, a loss of confidence and fear of a communist takeover followed.
Out of this time of troubles came a rabble-rousing demagogue named Adolf Hitler. He blamed the Jews for everything. Many Germans saw him as a savior. At the same time, Hitler’s anti-Bolshevism was a major draw for the middle class. For some businessmen, like Ernst Hanfstaengl, Hitler’s antisemitism was a problem. Such a talented public speaker, with real potential. How can we get him to forget about the Jews? To this end, Hanfstaengl tried to shepherd Hitler into a meeting with Winston Churchill in 1932. The plan was to get Churchill and Hitler into a conversation, with Hanfstaengl as translator. Churchill had prepared a little speech. But Hitler snubbed the future British Prime Minister by refusing meet with him. Churchill said to Hanfstaengl, “Tell your boss from me that antisemitism may be a good starter, but it is a bad sticker.”[xxviii]
Months later, desperate to stop communism, German conservatives thought Hitler was someone they could join forces with. President von Hindenburg appointed Hitler to head the government on 30 January 1933. Then came the Reichstag fire and the enabling acts. Hitler obtained dictatorial powers and embarked on a course that would lead to world war and mass murder.
What many historians have missed is the role Stalin played in assuring Hitler’s rise. According to Viktor Suvorov, “Stalin understood better than anyone that revolution comes as the result of war. War heightens tensions, ruins economies, and brings nations closer to the fateful limits, beyond which their ordinary existence ceases to be.”[xxix] Stalin needed Hitler to start a war in Europe. To carry out his strategy, Stalin needed to rescue Hitler in 1933, especially since Hitler’s party was beginning to decline in popularity.
The Kremlin had begun thinking about exploiting a future world war as early as 1920. “In 1925,” noted Suvorov, “Stalin declared that World War II was inevitable, as was the Soviet Union’s entrance into that war.” Stalin said to his followers, “We will have to enter, but we will enter last, we will enter in order to throw in our weight and tip the scale.”[xxx]
In carrying out this plan Hitler was expected to play his part as “icebreaker.” He was unprincipled, aggressive, and disruptive. These traits could be relied on. Hitler was a psychologically abnormal person. The communists knew how to manipulate him (i.e., with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). They did not imagine that Hitler would turn on them, putting the Soviet Union in grave danger. In later years Stalin regretted his attempt to make Hitler into his dog. A mistreated dog will bite his master. And Stalin, as master, mourned his blunder. If only he had kept Hitler’s loyalty. “What we could have achieved together,” he mused. There was always an affinity between Hitler and Stalin. Hitler, who privately disliked Christian civilization, had no problem aligning himself with communists who also wanted to destroy Christianity.
What did these dictators have in common? Stalin was an avowed atheist while Hitler was a pantheist who worshipped at the altar of brute Nature and “survival of the fittest.”[xxxi] Historian Richard Weikart has argued that Hitler’s support for so-called “positive Christianity” (i.e., Nazi Christianity) was a political ploy behind which he plotted the eventual destruction of the churches. Himmler’s doctor, Felix Kersten, who counseled Himmler against carrying out the Holocaust (when given the order by Hitler) reported that Himmler had also been tasked with “creating a new religion” in which Hitler would replace Christ as savior.[xxxii] This would be the new German faith after the victory of the Third Reich. Hitler’s desire to eliminate the Jews was therefore theological, constituting the first step in eradicating Christianity. Thus, Hitler’s program was to attack the religious foundations of Western civilization, which stemmed from Judaism (and the Old Testament).
Making oneself into a Messiah figure while scapegoating Jews is a curious way to form a New Religion. Miguel Serrano, a Chilean diplomat, along with Savitri Devi, carried out Himmler’s design after World War II by penning essays and books explaining what is called “esoteric Hitlerism.” The key concepts being: (1) Hitler as Avatar; (2) worship of an Aryan “God of the Black Sun” vs. Jehovah; (3) a Hyperborean Myth; (4) antisemitism; (5) Spiritual Struggle against the forces of the Demiurge (i.e., Gnosticism).
It is said that Serrano’s ideas have influenced transnational rightwing groups, including American white supremacists.[xxxiii] Without question, antisemitism was conceived by Hitler as a stepping-stone in the process of his own deification. However strange this sounds, Hitler was not the first leader to seek deification. Alexander the Great deified himself, while Julius Caesar learned of this trick from his mistress, Queen Cleopatra (a goddess in her own right). Please note: Many Christians were fed to lions for refusing to worship Caesar’s successors.
We should not imagine that esoteric Hitlerism will always remain on the lunatic fringe. The rehabilitation of Hitler is a work in progress. Even Putin, in his interview with Tucker Carlson, said that Hitler was right to invade Poland in September 1939. Indeed, Hitlerism is being rebuilt on its old antisemitic foundation. Hannah Arendt wrote, “The simultaneous rise of antisemitism as a serious political factor in Germany, Austria, and France in the last twenty years of the nineteenth century was preceded by a series of financial scandals and fraudulent affairs.”[xxxiv] Today we are surrounded by similar scandals and fraudulent affairs. The old blood libel can be applied once more as a cure-all. During the late nineteenth century, in France, under the Third Republic, a majority of the members of parliament (along with government officials) were implicated in swindling and bribery. In Austria and Germany, noted Arendt, “the aristocracy was among the most compromised. In all three countries, Jews acted only as middlemen, and not a single Jewish house emerged with permanent wealth from the frauds of the Panama Affair and the Gründungsschwindel.” From the standpoint of authoritarianism, attacks on the Jews were intended to discredit classical liberalism.
Today’s antisemitism, as political blueprint, has been embraced by podcasters whose methods recapitulate those of Hitler (though they will argue that their conspiracy theory is “not antisemitic” because they do not blame all Jews). This recapitulation was implicit in the ideology of the John Birch Society. In 1993, Birch Society (JBS) President Jack McManus told me that he believed in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which is a famous antisemitic forgery). McManus also said that nine Jewish black magicians ruled the world through the banks and the Masonic lodges. “Hitler was the dupe of the Jews,” he explained. Leaning back in his chair, he said, “Let me scandalize you. The Holocaust did not happen. It was a device to drive the Jews out of Europe to set up the footstool of the Antichrist in Israel.”
McManus’s statement confirmed everything the Antidefamation League published on the John Birch Society in the 1960s. Welch’s antisemitic associations were not incidental, as JBS apologists claimed. In that moment I realized that an outrageous swindle had been perpetrated on the members of the Society. The leadership always claimed that they were not antisemites. What the leadership believed, behind closed doors, was nothing less than the ABCs of antisemitism. “What’s wrong with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” McManus asked me. “You have been hoodwinked into believing they are a forgery,” he said, accusing me of ignorance and naivete.
In the wake of Hitler’s many crimes it is understandable that antisemites would disguise their views and rework their conspiracy theories (to preserve the old conspiracy template). Former British footballer and sports broadcaster David Icke has said humanity has been infiltrated by shape-shifting reptilian space aliens. Critics of Icke say it is the same antisemitic blueprint dressed up in extraterrestrial garb. According to Icke, the reptilians shapeshift so that they can pass themselves off as prime ministers, billionaires, religious leaders, and bankers. They secretly control the world’s money supply, governments, and the mass media. (Does any of this sound familiar?) Icke has named wealthy and influential figures such as the Rothschilds family and George Soros as operatives of the reptilian elite. (The Rothschilds and Soros are Jewish).
The late Willis Carto, a leading American antisemite and admirer of Hitler, set up the Institute for Historical Review in 1978, which once promoted Holocaust denial literature. If you review these writings, you will find that they either ignore or deny the strongest evidence for the “Final solution of the Jewish question.” For example, they ignore or deny Himmler’s Posen speech, which I quoted above.[xxxv] Such denials are giveaways. The denier is not being honest. He is not looking at the evidence.
Diverting from Hitler’s atrocities, the denier often focuses on Stalin’s atrocities. Deniers will point out that the Soviet Union was aligned with the West (so the West is complicit). The denier will also bring up the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But nobody in the West denies that the bombing of Hiroshima took place. This deed is admitted, openly, and it has been criticized. Holocaust denial, however, shows an unwillingness to come to terms with something much worse. Why is it worse? First, regarding Hiroshima, the Japanese leaders were the first to bomb civilians in the war. Second, they started the war by invading China and by bombing Pearl Harbor when we embargoed the Japanese war machine. People complain that we provoked the war by embargoing Japan. But we did not then owe Japan a constant flow of oil so that they could continue to rape China. The Japanese and their German allies set aside the rules of war. They started the war – in Europe, in Asia and the Pacific. Every death that followed was on their heads. Even Bismarck acknowledged that guilt attaches to those that start wars. Therefore, knowing the history of the Second World War, the Nazis did shameful things. And this is why Nazi hunting has persisted in Germany since the end of World War II. After all, the Nazis left a bad smell behind them. When Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped in Argentina by the Mossad and brought to trial in Jerusalem, the whole world could hear Eichmann’s testimony, where he stated, “All I know is that Heydrich told me, ‘The Fuhrer ordered the physical elimination of the Jews.’”[xxxvi] How can anyone in Germany excuse that? It was and is objectively shameful that Germany followed Hitler. In 1987 the former head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Klaus Barbie, was convicted for the deportation of 7,500 Jews to concentration camps. The last Nazi tried for crimes was Irmgard Furchner, a former concentration camp secretary whose conviction was upheld by Germany’s Federal Court of Justice in August 2024. (Furchner died in January 2025 at the age of 99). And Furchner may not be the last Nazi to be convicted. A former camp guard, who is now 100 years old, may face trial in the German courts for “aiding and abetting” 3,322 murders at the Sachsenhausen death camp.[xxxvii]
Those who would revive Hitler’s most dangerous ideas have lost their sense of smell. The crimes of the Nazis stink. Holocaust denial stinks. In 1987 Deborah Lipstadt began investigating the “Holocaust denial phenomenon.” She wrote, “I had been subjected by colleagues and friends to some friendly – and not so friendly – skepticism for ‘taking these kooks seriously.’ Among the most contrite were those who had been most vigorous in their assaults….”[xxxviii]
Of particular interest for us, Lipstadt’s investigation discovered that Holocaust denial was “intimately connected to a neofascist political agenda.”[xxxix] Has anyone in America noticed that obsessively anti-Jewish activists are inclined to fascism (i.e., are against a system of constitutional checks and balances)? Most Holocaust deniers have been admirers of Hitler. In fact, they admire Vladimir Putin and Russia’s autocratic system. Behind the scenes the Kremlin has been secretly friendly with Nazis for decades. The Nazi diaspora in South America was larded with Soviet double agents. In the early 1990s I pushed my way through a crowd to meet Willis Carto after he came back from Moscow. My purpose was to ask him how the Russians treated him. Carto boasted to me that the Russians were his friends, and helpful to the cause of historical revisionism (i.e., Holocaust denial). It is no accident, therefore, that the famous “Catholic” antisemite, E. Michael Jones, supports Vladimir Putin and the Iranian regime. How can a man of this type, who uses Holocaust-denial talking points, be anything other than anti-American?
Most antisemites turn out to be anti-American. This is why the Kremlin, in many situations, supports antisemites. In fact, the Kremlin has always supported antisemitism in the Muslim world. Like communism, antisemitism appeals to the alienated and half-educated masses. It is these masses that Russia hopes to influence, above all. If white people in the West are stirred up by leftist provocations and turn against their respective governments, all the better for Moscow. Therefore, open borders in the West have been a good thing for the Russians. Filling Western countries with Arabs, Africans, and other non-white groups, has led to friction, alienation, and more. This kind of balkanization can be used in a “divide and conquer” game. Pushing Muslims into Europe might be called, “putting two scorpions in a bottle.” We also have the increasing bad treatment of men in the United States, in terms of the family courts and universities. Men are increasingly marginalized and exploited. Undoubtedly the Russians see this as ready field for social agitation.
The decline of our society has been catastrophic, with basic structures torn asunder. Few recognize the fact that we can no longer escape the consequences of our collective malfeasance. But instead of intellectual integrity, deep study, or real knowledge – we are succumbing to conspiracy “theory.” We are falling prey to the politics of resentment. Caught in a rising hysteria, people are watching this strange comet from outside the solar system, hoping it is an alien spaceship coming to rescue them. Twenty years ago, an investment banker told me, “We have drunk the poison and now we must die.”
Of course, this is a process that takes time to unfold. As society begins to break down, as relationships become more dysfunctional, deranged mass movements make their appearance. The emerging ideologies of today are riddled with psychological poisons. In my estimation, antisemitism is one of the most poisonous. How can a person be inwardly clean when they are fixated on the sins of a hated ethnic group?
The rapid spread of antisemitism today is not an accident. It is a feature of the present pre-war period. The Russians know this and are deploying a large arsenal of carefully prepared psychological poisons – with antisemitism playing a key role. We must not forget Stalin’s turn toward antisemitism toward the end of his career (e.g., in the “doctor’s plot”).
Among the Russia-connected hysterics we have David Duke, a leading anti-American antisemite and white supremacist. He rented an apartment in Moscow, and the Russians took good care of him. He had Russian girlfriends. He was able to make a living, somehow. And now, Duke claims that the Ukraine War is “a Jewish-provoked war by the U.S. Government, banking, and media establishment.” According to Duke, “The illegal Jewish dictatorship in Ukraine immediately began … by shelling … 14,000 eastern Ukrainians….” Duke further insists that Jewish fake news hides horrific war crimes: “As in the Iraq War, this is a Jewish Neocon and Jewish Neoleft war based on lies by Jewish media & massive Jewish political money!”
Lipstadt offered the following picture of David Duke in the 1990s:
“The neo-Nazi Duke, a former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and a Holocaust denier, was elected to the Louisiana state legislature in the late 1980s. Two years later he won 40 percent of the vote in the race for the U.S. Senate. In his November 1991 race for governor, he received close to 700,000 votes. He subsequently entered the 1992 presidential campaign. Despite the fact that his efforts were soon eclipsed, he managed to attract a significant number of followers. Duke, who celebrated Hitler’s birthday until late in the 1980s, has been quite candid about his views on the Holocaust as a ‘historical hoax’ but wrote that the ‘greatest’ Holocaust was ‘perpetrated on Christians by Jews.’ Jews fostered the myth of the Holocaust, he claimed, because it generates ‘tremendous financial aid’ for Israel and renders organized Jewry ‘almost immune from criticism.’ In 1986 Duke declared that Jews ‘deserve to go into the ashcan of history’ and denied that the gas chambers were erected to murder Jews but rather were intended to kill the vermin infesting them.”[xl]
In January 200 Lipstadt was sued for libel in a British court by historian David Irving. She called him a Holocaust denier, among other things. Irving has claimed that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust (which Irving said was Himmler’s doing). Here is a sample of what she wrote about Irving:
“An ardent admirer of the Nazi leader, Irving placed a self-portrait of Hitler over his desk, described his visit to Hitler’s mountaintop retreat as a spiritual experience, and declared that Hitler repeatedly reached out to help the Jews. In 1981 Irving, a self-described ‘moderate fascist,’ established his own right-wing political party, founded on his belief that he was meant to be a future leader of Britain. He is an ultranationalist who believes that Britain has been on a steady path of decline accelerated by its misguided decision to launch a war against Nazi Germany. He has advocated that Rudolf Hess should have received the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts to try to stop war between Britain and Germany. On some level Irving seems to conceive of himself as carrying on Hitler’s legacy.”[xli]
All of this is rather damning for a supposedly “objective” historian. How, indeed, could Irving’s histories be objective? He loved and admired Hitler. He wanted to imitate Hitler. He wanted to continue Hitler’s work. In the United Kingdom Irving should have had the advantage in court because British “defamation law is uniquely loaded in favor of the plaintiff.”[xlii] But Irving lost his case. Of course, Lipstadt did not think it was a victory. Holocaust denial, she said, is “like a slow invasion of termites.” The danger of Holocaust denial and a revival of Hitlerism could be expected in the future, she warned: “[because] the public, particularly the uneducated public, will be increasingly susceptible to Holocaust denial as [Holocaust] survivors die.”[xliii]
Today we can see that the “termites” have extended their infestation. We now have the phenomenon of Nick Fuentes, who the New York Times refers to as Charlie Kirk’s successor. A self-admitted antisemite recently told me that he considers Fuentes to be a white supremacist. Fuentes denies this, of course, claiming to be a conservative Christian. But there is no Christianity in this man. Recently Fuentes referred to Russians and Ukrainians as “Slavic monkeys” whose humanity he affirmed with mocking sarcasm.[xliv] It is worth noting that Hitler hated not only Jews, but also Slavs, and Fuentes seems to mirror this.
Another problem child is Candace Owens, who claims that French First Lady Brigitte Macron is a man. The French President and his wife have filed a defamation lawsuit against Owens in the United States. Even if Owens is courtroom roadkill, she is not going away anytime soon. She is riding the crest of a wave. If American nationalism is to follow the George Washington blueprint, she is not the one to do it. She has praised Nick Fuentes as “the face of Jewish defeat.” She even suggested that Dr. Joseph Mengele’s crimes were “propaganda.” In keeping with such themes, she has described Israel as a haven for pedophiles. For these and other antics Owens was awarded “Antisemite of the Year” in 2024 by Stop Antisemitism (a non-partisan U.S.-based organization).[xlv]
If you look today at the people who attack Israel and deny the Holocaust you will find that most of them are also against Ukraine. Some of them even describe Ukraine as a “Nazi” country ruled by agents of the Rothschild’s banking family. It is a peculiar ideological formula, putting the Nazis and the Rothschilds together like that. But consistency is, after all, the hobgoblin of the rational. If Candace Owens were rational, she would not blame the United States and NATO for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and she would not be supportive of Vladimir Putin.
As a believer in shapeshifting reptilians, footballer David Icke would undoubtedly agree on general principles with Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes. He says that NATO provoked Russia into war on purpose, that “nothing is at it appears,” that the conflict is not a simple case of Russian military aggression as portrayed by the media, but rather an event with hidden meaning – and, perhaps, reptilian fingerprints. For Icke, the Ukraine War is one more proof among many that a global conspiracy is at the root of everything.
Tucker Carlson, who might agree with Icke’s assessment, recently stirred up controversy by interviewing Nick Fuentes. The interview got 17 million views. Fuentes depicted himself as a middle-American Christian until he mentioned celebrating Stalin’s birthday. “I’m a fan,” he said out of the blue. Not wanting to offend, Carlson let the moment go. This was relatively jarring after the tame back-and-forth where Fuentes and Carlson both affirmed that their respective best friends were Jews. Not blushing at this pig’s breakfast, which degenerated into Carlson’s claiming that St. Paul was his hero, Fuentes then patted Tucker on the back by pointing out that St. Paul was a Jew. The tag-team style and the fake Jew-friendliness reminded me of a funhouse mirror Hannah Arendt might have described as the “banality of the preposterous.” It was a poseur’s parade of inconsistent philosophizing and non sequiturs, ending with Fuentes attacking American women as fat, entitled, and lazy. On the one hand, Fuentes claimed to support white Christendom, on the other hand he decried identity politics as collectivism. Carlson chimed in, “We hate collectivist thinking like that.”
Oh yeah? Fuentes has publicly said, “I don’t believe in the Holocaust.” Then he crudely compared Jewish victims of the Nazis to “cookies baked in an oven.”[xlvi] It was odd, then, to hear Fuentes tell Carlson, “I love all people and we have to recognize that Aquinas says the Jews are a witness people…. My disagreement is that Israel has nothing to do with Jewishness or the Jewish religion.”
This unintentionally ironic discourse, with its rabble-rousing mix of undigested topics, self-contradiction and absurdity, received 17 million views. Fuentes is on his way to being a household name. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts initially defended Carlson’s interview with Fuentes, saying that criticizing Israel is not the same thing as antisemitism. Okay. But isn’t Fuentes a white nationalist who celebrates Stalin’s birthday and thinks Hitler is “cool”? In fact, Fuentes has said, “All I want is revenge against my enemies and a total Aryan victory.” This is outrageous, and Carlson has platformed Fuentes while receiving support from the Heritage Foundation. With the staff of the Heritage Foundation in an uproar, Roberts was compelled to make a “clarifying statement”:
“Nick Fuentes’s antisemitism is not complicated, ironic, or misunderstood. It is explicit, dangerous, and demands our unified opposition as conservatives. Fuentes knows exactly what he is doing. He is fomenting Jew hatred, and his incitements are not only immoral and un-Christian, they risk violence…. For those, especially young men, who are enticed by Fuentes – there is a better way.”[xlvii]
Roberts added, however, that Fuentes should not be “canceled.” Of course! Why not give this Hitler-loving fan of Stalin a platform? Good thinking, Roberts! If you want to shoot yourself in the foot next time, get a real gun and open fire. It will be the only way to blast your foot out of your mouth.
In a posting on X, Michael O’Fallon wrote, “The promotion of Nick Fuentes along with the blind acceptance of Tucker Carlson’s parade of bad actors is for the purpose of creating a ‘new sensibility’ within conservative circles.” According to O’Fallon, the communists know all about creating “new sensibilities.” They have been doing this continuously for the last half century. If you can trigger people’s dark side, you can make a revolution. All you need is someone to break the ice. O’Fallon then explained,
“…the promotion of Fuentes, Dugin, Cooper, Isker, Sachs and others is meant to create a ‘new sensibility’ within the confines of what has been normative conservative thought – ‘to stretch’ past what is considered conservative and sensible into a new moving of the Overton Window: an Overton Window that will be moved so far towards the progressive and deconstructive direction that it will begin to resemble similar movements on the radical woke left.
“This process is the deconstruction of what was [the] conservative right: a principled, thoughtful, constitutional right that would preserve and continue the United States of America. It replaces the conservative right with a liberation-minded, top-down, tyranny-imposing, conflict-creating beast of a system that will eventually embrace the very worst ideas of the World Economic Forum and the United Nations.”
What the communists would like to see on the American right is disregard for Christian decency and the trampling down of civilized principles. Communism, like antisemitism, is a demagogic scam that attracts power-hungry misfits like Nick Fuentes, Alex Jones, and Stew Peters. In Moscow the bosses are saying to each other, “If only these American misfits could have more influence. How can this be assured?” It is a case of new misfits for old: Fuentes for the Malicious Dwarf (Goebbels), Field Marshal Douglas Macgregor for Goering, and Stew Peters for Julius Streicher. As Marx said, history repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Russia will support the misfits – until they have served their purpose. Even the Nazi movement of the 1930s was merely supported by Stalin (secretly) for its disruptive qualities. Stalin was not a real friend to Hitler any more than Putin is a true friend to his supporters on the American right. The usefulness of these misfits to Moscow is in their virulency, senselessness, and disruptive potential. Antisemites serve as lightning rod for the communists.
In his lectures on Hitler and the Germans, Eric Voegelin cited Professor Waldemar Besson, who wrote that Hitler was an “idiot.” This is not the usual thing said about Hitler. Voegelin insisted that Besson was on to something. Hitler’s idiocy was moral idiocy, of course; but this is the most dangerous idiocy of all. The Hebrew prophets often pointed to a special kind of fool, “who because of his folly … creates disorder in society….” Plato, in his turn, referred to the irrational ignoramus who would never bow to reason. Voegelin said the fool is someone who has “suffered a loss of reality and acts on the basis of a defective image of reality and thereby creates disorder.”[xlviii] This describes Hitler, who was dangerous because he had a defective view of reality. Antisemites, with their Jewish obsession, have likewise lost touch with reality. When someone begins obsessing over Israel, when the Jews becomes a bee in their bonnet, they will begin to gravitate toward Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Stew Peters, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes. The narratives of these celebrities are not mere criticisms of Israel. Their narratives have an evil trajectory that is bound for the abyss.
For many years illiteracy and stupidity, wrote Voegelin, have run through our elite. Consequently, our society is going off the rails. Voegelin characterized the situation as a “derailment.” And now we have 17 million people hanging on the words of someone who says that Hitler was cool. We have Candace Owens saying the French President’s wife is a man (and millions believe her). We have Alex Jones saying that our real enemy is found in the banking community. There is no end to the propagation of second realities. Balthasar Gracian wrote, “Do not believe … lightly. Maturity of mind is best shown in slow belief. Lying is the usual thing, so then let belief be unusual. He that is lightly led away soon falls into contempt.”[xlix]
I have the kindest readers. Thank you for the book orders and the donations. And also, for the thoughtful notes of appreciation.
Donate to the Site: $20
Or Donate to Receive Origins of the Fourth World War: $30
Send a check or money order to:
(Shipping is free)
Jeff R. Nyquist
P.O. Box 1062
Mocksville, NC 27028
Audio and Video Programs with J.R. Nyquist
Links and Notes
[i] Eric Voegelin, Hitler and the Germans (Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 1999), pp. 72.
[ii] Xenophon trans. Tredennick and Waterfield, Conversations of Socrates (London: Penguin Classics, 1990), p. 190.
[iii] https://www.historynet.com/chilling-tapes-of-adolf-eichmann-revealed-in-new-documentary/
[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otsKsIZoR10
[v] https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1513
[vi] https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/exterminationist-mindset-heinrich-himmlers-october-1943-speeches
[vii] An expression deriving from Hannah Arendt’s analysis of SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann. See, Eichmann in Jerusalem.
[viii] https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/nick-fuentes-and-the-mainstreaming-of-neo-nazism-transcript-9.6976010
[ix] Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections, p. 45.
[x] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Louis-de-Saint-Just
[xi] Voegelin, p. 46.
[xii] Ibid, p. 47.
[xiii] Norman Cohen, Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (London: Serif, 2001), p. 26.
[xiv] Ibid.
[xv] Zykon B was the trade name of a cyanide-based pesticide invested in Germany during the 1920s and used by the Nazis to murder approximately 1.1 million people in gas chambers. See the Wikipedia entry for Zyklon B.
[xvi] See, especially, Jones and Peters working together: https://rumble.com/embed/ucfsd.v2m0p7n/
[xvii] Jones’s supplements are said to be “wildly popular,” but they are just an overpriced blend of vitamins and minerals. See https://mediawell.ssrc.org/citations/we-sent-alex-jones-infowars-supplements-to-a-lab-heres-whats-in-them/
[xviii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
[xix] Chinese Defence Budget 2025: Lower Allocation, Bigger Impact
[xx] https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=61284
[xxi] W.K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays (New York: Prometheus Books, 1999), p. 70.
[xxii] Ibid, p. 73.
[xxiii] Ibid, pp. 73-74.
[xxiv] Ibid, p. 77.
[xxv] Ibid.
[xxvi] Ibid, pp. 77-78.
[xxvii] Ibid, p. 79.
[xxviii] Ernst Hanfstaengl, Hitler: The Memoir of a Nazi Insider Who Turned Against the Führer.
[xxix] Viktor Suvorov, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II (Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2008), p. 28.
[xxx] Ibid, p. 29.
[xxxi] Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich.
[xxxii] Joseph Kessel, The Man With the Miraculous Hands, (Kindle), Loc. 1.383. Himmer is quoted by Kersten as saying, “Hitler has entrusted me with a highly important task. I am to prepare a new Nazi religion. I am to draft the new bible, the bible of the German faith.” After being questioned further by Kersten, Himmler explained, “The Führer has decided that after the victory of the Third Reich, he will abolish Christianity throughout Greater Germany, that is to say, Europe, and establish the Germanic faith on its ruins. The latter will preserve the idea of God, but it will be very vague and indistinct. The Führer will replace Christ as the savior of humanity. Thus, millions and millions of people will say only Hitler’s name in their prayers, and a hundred years from now nothing will be known but the new religion, which will endure for centuries.”
[xxxiii] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/occultism-in-a-global-perspective/savitri-devi-miguel-serrano-and-the-global-phenomenon-of-esoteric-hitlerism/FA5A25553E361411F513A46ACB6E15A3
[xxxiv] Hannah Arendt, Antisemitism: Part One of the Origins of Totalitarianism (USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968), pp. 35-36.
[xxxv] https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/450970-speeches-to-ss-officers?mode=image
[xxxvi] https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1001881
[xxxvii] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/former-nazi-camp-guard-now-100-can-face-trial-german-court-rules-rcna183145
[xxxviii] Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (New York: Penguin Group, 1994), p. xii.
[xxxix] Ibid, p. 3.
[xl] Ibid, pp. 4-5.
[xli] Ibid, pp. 161-62.
[xlii] Richard J. Evans, Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial (USA: Basic Books, 2001), p. 28.
[xliii] Ibid, p. 264.
[xliv] https://x.com/sovmichael/status/1984614376054169667?s=43&t=PoVPwpWGYsDX42lFdGoOqg
[xlv] https://stopantisemitism.org/
[xlvi] https://factually.co/fact-checks/media/nick-fuentes-holocaust-denial-when-c45381?origin=related
[xlvii] Kevin Roberts DENOUNCES Nick Fuentes, Defends Tucker Carlson; Civil WAR?! Robby Soave | RISING
[xlviii] Eric Voegelin trans. Clemens and Purcell, Hitler and the Germans, pp. 89-91.
[xlix] Balthasar Gracian trans. Joseph Jacobs, The Art of World Wisdom, #154.
101 responses to “A Political Menagerie: Aryan Unicorns and Extraterrestrial Reptilians”
J. R. Nyquist – Deutsche Ausgabe (seit 2014):
“Zivile Auflösung – Über den Verwaltungsstillstand” (20. 10. 2025)
https://jrnyquistdeutsch.wordpress.com/2025/11/02/zivile-auflosung-uber-den-verwaltungsstillstand/
“Und Bürgerkriegsphantasien schwirren in ihren Köpfen …” (23. 9. 2025)
https://jrnyquistdeutsch.wordpress.com/2025/11/13/und-burgerkriegsphantasien-schwirren-in-ihren-kopfen/
“Defätismus und revolutionäre Strategie” (8. 9. 2022)
https://jrnyquistdeutsch.wordpress.com/2025/10/24/defatismus-und-revolutionare-strategie/
Thank you! This is wonderful work.
Jeff, you’re right. Trump has a culpable ignorance. Culpable ignorance, in the Thomistic view, is a lack of knowledge for which a person is morally responsible because they failed to exercise reasonable diligence to learn the truth. Aquinas distinguished it from invincible ignorance, which is an excusable lack of knowledge due to factors beyond one’s control, and linked culpable ignorance to negligence or a willful refusal to see what one should have known. Regards, Nelson.
Thank you for this important clarification.
While I admire and respect General Ben Hodges, it was very telling when Lee Wheelbarger shared at about the 1:49:20 mark of his video (he had not said anything to Hodges) but had already given the sites and intel of current Russian movements, buildups, points of interest along NATO borders to senior officials with NATO…
to which their reply was that they had no idea the Russians were even there….”We’re a defensive organization, it’s not our responsibility to do all of this intel.”
I find myself questioning whether all these military “experts” and national security folks really do have ordinary American people and their families safety in mind regarding the Communist threat to our lives here via evil regimes of Russia, China, N Korea, and Venezuela.
Everyone today is the product of their generation and education. If you could have attended the university I attended, the graduate school I attended, you would find very little patience for patriotism or anticommunism.
Ben Hodges highlights what is wrong with NATO, though he seems to overlook the fact that Russia and China are closely aligned. That said, I personally do not expect a Russian attack on the Baltic states. There are troops from various NATO countries stationed there, but uncertainty about how Trump would respond remains a major concern for Russia, in my opinion.
I’m currently in Riga, and no one here appears to believe an invasion is imminent. However, tensions between ethnic Latvians and ethnic Russians seem to be getting worse and worse.
Jeffrey, in your previous article, when I went to reply, the comments had already been closed. Olavo left political analyses on Facebook and Twitter, which he called his philosophical diary. When Trump began to get closer to Putin and to despise Zelensky, these texts were retrieved by his students, and they boast that the professor was right again. They find this great and very strange because Olavo always criticized Russia, but at the same time he made these predictions that Trump would unite with Putin and divide the European Union between the two, and that Putin’s Russian empire never harmed anyone except the Russian people themselves, implying that it would be beneficial for the world for Europe to be dominated by Putin. It seems he began to believe that the Russians and Chinese broke their alliance. How could he believe that? Since he must have read your books, and as you said, he talked a lot with you, so he knows your position and the evidence you cited, which is practically unquestionable. He believed that the world is divided into three blocs: Russian, Chinese, Islamic, and Western capitalist (which he called meta-capitalist). He said that all three were equally rich and very powerful, and that none was superior to the others. He said that they often fought among themselves but also had common interests, but the objective of each bloc was to dominate the world. That’s why, in your interview with the Borborema Institute, the Olavo-supporting interviewer always asked about Islamic power. They don’t realize that the communists are using Western capitalists and Muslims because Olavo’s students strongly believe that Muslims are as powerful a force as the Russians, Chinese, etc. I was an Olavo supporter myself; I even learned about his work because of his recommendation, but I started to see that he had inconsistencies. I realize that Olavo wasn’t the greatest living intellectual, but he was a perennialist. He was very pro-Trump. Many of his students were happy that his prediction came true: Trump being pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine. He’s leaving NATO and abandoning Europe, etc. Analyzing the opinions of his former students from the Protestant side, I see that Olavo was lying. He was fundamentally pro-Russia, or he was intellectually incapable. He was, as his critics said, a guru, a kind of leader of a sect. On one hand, he criticized Alexander Dugin and would have won a debate with him; on the other, he wrote predictions that were somewhat favorable to Dugin’s mentality, such as saying that an alliance between Russia and the United States is possible. That’s why a former Protestant student called him a sorcerer (not because he believed in the hidden forces of nature, which you also mention and we know exist, and spiritual phenomena that have no explanation—I personally believe in these hidden phenomena that you mentioned in past articles, and these former Protestant students of his also believe in them, and I agree that Brazil is not a Christian country but a pagan one). But because he played both sides, both a student who likes Russia can appreciate Olavo, and someone who hates Russia can, and what I see most is that both admirers and haters of Russia appreciate him. Olavo also has this dual mentality, making him difficult to interpret. He does teach that Russia, China, and Cuba support Lula, but at the same time, he posted these “predictions.” I think he had more in common with Dugin than most people realize. Jeffrey wasn’t a Christian; he was a perennialist, and because of his perennialist mentality, he favors a tradition that believes in the union of all religions. Russia has been spreading this mentality, which is why they have been winning over Western conservatives. Olavo presented himself as one of the most intelligent men and managed to deceive many because Brazilians lack capable people, and he deceived them well. Here are the links to his Facebook posts; they’re in Portuguese, but please try to read them, Jeffrey:
https://www.facebook.com/share/16eCfvgzys/
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNZoIjEtoC4/?igsh=MXJidDF3NGNhbnNtZQ==
It’s clear, Jeffrey, that Olavo hated what he called Western globalism the most, and his students did too, at least most of them.
I do not know all of Olavo’s views. He was a many things in his past, and he changed his mind about things. He read my book. I think he understood my book. But he was not a political scientist.
For the record, before the comments are closed and to anyone that will stumble across those allegations about Olavo:
Olavo de Carvalho always relied heavily on the issue of the Fatima miracle, on the warnings left there that Russia would spread its errors throughout the world, and he added that Our Lady did not say “communism”; she spoke of errors, meaning there would be reformulations which, lacking the communist label or façade, would nevertheless still be Russia’s errors. At NO point did he ever say that Russian domination would be beneficial for Europe or for the world—quite the opposite.
He complained that, in Brazil, people cannot distinguish when you are making an analysis from the perspective of a given political actor (such as Donald Trump, who did indeed imagine an alliance), weighing the consequences of that act, from making an explicit endorsement of that path. There is a hostility between vulgar mentality and dialectical play—the confrontation of hypotheses—necessary to establish hypotheses and make predictions.
This fits with that comment; he needs to set aside Olavo de Carvalho’s earlier statements about the nomenklatura and replace them with the subjective, mushy, inconsistent impression he thought he could extract from those remarks.
“Putin’s Russian empire never harmed anyone except the Russian people themselves, implying that it would be beneficial for the world for Europe to be dominated by Putin.” False.
“It seems he began to believe that the Russians and Chinese broke their alliance.” False.
Everything is “implying”, “it seems”, things behind the curtains—a sea of guesswork from which one tries to extract something condemnable and supposedly overriding all of his public statements, which were categorically anti-communist and warning against Russia.
The Perennialist theory.
Olavo came into contact with a tariqa maintained by Schuon which accepted non-Muslims, and he ended up expelled from it; he was even sued (subjected to legal harassment) by members of that organization. Later, he offered a complete picture of René Guénon’s work, warning that it was a plan to Islamize the West, that Guénon was against Christianity, etc…
Olavo de Carvalho was a Roman Catholic. There have always been cases in which, unable to engage him on philosophical and cultural grounds, the attack against Olavo was carried out through the following tactics: 1) Asserting for themselves an image of bearers of Christian doctrine or Catholic tradition; 2) On that basis, pronouncing judgments and constructing an image of the target’s heresy or non christian identity.
In short, that is it—manufacture an image and throw it into public opinion, that is a rethorical manipulation work. Many of these people belong to Catholic sects that use Vatican II as an excuse to break away from Rome and, once they do that, they place themselves in the position of arbitrating the regularity of acts (if Rome is lost, the true believer c’est moi, i hold the tradition): they proceed to decide which Masses are valid and which are not—they even go as far as denying the Pope (i don’t need to say that they are closer to protestantism than catholicism on that point – they are not catholics at all, they are trans catholics, they identify themselves as catholics, have saints, books, rituals with catholics features, but that is not catholicism).
Since, for most people, studying something is considered synonymous with supporting it, they took this body of knowledge about René Guénon and Frithjof Schuon and fabricated a perennialist identity, attaching it to Olavo de Carvalho. Basically, it is a fraud used by certain circles to disguise the fact that, while Olavo lost jobs, was persecuted, and mocked by the Left for confronting the communists—and later, their reformulation under Aleksandr Dugin’s neo-Eurasianism (nobody in Brazil even knew who this guy was)—these same people who present themselves as concerned about the communist and Eurasian threat were SILENT. Opus Dei stayed in its corner while Olavo, in his broadcasts, exposed the São Paulo Forum and urged Catholics to take active stance against communism. At that moment, many cowered and stayed in their corners, fleeing the fight like frail old women, claiming they were “praying.”
As for communism, Olavo disseminated the literature of dissidents such as Anatoliy Golitsyn, Ion Mihai Pacepa, Yuri Bezmenov’s lectures, as well as Robert Chandler’s book, and many others; he spoke of long-term strategy, of crime being controlled by the Russian mafia and the book Red Cocaine, of the false liberalizations, of the communist secret service still dominating present-day Russia, etc.—all the while addressing the Eurasian issue even before it entered the Brazilian scene in force. He said that students who believed in the Eurasian nonsense would be embarrassing him. This attempt to place him in a pro-Russian position is nothing but quackery. One must either falsify or hide everything Olavo said about Russia in order to try to establish the pro-Russia theory.
“He made favorable predictions about Dugin”—again, there is this inability to distinguish political analysis from endorsement of a plan. When you warn about something and say that this thing is going to happen, people in Brazil believe you are in favor of it.
You will find, on the internet, scattered livestreams, posts, the radio program he once broadcast (called True Outspeak), and, finally, the Online Philosophy Course itself. From time to time, continuously, both in the classes and in his open statements, he reaffirmed Catholicism—including the incorruptibility of the saints’ bodies, the veracity of miracles, the Fatima prophecy, the role the Church should play, and that the Savior is Jesus Christ, etc. This technique of putting the desbelief on Olavo’s catholicism is a cheap rhetoric, not a an analysis on his writings, etc…
In other words:
1)Olavo exposed the plan for Islamization and dissolution of Catholicism into a pool of universal beliefs (he talked about Lee Penn’s book False Dawn), yet he is accused of being a perennialist;
2)Olavo disseminated anti-communist literature, exposed the São Paulo Forum, Russian strategy and disinformation, connecting those facts with the Fatima miracle. When Dugin came to Brazil, Dugin joined the academic establishment and together they harassed Olavo—but people still try to manufacture the image of a pro-Russian Olavo who “would have things in common” with Dugin. He is trying to eviscerate a book with a POST that doesn’t even supports Russia. The Dugin vs Olavo debate ended as a hostile discussion (Dugin complained that he thought he was going to encounter a traditionalist intellectual – that is, with perenialist basis – but Olavo was something complete different and Dugin says he wouldn’t have accepted the debate if he knew that).
Anyone who wants to understand Olavo de Carvalho’s mindset will not rely on short posts, stray statements, video clips, and so on; they will consult the books, the classes, the debates, the study guides, and so forth. They will not rely on the talk of those who, when he alone spoke against communist hegemony and confronted the grey eminences of Latin American socialism and the guru of neo-communism, stayed safe in their corners, waiting for a time in which to present themselves as true catholics, christians or true anticommunists or whatever.
This is only cheap talk and rumors.
Some references
-The Russia´s Black Sun: The Occult Roots of Eurasiansm (CRISTIAN DEROSA) – This Olavo’s student wrote a book exposing the eurasianism to the brazilian public, now it is available in english.
-The Claws of the Sphinx – René Guénon and the Islamization of the West (Olavo de Carvalho) – this is the exposure of Guénon islamic belief and its cultural changes in Europe. Russia’s Black sun book contains this article, but it is also available on the site: https://olavodecarvalho.org/as-garras-da-esfinge-rene-guenon-e-a-islamizacao-do-ocidente/
-The USA and the New World Order – a debate between Olavo de Carvalho and Aleksandr Dugin. https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/
Thank you for this clarification in response to Antonio Renato. Another of Olavo’s students, Maria Clara, sent me a message with her defense of Olavo:
“Hasty interpretations of Olavo de Carvalho’s work and positions are often born from a fragmentary, decontextualized reading guided by the very ideological expectations he himself denounced. The first recurring flaw is to take predictions, strategic hypotheses, and scenario analyses as if they were permanent political alignments. Olavo was not pro-Russia, pro-USA, or pro-any axis of power: his methodology was based on understanding the structures of global influence, not on geopolitical cheerleading. When he described the possibility of rapprochement between great powers, he diagnosed them impersonally. Confusing diagnosis with advocacy has always been a typical error of those who reduce political analysis to activism.”
“The second common confusion is to imagine that his readings on power blocs implied moral equivalence or symmetry between them. Olavo never treated Russia, China, radical Islamists, and the globalist West as equivalent forces in legitimacy or principles; he treated them as agent structures, each seeking expansion and hegemony. It was a cartography of power, not a geopolitical catechism. His critique of Western globalism never converted him into a defender of Putin, just as his fierce critique of Putinism never made him a spokesman for the American agenda. He treated each power with the rigor it deserved, and precisely for that reason, he was attacked from all sides.”
“Another mistake is to interpret his interpretive flexibility as contradiction or “two-facedness.” Olavo argued that political reality is dynamic and that alliances between powers change according to circumstantial interests. Predicting that rival blocs might cooperate at certain moments is not incoherence, but a mature understanding of history—the same history that has seen the USSR and the USA allied against Nazism, China and the USA cooperating economically for decades, and Islamic countries aligning sometimes with Washington, sometimes with Moscow, according to strategic conveniences.”
“The accusation that this would align him with the vision of thinkers like Dugin reveals a profound lack of knowledge of both Olavo and Dugin. The former based himself on perennial philosophy and a critique of modernity; the latter structures his thought on Neo-Eurasianism, geopolitical traditionalism, and civilizational instrumentalization for Russian imperial ends. Olavo explicitly rejected Eurasianism, dismantled its theoretical basis, and exposed its contradictions—something no “guru” would do in relation to a project he supposedly sympathized with.”
“Furthermore, reducing Olavo to a ‘cult leader’ betrays a misunderstanding of his work. A guru demands submission; Olavo demanded study. A guru prohibits dissent; Olavo diverged, debated, and corrected even close students. A guru appeals to emotion; Olavo demanded conceptual precision. The discomfort he caused in followers and critics did not reveal manipulation, but intellectual independence.
Finally, the attempt to automatically associate him with Trumpism or any specific political movement ignores that his adherence, when it existed, was always conditional, critical, and contextual. He supported actions, not idols. If Trump had approached Putin in a way that was detrimental to the West, Olavo would have criticized it because his commitment was never to strongmen, but to the defense of Western civilization against its internal and external enemies.”
Was he not tied with that Novus Ordo Sect recognizing entity called Tradition in Action ? They are all laymen trying to present the Catholic Tradition in their “opinions”, which lead to heresy and canonically and theologically condemned recognition of a non-Catholic apostate Sect as the “Catholic Church’s Hierarchy”, which heretical lie all Catholics worthy of that name must in conscience reject, under the pain of excommunication….and so these people from that lay publication entity Tradition in Action are publishing such opinions (the lady and so on, her name is Horvath or some such name) and so their publications, including Mr. Olavo’s lack the clarity of the truth and canonical truth…and they do lack the essential ecclesiastical authority to publish such opinions in matters of Catholic Faith and Morals, which is not permitted by Church Law to do to ordinary lay people, and now excommunicated heretics.
This alone should be the guiding principle why other opinions of theirs are not correct or leading away from the correct analysis, as you have pointed out – and it is of no surprise, although this is a new information, and in fact conclusive of the already known facts about these people…
olavo’s former protestant student does not know his work but he agrees that russia is a great evil and that it will probably be highlighted and he criticizes the statement that islam is the great evil in his opinion islam is used by both russians and western bankers islam is not as powerful as olavo said
Appologies for the many typos and mistakes. I can correct it if needed
I will delete. It’s too long and does not cohere.
Jeffrey, I’m presenting your work to Olavo’s former Protestant students. I bought another book, God bless you!
Thank you.
Excellent as always, very interesting. By the way i believe that the great problem of the Western world that gave rise to all our current problems was the Protestant Reformation, with Luther denying the privatio boni. I disagree with Jung’s position on evil in “Christ a Symbol of the Self.” Arendt’s position, although more interesting, does not fully explain the problem. Eric Voegelin, with his study of Gnostic movements and the concept of alienation, indirectly confirms what the early Church Fathers affirmed.
Yes.
It is this sort of religion bashing that I find divisive on our side. This blog is supposed to be concentrating on our common enemy, namely communism. Instead, I find myself being attacked. And with that attack, an attack on modern (not post-modern) science.
I come to this from a background in STEM. I was curious about the philosophy behind modern science–why did it diverge from Aristotelianism that still is the basis of Roman Catholic theology? The answer I found is the Reformation. In particular, Luther. A little known fact is that Luther himself was personally involved in the Copernican Revolution. Reformation theology formed the basis for the scientific method that was universally taught in science textbooks through the mid 20th century, until it was pointed out that Darwin violated the scientific method to propose his theory of evolution, and that Einstein turned that method on its head. Now there are new definitions as to what makes a theory a scientific theory.
Of the Reformers, I hold Luther in the highest regard. He was not perfect. But more consistent than the other Reformers, and more consistent than his followers.
I have avoided Catholic bashing. All I ask is that others respect me and others here who are not Catholics not to bash us.
Can you explain the differences with Aristotle?
The differences go much deeper than just Aristotle, rather to ways of thinking itself. Greek philosophy, in which Plato, Aristotle and other Greek philosophers swam,
I started an answer, only to have it sent before I finished it.
There are two ways of thinking recognized by philosophers–“Greek Thought” named after its use by Greek philosophers, which is actually almost universal. It is found in Hinduism, Buddhism, Chinese philosophies, almost everywhere where people make systematic philosophies. The other way they call “Hebrew Thought” which most western philosophers don’t understand. It is language agnostic. It is the type of thinking found in the Bible, hence its name and by its use by the Reformation more constantly by laypeople than theologians.
The differences, listing some of which are listed at https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2TU1ZFIBS2HCJ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl :
* First of all, Hebrew thought is historic. The events in history, space time events, work together to shape the present. The basis of teaching and action are datable events that have happened in the past (though there is some trouble correlating some of those dates with our modern calendar because of poor surviving records). For example, the reason for the Sabbath given in Exodus 20 was the creation, and for our resurrection the example of Jesus’ resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. The present cannot be accurately understood apart from the past. In other words, the past defines the present. As a result, accurate records of the past are needed to understand the present. —— In Greek thought, all that we can know is that which we can observe in the present, and more importantly the properties (theories and rules) that can be derived from present observations. Hence, knowledge is ahistorical. Further, it is expected that once something is learned about the physical universe, that we will not find exceptions to the derived rules. History is important not for its accuracy concerning past events, rather for its entertainment value (Iliad, Odyssey) and/or lessons that can be learned from them (Plutarch’s Lives). Therefore, when records from the past indicate events that present theories and rules conclude are impossible or couldn’t happen, therefore the records from the past are faulty or even legendary, and not accurate. The present is the key to the past.
* Hebrew thought is based on experiences and observations, not necessarily logically understood. Observation and experience take precedence over theory and understanding. The truth is defined by whether or not an event or events happened, whether in the lab or among human activity, not by whether or not it conforms to logic or theory. —— Greek Thought is logical. Mental constructs and theory take precedence over experience. The truth of an argument is based on its internal consistency and logic. The present is the key to the past.
* Hebrew Thought is practical, based on observation. It takes people, objects and situations where they are and works from there. Theory takes back seat to observation, from the observation of the universe that God created, to the observed signs of his continued action into history. Part of its practicality is its challenge to life: if something is true, what is one personally going to do about it? —— Greek Thought is theoretical. There is no clarion call to action based on its truth claims. Where things don’t fit the theory, an attempt is made to deny the observation or to change things to fit. Virgins don’t give birth, therefore the virgin birth didn’t happen, floods don’t cover the whole world, therefore Noah didn’t survive one, etc. The present is the key to the past.
* Hebrew Thought looks at function. Connected with function is action. “Pretty is as pretty does” and “A young man makes himself recognized by his repeated actions” Proverbs 20:11. Function is also how one can define objects consistently and accurately. Many of the “anthropomorphisms” in the Bible concerning God are not to be understood as descriptions of the Deity, rather they are functional representations of God’s actions. Nature is to be studied by looking at actions (that’s how most chemical elements were recognized) and active experiments. Connected with function and action is that Hebrew thought deals with internal structure of what makes things tick. In art, the Dutch masters were renown for their attempt to freeze action on the canvas, even the quiet pictures were like a pause between actions. —— Greek Thought looks at form and external appearances. Along with form is the concept of a static universe. Quiet contemplation is considered the height of achievement. Working with one’s hands is denigrated in favor of philosophizing and the making of theories.
* Hebrew thought looks at the internal structure. How things are constructed are more important than their appearances. In communication, it’s the ideas that underlay the words used that are important, not the exact words that communicate those ideas. —— Greek Thought emphasizes form. In transmitting ideas, the form of communication, the exact words used, are often more important than the ideas that underlay the words. Appearances matter more than substance. (This point used to drive me crazy in philosophy classes–I saw philosophers spilling rivers of ink about the importance of certain word usages, while I couldn’t see any difference in the ideas presented.)
* Hebrew Thought looks for patterns. There is the natural beat of time, from heartbeats to the patterns of day and night, months and years. This is also a way to combine both particulars and universals, for though particulars (objects and/or actions) may not be exactly like other particulars, they fit patterns that point to universals. —— Greek Thought looks at either individuals or universals, but not both at the same time. In fact, the two are divided from each other by what Francis Schaeffer called “the line of despair” in his book Escape from Reason (IVP Classics) .
* Hebrew Thought is democratic. In government and society this is expressed as Lex Rex, where the law is king and even the king is subject to it. All people are equal under the law, only on the basis of office are some allowed to have authority over others, God being the ultimate law giver. In music, this is expressed in that the different voices are all melodic, but they work together to make the whole, in other words, the music of Händel and Bach are good examples of Hebrew Thought. —— Greek Thought is dictatorial or anarchic. In government this is expressed in the idea of Rex Lex, where the king and the government are above the law, for they are the law givers. It also teaches the divine right of kings to rule as they wish. In music, there is either one melodic voice where the others are supportive of the one, as in Vivaldi, Hayden and Beethoven, or the other extreme where all the voices are autonomous and the music falls apart, as in Schoenberg.
* Hebrew Thought is audial. Though there are more synonyms for the verb to see than for any other verb in ancient Hebrew, the most important thing repeatedly told in the Bible is to listen to God’s word. Even all the signs and portents were to be evaluated on the basis of the listened word of God. Until the time of Augustine, all reading was done out loud (a neighbor taught him how to read silently), therefore all reading resulted in listening to the word. Furthermore, listening takes time, is active and is best remembered when listening to patterns, such as poetry. —— Greek Thought is visual. An object can be viewed in an instant, with no reference to history or action. But again, without history, we are left as said one ancient Greek philosopher, “One cannot step into the same river twice” because by the time he steps into the river a second time, it has already changed.
Much if not most of Aristotle’s “scientific teachings”, were based on what we call “thought experiments”. Making theories. The scientific method developed by the Reformation emphasized getting one’s hands dirty by physical experiments and active observations. Theories came later, based on observations.
One thing that muddies the water is that one cannot live consistently according to Greek Thought. Another thing that muddies the water are the religions that eschew structured philosophizing in favor of following emotions wherever they lead. An example of the latter were certain Zen Buddhists in China who were nihilists, saying there is no truth nor morality. (Told to me in conversation with an ex-Zen Buddhist.)
R.O. — I see you are interjecting some technical arguments about philosophy which appear to be your own idiosyncratic constructions. I have never encountered anything like it before. Forgive me, but I am very confused by your many points. What you attribute to the Hebrews is clearly found in the Greeks. For example, Thucydides was a great historian who discovered many things and laid the foundations for objective historical writing. You also say Hebrew thought is “democratic,” while we all know about Athenian democracy (which was Greek). This is all very curious how you switch the Hebrews with the Greeks, attributing everything to the Hebrews that is properly attributed to the Greeks. And then your characterization of Aristotle baffles me, especially when it comes to Aristotle’s political writings, The Aristotelian method is described by Eric Voegelin as dedication to deep appreciation of the subject. It is not a thought experiment at all, neither in his “Politics” or “Ethics.” And I am not sure why you keep mentioning Buddhism and Hinduism. One of my correspondents, Maria Clara, made the following observations in reaction to what you wrote:
“It is reductionist to claim that scientific modernity derives exclusively from the Reformation, as if the epistemological leap that shaped the West were the direct work of a single religious movement. Modern science is born from a complex set of philosophical ruptures, including medieval nominalism, Renaissance rediscoveries, the English experimental spirit, modern mathematics, and the consolidation of new methodological paradigms. The Reformation had an important cultural influence, but it was neither the sole origin nor the structural axis of the scientific method.”
“Furthermore, attributing a decisive role in the ‘Copernican revolution’ to figures like Luther is a historical exaggeration. The development of heliocentrism owes much more to the Greco-Arabic astronomical tradition, the mathematical efforts of Copernicus, and later to the observational framework of Kepler and Galileo. Protestantism did not inaugurate science, just as Catholicism—with its great university centers and its scholastic tradition—did not prevent it either. The relationship between faith and science in history is more nuanced than identitarian narratives allow.”
“Science is not a fixed code, but an evolving practice. The scientific method refines itself with its own advancements, not through fidelity to a pedagogical textbook model.”
These ideas are a distillation of ideas presented in a PhD dissertation. They are not mine.
As for science, you mix up the findings of science with the scientific method that defined what was a scientific theory verses a theory that is not scientific. The scientific method applied to all areas of science–physics, chemistry, biology, any scientific effort. That method was developed based on Reformation theology. According to that scientific method, Darwinian evolution was not science, nor ever could be. The scientific method dealt only with that which is observable. It didn’t deny the existence of that which is not observable–God, angels, demons, the no longer observable past–it merely stated that those were not scientific subjects. Darwinian evolution deals with the unobservable past, therefore it cannot be a scientific theory.
Reformation theology was largely rejected in the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe, 19th and 20th centuries in the U.S. It was a slow, generational rejection. Once the philosophical basis for the scientific method was gone, the method itself was rejected because it went against accepted beliefs. Once the method was rejected, then we had nonsense like Dr. Fauci claiming that he is science while spouting nonsense.
As for history, the Biblical books of Genesis, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles are all presented as factual history, warts and all. Yes, they were edited from the original documents they were based on, not to change the facts, but to keep them from excessive length. Seeing as Genesis was based on documents from before 1400 BC, I think that’s a bit before Thucydides.
Athenian “democracy” was in reality and oligopoly, where the majority were excluded–among them women and slaves. Reformation theology states that all people are equal, even slaves are to be treated as human beings. Equally valuable. Unfortunately, often honored in the breech rather than in practice.
My main exposure to Aristotle is in his “scientific” writings. Early modern scientists themselves claimed that “Luther kicked the pope out of the church, and we are kicking our pope (Aristotle) out of science.” The revolution was in basing science on observation rather than filtered through theory.
Luther cooperated with Copernicus by sending two of his professors from Wittenberg to collaborate with Copernicus with his mathematics, and to get his book published.
It was the theological milieu that fostered science, the reason the majority of scientific discoveries after the Reformation were made in areas dominated by the Reformation.
Methods in science differ between disciplines. What you relate here is nothing I can make sense of.
In science textbooks written before 1970, about a third contained a definition for the scientific method. I checked textbooks written for physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, all the different scientific fields I could find in the university library. Of those that contained a definition for the scientific method, they gave the identical definition. That definition was as follows:
1) make observations
2) recognize patterns in the observations, recognized patterns are hypotheses
3) make more observations to test hypotheses
4) hypotheses that pass the testing of further observations at some, indistinct point, can be called theories
5) make more observations to test theories.
The tools used to make observations differ according to what is being studied. But the basic method remained identical across all scientific disciplines.
After the mid 1970s, when creationists like Ken Ham started making the claim that Darwinian evolution can not be a scientific belief, because it is dependent on unobservable presuppositions, the above definition that had been used for centuries was dropped. Today….??
What do you say about Karl Popper’s falsifiability principle? And Adam Smith’s writings on the development of science?
First of all, my survey of science textbooks, included books written after Karl Popper proposed his falsifiability principle. In fact the purpose of continued observations after a hypothesis or theory was proposed, was to try to falsify them. As such, Popper’s falsifiable principle has always been part of the scientific method.
Theories based even partially on unobservable presuppositions, are not falsifiable. Among such theories is Darwinian evolution.
Before you asked the question, I didn’t know Adam Smith had anything to do with science. In looking up articles on line, it appears that Adam Smith was an interested spectator of the results of science, not an active participant. Therefore, I give greater weight to the method made and used by scientists, than theories made by spectators.
So you don’t hold that political economy is a science? Or ethics? Or epistemology?
My understanding is that Adam Smith in those roles was an advocate for certain outcomes, not just descriptive. As such, he was an activist, not a scientist.
He was a moral philosopher, and a social scientist.
In other words, he was like a missionary who studies society in order to learn how best to teach the Gospel.
They use communist agents to pretend to be right wing operatives, and this to infiltrate and discredit that or any particular organization and to take it over, and so these communist agents are ordered to pretend to be Nazi sympathizers so that when such ideas are observed by the unwitting public, they truly stop supporting or recognizing that entity – this is of course in general terms as there could be nuances of such operations, and this based on the necessity of reaction to any particular situation the KGB has to deal with.
https://youtu.be/kejjJyABP0o
This link is from the leftist MSNBC, but the facts speak for themselves…and the connections of Trump to KGB assets is that much more of importance. These leftist outlets are then used as the reversed psy-op strategy. when they want to discredit the truth by publicizing it by discredited “sources” so that when a respected source brings it up and the analysis about it, people already have their mind made up by the KGB organized propaganda scheme…and so then at least confusion and mistrust are the resulting effects of that particular psychological warfare operation…and yes, it is very cunning and highly successful.
It is not so simple. Many of these people believe in the old Jewish conspiracy theories. They really do, and they muddy the waters considerably — diverting people’s attention from communist threat (i.e., Russia and China).
Well, Pacepa is quoted for exposing this KGB operation, regarding the establishment of the KGB run PLO, the Arafat scandal and so on. So it is in fact a KGB long-term operation, they make the orders what is being done and how to proceed and the assets have to obey, they have to do exactly what they are told.
Of course the KGB allows such duped people to spread it around, as long as it works for that overall result, but the controls come from Moscow and the strategy is punctually adhered to…
But with Fuentes (and some people are saying that he is or allegedly could be a Sodomite pervert, if that still means anything), him being so highly positioned, and claiming these things that as if “by coincidence” play along the KGB ops lines, that of itself is not a small matter either…and the KGB would not allow the leading positions of their operations to fall into the hands of people the KGB doesn’t fully control…that is against their operational policy and communist strategy.
Fuentes is very strange. Where did you hear he was not interested in women?
It was floating on the net, some people were claiming it, but personally don’t know the man so cannot confirm.
But the whole situation, even if this is not true about him, is already complicated so much that the whole saga is bad, truly bad, but it was meant as a conflicting point and allegation, sort of a point that leads to how he presents himself, an additional point that is, sort of psychological profile point.
It is quite obvious if you see the company he keeps socially…
Very interesting.
Parody, left, right and centre!
After reading anthropology , I am starting to be able to decode music and music listeners. This is very interesting. I think you are right. Some kind of decadence Marxist subliminal message of conquest in there.
Real music has no center and is meant to stay elliptical, virtually objective, so as to surprise the listener in his or her own thoughts adapted out of thr music, like a Rohrshadt test.
This piece here however does seem to have been innoculated with a complex embeded central message that I am sure communists love to identify each other through it while accusing others of being racist genocidal conspiracy theorists, their own witch hunt on independent observers being the irony not lost on them.
Well, Maurice Ravel’s La Valse, written in the period 1906 to 1920, wasn’t meant to be an elegant waltz or a ballet music, but represents the bizarre deconstruction of what a waltz would otherwise be.
First, of course, the piece mirrors the horrors of World War I, even though Ravel denied it. Second, Ravel (1875 – 1937) was already part of a generation of composers, born in the 1860s and ’70s, who were on a trajectory from the late romantic period (including, in France: Impressionism) to the modern music of the 20th century. Gustav Mahler comes to mind, also Richard Strauss, Claude Debussy, Paul Dukas, Jean Sibelius, Gustav Holst, even Leoš Janáček (who was already born in 1854). They concluded and in a way “transcended” the old days of the 19th century, depending on their life span (Mahler, for one, already died in 1911, which, funny enough, also approximately marked the closing of the Vienna Art Nouveau altogether).
But one can certainly sense a great deal of sarcasm in La Valse, as if Ravel was scoffing at the old world that had just gone under (I don’t think he would have ever agreed with such an assessment).
In general, though, the entire French music of the 19th century may be seen as a special case, as, so clearly, France was still suffering from the dreadfull aftermath of the French Revolution. Just look at Hector Berlioz’s epic Symphonie Fantastique, first performed in 1830, when the composer was only 27, and almost certainly the most important work of 19th century French music: It is seldom mentioned, but the work breathes, and reflects on in a roundabout way, the terror of the French Revolution. Interestingly, when it was first performed, France went through her July Revolution of 1830, which ended the reign of the Bourbons for good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0X6z_mUgQ
It is beautiful!
I was translating to Portuguese that episode you did with Alex Benesch about the issue of superclusters, those powerful European families like Welf, Wettin, Reginar, Hesse, Hanover, Braunschweig, all those names and places.
What is the communist cluster? We know the names of leaders like Mao, Stalin, the Kim Jong-un dynasty, and in that episode about the secret rulers of Russia, some names are mentioned, but these families are not so solid, and everything seems to gravitate around the party, the secret service, forming the oligarchy from this brutal and repressive base.
So, the communist movement acts through communist parties, while the Western financial elite acts through dynasties (these “clusters”)? Both parties and dynasties can be historical agents, so does each of these globalist movements (the communist versus the blue blood elite) choose a different path to achieve the same result?
If these families are 1200 years old, they know how to maintain their dynasties and also possess more data on political movements than most private researchers. Why did they position themselves in this way? If i know the defector literature, if i see obvious geopolitical movements happening, and that there is a solid red axis in latin america, in the middle east, in asia, and so on… if i see that, they (the blue blood families) are seeing that too, how to explain that blind spot or their unpreparedness towards a close enemy, trying to rely on a nation that is on the other side of the ocean?
500 or so top Soviet families still vacation together and seem to run the former USSR
An Egyptian former Maoist, still Marxist in the Althuserian sense but not the communist Leninist sense of it, if that makes any sense (ie basically the polite Fides Roman to the thug Romulus Roman, all Romans, kind of like Marx by the way, in the historicist approach to creating an Earth mythology as opposed to the abstract Olympian one) , quipped in great annoyance that the richest jewish family, the Curiel Bankers of all things, were red in the die Communists… and not very good persons per say, since the jews of the street, the jews of the Ha’ra in Cairo were completely abandonned, the rich culture and all, dumped out in post apocalyptic manner.
You see, communists brag themselves of being closer to the workers they employ compared to capitalists, in not using managers but actual “communist infused” angels to coach them, even in Laogai camps!
Except that once the balloon goes up, these communist capitalists who seem to ironically profit by telling every one that money is evil except in their own pockets, or who do believe money in carbon credit do carry the oxygen and its use should result in a perceived fee or tax into their bank coffers, they end up dumping those very Laogai camp prisoners and workers, woke style, and, not content to drop their “communist coaching” angels now superfluous expenses, they too get sent into the camps to be eliminated in purges!!!
A few observing Marxists have noted the pattern and quietly and cryptically denounced it, perhaps fearing they could be assassinated, I do not know. In all communist plaid cognitive appocalypses, the proof is in the pudding, it is not clear in this wilderness of mirror of who had a clear clean oppostion or divorce from communism before the balloon went up from those who always were with them, from those like Tucker Carlson and rich families who more or less late in the game went in on the pyramid fraud scheme…
Huh?
Superb and informative broadcast with KLW WorldNews and the General with Lee and Jeff. Thank You all.
Mr. Nyquist,
I believe that Nick Fuentes and his Groypers are Skunks who reject Truth and Reality. They are an Immoral, Corrosive, Rabid, AntiSemitic, Clear, and Present Danger to America. They will exploit attempts by opponents to “reason” with them because they see such attempts as a sign of WEAK MINDEDNESS and WEAKNESS. Please see this article by Garion Frankel. Nick Fuentes and the Antisemitism that Believes in Nothing. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2025/11/14/nick_fuentes_and_the_antisemitism_that_believes_in_nothing_1147502.html
He makes good points about Fuentes.
In the whole Nick Fuentes flap, I smell a supression of the Golytsyn thesis type operation.
It really is uncanny that the fundamental “domestic abuser” of all this is a “dialectical” manipulation operation to hide the dialectical manipulation operation… in some dark basement of the KGB, who knows, doing some kind of witchcraft.
Take the Berlin Wall. Why no one is asking why are Russians no longer defecting from the Soviet Union but all of a sudden rushing through the open border to screw over the West? Notwithstanding that gypsies actually preferred it in the Soviet Union for a time despite chronic deportations there affecting every other ethnic group (I suppose the Russian civil war never really completely ended, and sending Gypsies to loot Ukraine was a thing apparently, and the Soviets might have hybridized with the various ethnies they persecuted in strange communist-angel pragmatic temporary obligation of pimping the bourgeois’ and corporations’ workers before a final purge)…
I mean, isn’t it strange and ironic that the Berlin Wall dialectic script has been completely flipped, and that this fundamental play on “To Berlin Wall or to Not Berlin Wall” type schizo double bind has not been examined? I am persuaded that to the Soviets, it was worth the gamble, and that this gamble was totally Marxist-Leninist driven because for them the dialectic is where all the game is plaid at. For them it is the floor, the foundation, and nothing van be put together if there is not such a foundation of “domestic abuse” dialectics. Otherwise the country leaks and bleeds, and no one is loyal to it, the Soviet Union finding itself now in the unenviable position of being like the Tsar and his church urging women to stay at home loyal to the patriotic Roman cult of Jueevens, of the youth “economics and military” Roman protection of good census results.
Now, why, one woukd ask, the Soviets all of a sudden took the risk of letting it all flow out and losing vast amounts of resources without the dual protection in the mystical chapels of Jupiter’s Temple, namely that of Terminus and Juenvens? The Romans had long figured the anthropological dialectic problem and solution of keeping the fretting youth (Juenvens) around borders (Terminus) without alinenating them paradoxically as an old man intent on expanding paradoxically the Roman borders through minimizing the meaning of frontiers to coveted beighbors now entangle with Romulus’ shenanigans, ambitions and lusts….
And so it goes further even than Golytsyn and before Golytsyn. All those years of the cold war these Marcists scrambled around trying to gain time with the wall before finding a solution, looked and scoured all over the world with US tax payer paid anthropological research. Anthropology there in Columbia was extremely difficult to get in. It was no joke as a degree like nowdays in basket weaving feminism “ studies” for idiotic bourgeois bimbos who think they’re all leftist that. These people were very very serious and attained a level higher than in any hig institutions out there, a strange jewel of genius in the midst of anotherwise nearly illiterate America encouraged, and you got it…
…l to give up studying tribes, to debauche corporate overrrwach and exploitation of native labor abroad, destroying valuable fauna and flore needed for cancer research medicine etc, finishing now with this schizo panic clinging to global warming schemes to cover up all the stupid that was promoted and still is up there promoted and paid well to be stupid and cling.
The supression of Golytsyn story is one cursorial hit on a guy who did not have all the pieces but instinctively felt something evil was afoot and had enough evidence to do a probable cause reesearch. As any dazzled and traumatized deffector with a problem of scoping the civilizational size of what he fell upon , it seemed like he had the definite skunk by the tail. But he onky had a tiny piece of the arborescent tail of that Soviet Marxist Leninist tail which, one which was seeking to attack while still not completely developed and with a picture of what to do yet.
However, in the 80s, perhaps after a few communist secret conferences with Colombia and French Marxist sovereign priests and historian of accademia protesting the Soviet crap in Russia and the absolute bat sht crazy besrking in Cambodia and Mao’s China, the Soviets figured out a plan and that they had to do an emergency dialectical operation or else face stern consenquences, thwt now was the time and there the gambit breakthrough solution presented itself they were looking for.
Destroying western understanding of anthropological methods to figure itself out, poison it with global warming inane militantism, flatter the religious jingoists in a self congratulation of underestimating the science of the conquered and convertible corruptible “savages” now twking up into lucrative business, all in self indulgent Catholic and puritan protestant liberal and right wingers into believing they were the know it alls and “Jesus was here or need not come type end of history” clap trap, encourage the Nick Fuentes to destroy the good dad Charlie Kirk and the others who had been figuring the very dynamic of the elliptical language in the New Testament ( that would have allowed to improve and adapt the myth and adopt new metaphysical inoculations against Roman and post-Roman Marxist brainwash that was becoming sclerotic) , all the while the Marxist critters, in French fashion, would keep for themselves the good accademic secret morcels of sovereignty using s special jargon and grammar, which, acting like a pseudo Latin dead language to despise as obsolete, kept all these idiots happy to be idiots, left and right, liberal localistic, incapable of abstraction of their own.
So, much bigger indeed than Golytsyn, but Golytsyn definitely part of it, except that the defector was not full Marxist enough to imagine the cultural intellectual decandence at the CIA, the meekness and cowardice, and that it was indeed part of a much bigger plan that had already overwhelmed a good part of the west in multifaceted manner.
And one should ask, what kind of domestic abuser in the head could do that, eh? All this talk of peace is nonsense! This is not how you enter a “relationship” with a dangerous patient who has a Rasputinian-Lenin hybrid domestic abuser in the head…. It makes one think that these strange grammars and unconscious myths animating people, formerly called spirit or demon possessions, might very well be real-fake, as in a real defensive compulsion seen in the prostitute and dictator alike, but also one which the patient can by and by grow to be aware of an abuse, and, in woke fashion, adopt dissociatively and seamlessly, learning to smooth the awkwardness of it over time as second nature… just like any criminal is often feminine and suggestible a bit retarded-smart like this….
I mean, interesting abuse pattern, as in why all those so called jews now be accused of some kind of “pump and dump” operation from America to Israel, when all these Erdogan nationalist Turks, Fuentes amd Starmer wokist in England do all they can to precisely alien jewish elites and gut our system of valuable assets while we let in through the southern border absolute fascist nationalistic Mexican and Hamas type garbage? Is Ben Shapiro responsible for having pumped Candace Owens and now her dumping and destroying America faster than Oprah’s cursorial own betrayal of her past white helpers? It seems to me that a lack of faith and a liberal schizo type panic presumptuousness is pushing more and more people to 1. Either think they can go it alone without their helpers and all of a sudden they find themselves raging naked, paranoiac and beholden. Or 2. Their helper fails to be a working messiah and in 5 min child-woman feminine incel like time, they turn on what they hoped was gona work and blame it for the failure, never taking responsibility as all schizo sheeps tend to dangerously do.
As one pundit quipped, it takes time to recover from a drug addiction or love addiction, and just when you are at the 11th step, at the 11th hour, all these progess made over the years come crashing and burning down in a New York minute. This is why wokist sponsorship and republican type allowing of girls to do men’s jobs in battle and what not is so dangerous, because these schizos are like dogs, they need a leader, and the minute they are on their own in position of leadership, they get lost and panic, because they alwasy need their handler, ie they do not know how to make their own way out, always looking for a manager out there to do their script while at the same time they narcissisitically feel they are the ones in charge and with all the intelligence that they actualky plagiarized.
Leftists like Hillary are prime meat for blackmail as typical podunk intellectual backward fake univeristy controllable puppets. When you see her hammering the pulpit giving her little lesson histories, you know she was taugt to say that. She sound like a school girl telling daddy what she learned at school instead and how wrong he must be. And these people are taken seriously! I remember even seeing her helpers who believed in her, I think it was a female jewish comedian, persuaded on TV telling on camera that “she is Clinton, she is not a Mickey Mouse!”.
That comedian later on dumped feminism and figured it was all a sham, to never be heard again. Her statement that Hillary certainly could not be a Mickey Mouse sounded straight out of a variation of the Red Riding Hood. I think she realixed she was the joke instead of the commedian and dumped the Hillary schizo waggon of democrat cartwheels falling apart at CNN now demoralized and doing Headline NoNews cat lady news about Ghislaine Maxwell 24/7 to make some survival lifeboat “safe” money from the proles, ie this weird middle class and low class US sort of barbarian lumpen proletariat of Oprah looking for their staple diet of entertainment from absolute boredom while staring at the abyss of their empty souls and brains.
The schizo sheep will go off the cliff whether Hillary is Mickey Mouse or not.
Mr. Nyquist in regards to Candace Owens:
Only in America
Can a gal from anywhere
Go to sleep a pauper and wake up a millionaire (Oh)
Only in America (Oh)
Can a kid without a cent (Oh)
Get a break and maybe hang out with the President.
Candace Owens is the modern day Cinderella. She is the daughter-in-law of a British baron therefore she does not automatically receive a royal or noble title. She is also a Jew Hater, and believes America never landed men on the moon …Only in America.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2025/11/06/candace-owens-admits-become-obsessed-jews/
https://christopherrufo.com/p/the-rise-of-american-schizo-politics?publication_id=1248321&post_id=178710149&isFreemail=true&r=4fbvk6&triedRedirect=true
It is discouraging to see poison succeed in getting so many views.
Great article, it is really odd how every single of one of those people who label themselves as “America First” are all unanimously pro Russia. Fuentes has admitted he likes Putin and would want him as the US president, also claimed openly he would prefer living in China but can’t due to visa woes, claiming he’s persecuted for his views. Former MMA fighter Jake Shields who’s in the mix of this crowd also repeats anti-Ukraine propaganda. The fact Zelensky is Jewish entices this crowd to slander him further, calling him homosexual and whatnot. Candace Owens has also dished a fair share of venom against Zelensky and Ukraine. It’s almost as if Russia is failing in keeping their link to the Kremlin more secretive, but then it does seem the larger public does not pick up on this strange alignment with Russia from a group who supposedly believe it should be America uber alles.
Yes. This has bothered me, too.
In 1942, Wehrmacht officer Albert Battel faced SS trucks heading to deport hundreds of Jews from a Polish ghetto. He blocked the bridge with armed soldiers and said simply: “Not today.” What happened next changed everything.
The summer heat pressed down on Przemyśl like a weight you couldn’t shake off.
German flags hung limp from every building. The Jewish quarter had been sealed behind barbed wire for months. And everyone knew what “resettlement” really meant.
Albert Battel stood on the San River bridge that morning, watching the SS convoy approach. Truck after truck, engines growling, heading straight for the ghetto.
He was forty-nine. A lawyer before the war. A Wehrmacht officer who followed orders and kept his head down.
But something inside him snapped that day.
When the lead truck reached the bridge, Battel raised his hand. His soldiers lowered the barrier.
“This bridge is closed,” he told the SS commander.
The man’s face went red. “On whose authority?”
“Mine.”
Battel had no authority to do this. None at all. He was blocking his own government from carrying out official orders.
But he stood there anyway. And his soldiers stood with him.
The SS officer screamed. Threatened. Demanded passage.
Battel didn’t budge.
“Any man who tries to cross will be arrested,” he said quietly.
Can you imagine that moment? The silence that must have fallen over that bridge? The SS convoy, engines still running, blocked by German soldiers pointing rifles at other German soldiers.
The SS commander had no choice. He ordered his trucks to turn around.
But Battel wasn’t finished.
He climbed into his own military truck and drove straight into the ghetto. Right into the heart of what everyone called the “Jewish quarter.”
Families were huddled in their homes, waiting. Knowing. Mothers held their children tighter. Old men sat by windows, watching the street.
Battel started knocking on doors.
“Get in the truck,” he told them. “Now.”
He loaded dozens of people into Wehrmacht vehicles. Grandparents who could barely walk. Mothers carrying babies. Children clutching toys they’d never see again.
He drove them to the Wehrmacht barracks. Fed them. Posted guards to protect them.
For hours, he moved Jewish families out of that ghetto under the cover of “military necessity.”
Every minute, he could have been shot for treason.
Every decision could have been his last.
But by nightfall, dozens of people who should have been on death trains were sleeping in German army beds instead.
The news hit Berlin like a thunderbolt.
Heinrich Himmler himself wrote Battel’s name in his files. Called his actions “inexcusable fraternization with Jews.”
They blacklisted him from the Nazi Party. Started court-martial proceedings. Destroyed his career.
Battel never apologized. Not once.
When illness forced him out of active duty, he went home to his ruined life without a single word of regret.
After the war, survivors started looking for him. The officer who saved us, they said. The German who said no.
In 1963, Israel honored Albert Battel as one of the Righteous Among the Nations. The highest honor they give to non-Jews who risked everything to save Jewish lives.
He never lived to see it. Battel died in 1952, forgotten in a Germany trying to rebuild itself.
He never wrote a book about that day. Never gave interviews. Never sought praise.
But what he did on that bridge proves something important.
Courage isn’t the absence of fear. It’s looking at impossible odds and saying, “I don’t care.”
It’s one person deciding that orders don’t matter more than human lives.
It’s standing up when everyone else is looking down.
In a world that felt completely broken, Albert Battel showed that humanity could still win. Even when it wore the wrong uniform. Even when it stood completely alone.
And sometimes, that’s all it takes to change everything.
One bridge. One officer. One word: No.
Thank you for that inspiring story.
The article mentions the term Holocaust, but in theological sense that term is inaccurate because the word means “sacrifice”, which is recorded in the Holy Scripture, in the Old Testament, and so it is not possible to apply this term, even though it is widely used and in error, today, to the Jewish persecution committed by the Nazis, as then the Jewish religion was long, for over 1900 years that is, superseded by the Christian religion, which is nothing else but Catholic Tradition of all time. (St. Paul – Ephesians 4:4-5) and so the Jewish nation was already reprobated and separated from God by infidelity and thus any such suffering cannot be offered to God as a propitiatory sacrifice to Him, because those who offered themselves, or were persecuted and murdered by the Nazi criminals, they no longer belong to God and are in fact infidels.
So the correct term for it is Nazi genocide of the Jewish race (or nation), mass murder and so on.
BUT (please observe) – it is also written by St. Paul that some of them (the Jews) will be converted (at the end), and this is very important point, because the devil himself is afraid that God, Who can do all things, will in fact convert some of them, and they will become true Catholics, and so the genocide committed by the Nazis against the Jews is the evil measure against this Scriptural point of doctrine, and that this was in fact the case, the conversions of the Jews into the Catholic religion back then, during WW2. for example the Chief Rabi of Rome became Catholic, and his family, because of the kind of immense live-saving help the Jews of Rome received from Pope Pius XII and the Church, protecting them from the Nazi deportation and saving their lives…
And no, communism is NOT a religion, it is an nihilistic perverted ideology of atheistic fanatics, people who are fully possessed by the devil and thus his evil tool in destroying souls worldwide – and that’s why the communist criminals are so evil and have no problem to murder anyone who stands in their way, for the sake of their evil communist atheistic cause – ideology (not a religion).
This was previously posted but either it was deleted, or it had “disappeared”…
The article mentions the term Holocaust, but in theological sense that term is inaccurate….
[NOTE FROM JRN: I deleted this comment before. Comments of this kind are not welcome. Quoting St. Paul on why the Holocaust should not be called the Holocaust is offensive.]
The Jews can call the Nazi massacre whatever they want and we should honor it.
You had deleted the response and took out of context what the initial posting was about St. Paul’s quote, and made it look like this person is antisemitic, which is NOT true – we do pray, those who are true Catholics, for the conversion of all who are not truly Catholic, and certainly we do not allow anything evil to be contemplated or stated about those who are not with us, but when the Jews denied Christ Our Lord to be their Savior, they rejected God Himself, and so to call their WW2 suffering a Holocaust, that is, a sacrifice to God as it is called in the Old Testament, is theologically absurd and inaccurate, as by then they are reprobated by God for rejecting His Son Christ Our Lord as their Savior and God Himself, Who came to redeem them from the slavery of Satan (ever since the sin of Adam).
So what you had stated above, Mr. Nyquist, about quoting St. Paul about the Holocaust, that is not what the initial statement was at all, and you know it – and thus it is disrespectful to make it look like as if this person was an antisemitic, which no Catholic is, only that the truth is that the Jews denied Our Lord, and thus, about 70 years later, Jerusalem was leveled (on Eastern Sunday) by the Roman army, in an evident Divine punishment of their obstinate refusal to acknowledge that Christ Our Lord is the Son of God and the true Messias the Redeemer of the human race.
In regards to what St. Paul was saying about who is the true Jew, that is also recorded in the Holy Scripture, they are those who truly belong to God, not those who rejected Him and His Son, no matter how much they may get offended, it is the truth.
So to delete that initial posting why the Nazi genocide of the Jews should not be called a Holocaust, to delete it so that those who are Jewish and read your website do not get “offended”, is destructive of the truth, and the theological point of doctrine that the Catholic Church does hold and had always held – excluding the present time Novus Ordo Sect that occupies the Vatican and the majority of the Catholic Church’s worldwide property.
And BTW, the Church had condemned the Nazi “theology”, the new so called religion that these enemies of God, the Nazis, were trying to promote, that was done by Pope Pius XI, it is in his biographical account, because that Nazi “religion” was full of heretical inventions and absolutely opposed to the truth of the Holy Scripture.
So the true Catholic Church had never anything to do with the Nazis, except that the Vatican of Pope Pius XII was persecuted by the Nazis during the war, and Pius XII helped to protect the Jews of Rome from the Nazi concentration camp deportations, that is a known historical fact. So the Church is not antisemitic, we do hope and pray for the conversion of the Jews and wish them no harm, no evil.
You had taken out of context what the initial point about the use of the term Holocaust and its theological meaning is, and pointed to St. Paul and the term Holocaust, which this person had not mentioned in this sense at all and you had deleted the posting and claimed that it is offensive to the Jews who use the term Holocaust in regards to the Nazi genocide they had to endure during WW2 – and the point was only meant in theological sense, not to derogate from that horrible Nazi crime against the Jewish nation, the racism and diabolical evil which the Catholic Church always condemned and will condemn. And no, there is no such claim, about you attacking the Church as such, but only to make the point of the truth that the Church has been in times past painted (in sacrilege !) as Nazi adjunct (as you term it), which is of course absurd and not true. That is the only reason why the above posting was made – do not read anything more into it, it is not there and it is evident that you had not named the Catholic Church as the Nazi adjunct, but the communist enemies did and continue to do in some way…
You are not a theologian and you should stop making theological pronouncements — or go to a theology site where they will welcome arguments on this. I don’t want to read this here.
Ecclesiastical judge and more, that is the clerical office.
You are not welcomed to act as a theological censor here. We are discussing politics, history, and strategy.
Nobody is censoring anything, only stating the truth for the sake of the truth, nothing more. Only those get offended who don’t value the truth, or those who are willing to compromise for the sake of other circumstances. but nobody is censoring anything. But when anti-Catholic inaccuracy or direct attack is fomented, then the response is the truth, nothing more. It would be a scandal and offense to God if only silence was the response.
Of course people may have their own opinion, when they are not Catholic, but then the Church doesn’t allow errors to exist among those who would be or become Catholic, for the sake of safety of their souls, for which the Church is responsible to God and none other. And the conscience of this person is clear in front of God, no heretical errors are publicized, and this by His Divine help which He had promised to be with His true Catholic Church, all days, even unto the consummation of the world. But when people attack the Church and try to present something that is not accurate, either regarding Her infallible doctrine or discipline, or matters of Faith and Morals etc., then the Church is bound to give an answer and refute such errors or attacks, as the Church had done in times past and continues to do, by the grace of God. That is the correct distinction.
And in regards to the evils of communism, that is also the domain of the Church to condemn, and the Church has done so many times, as communism and its evils lead to Hell, and prevent the Church from fulfilling Her Divinely given mission of salvation of souls, as you know about the communist persecution of the Church from the times past. So all Catholic are obligated under the pain of excommunication to help the Church to fight communism, always, there is no middle ground at all.
I restored all your comments.
Mr. Nyquist, that is not true, the point was only about the historical context of what the Catholic Church had to endure during the war from the Nazis, and how the Vatican of Pope Pius XII helped greatly to protect the Jews of Rome, and that after the war the Chief Rabbi and some of his family etc. converted and become true Catholics, and this person knows that you had not accused the Church of being friendly with the Nazis. THe communist and other enemies of the Church had done so, not you. Pacepa writes about this point.
You claim that Catholic theology does not accept that communism is a religion. But there are no theological pronouncements on this that I can find. In fact, Catholic doctrine holds that communism is a “false messianic idea” and intrinsically wrong. While not explicitly calling it a “false religion” in the same formal sense as other faiths, Church documents describe its nature and function in ways that align with the idea that it is a religion. Key points of Catholic teaching on communism are: It is Atheistic Materialism, which denies God’s existence (making communism, in a very real sense, an anti-religion). It is involves pseudo-ideals, as noted in the encyclical Divini Redemptoris of Pope Pius XI. The framing of this encyclical suggests that Marxism-Leninism operates like a substitute religion. The Church also condemns communism for casting man as the Creator of His Own Fate, which shows that communism is a religion in which man makes himself out to be God.
You have to be careful where you search such opinions, because some of it may come from the Novus Ordo Sect and these people many of which could be (or are) communist agents, they are ordered to say or write such false opinions, for the sake of perverting those who begin to believe them.
A true meaning of what the term religion means (setting aside whether it is the true religion or one of the many false or heretical ones) is a belief and worship of a higher Being, which means God.
The communists are atheists, they deny the existence of God, so then the term religion in case of communism is not possible to be used, based on this overall understanding. Now if you say that communism is a false “religion of the fanatical deniers of the existence of God” – that perhaps would be tolerable, but only in such like sense, but never plainly as a religion.
The author of the communist ideology is the devil himself, and the devil is not capable of producing anything true, as the Father of all lies he is, and so to worship God is not his intention at all, and those false religions that he invented, the devil that is, he invented for the purpose to pervert the human souls that start believing them, thus the devil becomes their master and they become his slaves, as the Divine punishment from God…for their obstinate refusal to believe the true religion….which God and nobody else revealed.
This is the truth.
Worshipping Satan is not a religion, then?
That is your choice of words, but when you post things that are opposed to the doctrine of the Church, it is the duty of every true Catholic to say so. And when the opinion is presented, by this person, it is not meant to offend, but to correct in light of the Catholic doctrine and historical facts and so on, It is never meant as offensive, but as an additional point or opinion. You are often taking things out of context or not fully understanding what the point is, not knowing the true Catholic doctrine or, as a Protestant, being taught something else, so the point is to help you to understand and to be able to realize, if you are wrong on what you post or if there is anything that needs correction or so on.
For example – to call communism a religion is not helpful, it in fact destroys the overall effect of your otherwise very good points and writing, and or to take offense when the purely theological point is mentioned, the Catholic theology, and or to make categorical statements, as at the end of your previous publication about a month ago, about this person, you claiming that this person is not a theologian (which you have no way of knowing), and then immediately turn off the comment section, that is not helpful and it seems as if you think that whatever the critique or correction or even an opinion is mentioned, when it does not coincide with you point of view, that should be deleted, instead of accepting the challenge or searching the opinion’s value, you simply get on the defensive, instead of realizing (finally) that among the anticommunist folk you don’t have better ally than this poor Catholic soul that is ONLY trying to help you, not to degrade you – and who is only correcting what needs to be corrected, otherwise you write very well, except sometime you should be more direct, but that is only an opinion.
Another candidate for antisemite is Rev. Chuck Baldwin. Member of the Constitution Party. Was nominated as their presidential candidate. He tells lies about Israel and the Jewish people. I initially signed up for his columns when he seemed to be level-headed and a strong supporter of Biblical teachings and the U.S. Constitution. Now I got tired of his lies and support of Hamas. He is also critical of Ukraine.
While he seems not directly a supporter of Putin nor communism, his mainstreaming of antisemitism makes communist antisemitism more palatable.
Seeing as he is so high up in the Constitution Party makes me wonder how widely in that party is his antisemitism shared? His antisemitism is a good argument not to have anything to do with the Constitutional Party, nor ever to vote for them.
The right has been targeted for infiltration at all levels. Yes.
A German Kind of Crazy. Friends and Enemies. Sunday November 16, 2025.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XISvCOqrJ8A
Mr. Nyquist,
In reference to debating antisemites I realize that your goals and purposes may vary depending on your debate adversary and depending on the debate viewing and listening audience. When you are debating antisemites are you aiming to convince the antisemite debate adversary of the massive error of their ways? When you are debating antisemites are you aiming to educate and warn the debate viewing and listening audience of the massive dangers posed by by Jew Hatred? To what extent do you believe that your antisemite debate adversaries, and your debate audiences are amenable to and receptive to being positively influenced byrational debate?
I have received notes from listeners who changed their ideological trajectory after I debated antisemites they had previously been listening to. If not for that, I would not bother.
Not all Maga red riding hoods or red hiding hood myths are created equal. There are various solutions at hand. Myths are like vaccine innoculation from deception and problems, they require dreams and modification once the one innoculation proves impotent vs a strong witchcraft.
The error of missionaires and religious types is of rationalizing their gambit of solidifying the Biblical innoculation without updates, waiting for the Messiah to come back and do the update all the while treading on those very appostles warning them about antisemitism. God is dead indeed, and, not only dead, but most religious people live in the very contradiction Marx aimed to exploit, which means they want god dead and not even resurectable in a second coming!
Red Riding hood Nazi encounter #1:
Tucker Carlson and conspiracy theorists acquire the tools and entrapments of the Nazis, by and by, one by one, like unconscious criminals stupidly and ovviously piling up the hardware in their garage to neighbors starting to cry foul. FBI does nothing, no wiretap there, no accusation of Russia colusion or Jan6 insurection, just some vague note in their file to cover their arse in case Jan6 proves true posthumously.
And so Dana Loesch surprising Fuentes watching gay porn and posting about it falls on deaf ears. No no, this is just grandma, this is not the wolf safistically tripping on loud dreams last night about strange men loving each other to dinner a little girl… So, Nick Fuentes is “woke right”, which is basically, like the wolf, a transhuman transvesite on the right, telling everyone he is American and not a predator, not working for Russia.
Whatever
Red Riding Hood encounter #2.
Woke left antisemite supreme justice Jackson
The left is a bit more subtle in Nazism and conspiracy theories, they go by feminine adapted innuendos that are not in the face displeasing to a feminine audience, staying vague and musical like, requiring an identification of a vague center in the argument.
The left has a dapted a tweaked Rohrshadt tyoe psych drawing test, not one to figure elliptically what the other is thinking, but to embed in that neutral drawing or music a faint subliminal message acting as a center of the music piece, when no music piece is to have a center. Whoever identifies the center of the music piece is
A. A friend of the conspiracy and will be eventually contacted
B. Not a friend, but, someone like Angleton or McCarthy, who upon finding out the covert embedded message is deemed a consoiracy witch hunter. However, that accusation is strwngely innacurate, not in the lie, but in the lie itself is characterized. Just like with tweaked music, the enemy’s own response can help identify it like with the red riding hood testing trial. It can be dialectically applied again against the Angletonians, but coincidences soon become recurences and soon the conspiracy of Walter Benjamen is figured out.
Truth is, if McCarthy had been guilty of anything, it would have been the one of hunting a group of people. He could have thus been accused of genocide and attacking a race of people based on specious evidence. The witch hunter is actually the opposite! Which is a group of schizo lunatics copying on each other an innoculated folly in one of them in order to attack a single person.
In effect, McCarthy having a jewish aid, by the way, was the one who got witch hunted by communist traveling fellows and other leftist, liberal and even right wing schizo technically elected bureaucrato-politicians who were communist innoculated the copy cat accusation rhetoric in order to gang up and witch hunt McCarthy!
Incredible, we have not only a projection and a tacit admission of being an actual gang formation of craziness attacking McCarthy and causing dangerous agitation in America! Fast forward to today, a subtle correction has been applied, McCarthy is no longer a hunter of witch, but reincarnated here and there, in Donald Trump what not, as the opposite, the batter against conspiring structures, and, in particular, one examplified by his show of force in Venezuela against the chemical orecursor shipments from Venezuela which are a compounded “chop shop” version of a drug in production while in transit…
..much the way thus woke democrats are a “chop shop” hodgepodge of pieces of socialism meant for communism being assembled here in America, like a nuclear warhead brought in pieces too… through smuggling routes… all following the global trade formula of “just in time” delivery after manufacture through several plants that Amazon is starting to intrgrate.
When Supreme Justice said that only a biologist could tell who is a woman, she obviously armed herself as a wolf with the tools of the Krystal Nacht Nazi as a woke leftist, however, and here the myth innoculation must be modified.
Basically, for her, if a transexual molests a mentally disabled woman or a biologically less fit physically disabled woman in a bathroom, the offender is not the transvestite pretense wolf, it is the ones they wish to euthanize, ie the “useless” diabled woman…
….and oh, dont little girls qualify as mentally and physically unfit biologically to be women either? How convenient!
Here is an interesting left wing Nazi segway into communist looting and higheay bank robbery!
The left does arm itself with the Nazi tool, but, riddle riddle, they are not Nazis, or not completely somin the schizo technical sense of it! So, what are they really!?
Well, they are form over content in the use of the Nazi tool, you see. Instead of it being the work of a fascistic scheme in bourgeois self contradictions, they on the other hand have a special hear and a special closeness and subliminal control to a “team”, to a collective block, as opposed to a bunch of individuals on their loose own as Nazis.
You see, the left claim themselves the Politically Correct legitimizing of “We have built that”, because, while the Nazis ignored the evil little workers building their global companies all the way from a Laogai camp forgotten in China, the left was all long coaching said Laogai camp prisoners and workers as Chinese party apparatchiks!
And so it gives them the dialectic materialist legitimacy in their gnostic eath bible from hell to be the ones reaping this harvest of little riding hoods, the big bad criminal Nazi wolf from Gaza and German cryptic flirting with Russia all forgiven with a slap on the hands!!!
And so it is, that when I mentioned that Kirk was assassinated like MLK to be replaced in the first case by antisemite Carlson and in the second case by antisemite Jesse Jackson and Farrakhan (Malcom X in this case), a leftist schixo troll already subkiminally innoculated with these Benjamin messages started berating me that Carlson was smart and a great guy…
yet no less than two weeks before when Kirk was till alive, to these liberal schizo TV clinging narcissistic idolatrous robots, Carlson was a pro Trump demon…
Things go fast!
Mr. Nyquist,
Person of Interest.
Baron Michael Farmer has renounced his daughter in law’s antisemitic remarks. Still, one wonders; Is it possible that Russian or Communist Chinese intelligence are using (manipulating) Baron Farmer and his daughter in law for Nefarious purposes?
According to Artificial Intelligence Candace Owens’ father in law Baron Michael Farmer, the British businessman and Conservative life peer in the British House of Lords, has visited Russia or maintains Russian business ties. He had significant trading relationships with many countries due to his career in base metals, particularly copper, and dealt with the Soviet Union prior to 1990 as well as China.
Lord Farmer had substantial business ties with China, particularly in the copper import sector. As one of the world’s largest merchant traders of copper from the 1970s onward, he frequently accounted for between 15% and 20% of Chinese copper imports. This level of trade volume indicates a deep and sustained commercial relationship with Chinese state and industrial buyers.
His expertise in navigating global markets required him to cultivate negotiation skills across diverse cultures, including China. These ties were facilitated through his work at the LME. The London Metal Exchange (LME) is the world’s largest marketplace for trading industrial metals, particularly base metals like copper, aluminum, zinc, nickel, tin, and lead. Founded in 1877, it is based in London and serves as the global benchmark for metal pricing., which serves as the global pricing mechanism for base metals, making his role pivotal in China’s access to critical raw materials.
While there is no explicit public record confirming personal visits to China, his extensive trade involvement—especially accounting for up to a fifth of China’s copper imports—strongly suggests direct or indirect engagement with Chinese counterparts, whether through negotiations, contracts, or industry meetings. Given the nature of commodity trading during his peak activity, such high-volume deals would typically require in-person or high-level diplomatic-commercial coordination, though specifics of travel remain unreported.
Farmer has leveraged his market experience in policy discussions, advocating for transparent and well-regulated financial markets. He has expressed concern about proposals to restrict short selling and large positions in commodities, issues highly relevant to China’s role as a major consumer and trader of metals.
Though no longer actively trading, his past influence in the metals sector and ongoing interest in economic policy—especially post-Brexit trade frameworks—position him as a figure with indirect but lasting relevance to UK-China economic relations.
People who have relationships with Chinese or Russian officials are associated with criminals. Such relations compromise anyone who maintains them. Anything can happen with such reckless people.
As an attentive reader of this site and a student of many years of the Olavo’s philosophy course I must make some remarks about a thread in the comment section of the last article “Civil Decomposition: About the Government Shutdown”:
“I did not know Olavo had said this about Trump and Putin. Many philosophic people make a simple mistake when analyzing the USSR/Russia. They underestimate or misunderstand the political evil embodied in a bureaucratic mechanism and in Marxist philosophy…”
In English you frequently say someone is going to do something with the moral validation of that action being implicitly given. In Portuguese this is not the case, even less so in this instance. He was just saying this was a material possibility. He was not saying that Putin was going to be loyal to such an agreement, that such an arrangement would replace the international communist movement. He was just saying that the two greater military and political powers in the world could make an advantageous “armistice” to the detriment of the rest. This understanding is evident for us that not only read some facebook posts, but also saw him continually explaining the multifaceted, opportunistic, and intrinsically evil nature of the communist movement. Also, he would find it very funny to be called a “philosophic person”. His definition of philosophy was “unity of knowledge in unity of conscience and vice-versa”, meaning that any knowledge that does not have any personal relevance to the philosopher is not philosophy at all.
This can be exceedingly clearly seen in this excerpt of a 2003 debate between him and a communist university teacher (https://olavodecarvalho.org/marxismo-direito-e-sociedade-parte-iii/) where you can see how his personal experience of perplexity led him to study and understand communism, please read to the end:
“When I started working in the press, the first thing I did was join the Communist Party. The guy who recruited me was a journalist from Pernambuco named Pedro. I went there, participated in several meetings of the “base” (at the time, the minimum unit was called a base). The base was at Folha de São Paulo, which was called Empresa Folha da Manhã at the time. A month passed, and a very sinister guy from the State Committee arrived and gathered us together in the absence of Pedro, who was the head of the base, and said: “Comrades, we have a problem. We suspect that comrade Pedro has taken a lover, and we have reason to believe that she is an agent of the DOPS (Department of Political and Social Order). We are not sure, and therefore we need to isolate this comrade while we get to the bottom of the matter. For this, we need you to find a place to deposit him (a private prison, obviously) while we investigate.” He delegated four volunteers, including myself, to do this mess. I found a shack in a favela where I could never get back – it’s impossible, it’s beyond God-forbidden. And we left the comrade there. A week passed, two, three, and we would bring him food and cigarettes. Then the logistics support team was changed, and I went months without hearing from the comrade. One day I overheard the following conversation in the newsroom (this was about nine or ten months later): “Do you know who was at the gate? That son of a bitch Pedro. We didn’t even let him in.” “Great, we’re free of the problem.” A few more months pass, I’m at the bar across from Folha having a coffee, and this Pedro guy arrives, thin, gaunt, bearded, a real beggar. And he came to talk to me, and I, like a good militant, turned my back on him. This was a normal process within the Party: excluding people who were disagreeable. This didn’t happen to one person, it happened to hundreds. This is very common because it’s considered a just security measure.
So you can see how difficult it is to get out of that environment. It took me twenty years to get out. You have to cut off contacts one by one, you have to make new friends, you have to change places, because if you’re there you won’t be able to withstand the pressure. This isn’t the power of an ideology; an ideology can’t be that strong. An ideology doesn’t penetrate to the most intimate emotional reactions of a person. This is a culture in the anthropological sense of the term, of which the doctrinal formulations of Marxism are evidently a part; but they are not essential, so much so that they can be replaced. I just cited the case of Marx believing that the use of violence was indispensable (and in this he is textual, there is no possibility of doubt), that the next generation already believes that socialism can be implemented through voting and that, subsequently, they return to the theory of violence, and so on, in an absolutely mind-boggling succession of transformations. So, Marxism says this today and tomorrow it may say something completely different, without losing its sense of unity – that’s what’s miraculous. There are people who say that Marxism is a religion; I say: not at all. It may be a religion in the primitive sense, where culture, religion, and society form an indiscernible amalgam. But in the sense of universal religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – they have to have a perfectly identifiable dogma, with which you can discuss, and accept or challenge. But Marxism doesn’t. Marxism can get rid of any of its doctrines, get rid of any of its achievements, and absorb the achievements of its adversary. I’ve already shown you how that is.
A characteristic example is the relationship between Marxism and fascism. Fascism existed in the world and even gained strength thanks to the Soviet Union. Why? Stalin, analyzing the phenomenon from a Marxist perspective, believed it was a somewhat anarchic middle-class rebellion that could destroy the institutions of the old capitalist democracies, but would not be able to maintain power. Therefore, he said that the fascists were “the icebreaker of the revolution.” In other words, they win and we take the prize. So, he decided to help them as much as he could, especially from a military standpoint. I’ll show you another book here: *The Red Army and the Wehrmacht*. It’s the story of how the Soviet Union militarily constructed Nazi Germany. This was hidden for a long time and has now come to light with the opening of the Moscow archives. Very well. It turns out that this theory Stalin had about Nazism-Fascism was not the same as Hitler’s. Hitler had a different theory. Because of this, he suddenly backtracks and invades the Soviet Union. This was so absurd from the point of view of Stalin’s Marxist interpretation that it took him two days to believe it was happening. He thought it was a counter-information operation carried out by the evil British. Well, throughout the 1930s there was close collaboration with Nazism, before Hitler’s election. Today everyone knows about the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 1939. The pact was merely the outward manifestation of a very deep collaboration that, at least since 1933, had built Germany’s military power. At the same time, as a diversionary tactic, Stalin launched an immense campaign of literary anti-fascism in some Western countries, especially France, in which the entire French intelligentsia collaborated, being very well paid. To this day, this is the notion of fascism that we have. In 1933 there was the famous attack on the German Parliament; they blamed a communist and arrested a Comintern agent, George Dimitrov – you must have heard of this. George Dimitrov arrived at the court and said: “I am imprisoned here because of the fascist tyranny of the capitalists, the dictatorship of the Krupps and the Thyssens.” To this day people believe that Nazism/Fascism is this. They don’t know, for example, that old Thyssen, when Nazism came, fled to France, from where he was kidnapped and forced to return to collaborate with his enemies. But how did George Dimitrov end up in jail? It’s very simple. He was the most important figure in the Comintern, and he was there in Germany; he went to have lunch at the restaurant that was the meeting point for all the Nazi officers; imagine a clandestine militant doing that, having lunch with two of his advisors by his side. He was arrested there, obviously, without any violence, taken to court, where he could put on his show, and then he was acquitted and returned peacefully to the Soviet Union. His two advisors who knew the story were killed. This means that our entire current conception of fascism is a publicity myth, created to cover up the deep collaboration of the Soviet Union with fascism.
Look, I assure you, based on my experience studying this subject for thirty years: I am not a neoliberal theorist, I don’t belong to any movement, I abhor this Brazilian right wing, I spit in their faces, I couldn’t care less what they think, I’m not speaking on behalf of anyone, and I have no solutions to the world’s problems. I only speak about what I have studied. This business of Marxism and the history of communism, I have studied it. I guarantee you: I have never found a central assertion, whether from Marxism itself or from communist culture in general, that, upon examination, did not prove to be exactly the opposite of the truth. One by one, the list goes on and on. I myself, at one point, began to hallucinate: it’s not possible, everything they say is an invention of the so-called “right wing” is true.
It’s life experience that I have to tell you. For me it was shocking, because I left the Party not because of ideological disagreement; I left simply because I became morally confused by episodes like the one I told you about, and for 25 years I didn’t offer an opinion on any political matter, I stayed quietly in my corner, studying and trying to reach conclusions. The material I have on this is immense, and it leads me to say: Marx was a charlatan, Marx was a swindler. For example, to prove that the evolution of the market would make the rich richer and the poor poorer, what did he use? The example he had at hand, England, which was the only country in Europe with good statistics at the time, and the best material was the Blue Books, annual reports of Parliament. When Marx went to see the reports, he discovered that, contrary to what he was saying, the condition of the working class had improved. What did he do? He had all the reports and consulted them one by one. The records are in the British Museum library to this day. He knew all the records, but since the records didn’t prove what he wanted, he preferred to use the records from thirty years earlier. If this isn’t trickery, I don’t know what is. Furthermore, when the individual edited his own system of “dialectical materialism,” have you ever stopped to consider this expression? A dialectic is a flow, an intelligible process of ideas. In what sense can this happen in matter? Engels says that matter had a dialectical structure. For example, today we would say: the electron is the thesis, the proton is the antithesis, and the atom is the synthesis. Needless to say, all these ideas have been completely discredited. After being discredited, this version appeared that Professor Alaor now defends: “No, Marx didn’t mean this, but he used materialism only in the sense of man’s coexistence with matter, in the sense of historical action upon matter.” If Marx’s materialism only concerns our action upon matter, then matter is the passive factor, alien to dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism only exists, therefore, in human action. But what kind of materialism without matter is that? This isn’t materialism. What is matter for Marx? Marx says absolutely nothing about this, and he believes that the central process is the “transformative action of man in the cosmos.” Now, how much of the cosmos can man transform? An insignificant little piece of the crust of a tiny planet, and the rest of the cosmos remains perfectly indifferent to it. How can this process be the center of material reality? If you say that spiritually it is the center, that’s possible, then it makes sense; although physically small, it is significant. To place it materially at the center is nonsense and is a philosophical primitivism worthy of an illiterate. But Marx was not illiterate, Marx was simply a liar. The evidence for this is abundant: his falsification of sources, his utterly forced interpretations. For example, when he says he inverts Hegel and turns him upside down: he does absolutely nothing of the sort. What he does with dialectics has nothing to do with Hegel, he stays far away from it. And yet everyone believes that it’s the structure of Hegel’s dialectic that’s in there, and so on.
The amount of charlatanism is too great for me to explain in half an hour, or even a month. I’ve given lecture after lecture on this, and it never ends. So, I’ll end this presentation with an appeal. You don’t leave a culture by changing your mind. Culture encompasses people’s personalities. To abandon that culture, you will experience insecurity, psychological problems, and terrible existential difficulties. This means that within the dome of that culture, it’s not the mind or opinion of the people that is trapped: it’s their soul and their very existence. And if we’re going to talk about freedom, then, before wanting freedom for others, experience what freedom is. Try examining Marxist culture not from within, as it always does, but try looking from the outside, and you will have a very different vision than you might have. Thank you very much.”
That definitely doesn’t sound like a “philosophic person” talking from the top of an ivory tower.
Once he posted this short summary:
“My experience with the communists taught me something that most of them don’t grasp, although it can be easily deduced from the premises of Marxism itself, especially in its Leninist version. It is that the content of an ideology can never be known by the discourse that conveys it; the content lies in the dialectical tension between discourse and practice. If a doctrine insistently preaches good but constantly practices evil, it is not a beautiful idea that has been betrayed in practice. On the contrary, what defines this ideology is precisely chronic moral ambiguity. Nazism, for example, preached racial purity, but always found a way to prove that its allies, whatever their racial origin, somehow belonged to the “superior race.” Does this mean that the Nazis contradicted their ideology in practice? No. It means that this ideology was, at its core, racially opportunistic, using the notion of “race” as a unifying symbol, expanding or restricting its area of meaning according to the strategic and tactical needs of the moment.
Another example: The communist party moves comfortably within a broad territory ranging from the promotion of capitalism to the radical nationalization of the means of production. Since an ideology is essentially the theoretical justification of a practice, it should be obvious that its interpretation also depends on practice, and not just on verbal statements. Marx, Lenin, and Stalin understood this almost instinctively, but in general neither leftist militants nor their right-wing critics see this with any clarity.
If the Brazilian left fights corruption, but, once in power, steals more than all other parties, what defines its ideology is precisely the dialectical game of moralism-theft, both poles serving the permanent increase of party power.
The opposition between ideal and real is characteristic of bourgeois thought. MARXISM ABOMINATES IT. Where the bourgeois accuses the communist of betraying his own ideals, the communist knows that the apparent betrayal is profound fidelity, and is happy that the enemy cannot perceive the unity of opposites. Given a contradiction, bourgeois thought try to RESOLVE it and get rid of it right away. Marxism seeks above all to deepen it and use it as part of the overall strategy. People with a “liberal” background, disciples of Karl Popper and the like, will never understand a DAMN THING about Marxism.”
(https://olavodecarvalhofb.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/reflexoes-sobre-marxismo/)
You also have the additional difficulty of a duguinist agenda increasingly parasitizing and deliberately confusing Olavo’s legacy after his death, an instance is https://www.soldapatria.org/.
Finally: “Are Brazilians not aware that Russia and China and Cuba act as one in South America and support Lula? Surely they can see it. Olavo taught this, didn’t he? I would like to know more details from you.”
Yes, we do know, and he taught it. But unfortunately we are a very tiny (and shrinking) minority.
I just saw the Maria Clara’s reply you posted. Right to the point. That tranquilizes me. I thought that this ragged and gossipy ignorance, disguised as humble student behavior, was a purely Brazilian phenomenon and limited to its borders. When I saw that it was harming your understanding of Olavo’s philosophy, I was baffled. The few that know the truth must understand each other, for the least.
As Olavo’s books and lectures were in Portuguese, I have only read what has been translated. I knew him personally and spent time talking to him. When people here make claims about his ideas or argue with each other I cannot comment authoritatively. I never said Olavo was in an ivory tower. A philosopher is a lover of wisdom, not an academic. I never thought of Olavo as an academic.
It seems the communists will do the same to every important person after their death. Hijack the students, recast the ideas, twist everything. Yes. They will blacken the name of those most obviously correct about the evils of communism. Thank you translating this long passage from Olavo.
I would like to give an update about current events in Ukraine as they can determine the outcome of the war. I keep researching them, things are shady, but this is what is known at the moment. I will simplify as much as I can.
A little history. After the Revolution of Dignity of 2013–2014, NABU was created — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. NABU is an independent law-enforcement agency in Ukraine that investigates serious corruption crimes committed by high-level officials.
In July of 2025 information came out that NABU had been recording conversations in the apartment of Zelenskiy’s very close friend Timur Mindich. NABU had about 1000 hours of recordings.
Zelenskiy’s immediate reaction was to try to change the status of NABU from an independent body into one subservient to the general prosecutor, so that the prosecutor (under the direction of Zelenskiy) would be able to access the evidence and destroy it.
The parliament voted for this. The youth came out to the Maidan to defend the independence of NABU, and the parliament then voted this decision back. For people who think that parliament is an independent entity in Ukraine — it is not. After Zelenskiy’s overwhelming victory in 2019, when trust in him was huge, he dismissed the previous parliament and called for new elections. He did not have a party and quickly created one called Sluga Narodu (Servant of the People). In our country the leader chooses party members; it’s not like senators in the US who are voted for individually and scrutinized during elections. Zelenskiy quickly filled his party with random people with no political background. They were so far from politics that there was a two-week training for them after the elections, where they were taught basics about how parliament works and where to press the button. They did not even need a coalition, so they became another attribute of Zelenskiy’s power without any opposition or checks and balances.
So the Maidan in July was successful and NABU gained its independence back. But Zelenskiy’s reaction was very suspicious and raised many questions. Was he trying to cover up his friends? Was his voice on the recordings? As I said, this friend of his was a very close childhood friend, and Zelenskiy visited him often and would celebrate his birthdays there even as president. Zelenskiy’s parents are known to live now in Israel with Mindich’s sister. But we did not get to hear the recordings then.
Until now. On November 11 there was a search in Mindich’s apartment. He quickly left the country just before the search, which raised a question: how could he drive at night during curfew hours? You would need to have a very special permission for that from top officials.
During the search, bags of American dollars were found lying around in packages with signs of the Federal Reserve of American banks.
On the very same day the recordings started coming out as well. In the very first published recording many schemes of getting kickbacks in the energy sector were revealed. Mindich, without any official position, had huge actual authority. He would choose companies to collaborate with in the energy sector. He would ask for kickbacks (10–15% or more). One of the threats for denying collaboration was to send all the company members to the front line. Obviously, he had the power to do so. And his voice was complaining that fortification of energy production units would cost too much money and would be an unnecessary waste. So he chose not to spend any money on these fortifications. And these recordings were released while people were experiencing blackouts all over Ukraine due to the lack of these fortifications and Russia hitting these units. From the first released recording it became clear that at least 100 million dollars were embezzled.
Zelenskiy’s reaction was very suspicious. Instead of opening a criminal case against his friend, he imposed sanctions on him, while his friend is already abroad. No extradition is planned. Some officials were removed from their positions as well. Zelenskiy did not say that the recordings were false. By his actions he confirmed that he believed they were true.
The recordings were released for a few more days and then stopped coming. Of course, to say that the public was shocked is to say nothing. Some people die on the front line giving their lives and health, others keep making money on schemes.
The theory behind why things are happening this way: people noticed a visit from an FBI official just before the release of the recordings to the public. The release seemed to be a coordinated effort with the American side with the purpose of creating public reaction. There is an opinion that this is a way for Trump to stop the war and make Zelenskiy more cooperative in making a peace deal with Russia on their terms. But Zelenskiy is very stubborn. If he keeps being stubborn, more incriminating recordings will keep coming out.
But in fact, this is a very complicated subject. My simplified explanation does not do it proper justice. It only reflects how ordinary but curious people perceive it.
Valentina: Thank you for explaining this complicated story. It certainly is a serious story. My own sources suggest that U.S. intelligence has been trying to topple Zelenskyy for a long time. Have you listened to the actual tapes? Is it transcripts? What evidence has the public seen?
This is one of the links to an official NABU video with the recordings, and below the video there are transcripts.
https://censor.net/en/news/3584390/mindich-s-tapes-nabu-publishes-new-recordings-of-conversations
There were other sources used for their publication as well. I have listened to the excerpts with transcripts in different analytical videos.
I personally did not analyze them, as it is very time-consuming. But from the explosion they caused in society and from Zelensky’s reaction, I can tell they are genuine. There were also many earlier indirect clues pointing to something like this happening. So the tapes seem like the missing piece of the puzzle that completes the picture. The adequate part of parliament has created an investigation committee.
It is only the tip of the iceberg. Some things discussed in the apartment were later voiced by Zelensky when appointing people to government positions.
Another detail is that Mindich repeatedly searched this apartment for listening devices and could not find any. Some new technology was used. And there is speculation that the technology was provided by the FBI and that copies of the recordings are in their hands, so you can’t destroy them locally.
Interesting
This is link to another official video from NABU with recordings. I also want to correct myself. Publications started on November 10, not 11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcTWjefE62Q
I have copied the text of this video and fed it into chat GPT asking for a summary in English. Following is the summary from AI.
Operation Midas: NABU Uncovers Large-Scale Corruption Scheme in the Energy Sector
In the summer of 2024, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) launched Operation Midas, a 15-month investigation into large-scale corruption within the state energy sector.
Today, NABU conducted the final phase of the operation, including over 70 searches nationwide, with the full involvement of the Bureau’s personnel.
The investigation uncovered a high-level criminal organization operating within the energy and defense industries, led by individuals with close ties to the Ministry of Energy and the management of Energoatom, Ukraine’s state nuclear energy company.
Among the suspects are a former adviser to the Minister of Energy, the Executive Director for Physical Protection and Security at Energoatom, a well-known businessman, and several associated private individuals.
According to the evidence, the group systematically extorted kickbacks of 10–15% from Energoatom’s contractors in exchange for contract approvals, timely payments, and retention of supplier status.
The scheme effectively placed control of procurement and financial operations of the strategic company—whose annual revenue exceeds 200 billion UAH—into the hands of an informal shadow manager with no official authority.
Audio recordings and financial documents obtained by NABU show how the group used its influence to appoint loyal officials, block payments, and manipulate tenders in favor of affiliated companies.
Certain contracts originally worth 12 million UAH were later inflated to over 400 million UAH under the group’s control.
The investigation also revealed that some officials treated national security projects, including the construction of protective facilities for nuclear plants, as opportunities for personal profit.
Discussions among the suspects show plans to increase kickback rates even amid nationwide efforts to strengthen Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure.
NABU continues to collect and process evidence regarding embezzlement of state funds and abuse of office by former and current officials of Energoatom and the Ministry of Energy.
Further details will be disclosed as the investigation progresses.
Is there any evidence that Zelensky was personally involved in the corruption?
Or is he like President Grant?
President Grant was personally honest. But he trusted corrupt friends too much, such that his administration became known for scandal.
Who could replace Zelensky if it is revealed that he personally is part of the corruption?
Christians in the Lions Den
https://jeanneluttjohann.com/2025/11/17/christians-in-the-lions-den/Christians in the Lions Den
https://jeanneluttjohann.com/2025/11/17/christians-in-the-lions-den/
There will soon be a time when there is no one left to vote for. For the Jew and Christian must then rely only on their savior.
This link doesn’t go to an essay or anything.
Good evening Jeff, greetings from beautiful Italy.
Quote from Jeff’s article
“The decline of our society has been catastrophic, with basic structures torn asunder. Few recognize the fact that we can no longer escape the consequences of our collective malfeasance. But instead of intellectual integrity, deep study, or real knowledge – we are succumbing to conspiracy “theory.” We are falling prey to the politics of resentment. Caught in a rising hysteria, people are watching this strange comet from outside the solar system, hoping it is an alien spaceship coming to rescue them. Twenty years ago, an investment banker told me, “We have drunk the poison and now we must die.”
We analyze our behavior year after year and, if we are honest, very few have maintained a righteous way of living and acting. We cannot be surprised by the results before our eyes; we must already think about what comes next, for those who will survive. We will have to repeal many unjust laws and rethink our way of life.
Socialism/communism have distorted our way of thinking. Politics, social problems, so-called justice; all earth, no Heaven; sadness made into non-life. God, the source of Truth, has been erased from the horizon and his place taken by demons who destroy us. This sentence is striking: For this reason, God will send to them works of deception, so that they may believe in lies, in order that all those who have not believed in the truth, but who have consented to iniquity, may be judged.
Thank you, ftm13m. We seem to have less and less spiritual discernment.
And to admit one historical inaccuracy – about the Siege of Jerusalem, it was exactly on the day when in time past the 1st Temple was destroyed by king Nabudonochozor. There was a notation in the original Douay-Rheims Bible (1604 AD print or so), where this person thought that the Easter Sunday was mentioned in regards to this Divine punishment of the Jews, but then better search was made and this is the correction of it. One cannot possibly remember all things. But this is only to correct the meaning of that day when the Temple was leveled by the Roman army in 70 AD.
NO, please no !
This person had done so in the previous post, and this was just the correction of that post, stop pointing to yourself, nobody is accusing you of anything here.