Freemasonry is at the core of Western politics. As progressives become more clear about the shortcomings of this system, they are shocked to see Freemasons ending the democratic experiment. This is at least partly the result of Freemasonry’s dependence on Plato’s anti-democratic notions. We see this dependence in US politics when Kyrsten Sinema demands unity and civility at all costs. We also see it when a presidential candidate, Hilary Clinton, tells a rival faction to respect authority. Here we discuss the role of politics in our season of creation.
Those of us who are not true believers in Fox’s propaganda are constantly amazed that this company is allowed to practice its virtual mind control in the United States. At a time when Donald Trump feels free to broadcast threats about what his administration will do to our system of government, Fox broadcasts his every word to the American people. But it’s even more outrageous than we know. Fox News was born in Nazi Germany. In 1932, the German newsreel subsidiary of Fox News Channel’s corporate ancestor, Fox Films, intervened in national elections in Germany. This was reported in an article entitled: In 1932, Fox Helped Make Propaganda Films for Hitler. The article was written by Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D. in 2010.1
Tarpley begins by pointing out how strange it is that a television network carries so many political candidates and propagandists on its payroll. He lists GOP and “Tea Party” partisans Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Sean Hannity. Considering his revelations in this article, we would have to conclude that Fox was born bad.
Fox and Weimar Democracy
For the following brief history of Fox’s wartime activities, Tarpley cites three different works. The first is Hans Mommsen’s authoritative study entitled The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy. In 2010, Mommsen was Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Bochum. His study goes into some detail about the methods used by Nazi propagandists. Under the leadership of Goebbels, the Party used the political propaganda film as early as 1930. In places where Hitler and other prominent Party leaders were not able to appear, they would show films instead. The American company Twentieth Century Fox manufactured the outdoor sound film for the NSDAP.
Fox Films, Corporate Ancestor of Fox News. Credit: urbancow
The Methods of Joseph Goebbels
Tarpley also cites Scholar William G. Chrystal, who confirms Mommsen’s account. Crystal provides further important details in his 1975 article on “Nazi Party Election Films, 1927-1938.”
Support for two additional 1932 election films, Der Führer (The Leader), and Hitlers Kampf um Deutschland (Hitler’s Struggle for Germany) came from the German-based subsidiary of Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Tönende Wochenschau (Fox Weekly Sound Newsreel [i.e., Fox Movietone News]). In addition, they also supplied some mobile sound film vans to be used during the campaign. Thus at least part of Hitler’s support in that critical time was the result of Fox’s help.
The background for this assistance is unknown since Fox Tönende Wochenschau records were destroyed during the war, according to a July 9, 1974 letter to Chrystal from Joseph Bellfort, who was at that time the vice president of the Twentieth Century Fox International Film Corporation.2
Hitler’s Use of Grievance
Der Führer (The Leader), one of the two sound films subsidized by Fox Tönende Wochenschau, was originally titled Volk und Führer (Nation and Leader). It was a relatively short film, but it provided many people with their first opportunity to hear Hitler speak.3 In it Hitler, speaking in Berlin on April 4, 1932, develops his characteristic theme that the German army was betrayed and stabbed in the back in November 1918 by the Weimar politicians, especially the Social Democrats.
This speech was part of Hitler’s campaign for president. He was defeated in this campaign on April 10, 1932, by von Hindenburg. Nevertheless he received almost 37 Percent of the votes. This represented a new high in Nazi support up to that time.
In the subsequent parliamentary election held on July 31, 1932, the Nazis added 19 percent to their previous totals to emerge for the first time as the largest single party in Germany with 38 percent of the votes — thanks in part to the assistance rendered to Hitler by Fox Movietone News.
Of the second film Fox made for Hitler, Chrystal writes: “…new Reichstag elections were called for November 6, 1932…. The second of the Fox-subsidized productions, Hitlers Kampf um Deutschland (Hitler’s Struggle for Germany), appeared on August 30. It comprised 606 meters of Hitler’s July, 1932 Eberswalde speech. An indication of the effectiveness of this speech and its film record can be found in its later use. When Reichstag elections were held again in March 1933, this same film was re-issued under a new title, Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler Spricht (Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler Speaks).4
Hitler Tailors His Speeches to the ‘Psychotic Public Mood’
Hitler’s speech in the Brandenburg Stadium in Eberswalde on July 27, 1932, one of three he gave that day, is a classic demagogic performance. As Mommsen points out, “in the hectic 1932 election campaign” the Nazis organized mass rallies featuring “speeches that Hitler tailored specifically to the psychotic public mood that had been created by the deepening crisis” (Mommsen, p. 338).
“We are intolerant,” raved Hitler, promising to drive more than thirty other political parties out of Germany. “We have one goal before us, to fanatically and ruthlessly shove all these parties into the grave,” he added. This was the message which Fox Movietone News helped deliver to the German public. Six months after he gave this speech, Hitler seized power as chancellor and began consolidating his power as dictator — once again thanks in part to the help of Fox Movietone News.
Fox Made ‘Illicit Contributions in Kind’
Tarpley emphasizes that Chrystal describes Fox as having “subsidized” Hitler’s critical 1932 election campaigns. He says this can be considered as the 1930s equivalent of illicit contributions in kind to a politician under current US election law. This charge is often made against Fox News today. As an example, he cites a recent filing by the Democratic Governors’ Association in regard to the Kasich gubernatorial campaign in Ohio.
Benito Mussolini Speaks to America
The Italisn fascist dictator Benito Mussolini was a big fan of Fox Movietone News. He was given the opportunity to make one of his famous bravura speeches for the Fox camera. According to Robert Edwin Herzstein, one of the first sound newsreels shown in the United States depicted Mussolini in March 1929 speaking in English directly to the American people, saying: “Your talking newsreel has tremendous possibilities. Let me speak through it in twenty cities in Italy once a week and I need no other power” (Herzstein, p. 318). In the mind of the Duce, newsfilm was already the handmaiden of fascist power.
Herzstein’s survey of the Fox Movietone archive for 1930-1935 was extensive. However, there is no record of criticism or unfavorable coverage of the fascist dictator.5
Fox News Channel Owns and Manages Fox Movietone’s Collection Today
The last Fox Movietone newsreels appeared in the United States in 1963. According to the Wikipedia article on Movietone News, parts of the Fox Movietone newsreel collection are still “owned and managed by the Fox Film Corporation’s corporate successor (and namesake), Fox News Channel. The majority of the collection is stored in New Jersey, mostly unseen since the newsreels were originally shown in theatres. During its early years, Fox News Channel had a weekend show which played the newsreels.”6
Hans Mommsen, The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996, p. 339. emphasis added. Fox Film Corporation merged with Twentieth Century Pictures to form Twentieth Century Fox in May, 1935. ↩︎
William G. Chrystal, “Nazi Party Election Films, 1927-1938,” in Cinema Journal XV:1, Autumn 1975, p. 32, published by the University Texas Press for the Society for Cinema and Media Studies, emphasis added. See also Hans Barkhausen, “Kurzübersicht: Filme der NSDAP, 1927-1945,” and “Die NSDAP als Filmproduzentin,” in Günter Moltmann and Karl Friedrich Reimers, Zeitgeschichte im Film- und Tondokument: 17 historische, pädagogische, und sozialwissenschaftliche Beiträge, edited by Günter Moltmann and Karl Friedrich Reimers (Göttingen: Musterschmidt-Verlag, 1970). As Cited by Tarpley. ↩︎
Christian Churches have a problem. Right-wing ideology with claims to Christian orthodoxy is converting young people, mostly men, all over the world. This problem has become more noticeable since the Covid lockdown. Apparently, young people who were not able to talk to each other in person socialized online. Right-wing ideology associated with Christianity was the introduction for many of them. Afterward, many of them joined churches in an effort to further the right-wing agenda. Steve Hayes’s video on YouTube traces the progression of this increase in right-wing members. This article is a summary of his speech. I am calling it the radical Right’s Siren Song.
Hayes is an Orthodox deacon and a freelance editor, writer, teacher and missiologist. (Missiology is an interdisciplinary field of inquiry into Christian mission or missions that utilizes theological, historical, and various social scientific methods.) He lives in Pretoria, South Africa.
An Ideological Split has Developed Between Christian Males and Females. Men are More Right-Wing.
If his speech seems mixed up, Hayes explains that he’s throwing a stone into the bush to see what comes out. He is concerned about a recent phenomenon. This information is important and I didn’t want to leave anything out, so I’ve tried to write it in the same order. I hope the reader doesn’t lose interest. The information gets more disturbing toward the end.
Quarantine at home, Credit: baranozdemir
In the years 1996 to 2015, male and female Christians experienced an ideological split. Many young people who had just come into the church suddenly started spouting right-wing ideology. This has not only affected Gen Z in North America. It includes Generation Zed outside of North America as well. The Orthodox Church is also affected. All Christian churches are experiencing this. The situation was intensified by the covid lockdown.
In a recent survey of conversion respondents aged 21 to 30, seventy-five percent of respondents were male. The sexual gap narrows somewhat among older people, but respondents are still majority male. Previously, the sex gap was a characteristic of mainline Protestant churches, but it has increased in the Orthodox Church since 2019. It now affects all Christian churches, except for Evangelical. The sexes are represented equally among Evangelicals.
The Orthodox Church is Attractive to Some People Because it is Pre-Modern
Hayes speculates that so many right-wingers join the Orthodox Church because Orthodoxy places a high value on tradition. The perception that the Orthodox Church is pre-modern in its theology and ethos might explain the difference.
But today, many consider modernity to be superior because it is newer. For example, modern people say no one can possibly believe that in 2024, whatever that might be. Some people do not feel at home in this kind of atmosphere and they look for more tradition.
The Orthodox Church did not Experience the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment
The Orthodox Church is pre-modern because it did not experience the three main characteristics of Western modernity: the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment. These three events shaped Western modernity and spread throughout the world as a kind of culture and worldview. One of the features of modernity is that it does not like tradition.
Modernity, Pre-Modernity, and Post-Modernity
History as an academic discipline came about really in the 19th century among Western Historians. This resulted in the division of history into three time periods and worldviews: modernity, pre-modernity, and post-modernity. (Therefore, these divisions and the corresponding worldview is a Western phenomenon.)
Modern history covers the period from 1500 on. Antiquity is everything before the year 500. Historians did not know what to do with the years in between. They called them the Middle Ages because they came between those other ages, which were more historically important. These developments shaped the idea of modernity as a worldview and a thing. And there was another influence that shaped modernity: printing.
The Invention of Printing
Printing Helped Shape Modernity, Credit: ilbusca
Today when you think of the holy scriptures, you think of the Bible. But the Bible didn’t exist in the Middle Ages. It only came about after the invention of printing. Before printing, people heard the holy scriptures read in a community setting.
Printing meant that people could take the Bible away and read it individually. Therefore, modernity meant that individuals could follow ideas that they got from books. One result was that the way people experienced the Christian faith changed.
Covid
Because of Covid, churches did not meet. Individuals went online and heard one voice telling them what to think. The people who were were unhappy with modernity and threatened by change heard about tradition and thought it might give them a sense of security.
Tradition
Where does the word tradition come from? Our English word comes from traditio. It means to hand over tradition. In the sense used by the Orthodox Church, this means handing over the good news, the message of Jesus Christ. You hand it over to other people, or pass it on.
But now, tradition is also a difficult concept. We sometimes wonder if something is a bad tradition. Tradition can be good or bad. The word tradition also leads to the English word traitor. For example, someone who hands their country over to the enemy. Or someone else who handed Jesus over to be crucified. So, tradition can be good or bad.
Traditionalism
You also find that people become Traditionalists, which is different from tradition. Traditionalists think tradition in itself is good and should be valued for its own sake. Rene Guenon and his followers, who taught early in the twentieth century, were the precursors of the people who are joining the Churches now. Today, new converts are bringing these Traditionalist ideas with them.
Rene Guenon was very unhappy with the modern world. And it’s true that modernity has its problems. One problem is that modernism is its own kind of ideology. Modernism teaches that modernity is good and everything else before it is inferior. It also teaches that things are getting better all the time. (In my opinion, we saw an example of this in Steven Pinker’s defense of liberalism.)
Modernism can put some people off. However, Steve Hayes argues that modernity is neither something to be worshipped and regarded as the best way, nor completely rejected. As Christians, we can look at modernity and evaluate different aspects from the point of view of Christian faith. We can see what’s good and bad, what we can cultivate and what we can try to reject. But to Traditionalists like Guenon, the modern world is altogether bad. For him, the earliest forms of religion were better.
Eugene Rose
Guenon thought primitive forms of religion were better. He influenced Eugene Rose, a young American. Rose converted at the age of 14 to the Methodist Church. The following information about Eugene Rose is from Wikipedia.
Rose studied Chinese philosophy at Pomona college. He also studied under Alan Watts at the American Academy of Asian Studies before entering the master’s degree program in Oriental languages at the University of California, Berkeley. He graduated in 1961 with a thesis entitled “‘Emptiness’ and ‘Fullness’ in the Lao Tzu”.
While studying at Watts’ Asian institute, Rose read the writings of French metaphysicist René Guénon. He also met a Chinese Taoist scholar, Gi-ming Shien. Shien emphasized the ancient Chinese approach to learning, valuing traditional viewpoints and texts over more modern interpretations. Inspired by Shien, Rose took up the study of ancient Chinese so that he could read early Taoist texts in their original tongue. Through his experiences with Shien and the writings of Guénon, Rose sought out an authentic and grounded spiritual tradition of his own. He became interested in the Russian Orthodox Church sometime after 1956.
Rose eventually became an Orthodox monk with the monastic name of Seraphim Rose. He and Gleb Podmoshensky, a Russian Orthodox seminarian, began a community of Orthodox booksellers and publishers, the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. In March 1964, Rose opened an Orthodox bookstore next to the Holy Virgin Cathedral on Geary Boulevard in San Francisco. In 1965, the brotherhood founded the St. Herman Press publishing house, which still exists. Rose and Podmoshensky became monks in 1968 and transformed the Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood into a full-fledged monastic community.
Traditionalsim Found its Way Into the Writings of Seraphim Rose
Now we return to Steve Hayes’ narrative. The books published by Seraphim Rose’s St. Herman Press were in demand, as there were not many books and magazines about the Orthodox Church for the English-speaking world. So, Seraphim Rose’s publishing house made the Orthodox Church more widely known. But Guenon’s traditionalism shaped the presentation of the Herman Press. Seraphim Rose did not teach wrong doctrines. (According to the Wikipedia article, some of his teachings were controversial in his lifetime.) In fact, he warned against Traditionalism. But he made more of tradition than is generally done in the Orthodox Church. He taught Orthodox doctrines in a Traditionalist way. (My own Interpretation of Hayes’s narrative is that Traditionalist ideas are what had attracted Rose to the Orthodox Church in the first place and that’s how he understood it.)
Frank Schaeffer
Another teacher influenced by Guenon was Frank Schaeffer. Francis and Edith Schaeffer, Frank’s father and mother, were co-founders of L’Abri community in Switzerland. They were trying to enable Christians to witness to the Christian faith in the modern world. Francis wanted Christians to see how the Christian gospel could be presented to people who had a modernist understanding of the world. Francis was an American evangelical theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor.
Frank eventually went to America to study, and found that the modern world went against his values. As a result, he moved to a kind of right-wing understanding and tried to persuade his father to do the same. His father chose not to move in that direction, but Frank went on to write a series of books criticizing American culture as he saw it. The titles were catchy, in the words of Hayes. The title of one book was Sham Pearls for Real Swine. Frank believed that American culture was real swine. He attacked American culture until he discovered the Orthodox Church, which was more traditional. But because he had become a Traditionalist before joining the Orthodox Church, he continued to preach the same anti-modernist message he had preached when he was a Protestant.
An Orthodoxy With Teeth: Orthodox Bolsheviks
Steve Hayes heard him speak in 1995 at the Orthodox Mission Conference in Brooklyn. At that conference, Frank called for an Orthodoxy with teeth. He wanted the Orthodox Church to have teeth and attack American modern culture.
However, there was a Russian Orthodox Bishop in attendance who didn’t speak much English. Someone was whispering a translation in his ear. At the end of Frank’s speech the bishop said, You call for an Orthodoxy with teeth, but what will you do if those you want to bite grow bigger teeth and bite you back?…No! We have people like you in Russia who want to grow teeth like that and we call them Orthodox Bolsheviks.
Hayes explains that the Bolshevik period in Russia had ended just four years earlier. After Bolshevism ended, a survey showed that of all the Russian institutions in the early 1990s, the people trusted the Church the most. They did not trust politicians or academics, only the Church. Thousands of people were baptized in Russia after the fall of Communism, including a lot of people who had been in the KGB. Unfortunately, some of the new KGB converts’ practiced a method of persuasion that went, you do what we say and you believe what we say, or else. That was what the Russian bishop saw in Frank Schaeffer.
Frank eventually changed sides in the American culture wars. Now he calls himself a Christian atheist or an atheist Christian. He had joined the Orthodox Church not for what it was, but because he thought it would prop up what he already believed about the ordering of society. And when he stopped believing that, the secondary thing was less important and he drifted away from the Church. That’s the problem with anyone who comes to the Christian faith with an ulterior motive. They think Orthodoxy will provide a spiritual home for their already held beliefs, which already may be nationalist, racist, and exclusive. They think, we are in a group that is better than anyone else.
This has spilled over into quite a few Orthodox podcast groups.
Ortho Bros
Among the podcasters are people who come across as very arrogant, abrasive, and thinking, we are better than anyone else and you’d better follow us or else. It’s an Orthodoxy with teeth. People who follow them call themselves Ortho Bros and they come across as very abrasive and attack people.
But the Orthodox are not the only ones. There were other Traditionalist groups present in the 2020 riots. For example, Nick Fuentes preaches this right-wing message, often attacking conservative Americans and saying they should be radical.
Some Christian Traditionalists tend to be radical Right, racist, nationalist, and in some cases, neo-Nazi. Hayes calls out Jay Dyer in particular as being especially abrasive and attacking other people. Apparently, Jay promotes an orthodoxy with teeth, and if anyone disagrees with him he will dox them. This means getting documentation of everything a person has done and putting it online. People they approve of, they call ‘based‘. People they don’t approve of, they call ‘degenerate‘ or ‘gay‘.
When Right-Wingers Join the Orthodox Church
Some people who talk in this way joined the Orthodox Church when covid ended. The priests taught them, but they don’t really know where the new converts are coming from. They don’t realize the converts have a different lens.
The teachings of Father Seraphim Rose, who got the teachings from Guenon, were a milder version. but Traditionalism is no longer mild.
The philosophy of Traditionalism also came into the Orthodox Church through Alexander Dugin. Dugin is Russian, and during the Soviet period, he belonged to a circle of people who studied esoteric or occult religion. At that time, they studied East Asian religions in the light of Western occult understanding. But Dugin soon realized that Western occultism is modern–because it had appeared in the Renaissance. So, he followed Guenon in looking for the earliest versions of different religions. Another name for this focus is the Perennial philosophy. The Perennial philosophy teaches that there are basic ideas that underly all religions. Religion must keep these basic ideas.
When the Bolshevik regime fell in the 1990s, Dugin decided that the Traditionalist form of religion was identical with the Orthodox Church. He joined the Church, and he brought his Traditionalist ideas with him. In Russia, Traditionalism has spread to some of the clergy and also some of the people in government.
Dugin and Heidegger
According to Hayes, Dugin expresses his notion of the Russian world as, Russkiy Mir. (In the following article by Serghei Sadohin, Russkiy Mir is a doctrine. Sadohin compares it to the ideology of Martin Heidegger, which I have already warned against here.)
The German existentialist thinker Martin Heidegger, who profoundly influenced the Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin – an ardent proponent of the Russkiy mir doctrine – argued that there is only one ultimate truth: the truth of being. “The human is the place of the truth of being,” Heidegger says in his characteristically poetic, and sometimes obscure, way. Dugin found in Heidegger the philosopher who speaks to him about istina, but in a German way. “We have our special Russian truth,” he once told a baffled BBC journalist. Truth for Dugin is relative. As it was for Heidegger, who relativised truth to being, before anything else. Even Nietzsche before him said that “there are no facts, only interpretations.”
Hayes tells us that Dugin in particular spreads this doctrine. He has influenced people in Russia with the doctrine of Traditionalism. To be a Traditionalist, means you think tradition, regardless of its origin, is a good thing in itself.
Traditionalism is not the Same as Christian Tradition
Christian tradition hands on what it has received. It does not start again from scratch in each generation. It means following on from the generations before. Acts 2:42 reports the baptism of three thousand people. These people continued in four things: the apostles’ teaching; the apostles’ fellowship; the breaking of the bread; and the prayers. The Orthodox traditional understanding is that the Orthodox Church has continued in those four things from that day to this, without a break. There is continuity and that is what we call holy tradition. But not all tradition is holy, especially not all tradition of the Traditionalist philosophy is holy.
Christian Nationalism, Fascism, and Nazism
South Africa, Credit: LorenzoT81
There is also a third well-known traditionalist, a guy called Julius Evola, who was an Italian fascist.
Now we come to South Africa with something that in our day we regard as discredited. But it is suddenly having a revival in North America. That’s Christian Nationalism. In 1942, B. J. Vorster, one of the prime ministers of South Africa, said, ‘We stand for Christian Nationalism, which is an ally of National Socialism.’
We can call anti-Democratic governments ‘dictatorships’ if you like. But in Italy it was fascism, in South Africa it was Christian Nationalism, and in Germany it was Nazism. Christian Nationalism, as a philosophy or idea gave birth to apartheid, which eventually became an ideology in its own right. The word apartheid appeared in the 1930s from a Dutch Reformed missionary. In 1948 by D. F. Malan’s National Party adopted this word. It already had the philosophy of Christian Nationalism, but not the word. Apartheid was originally a slogan of the National Party, which was looking for a way to soften segregation.
Integralism is not Gospel. It is Ideology.
Christian Nationalism is growing today in North America. Hayes has mentioned its Orthodox roots, but it has other roots as well. In the Roman Catholic Church, Integralism wants to revive Christendom. By Christendom, they mean Christianity in alliance with secular power. They want to integrate the Church into the state. The state should be the instrument of imposing Christian values on everyone. But Hayse says this is not actually gospel. It is not good news because Christian values without Christ become an ideology. It’s no longer good news, just a set of ideas that you must accept or face the consequences.
In the Protestant world, there is a guy called Rushdoony. He believed that Christians should seek to control the government and the economy and have a kind of theocratic society. They call this idea Theonomy, which means applying God’s law. (Theonomy is a hypothetical Christian form of government in which society is ruled by divine law.) Rushdoony wanted to apply the Old Testament law to the state and make the commandments the constitution.
The New Apostolic Reformation
Another movement is the New Apostolic Reformation. This started as part of the Charismatic Revival in the 1950s and 60s, where a lot of people outside of traditional Pentecostal churches rediscovered the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There was a group that developed this new ecclesiology based on St. Paul’s list of some ministries in Ephesians. (here is an article about this Revival. It was a central influence in the January 6 riots.)
Ephesians says ‘he gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.’ But they rigidified these five ministries and claimed they had disappeared after the apostolic age. One missiologist, Ralph Wimber, called this the BOBO theory of Church history: It teaches that the light of the gospel blinked off after the apostles died and blinked on again after the Reformation.
Ralph said the origin of this teaching was the Mormons. They called themselves the Latter Day Saints because they believe there were no saints in the middle. This is the same attitude as the historians who despised the middle. Winter said the idea that there are no saints in the middle is wrong, and he helped people see that. But people who held this ideology resisted Winter. They said pastors and teachers had disappeared and then restored during the Reformation. They said the Reformers were the revived pastors and teachers.
The New Apostolic Reformation and the Seven Mountains Mandate: a Long History
In the 18th century, there were people like John Wesley and other people in North America, traveling Evangelists, who said the Great Awakening was the Revival of the evangelists. Then, at the beginning of the 20th century, there was a Pentecostal Revival of the prophets. But now in the middle of the 20th century, they had a Revival of apostles. These people appointed themselves as apostles and started the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR).
Steve Hayes reports the following from one of these apostles, Bob Mumford. Mumford was a popular preacher in the 1970s. He taught this doctrine at the Hatfield Baptist Church and appointed the pastor as the apostle of Pretoria. God had given him Pretoria, according to Mumford.
The New Apostolic Reformation dealt with the Revival of these ministries. Then, in the 1970s, three evangelical leaders found that they had a common vision. The three men were Loren Cunningham, founder of YWAM; Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ; and Francis Schaeffer. Their vision came to be called Seven Mountains. The Seven Mountains were things in society that needed Christian influence, such as government, family, education, and various social institutions or centers of power.
Francis Schaeffer spread this teaching through L’Abri. He said he was helping people look at these things in the light of the Christian faith. Then, twenty-five years later, a man called Lance Wallnau said these seven mountains needed to be conquered, not just influenced. Christians must take them over.
The Cult of Donald Trump
At some point, Bob Mumford admitted to Hayes that these teachings had been wrong and that he repented for starting this movement. But someone named Peter Wagner, another missiologist, soon became the leader of the NAR. Lance Wallnau adopted the Seven Mountains theory. A lot of the people who accepted this teaching are now in what Hayes would call the Cult of Donald Trump. They were with the others in the January 6 riots.
Summary and Conclusion
So, this right-wing movement is in both the Orthodox and Western Churches. It seems to affect Generation Z in North America and Generation Zed all over the world.
The Seven Mountains Mandate (it’s called a Mandate in Wikipedia) has echoes of the Christian nationalism that we know from South Africa. If you follow it back, you will find that a Reformed theologian in the Netherlands, Abraham Kuyper, spoke about the spheres of sovereignty, and said that every social institution should have sovereignty in its own sphere. In other words, the Church should have sovereignty in religion, government, etc. This idea became very popular among the Christian Nationalists in South Africa. And the Seven Mountains Mandate is reworking it. Their roots are all intertwined. The tree that we are seeing grow from these roots is a lot of young Christians, from 15 to 30 or 35, especially males, who are right-wing.
Hayes has a question for the converts: What is primary? Is it the Christian faith? Is Jesus Christ the center of their lives? Or is it a political ideology and a political outlook?
He sees this as a kind of missiological and evangelistic problem, and it effects the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Churches. This ideology is particularly influential because the young people are online and come from all over the world. Pastors and priests might not know what ideas they are bringing. They might find that the new converts seem to be speaking sound doctrine but then they go off into some conspiracy or anti-Semitic rant. These people largely got these ideas online and are coming into the fellowship of the church just as the church is reviving after covid, and it’s important that the Church realize where they are coming from and what kind of distortions they might be bringing to the understanding of the Christian faith.
Evelyn Waugh once called America ‘That land of waifs and strays’. Many people who are fortunate to live in the land of their ancestors look at Americans in that way. It’s rude, but mostly because it’s true. America as a country has an abbreviated history. The same can be said for immigrants and their descendants.
It’s rude also because most of the immigrants would have stayed put if they had been given a choice. Many were not wanted where they came from. If they weren’t literally chased out, they left in search of opportunities that were not available to them in the land of their ancestors. This includes aristocratic immigrants to the colonies.
That said, promises were made of liberty and brotherhood, and welcome. And many immigrants benefitted from those promises. For former immigrants and descendants to turn around and deny those things to other people is a betrayal of the idea of America. Likewise, the giving of one’s loyalty to another country while claiming to love this country is a betrayal. This point of view is important if we are to correctly interpret current events.
The Strangeness and Uprootedness of American Life
The writers of the American classics tried to make sense of the strangeness of being transplanted on this continent. They wanted to inspire their readers to create a new culture that did not repeat the mistakes of the old world. But several generations later Americans have forgotten the cause of that strangeness. They have lost the very context in which they exist.
The Threat of Radical Ideas
Losing one’s context is not only confusing, it is dangerous, politically speaking. Radical remedies are always available to people who are experiencing confusion, frustration and anger. It is important to point out that the radical political remedies being promoted today did not originate in the United States. They are actually hostile to the United States.
The European radical Right longs to return to a hierarchical society which actually existed. They want to create a system where ‘everyone knows their place’. Of course, they imagine their place to be somewhere near the top.
The American radical Right longs for something that has never existed on this continent. But they also picture themselves on top. What they both have in common is a contempt for political discourse and a personal desire to rule.
The US Supreme Court thinks it knows what is missing in American society. The conservative justices, or rather their secret backers, have decided that quality life looks and feels like an oligarchic theocracy. There are no precedents for such an arrangement in the United States, but they would like to ignore that fact. Furthermore, this lack of precedents was not an oversight. The Revolutionaries went to quite a lot of trouble to create something different from Europe. Nevertheless, the justices seem to think it makes perfect sense for a country that has never had kings and aristocrats to be ruled by people with pretensions to royalty.
American conservatives in all walks of life claim they are trying to save the republic. Maybe they are, but saving the American republic was never the aim of ‘The Conservative Revolution’.
The Conservative Revolution
In Germany during World War II, ‘Traditional’ elites hoped Nazism would get rid of the Weimar Republic and hand the reins of power back to them. Hitler was to be their front man.1 They never considered the possibility that the Nazis would rule in their own right. In their opinion, Hitler and his type were ‘the worst sort of proletarianized street-rabble’2. But the Nazis quickly secured their own power at the expense of the elites. Elite pretensions were exceeded only by Nazi pretensions.
In the United States today, there are people waiting in the wings to take power. They are not traditional elites. They are more akin to Nazis.
Spengler’s Predictions of Disaster
Frightful predictions of disaster are commonly used to turn up the political pressure. Such predictions made world war seem sensible a hundred years ago. Oswald Spengler was not a Nazi, but he was right-wing. He was a German philosopher of history in the early twentieth century best known for his book, The Decline of the West. He thought the best-case scenario, given Hitler’s takeover, was for Nazism to destroy the communists, socialists, and liberal Weimar democrats. This would clear the way for an aristocratic and intellectual elite. Spengler called his vision ‘Prussian socialism’3, and he saw himself as the new guardian, or philosopher-king.
Spengler’s Differences With the Nazis
To the Nazis’ way of thinking, Spengler was too aristocratic, monarchist, pessimistic, and not anti-Semitic enough. His challenge to Nazi racism was particularly unwelcome. Contrary to Nazi doctrine, Spengler thought Judaism was culturally wrong, not racially wrong. In his opinion, Judaism’s problem was its Magian character. He believed Judaism shared this trait with the late Romans, Mohammedans, and early Christian theologians such as St Augustine.
Spengler identified Judaism as a ‘Magian’ form of society with a cave-like conception of space that was intermediate between the classical Greek (‘Apollonian’) idea of the Gods having human characteristics and the West’s Faustian concept of an infinite universe. Magians were dualists who believed in an unrelenting struggle between good and evil. In such a belief system, the separation of politics and religion was theoretically impossible and intellectually meaningless. The Decline of the West argued that the late romans, Jews, Mohammedans, and early Christian theologians like Saint Augustine were all Magian.
Coogan. pp. 60-61
In addition, Spengler thought the Volk was a kind of ‘Magian’ distortion of the West’s notion of a free, individual, self-willed ‘I’ in favor of the collective herd. This part of his argument was actually aimed at the left, but it earned him the hostility of the NSDAP. Spengler’s death in 1936 solved a problem for the Nazi hierarchy. However, the Nazis continued ‘to glorify him as a German Virgil who had prophesied Hitler’s coming.’
The Fascist Mentality
Spengler’s books, The Decline of the West and The Hour of Decision created a generation of rightist intellectuals in Weimar Germany. This intellectual current has been ‘dubbed’ the Conservative Revolution’,4 and it consisted largely of a hostility to liberal notions of political discourse. But the elites were not supportive of Nazism. Spengler thought people like Hitler were a symptom of decline. The fascists either misunderstood or abused his basic premise.
Or maybe the fault was Spengler’s after all. His description of events seemed to demand some kind of ‘heroic’ response, even as he claimed nothing could be done.
Spengler’s Morphology of History: the Root of the Conservative Revolution
In The Decline of the West, Spengler developed a ‘morphology of history’. The following is his declaration of historical and cultural inevitability.
All the world’s great cultures, from Babylon, Egypt, China, and India up the the modern West, went through the same inevitable process of rise and fall in a series of vast organic historical life cycles. In its ascendent stage a society was best described as a ‘culture.’ this was a time of self-confidence, growth, and optimism, when both art and religion flourished and day-to-day life was infused with a sense of higher spiritual purpose and meaning.
Inevitably, Culture was superseded by a state of decay. This Spengler called ‘Civilization,’ an age dominated by money, greed, materialism, and a wide-spread sense of spiritual exhaustion and ennui. Europe (Spengler’s ‘Faustian culture’) entered the age of Civilization in 1789, the beginning year of the French Revolution. The inevitable last stage of Civilization would ‘Caesarism,’ a time when society becomes increasingly dominated by totalitarian strong men who overcome outworn forms of liberal parliamentary democracy. Given its unstable nature, Caesarism would inevitably lead to a series of horrific wars heralding the extinction of the culture’s life-cycle. Rather than deny or run away from the inevitable, the great challenge facing modern man was how to live a heroic and meaningful life in the violent ‘wintertime’ of the West.
Coogan, pp. 55,56
The next quote is Spengler’s fatalistic conclusion to Man and Technics:
We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. there is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. the honorable end is the one thing that cannot be taken from a man.5
In The Disinherited Mind, Eric Heller elaborated Spengler’s vision: “Caesarism reduced society to ‘a strict and rigid order’ of human ‘molecules’ trapped inside warring totalitarian states. Whether in victory or defeat, these societies would remain as sterile as Rome under the Caesars until this spiritually dead mass finally collapsed.“
Properly understood, this is not a call to battle. It is a set of theories, pessimistic interpretations of events, and predictions of inevitability.
A Banner to Rally Around
Instead of collapse, the fascists dreamed of cultural rejuvenation. Francis Parker Yockey first read Spengler’s Decline of the West while on a school break (from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor). Yockey is a case study of the effects of Spengler’s theories. He maintained a near-religious belief in the vision of Oswald Spengler, but he completely disregarded Spengler’s conclusion.
As Coogan states in his book, Spenglerism is a difficult banner to rally around. Maybe Yockey and others were looking for a banner, but we’ll never know for sure. Francis Parker Yockey ended his life in a jail cell by means of cyanide. He was 42 years old. What we do know is that after reading Spengler, the remaining years of Yockeys life were consumed by his longing for a revival of German fascism.
Yockey operated in an unmapped world, a mysterious Atlantis whose contours are barely visible under every-shifting seas of time and deceit. His was a world of false identity, deep cover, and relentless travel throughout the United States, Europe, Canada, the Middle Ease, and Latin America. Because he was most at home in the twilight land of the fascist diaspora, a careful examination of his life can serve as an Ariadne’s thread through the labyrinth-like history of postwar fascism.
Coogan, p. 15
Francis Parker Yockey’s Version of Caesarism
Coogan’s opinion of the fascists in general is that they were incapable of grasping Spengler’s ‘Caesarian skepticism and contempt for humanity, the deep sense of the fleetingness of all phenomena.’ Yockey, for example, chose to believe that the coming of the Caesars, such as Hitler, actually indicated a potential rebirth for the West rather than a decline. In Yockey’s mind, Hitler was Napoleon reborn, and in his book, Imperium, he argued that ‘The Hero’ (Hitler) tried to realize the European Imperium, but like Napoleon, he fell victim to the barbarian Slavs.’ Nevertheless,in Yockey’s mind, ‘both Napoleon and Hitler became Hegel’s ‘history on horseback’.
Yockey’s vision has similarities with the American Right, but Yockey was unique in some ways.
[Yockey’s] attraction to both Spengler and Conservative Revolution theorists like Carl Schmitt made him virtually unique in the American far right. American supporters of Nazi Germany were usually German Americans, crude anti-Semitic nativists, or staunch conservatives who viewed Hitler as a heaven-sent bulwark against Bolshevism. Yockey was none of these. He was ideologically converted to a Nazified version of the Weimar “New right” Conservative Revolutionary current.
Coogan, p. 88
However, both of the far-right factions mentioned in this quote were supporters of Nazi Germany.
Yockey Meets the FBI, the American Legal System, and Reality
The FBI finally caught up with Yockey after years of evasion. Once in jail, he tried to recruit fellow prisoners into a daring escape plan. He also asked one of them to deliver a message to an address in Cuba. However, the prisoners immediately told on him. They didn’t like Yockey because he was ‘anti-U.S., anti-Negro, anti-Jewish, and, basically, anti-everything’. 6
Yockey was desperate to escape. His fear of the legal process was two-fold. In 1943, he had been honorably discharged from the army after being diagnosed mentally ill. After his arrest, it became clear that he was going to have to submit to psychological testing. Yockey believed this would hurt his credibility in the eyes of his clandestine associates. He was also afraid it would reveal who those associates were.
What Could Have Been
Francis Parker Yockey was born on the 18th of September, 1917 in Chicago to Louis Francis and Rose Ellen Yockey. The family was upper middle class and Catholic. Yockey’s mother studied at the Chicago Music College; Francis was a musical prodigy who could have had a career as a concert pianist. He also had a brilliant, photographic memory. Coogan thinks it’s likely that he was attracted to Spengler through his interest in art. (Coogan, p. 14)
Yockey was a cum laude graduate of Notre-Dame’s law school. After a brief stint in the Army during World War II, he served as an assistant district attorney in Detroit. Then, in 1946, he went to Wiesbaden, West Germany, as a U.S. government attorney assigned to the war crimes trials. Disgusted with what he saw, he abandoned his position and journeyed to the south of Ireland. Under the pseudonym ‘Ulick Varange,’ he wrote his magnum opus, Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics, in just six months. A massive neo-Spenglerian tome that called for the formation of a new European superpower, Imperium was first published in London in 1948. It is still sold today in right-wing bookstores in Europe and America.
Coogan, p. 14
Yockey’s anti-Americanism may have started when he identified America as the culprit in his father’s collapse and death from alcoholism. But there were plenty of like-minded scholars who were happy to take part in similar activities, up to a point. Unlike Yockey, many of them found a warm welcome in America’s military and educational establishments.
Meanwhile, Back in Europe
Besides Oswald Spengler and Carl Schmitt, Conservative revolutionaries included Ernst Jünger and Martin Heidegger. The content of their claims was intense and seductive. They speak of the decline and destruction of everything humans hold dear–in short, the inevitable unfolding of the terrible fate of man. Heidegger, for example, said that ‘Place is the locale of the truth of being’. According to David Harvey, in this, [Heidegger] was close to Aristotle, but he took it deeper. He was saying there is a certain truth that attaches to the notion of place, and that truth is essential to being or becoming.
Rene Guenon’s writings about the Kali Yuga are another example of intense content surrounding the fate of man.
What is most remarkable is that movement and change are actually prized for their own sake, and not in view of any end to which they may lead; this is a direct result of the absorption of all human faculties in outward action whose necessarily fleeting character has just been demonstrated. Here again we have dispersion, viewed from a different angle and at a more advanced state: it could be described as a tendency toward instantaneity, having for its limit a state of pure disequilibrium, which, were it possible, would coincide with the final dissolution of this world, and this too is one of the clearest signs that the final phase of the Kali-Yuga is at hand.
Rene Guenon, The Crisis of the Modern World, pp. 37,38
Interestingly, even though these thinkers are talking about events that humans can’t control, the insistence that the end is near is often paired with a political agenda. Guenon is a Traditionalist. Traditionalism is the ideology of Steve Bannon. And this is not the first time Guenon has been used in the service of authoritarianism.
We have seen that certain kinds of thinking can motivate people to pursue any agenda their leaders tell them to pursue. When Donald Trump told his followers that they have to fight or they won’t have a country any more, many of them fought and many of them went to jail.
As if reaching for ultimate shock value, Donald Trump’s campaign recently referenced Nazi Germany. The campaign’s claim to be pursuing a ‘Unified Reich‘ seems almost cartoonish if you ignore the sheer cheek of it all.
The Comparative Sanity of Edward Moor
The following is another way of thinking about the Kali Yuga concept. Edward Moor calls the Kali age ‘the present time’. On that everyone agrees. He goes on to explain that the end is tied to the incarnation of Kalki the Horse, an avatar that is yet to come.
Vishnu, mounted on a white horse, with a drawn scimitar, blazing like a comet, will, as minutely prophesied as to place, time, &c. end the present or Kali age, and renovate the creation with an era of purity. [This] is represented in pictures by an armed man leading a winged white horse…
Kalki, or Calci, (with the C hard) is otherwise called Kalenki, and Aswah; all said to mean a horse. But as Kal is Time, and in several dialects means both yesterday and tomorrow; or, more extensively, the past and future, may not the name Kalki, of this ender and renovator of ages, have some allusion to that idea, rather than be confined to the form in which it is to be manifested?
The Hindus, like most other people, have thus a prophetic tradition of the coming of a punisher and redemer. The Sybilline and Delphic oracles Foretold it. The Chinese, Japanese, Siamese, and other eastern nations, have been taught to expect such an event; an idea that seems to prevail so generally among people so distinct, as to be deducible only from a common source.
The Hindu Pantheon, p. 188
This paragraph seems to be a reference to the Axial Age theory, but in an informative tone rather than prophetic. According to the Axial Age theory, an event took place centuries ago with a universal effect. This event inspired the creation of world religions.
But the Axial Age took place between 800 and 300 BC. On what does Guenon base his assurance that the Kali Yuga will end? Where does Steve Bannon get the idea that it has something to do with Trump? The association of Guenon’s interpretation of the Hindu religion with Donald Trump is not a respectable way to do politics.
The Christian Zionists have their own dreams of end times. Both Israel and Donald Trump are key to Christian Zionist dreams. But this version of religious politics is just as disreputable as Steve Bannon’s Hindu version. The Christian Zionists seem determined to provoke the gory conflagration that their ideology says will result in the return of Jesus. Never mind that Israel is supposed to be Jewish. And secular. Also, that nothing in the Christian Zionist agenda is confirmed by Christian scriptures.
Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of The Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International, Autonomedia, Brooklyn, New York, 1999, p. 77 ↩︎
The previous article focused on militant conservatism. But it didn’t go into detail on various types of conservatism, or on the characteristics of conventional conservatism. Nor did it explain how the character of conservatism varies from one nation to another. 21st century progressives are in the process of developing an international outlook, so awareness of ideological and organizational differences is crucial. The concept of conservatism is central to these differences. This article is a review of conservative ideology, politics and principles.
Summary of the Discussion So Far
To summarize the discussion so far, after the end of World War II, social scientists in the United States feared militant anti-communism and its negative influence on the civil rights movement and other campaigns. They believed anti-communist and anti-liberal ideas threatened peace and democracy. Many thinkers in the field of International Relations (IR) tried to create a stronger liberalism as part of their strategy. They believed they could accomplish this by borrowing conservative ‘insights’. The fusion of liberalism and the radical Right was called ‘realism’. Another name for realism is conservative liberalism. Postwar American International Relations developed in this context.
Considering this history, it is not surprising that conventional conservatism has faded into the background. Or maybe it would be more correct to say that conventional conservatism turned into realistic liberalism in the context of International Relations. The same thing happened to liberalism.
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Reinhold Niebuhr
Thinkers such as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Reinhold Niebuhr began to reformulate liberalism in a way that muted the radical, progressivist, egalitarian and utopian premises of the Progressive Era, and to talk about ‘original sin’, the inherent irrationality of human nature, and the limitations of political solutions to intractable problems of the human condition.1 At the same time, they denied that the process was distinctly conservative. Another one of IR’s stated aims was to remove utopian elements from liberal politics. According to Eric Goldman, ‘…liberalism gradually turned into a form of conservatism.’ (Cited by Drolet and Williams2)
Militant Conservative Ideas Continue
Militant conservative ideas continued to thrive, however, but not in the mainstream media. They were discussed in a ‘para-scholarly‘, sphere which enjoyed network connections with the political sphere. As a result, radical ideas have spread all over the globe.
In IR’s defense, these thinkers were influenced by the structural reality of American politics. Both Morgenthau and Niebuhr argued that there was no social basis for an ‘authentic’ conservatism in America. And they were right. According to Morgenthau, the great majority of Americans
have never known a status quo to which they could have been committed. For America has been committed to a purpose in the eyes of which each status quo has been but a stepping-stone to be left behind by another achievement. To ask America to defend a particular status quo, then, is tantamount to asking it for foreswear its purpose.
Hans J. Morgenthau, The Purpose of American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 296–7.
But, as the RIS article illustrated, the radical Right has already come very close to foreswearing America’s purpose. This will be discussed in more detail in subsequent articles. The purpose of this article is to provide a global perspective on conventional conservatism.
Conventional Conservatism
I’ll begin with the view of conservatism supplied by the RIS article. According to Drolet and Williams 3, conservatism is not a cohesive school of thought. ‘…conservatism is a counter-movement’. It is a collection of ideas, attitudes, and thinkers that oppose historical liberal and socialist ideas.The only time conservative ideology is coherent in a given time and place is when it’s confronted by rival ideological structures. Conservatives are particularly wary of proposals put forward by anyone perceived to be of the Left.
This seems to be how conservatism operates, although conservatives will probably object. The following summary is more neutral by comparison. It is taken from an article on Britannica.com.
Western Europe
Four great imperial dynasties fell in World War I: Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany and Ottoman Turkey. Those dynasties had been the only remaining representatives of conservatism. Before the war, conservatism presumed monarchy, aristocracy and an established church. After the War, frustrated conservatives created parties to support nationalism in Germany, Italy, and other former allied countries. Then, beginning in the 1930s, the totalitarian Nazi regime either destroyed or coopted conservative parties in Central and Eastern Europe. (This will be explained in another article.)
Dynasties of World War I Credit: Jelle Wesseling
By 1946, socialism had been discredited in western Europe because of its inability to rebuild war-damaged economies. For this reason, many western Europeans returned to conservative politics. Of course, European conservatism no longer had aristocratic associations at this time. Conservative policies were attractive to voters because they promised economic growth, democratic freedoms, and the provision of social services by the state. For the rest of the twentieth century, European conservatism represented liberal individualism, social conscience, and opposition to communism.
Great Britain
The conservative party in Great Britain was very popular at the turn of the twentieth century. However, there was a Liberal interval. The Liberals were victorious in the general election of 1906, but they had already begun to lose trade union and working class supporters to the Labour Party. A Labour victory in 1924 ended the Liberal Party’s political relevance. For the next 40 years, conservatives formed the government. Their strength was largely the result of formerly Liberal, middle-class voters joining the Conservative Party. Today the Conservative Party in Great Britain is a union of Old Tory and Liberal interests combined against Labour.
The Interwar Period in Great Britain
British conservatism after World War I defended middle- and upper-class privileges and opposed socialism. During the 1930s, Conservatives followed a policy of appeasement ( a deal-making commercialist approach) with the Nazis. Appeasement failed and Britain entered the War.
State welfare services were extended after 1945, under the Labour government and mixed economy of Clement Attlee. When Conservatives returned to power in 1951, they left most of these innovations in place. In fact, they claimed they could do a better job than labour in administering the welfare state. They even went so far as trying to outdo Labor’s programs of social spending and the encouragement of new home construction.
This era of Liberal-Conservative accommodation ended with Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher’s conservatism stressed individual initiative, strident anti-communism, and laissez-faire economics. Her views had more in common with modern Libertarianism than the older conservatism of Burke. When she said, ‘there is no such thing as society‘ she repudiated the organic view of conventional conservatives.
David Cameron (2010-16) and Theresa May (2016-19) had less extreme views of individualism. They brought back some of the communitarian elements of conventional conservatism.
Continental Europe
In western Europe, conservatism was represented by two or more parties ranging from the liberal center to the moderate and extreme right. There are three types of conservative party in western Europe: agrarian (particularly in Scandinavia), Christian Democratic, and the parties allied with big business. These categories are general and may include combinations of these ideologies.
Italy
The Christian Democratic parties have the longest history. They emerged in the 19th century to support the church and monarchy against liberal and radical elements. Since World War I the dominant element in this party has been supporters of business. In Italy, clerical interests remain strongly represented.
The Christian Democratic Party has dominated governments in Italy since 1945. Since 1993, this has been under the name of the Italian Popular Party. The Christian Democratic Party was an alliance of moderate and conservative interest groups. It has formed a long series of government coalitions consisting of smaller centrist parties and the Italian Socialist Party. The Christian Democratic Party has never had a coherent policy and has been increasingly corrupt and politically ineffective, but it managed to exclude the large Italian Communist Party during the Cold War. The Italian Communist Party has been called the Democratic Party of the Left since 1991.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union communism was no longer seen as a threat to Europe, so the Christian Democrats lost much of their support. This coincided with the growth of other conservative and nationalist groups that had formerly been outside of mainstream of Italian politics. These include the Northern League, which called for the creation of a federated Italian republic, and the National Alliance (which, until 1994, was the Italian Social Movement). Many regarded the National Alliance as neofascist. In 1994 a new conservative party was founded by the media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi’s party is called Forza Italia (“Go, Italy!”).
Germany
Germany was divided between Roman Catholics and Protestants, so the role of the church in the conservative party was not as significant as in Italy. However, Germany’s political climate has been conservative since World War II. This is illustrated by the fact that the Social Democratic Party of Germany has progressively eliminated the socialist content of its program. They even embraced the profit motive in a party congress at Bad Godesberg in 1959.
However, after 1950, the main Conservative Party, the Christian Democratic Union, adopted a program including support for a market economy and a strong commitment to maintaining and improving social insurance and other social welfare programs.
It was the Christian Democrats who presided over the unification of East and West Germany.
From the 1990s, German conservative ideology has included minimal government, deregulation, privatization, and the reining-in of the welfare state. These policies have been difficult to implement, however. Many Germans continue to support an extensive safety net of unemployment insurance and other social welfare programs.
France
There was no Christian Democratic Party in France to represent moderate conservative opinion. Instead, a large number of French conservatives supported parties like Rally for the Republic. (Rally for the Republic was renamed ‘Union for a Popular Movement’ in 2002, and ‘the Republicans’ in 2015.) This party espoused a highly nationalistic conservatism based on the legacy of Charles de Gaulle, president of France from 1958 to 1969. French conservatives also supported anti-immigration groups such as the National Front, which was led until 2011 by Jean-Marie Le Pen and subsequently by his daughter, Marine Le Pen. The National Front, some argued, was not so much conservative as reactionary or neofascist.
Gaullist Conservatism
Gaullist conservatism emphasized tradition and order and aimed at a politically united Europe under French leadership. Gaullists espoused divergent views on social issues, however. There are a large number of Gaullist and non-Gaullist conservative parties and it is difficult to categorized them. They lack stability and tend to identify themselves with local issues.
The Twenty-first Century
In the early 21st century, French conservatives were united by a number of developments. One was the theme of “law and order.” Law and Order was promoted by interior minister (and later president) Nicolas Sarkozy. Unemployed youths in suburban Paris and elsewhere—many of whom were immigrants or the children of immigrants—engaged in periodic rioting to protest their plight, and were met with stiff (and popular) police resistance.
The perceived threat to French values from immigrants, especially Muslims, also helped unite French conservatives. One of the values allegedly in danger was the conviction that public education should be strictly secular. When young Muslim women insisted on wearing veils to school, the French state reacted strongly. But this may have alienated Muslims from French society more than it reaffirmed French values.
In general, conservatism in Europe has exerted a pervasive political influence since the start of the 20th century. However, it has found expression in parties of very different character. Parties have been characterized by an absence of ideology and often by the lack of any well-articulated political philosophy. They have espoused traditional middle-class values however. They have also opposed unnecessary state involvement in economic affairs, and radical attempts at income redistribution.
Japan
Japan has had conservative rule since the beginning of party politics in the 1880s. The only exception was the military government during the 1930s and 40s.
Extensive social and political changes took place in Japan after the Meiji Restoration in 1868. Feudal institutions were abolished at this time, and western political institutions, such as constitutional government, were introduced. But in spite of these innovations, and the dislocations caused by rapid industrialization, politics continued to be shaped by traditional loyalties and attitudes.
The Liberal-Democratic Party
In 1955, the two most important conservative parties merged to form the Liberal-Democratic Party. Both parties had been dominated by personalities rather than by ideology and dogma. Subsequently, the allegiance of conservative members of the Diet was determined by personal loyalties to leaders of factions within the party, rather than commitment to policy. Today, an older Japan continues to influence the values, customs and relationships of Japanese conservatives.
The Liberal-Democratic Party has been linked with big business. Its policies aim to foster a stable environment for the development of Japan’s market economy. To this end, the party has functioned primarily as a broker between conflicting business interests.
Japanese Nationalism
In the early twenty-first century, there was a resurgence of Japanese nationalism. Much of it was centered on how to teach the history of Japan in the 20th century—particularly the period before and during World War II. Conservative nationalists insisted that the Japanese military had done nothing wrong and had acted honorably. They claimed that stories of widespread war crimes were fabricated by Japan’s foreign and domestic enemies. It is not known how pervasive and influential this resurgent nationalism might be.
The United States
Conservatism changed in the United States in response to the New Deal. America’s identity as a liberal country changed as well.
The New Deal Credit: Traveler1116
The New Deal was Not a Liberal Policy
After Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, the perception of the United States as an inherently liberal country began to change. The New Deal was the economic relief program undertaken in 1933 to help raise the country out of the Great Depression. This program greatly expanded the federal government’s involvement in the economy through the regulation of private enterprise, the levying of higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and the expansion of social welfare programs.
The Old Right
The Republican Party, drawing on the support of big business, the wealthy, and prosperous farmers, stubbornly opposed the New Deal. While Democratic liberals moved to the left in endorsing a larger role for government, Republicans generally clung to a 19th-century version of liberalism that called for the government to avoid interfering in the market. These staunch conservatives were known as the Old Right. They were powerful enough to prevent the US from entering World War II until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. However, their policy of fighting the New Deal did not help them at the polls.
In the first decades after the war, the United States, like Britain, gradually expanded social services and increased government regulation of the economy. However, in the 1970s, the postwar economic growth that the United States and other Western countries had relied on to finance social welfare programs began to slacken. This took place just as Japan and other East Asian nations were finally attaining Western levels of prosperity. And unfortunately, liberal policies of governmental activism could not solve the problem. (This article is non-committal about the cause of US stagnation.)
Neoconservatives
At this point a new group of mainly American conservatives, the so-called neoconservatives, arose to argue that high levels of taxation and the government’s intrusive regulation of private enterprise were hampering economic growth. They also claimed that social welfare policies were leading those who received welfare benefits to become increasingly dependent upon government. The neoconservatives generally accepted a modest welfare state. They were sometimes described as disenchanted welfare liberals. But they insisted that social welfare programs should help people help themselves, not make them permanent wards of the state. In this and other respects neoconservatives saw themselves as defenders of middle-class virtues such as thrift, hard work, and self-restraint, all of which they took to be under attack in the cultural upheaval of the reputedly hedonistic 1960s.
An Interventionist Stance
The neoconservatives also took a keen interest in foreign affairs. They adopted an interventionist stance that set them apart from the isolationist tendencies of earlier conservatives. Many of them argued that the United States had both a right and a duty to intervene in the affairs of other nations in order to combat the influence of Soviet communism and to advance American interests; some even claimed that the United States had a duty to remake the non-Western world on the model of American democratic capitalism. Among American political leaders, the chief representatives of neoconservatism were the Republican presidents Ronald Reagan (1981–89) and George W. Bush (2001–09). Its most articulate advocates, however, were academics who entered politics, such as New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick, who served as ambassador to the United Nations during the Reagan administration.
During the Reagan era (the 1980s), more-traditional conservatives whose viewpoints harkened back to the Old Right remained resentful of neoconservatives for supposedly having co-opted and diluted American conservatism with a false brand of anticommunist “welfare statism.”
Paleoconservatives Try to Take the Party Back
The fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the collapse of the Soviet Union (1991) encouraged the “paleoconservatives,” as they were then identified by the conservative intellectuals Paul Gottfried and Thomas Fleming, to forcefully articulate their opposition to neoconservatism and to advocate new policies inspired by the Old Right’s ideological battles with New Deal Democrats.
Neoconservatives Counter with Accusations of Anti-Semitism, Racism, Isolationism, and Zenophobia.
Neoconservatives countered with long-standing accusations that the paleoconservative celebration of America’s Christian heritage and opposition to immigration from developing countries were indicative of the movement’s underlying anti-Semitism, racism, isolationism, and xenophobia.
The influence of paleoconservatism within the American right arguably reached a high point at the end of the 20th century in Pat Buchanan’s unsuccessful attempts to secure the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996 and in his failed campaign for president as the nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.
Drolet, J.-F., Williams, M. C. 2021. The radical Right, realism, and the politics of conservatism in postwar international thought. Review of International Studies 47, 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210521000103 ↩︎
There are core philosophical differences between Europe and the ‘Anglo-Saxon nations’ of Great Britain and the United States. Europeans seem to be aware of this, but the American people are not, maybe because the American educational system does not identify America as Anglo-Saxon. Instead, we are encouraged to think of ourselves as a melting pot with a diverse heritage. As a result, I believe we are poorly equipped for dialogue with the rest of the world. On the other hand, I suspect our leaders are aware of their Anglo-Saxon identity. If so, this might explain their recent behavior. Are they operating on the premise of Anglo-Saxons v the World? More importantly, is America’s behavior inspired by hubris, or are Americans responding to a sense of isolation?
I recently watched a video attributing the turmoil in the world to a breakdown in Anglo-Saxon philosophy and politics. In that video, Professor Wen Yang attributed the current turmoil in the world to a cultural and spiritual lack in Anglo-Saxon philosophy. He included the United States in the Anglo-Saxon category because he considers the US an extension of the British Empire.
Yang has issued a challenge that should not go unanswered. If we the people are considered Anglo-Saxons by virtue of where we live or who our allies are, we had better be able to respond to such accusations. The purpose of this article is not to introduce a new cause, but to explore what the Anglo-Saxon label means for conversation and analysis.
Is Anglo-Saxon Culture Uncivilized Compared to the rest of the world?
Credit: duncan1890
In Yang’s opinion, the Anglo-Saxon problem is very old. But while his argument might provide an explanation for the behavior of the United States in recent decades, his premise that the Anglo-Saxons missed the Axial Age can be disputed. Yang specifically attributes the behavior of the US and her allies in the Middle East to a lack of Axial Age influence and a resultant breakdown in Anglo-Saxon philosophy.
The Axial Age is a term coined by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers. It refers to broad changes in religious and philosophical thought that occurred in a variety of locations from about the 8th to the 3rd century BCE. As we will see, Yang’e analysis implies that the Anglo-Saxon nations have remained uncivilized and irreligious while other cultures progressed spiritually and morally. In this context, it might even be racist. Is Anglo-Saxon culture uncivilized compared to the rest of the world? However one answers this question, the Axial Age argument is not useful or even accurate.
The British Contribution to the Debate
Alan Macfarlane, an authority on Anglo-Saxon culture, has a completely different interpretation of the influence of the Axial Age. There is scholarly consensus that it was Japan that missed the Axial Age, and that Japan was the only world civilization to never experience it. Furthermore, the consequences of missing it were not necessarily negative.
Macfarlane explains the Axial Age as follows: for the civilizations that were affected by it, the world they knew was separated from an ideal philosophical world that was held in opposition and tension to that world. This resulted in the creation of world religion. The Japanese never separated their world. Therefore, Japan is not an actual civilization. Japan is an ancient shamanic civilization.
Macfarlane reached this conclusion independently, but he has since discovered that Robert Bellah1 and Shmuel N. Eisenstadt2 discovered it as well.
Apparently, missing the Axial Age does not lead directly to an Anglo-Saxon-type society.
Is America Really Anglo-Saxon?
Now we have to confront the question of whether America really is Anglo-Saxon. According to Alan Macfarlane, the United States does not have a key ingredient of Anglo-Saxon culture: boarding school. Boarding school was so influential in British culture and economics, another explanation would be needed for the presence of Anglo-Saxon characteristics in the United States.
What is an Anglo-Saxon? Origins of Europe and Britain
According to Macfarlane, the origin of the Anglo-sphere was the Anglo-Saxon invasions after the fall of Rome. Anglo-Saxon society had a peculiar family system. They had small, nuclear families, but they sent their children away to boarding school. Public education (the British name for boarding school) is the oldest institution in Britain, and it goes back to the Anglo-Saxon period. In Britain, children were, and still are, sent away between 8 and 13 years old. Macfarlane argues that this custom had the effect of splitting economic and social unity.
Romantic Love and Common Law
The children who are sent away are no longer a member of the unit of production in that household. This practice led to the development of romantic-love marriage, in addition to its economic effects. Romantic love was not inspired by the troubadours. It was a natural result of boarding school. Love was a self-choice.
Boarding school also had common law effects. The development of Britain’s legal system was unique. British law protected the individual, in contrast to law on the Continent, which did not protect the individual. However, Europe has adopted many aspects of British law, so this difference is no longer noticeable.
The British Trust
The trust, is another interesting feature. A trust is a non-government hybrid unit that turns things into people and vice versa. It was devised as a vehicle to get around the king’s inheritance tax. All of the major British economic institutions were trusts. And Anglo-Saxon trusts became a key device for modern capitalist democracy. However, the British trust is not like the corporation on the Continent.
Trusts explain how the Catholic Church can exist in Britain. Religions set themselves up as trusts. Trusts made non-conformity possible.
Trusts also explain the relation of Britain to its empire. First, trusts can be dissolved. The British empire disappeared in 20 years because the empire was a trust. Another an important difference with Continental empires is that in Britain, these relations often continued as part of the Commonwealth after they were ‘dissolved’.
Continental empires on the other hand, were were familistic, relational, and therefore, difficult to break out of. And once a part of the Continental empire broke away, it was out for good.
The Cruel Streak in Anglo-Saxon Culture
Finally we get a suggestion that these cultural practices have had both good and bad effects. On the negative side, there is a cruel streak in Anglo-Saxon culture. British society is based on confrontational, competitive, games, which are formed as clubs. Everything is individualistic and contractual. Parliament is a game, life is a game. And all of the games have teams. The Anglo-Saxon world is unfair in many ways, but it is made tolerable by humor. Humor in capitalist society acts like myth in other societies.
The Need for Understanding
There is tension between the Continent and Anglo-world. However, Macfarlane aims to promote peace by describing the natural characteristics of civilizations. He argues that ignorance of these characteristics can lead to misunderstandings, which are more serious today because a rapid rise in population has resulted in pressure on resources and migration. Several spheres are being mixed together. This has never happened before. These factors, combined with rapid changes in technology, have created a confused world. His books include: How to Understand Each Other3, and China, Japan, Europe and the Anglo-Sphere, a Comparative Analysis4. His point of view is a valuable addition to this discussion.
Conclusion
Anglo-Saxons may have a well-developed sense of humor, but clearly, there is nothing funny about the United States’ behavior in recent decades. Analysis is important, but the Axial Age doesn’t explain what we’re seeing. On the other hand, an understanding of Anglo-Saxon culture might be a good place to start.
I was going to compare Anglo-Saxon and Continental philosophy, but I realized the focus should be on the Axial Age. The following papers deal with philosophical differences and might be useful for further exploration:
Two Traditions of Liberalism by James H. Nichols, Jr. This is a review of João Carlos Espada’s book The Anglo American Tradition of Liberty: A View from Europe.
The Anglo-Saxon Conservative Tradition5 by Rod Preece. This book can also be read on JSTOR. Preece argues that the distinguishing mark between old and new conservatism is not between the old world and the new but between Anglo-Saxon nations and others. Anglo-Saxon ideology is best understood as Lockean liberalism.
The Axial Age and Its Consequences, Edited by Robert N. Bellah and Hans Joas, Harvard University Press, 2012 ↩︎
EISENSTADT, SHMUEL N. “The Axial Age : The Emergence of Transcendental Visions and the Rise of Clerics.” European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie / Europäisches Archiv Für Soziologie, vol. 23, no. 2, 1982, pp. 294–314. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23997525. Accessed 27 Mar. 2024. ↩︎
Alan Macfarlane, How to Understand Each Other, CAM Rivers Publishing, 2018 ↩︎
Alan Macfarlane, China, Japan, Europe, and the Anglo-sphere, CAM Rivers Publishing, 2018 ↩︎
Rod Preece, “The Anglo-Saxon Conservative Tradition.” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, vol. 13, no. 1, 1980, pp. 3–32. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3230084. Accessed 25 Mar. 2024. ↩︎
Farmers are protesting across the EU in places like Germany, Greece, Italy, France and Brussels. There are are a number of issues making their livelihoods unsustainable. These include the rising price of animal feed, fertilizer, and energy; cheaper imports from outside the EU, particularly Ukraine; high taxes and red tape; and the impact of climate regulations. Although the EU spends a substantial percentage of its budget supporting farmers, many farmers are still unable to make ends meet. And with elections looming, far-right parties are exploiting the farmers’ protests. Therefore, it’s important to understand the issues affecting the farmers. In a recent panel discussion, members of DEiM25 explain the Plight of European Farmers. Some of the issues addressed are: is there a just transition that curbs emissions while minimizing the impact on farmers? What is the role of the far-right and where are the left-wing parties in all of this?
DEiM25 is the Democracy in Europe Movement. Its goal is to democratize Europe and make the Green New Deal a reality. Panel members taking part in this discussion include Yanis Varoufakis, Karen De Rigo, and Frederico Dolci. Yanis Varoufakis has been the secretary-general of DEiM25 since 2018. He is a Greek economist and politician. De Rigo is the lead German candidate for DEiM25 in the European elections. Dolci is the spokesperson for the associated MERA25 in Italy and activists across Europe. Erik Edman is the political director of DEiM25. He joins from Brussels.
The reality of farming in Europe versus the oligarch’s narrative
According to Edman, the first reality of farming in Europe is that a third of European farmers have disappeared in the last 15 years. The main cause is the takeover of farming by agribusiness. Suddenly in Europe, there are bigger machines, fewer farmers and fewer small farms. This has also been happening to farmers in the United States.
However, in Europe, all of these outcomes are compounded by the way the European Union and member states do policy. The most well-known agricultural policy in Europe is the CAP policy, or the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. Although CAP is the recipient of the biggest portion of the EU’s agricultural budget, 80 percent of that budget goes to 20 percent of the farmers. Therefore, 80 percent of European farmers are struggling to make ends meet. The reason for this is that CAP payments are based on land holdings, and global multinationals and a few wealthy farmers own 80 percent of the land.
Unfortunately, many of the protesters are being mislead about the cause of their troubles. Hypocrisy and misunderstandings surround the protests. The dominant narrative among farmers and the general population is that Environmental Protection rules are the cause of their problems. But this doesn’t seem likely. The majority of the Environmental rules have not gone into effect yet. They have either not been legislated or the governments are dragging their feet on implementing them. But the fact remains that costs are rising for farmers and consumers. Why is this happening?
Who or what is to blame for the rising costs of farming?
The rising costs of farming have led to a steady fall in income for farmers and everyone else. The costs increased even more after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. This invasion together with the EU’s policy of boycotting Russia is at least partly responsible for the rising costs of fertilizer and energy.
Retailers have added to the problem by taking advantage of the situation. They have raised their prices and blamed it on the rising costs of farming. But farmers are still forced to sell at the prices that were in place before the crisis. Small farmers are hurt by these factors while multinationals benefit from the CAP.
Failing governments over the last 20 or 30 years–mostly right-wing governments–have blamed their failure on environmental rules. This hides the fact that their policies favored multinationals. In addition, they have actually been avoiding environmental policies in the same period, which could have softened the economic burden on farmers. Currently, these right-wing interests are using the farmers’ protests to roll back the few environmental rules that Europeans have managed to pass.
Holland sacrifices its water supply for unregulated pig farming
Right-wing or centrist Dutch governments have become an example of Europe’s short-term thinking about the environment. Holland has resisted environmental directives for so long that its water supplies have been poisoned by nitrates from pig farming. The Dutch government has been warned about this since the late 1990s. The EU even had a directive on nitrate levels that came into effect in the early 2000s. But the government consistently focused on short-term economic goals rather than the long-term threat to the water. As a result, they have been forced to shut down huge parts of their agricultural infrastructure for pig farming, destroying the livelihood of thousands of farmers. Obviously, it would have been better to act in the short-term rather than being forced to implement draconian measures.
The response of DEiM25
Unfortunately, the Green Party has not stepped up on this issue. Nor has the Left addressed it as much as it should have. As a result, farmers alone are bearing the burden of the environmental catastrophe. DEiM25 is trying to correct a lack of awareness on the part of progressives and the Left.
Yanis Varoufakis: the dependence of the European Union on agricultural policies that benefit the wealthy
Yanis Varoufakis explains how the European Union got its start. The EU began in 1950 as a cartel of heavy industry. Initially, it called itself the European Communities of Coal and Steel, and its first members were the steel and coal producing countries: Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Northern Italy. By 1951, they had also coopted car manufacturers and electrical goods companies. At this point, the EU represented the whole industrial sector of Northern Central Europe.
Subsequently, the Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community. The EEC was a deal between capital, heavy industry and large-scale farmers. Farmers were included because, in order for this cartel to work, it needed free trade with no borders. So, the EEC had to convince the large farmers in the Netherlands, Germany and Northern France to agree to the elimination of borders. The industrialists were able to convince the large farmers by telling them that everyone, was going to make a lot of money by cutting back on production and driving prices up. The farmers were promised a cut of this money. You could say that the CAP was the result of a bribe. And the bribe did not help all farmers.
Class war between farmers
Currently, the EU and EEC represent a class war on a number of levels. On one level is a class war between farmers. Small holders in Sicily, Spain and Greece are not able to take advantage of CAP, so the benefits go to large farmers in the North.
Class war between farmers and the energy cartel
Another class war takes place between the farmers, and the energy cartel. In the first years of the EU, electricity was provided by nationalized public utilities. But Thatcherism privatized electricity generation. As a result, electricity grids became vassals of oligarchs who own the power stations. Soon, energy prices began rising much faster than the price of agricultural commodities. The electricity cartel also benefits from the war in Ukraine.
Class war between farmers and the agribusiness cartel
The agribusiness cartel is all over the world. It is currently poisoning the land in Pakistan, India, and everywhere it operates. Agribusiness forces genetically modified seeds and certain kinds of pesticides on farmers. Once the land is poisoned, the seeds the farmers used before won’t work. In addition, the modified seeds don’t reproduce themselves, so farmers are forced to buy them from Bayer and Monsanto every year.
Class war between North and South Europe
A third kind of class war is between North and South Europe due to differences in climate and productivity in the soil.
Class war between East and West Europe
A forth kind of class war is taking place between east and west. The European Union, the European Commission and member states have pressured Orban and other leaders to allow Ukraine into the EU. But the business model of every farmer in Europe will be ruined if Ukraine enters the EU. Ukraine has more productive capacity for agriculture than Germany, Belgium, Holland and France together. This means that the majority of the CAP money will go to Ukraine. Other countries, such as Poland, will shift from being a net beneficiary of the CAP to being a net contributor. French farmers will be cut off and Greek farmers will be finished.
Already Ukrainian products have been entering Europe in solidarity with Ukrainian farmers. In response, the Polish government, which used to support Zelenskyy, is now vetoing aid to Ukraine.
Class war over who pays for the Green Transition
As for the green transition, if you mention it to farmers in Europe, you will become their enemy. For them the Green Transition is not green and it’s not a transition. It represents certain bankruptcy. This is due to the fact that Bayer and Monsanto will not pay for the transition plans of the EU. The cartel of big business that created the EU won’t pay for it either. The consumers and farmers will pay. The green transition is an intensification of the class war for farmers and the working classes.
Three planks of DEiM25
DEiM25 has three planks. Varoufakis lists them as peace; basic universal income; and making the oligarchs pay for the green transition. But here again, Europe and the United States are similar. The victims of the oligarchs are turning to the right-wing and voting for parties and candidates like Donald Trump who claim to be anti-establishment. Such candidates are not anti-establishment. They are the establishment’s greatest servants. For this reason, they threaten small farmers more than they threaten large farmers. But neither class of farmers is a natural ally of the Left.
Farmers in the North of Europe are not allies of the Left because they are capitalist employers. They support both ultra-right and center-right parties as long as they can avoid environmental legislation, or as long as they don’t have to pay for it. In their opinion, it’s better if the proletariate pays for it.
The small holders of Greece, Italy, and other countries in the south. are more accepting of progressive policies, but they side with anti-immigration parties because they depend on undocumented laborers. Legal immigration would make them too expensive.
The job of DEiM25, according to Varoufakis, is to create a rupture within the agricultural sector and win the support of the victims of the class war, small farmers.
Germany’s protests began earlier and for different reasons
Karin De Rigo provides informations specific to Germany, where the situation is different from the rest of Europe. The protests there started before Christmas, and for a different reason–the government announced a budget deficit. In Germany this automatically required that they immediately cut costs. So they cut the diesel subsidies and the tax rebate on vehicles. These cuts were not life-threatening for the companies, but they sparked protests because they came on top of everything else that was happening. Now, it is feared that the cuts will destabilize the government, so of course, the right-wing parties have taken advantage of the turmoil.
The structure of the German market is also a factor. Germany has an oligopoly. Four corporations own 75 percent of the retailers, including the supermarkets. This means that German farmers have to negotiate with the oligarchs. But the oligarchs have the upper hand. If an individual farmer doesn’t accept their policies, he will be out of the market.
In addition, the big corporations are vertically integrated. Supermarkets for example, own the whole supply chain, and small companies can’t compete.
The true interests behind the protests
Farmers protest are important, but it’s important that they protest for the right reasons. For example, food and job security. Food shouldn’t be a commodity or subject to speculation. It’s a human right. A safe job in the farming sector and a dignified salary is also a human right. Politicians should not be able to control this narrative. The protesters need to control it.
The only path forward is to break the monopoly. CAP needs to be restructured and the system reorganized. This is the platform of DEiM25’s Green New Deal.
The factors leading to these protests are at least 10 years old
Frederico Dolce sees the current protests as a continuation of something that started in the time of José Bové–ten years ago. (Bové is a French farmer, politician and syndicalist, and former member of the EU Parliament.) Today, the protests claim to support anti-green policies, but green policies are not the problem. This is a false narrative proposed by a confederation representing the major firms–the same firms that push aside small farmers and down-to-earth leaders.
An example of this confederation is Arnaud Rousseau. He began his career in commodities trading and then took over his family’s cereal farm. Another example is Danilo Calvani, a producer from Lazio. These people are only interested in more subsidies for large farms.
The Supermarket Revolution
Europeans have a problem matching the Green Revolution with the current agricultural system. They call this the Supermarket Revolution, and it has developed over the last 25 years. Today, 74.5 percent of fresh and packaged food goes through the corporate channels. In Italy, only 13 percent remains with traditional sources.
In the same period, Italian farms have gone from 3 million in 1982 to 1.4 million in 2014. But the number of foreign workers, most of them employed illegally, has increased. Foreign workers account for a third of agricultural wage-earners. Dolce calls this ‘the new system’. Those in charge of the protests do not want to change the new system. They only want to obtain more favorable conditions for themselves.
The real enemies of the agriculture world, according to Dolce, are large distributors, agribusiness industrialists, fake agricultural unionists, and a corrupt CAP system. The Green New Deal not only needs to push for CAP reform, it needs to reform the entire system.
The historical context of the struggle over agriculture: the beginning of corporate farming
Dafne Delkara, based in France, provides historical context. In November of this year, there was a law proposed by DEiM25 to reintroduce floor prices for producers so their minimum production costs would be covered. The measure fell short by six votes thanks to government intervention. Currently, the Left is trying to reintroduce this proposal and call for another vote. But unfortunately, the public is not aware of this effort. The media did not mention it. Instead, they continue to blame Left-wing environmentalists for the farmers’ problems.
Guatemala and United Fruit
Reaching back further in time, Delkara cites Guatemala as an example of how ruthless large corporations and the government can be. In 1952, the Árbenz government planned to distribute land to the peasantry. At that time, United Fruit owned a third of the arable land in Guatemala. To preserve the company’s profitable operation in Guatemala, United Fruit persuaded Harry Truman to overthrow Árbenz. Two hundred thousand Guatemalans died, including 160,000 peasants.
Nixon, Earl Butz, and the end of New Deal farm policies
Another historical moment occurred after the 1973 oil shock in the US. when foreclosures were sweeping the country. The foreclosures particularly devastated small farms. In the same decade, Nixon’s agricultural minister, Earl Butz, ended the New Deal era of farming policies and paved the way for corporate farming.
Ukraine and the IMF after Euromaidan
After Euromaidan, Europe lowered the trade barriers between Ukraine and the EU, and European farmers were priced out. Ukrainian products started flooding European markets and bringing down prices. But the trouble started before that.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a decade of land privatization. During that time, many Ukrainian farms were hoarded by the oligarchic class. In 2001, in order to stop this process, the government introduced a moratorium on the sale of agricultural land.
When Ukraine’s debt began to rise, the IMF stepped in under the condition that land reform would restart and the land market would be reopened. The peasants protested the reopening of the land market. At first, the protests were successful, but then the pandemic hit. Because the people could not leave their houses to protest, the Land Reform measures were passed.
In June 2021, Ukraine reopened its agricultural land market. Current owners include Ukrainian multinationals, trust funds and transfers from the European Investment Bank.
The Black Sea Grain Deal
The Black Sea grain deal was supposed to help low-income countries. But, according to the World Bank’s numbers, only 3 percent of that grain went to low-income countries. The question is, why does the third world, especially Africa, have to depend on imports in the first place? The answer is that overproduction in European markets gets dumped on Africa. This destroys African farming.
Author John P. McCormick argues that Machiavelli was the West’s first Democratic Theorist. He was a forerunner of today’s left-wing populism. Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) is often interpreted as a cynic, or as a philosopher of political evil. But according to McCormick, “Machiavelli was a republican idealist whose support for popular rule can inspire struggles against the oligarchies of today.”
This article is a follow-up to a previous post, in which Professor Wen Yang compared Anglo-Saxon societies unfavorably to ancient societies. He argued that Anglo-Saxons did not have the advantage of the Axial Age. Professor Jeffrey Sachs also thought Anglo-Saxon philosophy had lost its way, but not because it missed the Axial Age. Sachs thought their problems began when they broke with the Christian tradition. But both Yang and Sachs agreed that the political philosopher who broke with centuries of Western tradition as Niccolò Machiavelli. However, the fact that Machiavelli was writing about his own Italian Republic is an important omission. His historical context is important too.
Machiavelli’s diplomatic and philosophical career took place during a turbulent time. The French invaded Italy in 1494 and the army of Emperor Charles V sacked Rome in 1527. Machiavelli believed that if the Italians would return to ancient domestic and military orders by rearming the citizens, the citizens could beat back hegemons like France, Spain, and the German emperor.
Of course the Italian Republic’s trouble was nothing new. McCormick says socioeconomic elites always enable oppression of common people, in every time and place. However, there is an important difference in the way ancient republics dealt with corruption. The citizens of ancient republics would have punished their ruling elites much more severely than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were punished.
In a Neutrality Studies interview, Professor Dr. Dr. H.C. Wolfgang Streeck explains why no one denies anything to Netanyahu. They fear he might use nuclear weapons on his neighbors. This interview was based on an article Dr. Streeck wrote on this subject in December of 2023.
If Streeck is correct, this explains President Biden’s unwavering support of Israel’s brutality during an election year. It also suggests why Biden’s support of Israel is not unique among American leaders, including Donald Trump. Nor is it unique to the United States. Aside from South Africa no government has done anything to stop Netanyahu.
None of this is Biden’s fault. It’s not even the fault of the United States. That might sound strange. Lately, everything seems like the fault of the United States. But the most likely culprits have escaped notice. The United States did not create the overarching threat of nuclear weapons in Israeli hands. France was the first country to supply Israel with the ability to make nuclear weapons. Germany has contributed to Israel’s expansion and nuclear arsenal since World War II. The Israelis now have a ‘tripod’, which means submarines, missiles, and fighter jets. Their huge fleet of fighter planes is capable of going to Tehran and back without refueling, and while carrying a nuclear payload. And their Dolphin-class submarines are capable of being fitted with nuclear warheads.
The nuclear arsenal of Israel is not just playing a part in the strategic decisions of Israel, but in the behavior of its neighbors. It is estimated that Israel has about 400 nuclear warheads of different kinds. By some estmates, Israel has the most technologically sophisticated nuclear arsenal, just behind or on par with the US.
And it gets worse. The Israelis haven’t admitted they have nuclear weapons. This means there are no inspections and no formal nuclear policies. That’s serious enough, but when you consider that Israel’s neighbors in the the Middle East don’t have nuclear weapons at all, you begin to understand why Netanyahu feels so free to butcher the Palestinians. Israel’s neighbors in the Middle East offer no deterrence to Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
How did this happen? France’s contribution took place before the Unite States entered the world stage. Germany’s contributions have been taking place since World War II. After the war the Germans were being supervised by the United States. However, they did some things on their own initiative.
Streeck blames Germany’s courting of Israel on an absence of an identity, its dependence on the United States, and its pariah status. For these reasons, the Germans thought it was important to have some kind of good relations with Israel. After 1949, there was a conversation about reparations between Germany and Israel’s David Ben-Gurion. They discussed what Germany could do as compensation for the Holocaust. Ben-Gurion was quite clear that he needed support for expansion in Palestine, and Germany gave him that support. More recently, Germany has supplied Israel with six Dolphin-class submarines capable of being fitted with nuclear warheads. That’s how Streeck explains it anyway.
I would put it this way: Germany made an alliance with Jews who happen to live in the most strategic location in the Middle East. Out of guilt. Never mind that every conqueror in the modern age has had designs on that place, incuding Hitler. But back to the interview.
The fact that the Israeli government can pursue the strategy they are now pursuing has something to do with their confidence that if American public policy weakens US support, they have their own tools. So, there is a sort of intelligence feedback loop. The Americans are aware that if they don’t support Israeli policy in relation to Palestine, the Israelis will do it themselves. Then Israel might do things that are out of the control of the United States.
I was worried before watching this interview by suggestions for electoral stategy in the US. There are journalists who say we can’t vote for Joe Biden because of his part in the genocide of Gaza. Some say outright that Trump is a better choice. It’s hard to explain these comments from reasonable people. We know that President Donald Trump helped Netanyahu’s reelection chances. He did this by recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heighs. Israel illegally seized the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967, and since then every American administration has considered it ‘occupied’ territory. But not Trump. Trump also moved the US embassy to Jerusalem against the wishes of the Palestinians. And, since October 7, candidate Trump has assured Israel of his support.
I agree that the US should support Israel when it is attacked by Hamas, but electing an eratic character like Trump is not the solution. Trump is no more concerned about the Palestinians than Netanyahu.
Another thing to consider is whether this attack on Gaza is part of a strategy to elect Trump. If Netanyahu prefers Trump to Biden, which I think he does, humiliating Biden would be a good way to help Trump. And if Streeck is right, there’s nothing Biden can do about it.
If you’re waiting for my suggestion of who you should vote for, you may have missed the point of this article. I predict that Netanyahu will continue to pound the Palestinians until the election. And if that’s what he wants to do, no one will stop him.
The book, Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile1, paints a disturbing but convincing picture. It’s convincing because it explains the way the world behaves. Did the Germans win the war?
I’m not just referring to the claim that Martin Bormann lived out his days as a free man in Argentina. Or that after the war, he took the wealth looted from defeated countries with him to Argentina. And it’s not just that he took that loot out of Germany with the knowledge and approval of Germany’s industrial leaders. It’s also that Bormann was carrying out well-laid plans to help German industrialists and bankers take control of the global economy. And it can be argued that the world is living with the consequences.
Our curiosity has been put to sleep by the horror of the Holocaust
The Holocaust is the event that stands out in the last century. It’s a horror story you can never get out of your head. And because it’s so prominent in the collective imagination, it masquerades as the entire purpose of World War II. After all, what other explanation is needed? We know about Nazi racism, European anti-Semitism, and the Nazi belief that the German race had to be purified. We also know that everywhere the Germans went, they arrested and deported the Jews. What Manning’s book does is awake the natural curiosity that has been put to sleep by the real horror of the Holocaust. The underlying purpose of the war was theft in the service of supremacy.
1938: The Jews are required to register their wealth
The boldfaced robbery of German Jews is the first important fact of World War II. Anti-Semitism justified it, but the same pattern has been repeated in wars that don’t involve anti-Semitism. In 1938, a Nazi Law Forced Jews to Register Their Wealth—Making It Easier to Steal. This was shortly after Nazi Germany annexed Austria. At that time, Hitler’s government issued a decree requiring all Jews in both Germany and Austria to register any property or assets valued at more than 5,000 Reichsmarks. This amounted to around $2,000 in American currency of the period, or $34,000 today. All types of property were included: furniture, paintings, life insurance, stocks. Aryanization was the name for the state-sanctioned theft that followed, and it totaled about 7 billion Reichsmarks. This process was made more painful by the fact that Germany’s Jews had already been methodically removed from public life, civil service, and business.
The Jews were robbed even when they decided to leave. This is further evidence that theft was the underlying purpose.
For those Jews with the means to leave the country, legally emigrating meant relinquishing 50 percent of one’s monetary assets, and then exchanging the rest of the remaining Reichsmarks for the currency of whatever country would be the final destination. “By late 1938, they were allowing Jews to keep only 8 percent of what their Reichsmarks were worth in the foreign country,” Hayes says—which only made it harder to find a safe haven, since the Jewish refugees couldn’t take any of their savings with them.
1939: The Jews are robbed of intellectual property
One thing you can say about the Nazis is they were thorough. They even robbed the Jews of intellectual property.
A 1939 executive order required all Jewish men to add ‘Israel’ as a second name and women to add ‘Sara.’ This made it easier for Nazi officials to deny intellectual property registrations and renewals to Jewish applicants, cutting them off from the IP system…
In some instances, works by Jewish authors were nearly completely reproduced and distributed by others without their consent. One example of an Aryanized work is Alice Urbach’s So kocht man in Wien!, a Viennese cookbook. Urbach was forced to transfer the rights to her book, which was then republished with new authorial credit to “Rudolf Rösch.” The new work kept most of the original texts and photographs of her cooking demonstrations but removed elements celebrating Vienna’s diversity.
In the field of medicine, Dr. Josef Löbel’s Knaurs Gesundheitslexikon was a health encyclopedia that, after the Otto Liebmann publishing house was taken over by a Nazi publisher, was republished by the author Herbert Volkmann under the pseudonym “Peter Hiron.” Volkmann even added new sections on race, homosexuality, and prison psychology. He similarly usurped authorship for Dr. Walter Guttman’s Medizinische Terminologie and its ongoing publications.
Library of Congress Blogs, The Seizure of Jewish Intellectual Property Ahead of World War II
The Holocaust as a distraction from Germany’s need for Jewish wealth
The Jews of Austria, Poland and Eastern Europe were also methodically robbed. Much of the stolen wealth went to generous social programs back home in Germany. But most of it funded the Nazi war machine. If Hannah Arendt knew about this when she wrote about the Eichmann trial, ‘the banality of evil,’ was a perfect description of what happened.
In hindsight, we shouldn’t be surprised that World War II was all about annexing and looting defeated countries. That’s what war has always been about. It is highly disturbing that Germany looted its own citizens, but it was terribly logical considering the need for war funding. I’m arguing that the Holocaust has erased our common-sense understanding of war. The theft or recovery of wealth is war’s basic motivation.
The troubling nature of capitalism is not Germany’s fault
Paul Manning’s claim that the theft never stopped is the most disturbing part. His story suggests that the industrialists who funded the Nazi Party won the war. It may be more correct to say the German economy won the war. In this light, it is tempting to blame the current state of Western capitalism on the German takeover. But the troubling nature of capitalism is not Germany’s fault.
Woodrow Wilson revealed the nature of capitalism in 1920. Professor David Harvey quoted Wilson in his video on Class Nation and Nationalism. This is Harvey’s summation: ‘Relations between nations are connected together by the fact that every capitalist wants a market and wants to spread market exchange all over the world. Therefore that market process must be protected by that nation-state in relation to other nation-states in battering down the walls between them.’
Putting the Holocaust in its place opens the way to enquire about what was happening in Germany before World War I. The history books say that Germany’s punishment after the Great War that led to World War II. This punishment was an indirect consequence of liberalism.
Two faces of liberalism
Liberalism enabled the use of economic sanctions and blockade. Nations could be controlled by economic warfare because they had become tied together in the system of market exchange. However, this represents a surrender to temptation by the powerful states. It was not liberalism’s original mandate. There are two faces of liberalism.
In the 19th century, the prevailing doctrine of free trade liberalism protected global trade from wartime measures. It shielded countries such as Germany from efforts to target their foreign dependence. Germany’s industries depended on foreign minerals such as manganese, which it paid for through a global financial system centered on London. Through this mechanism, Germany was able to obtain resources that it did not itself possess. But that changed during the Great War.
The other face of the liberal order: sanctions, and the Great War
So the important question becomes, how did the Great War start? First, German unification upset the balance of power in Europe in 1871. Then Germany proceeded to form an alliance with Austria-Hungary and Italy. This represented a new threat to the existing order, and it was reinforced by the ambition of its leader, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Kaiser had plans to build a battle fleet to rival Britain’s. He eventually switched his spending from the navy to the army, but his relationship with Britain never recovered.
Naturally, Britain negotiated agreements with France and Russia. This led to fear of encirclement on the part of Germany. Tensions escalated when Germany tried to oppose a French takeover of Morocco and Britain supported France. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the final straw. Finally, the enmeshment of these countries in the liberal global economy increased the pressure on Germany by allowing the use of economic warfare.
The modern history of the economic weapon
The modern history of the economic weapon began during World War I. Britain and France tried to isolate Germany and its allies from the global economy. They sought to starve their economies of resources and their citizens of food, even though the suffering caused by this tactic was well understood. It was considered a regrettable necessity: 300,000-400,000 people in Central Europe died of starvation or illness thanks to blockade, while 500,000 perished in the Ottoman Empire. Germany, for its part, used U-boats to cripple transatlantic shipping.
Economic and financial sanctions continued as a way to reinforce the authority of the League of Nations during the interwar period. However, the economic weapon was now claimed to be a weapon of peace. Powerful nations realized they could employ sanctions without any declaration of war. They also told themselves it could be used as an alternative to war. But sanctioned states took different lessons from this treatment.
What the Nazis learned about liberalism from sanctions and blockade
The Nazi leadership saw the threat of foreign sanctions as further justifying its hegemonic ambitions—the more territory it influenced or controlled, the less vulnerable it would be to the Jews and Bolsheviks, whom it believed, or claimed to believe, were orchestrating the international campaign against Germany. The Nazi’s behavior can be largely explained by this liberal tactic of sanctions and blockade.
Just as they were a century ago, the crucial dilemmas of sanctions are the dilemmas of liberalism. Is the world better off when countries are interdependent with each other than when they hold themselves aloof? How far do you go in cutting countries out of the world economy when they turn to conquest, or look to spread illiberalism? Is the economic weapon really so much better than the military one?
International economic coercion is the dark shadow cast by the global liberal economy. Sanctions would not be nearly so effective in a world where liberalism had not won. Isolation from global trade and finance are painful precisely because they are so intertwined with the workings of national markets. In a world of complex supply chains spanning dozens of countries, and global financial systems that are woven into the warp and woof of local banking relations, it is impossible to tell where the domestic economy ends and the international economy begins.
lawfaremedia.org, The Modern History of Economic Sanctions
The Jewish case compared to the Balkans
Now let’s return to the Jewish case, as compared to the Balkans. Similar to the Jewish experience in Nazi Germany, widespread economic violence was committed during the 1990s Balkan wars. The plunder obtained in this way financed and sustained armed groups, ensuring that the conflicts could continue. However, in most of the cases presented at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, the focus is on violations of civic and political rights. Only a few cases deal with violations of economic rights.
As a consequence of this prosecutorial approach, the underlying war criminal networks that supported the war – war profiteers, organised crime gangs, illegal smugglers of gasoline, people, weapons and so on – remained invisible, even though their connections to political parties and elites that emerged during and after the conflict are well-known facts.
Elma Demir, UN Court Archives reveal the political economy of the Balkan Wars
Gaza’s government media office said it had received “dozens of reports from residents of the Gaza Strip on the issue of stolen money, gold, and artefacts” over a period of 92 days, which ran from 7 October to Saturday.
The office said the items were valued at 90 million shekels ($24 million) and were “seized by the Israeli occupation army”, The New Arab’s Arabic-language sister site al-Araby al-Jadeed reported.
Israeli soldiers have boasted of the items they have looted in videos posted to social media.
The media office said the thefts occurred in various ways, with thefts at checkpoints of bags containing valuable belongings, and raids on the homes of people who were asked to evacuate.
The New Arab
It is estimated that the Israeli Army may have looted possessions worth tens of millions of dollars in addition to taking personal belongings from Palestinian citizens.
Israel is the servant of the global liberal order
The policies of Israel today are blamed on Netanyahu’s right-wing government. But this government has controlled Palestine for 20 years. The identity of Netanyahu and his cabinet is irrelevant. They could be almost anyone. Their Jewishness is a necessary convenience. But, to the extent that he is really Jewish, Netanyahu must be tortured by the knowledge that the Mossad was commanded to stop its Nazi-hunting after the arrest of Adolf Eichmann.
According to Paul Manning, the Mossad was threatened with a loss of financing if they continued to search for Nazis. This illustrates the extent to which Israel is the servant of the global liberal order.
Paul Manning, Martin Boumann: Nazi in Exile, Lyle Stuart Inc. Secaucus, NJ, 1981 ↩︎
Accusations of leftist magic leveled by right-wing members of Congress led me to research the question, is magic a left-wing thing? The closest connection I was aware of was the association of the drug culture of the 1960s with shamanism. It seems to me the right-wing is more magical-minded. It turns out the story of magical politics in 2016 begins by blaming the left for the whole phenomenon. Bothsidism is apparently the handmaid of American politics, even its weirdest manifestations. This is the story of Rosicrucians and Fallen Angels in American politics.
The magical theory of politics
Egil Asprem’s article about the magical theory of politics came up first in search results. The article indicates that the magic war is currently serving a right-wing agenda. The left is included in the discussion because it’s such a perfect target.
Three camps of belligerents in the magic war
Asprem distinguishes three camps of ‘belligerents’ in the magic war over Donald Trump: The Cult of Kek; the Magic Resistance; and the Magic Reaction. The Magic Resistance is where the left comes in. Asprem cites an article published on Medium by Michael M. Hughes, a left-leaning author and lecturer. Published on February 16, 2017, it was entitled A Spell to Bind Donald Trump and All Those Who Abet Him. Hughes suggested that a ritual be performed at midnight on every crescent moon until Trump is removed from office.
The magic resistance and the media
We can’t tell from Hughes’s own comments how serious he intended this effort to be. Asprem defines it as “a social media-coordinated protest movement leveraging the trappings of magic and witchcraft to mobilize resistance against the incumbent United States president and his administration.” It was the media coverage that made the magical resistance hard to ignore. The first event took place on February 24, 2017. The ‘movement’ was given coverage on social media and in magazines such as Elle, Dazed, Vanity Fair, and Vox. It’s not clear how many people actually participated in the initial event, and the numbers quickly diminished. But the movement earned equal billing with the right in the magical drama. This event supposedly inspired the Magical Reaction.
QAnon, the Cult of Kek and Donald Trump
In my opinion, the most disturbing discovery in Asprem’s article is a date that connects Donald Trump’s nomination as GOP presidential candidate, with 4chan’s /pol/ board. There was an unlikely coincidence involving the Cult of Kek, 4chan, 8chan, and QAnon. Since it predicted Trump’s victory in the presidential race, the question arises whether this association had help. This was the magical reaction.
According to Asprem, there is “a particular form of playful superstition on 4chan”.
Posts on 4chan are consecutively given an identifying number (currently nine digits, reflecting the fact that the total number of posts number in the billions). Due to the very high posting frequency (over one million a day, in 2018), it is impossible for a user to predict exactly what the last few digits will be when posting. This has given rise to a phenomenon where certain numbers, patterns, and repetitions of numbers–especially repeating digits, labeled “dubs,” “trips,” “quads,” and so on–are considered particularly auspicious. This phenomenon is related to a wider practice known as GET, by which posters on an image board would attempt to score certain integer sequences considered “special” (e.g. posts number 123456789, 1000000, or 555555555). Themes, memes, or users that frequently “GET,” or that just score many dubs and trebs, are considered special, allowing for hidden patterns and connections to emerge in the minds of users. During the primaries and the presidential campaign, a perception formed on /pol/ that Trump and Pepe memes were doing just this. For example, on 19 June 2016, a post on 4chan’s /p/ board with the text “Trump will win” achieved the remarkable GET 77777777. A web of significance was gradually spun, in the usual post-ironic way, in which Trump was divinely selected, the god selecting him was Kek, and the Pepe meme was one of the god’s many manifestations.
The Fallen Angel Azazel and Republican Resistance to Trump’s nomination
July 19, 2016 also connects the Rosicrucians to the current political turmoil. That is the date when the fallen angel Azazel was supposed to rise from his earthly imprisonment.
All things considered, this coincidence might have something to do with the scene that took place at the Republican National Convention after Trump’s nomination.
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions put Trump’s name up for the nomination shortly before 6 p.m. ET. The nomination was seconded by New York Rep. Chris Collins, the first member of Congress to endorse him.
“Donald Trump is the singular leader that can get this country back on track,” Sessions said while nominating Trump.
(It is likely Jeff Sessions is a 33rd Degree Freemason.)
Particularly outraged was the Washington, D.C., delegation, which held its convention in March and attempted to award 10 votes to Marco Rubio and nine to John Kasich. But convention officials announced the rules merit Trump be award all 19 delegates from the nation’s capital.
“This is an outrage, and this is a reason the Republican Party is turning off a lot of voters,” a Kasich delegate from D.C. said on MSNBC.
After Trump had clinched the nomination, the Alaskan delegation contested how its vote total was recorded. They originally requested 12 votes go to Ted Cruz, 11 to Trump and 5 to Rubio, but the RNC recorded all 28 votes to Trump. However, the appeal was unsuccessful because, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus said, all the votes went to Trump because Rubio and Cruz suspended their campaigns…
The official nomination came on the second day of what has been a rocky start to the convention. An effort Monday to protest Trump’s candidacy on the convention floor fell short, but not before images of chaos unseen in recent conventions played out on live television.
