These commies see woke leftism as becoming unpopular. Therefore they’re trying to hijack the backlash to it and redirect the public’s anger away from the leftist (Marxist) ideologues who created it all (Critical Race Theory, Gender/Queer theory, intersectional feminism, BLM/Black Power, etc.) and push that anger towards the traditional enemies of Marxists (the “capitalists,” “corporations,” “bankers,” “property owners,” “landlords,” etc.) They do this by scapegoating these corporations for the introduction of leftoid woke ideology into society, which was conceived in the Marxist-dominated universities and then filtered out into all sectors of public life. The Marxist-socialist Frankfurt School – a fountainhead of early ‘woke’ anti-racist, feminist and diversity ideology – were certainly not “capitalists” or free market enthusiasts.

Corporations who have adopted woke bullshit in marketing are Johnny-come-lately opportunists who are trying to capitalize on trends to move product. It’s far more a case of virtue signaling than genuine belief, although there has been some infiltration of these companies at the highest levels by woke ideologues who are willing to sacrifice profits to push political agendas. The Disney writing staff is (according to an insider) dominated by literal homosexuals who are pushing gay themes into the company’s content for ideological reasons. But that’s really no different than state-owned media ventures like BBC doing the same or the culture departments of various governments subsidizing woke modern art exhibits, woke museums and woke cinema.

But none of this woke shit (CRT, Transgenderism, BLM, etc.) was cooked up in corporate boardrooms. Some of these companies are realizing that they made a big mistake by backing leftist initiatives like DEI and are reversing course because it has hurt the business.

While these big companies absolutely bear some responsibility for amplifying the leftist mind rot and funding it (I’m not excusing their behaviour), it’s a fallacy to suggest they are the origin point of these beliefs or trends and that the “solution” is simply getting rid of large companies or having the Leftist state take them over, which will change nothing. A Joe Biden-run publicly controlled X would be much worse than an Elon Musk-run private X, for example. Even as a private company, Elon’s X is facing intense government regulation efforts to censor it.

BLM itself was started by three black lesbians who identify as Marxists. They hate capitalism. They got their start with the Bus Riders Union and crucial mentorship by Jewish socialist Eric Mann.

Socialist labour unions, for example, are just as “woke”/leftist as the queer-dominated corporations and they lobby politicians to introduce anti-White CRT/DEI and gay agendas in the workplace. Most socialist-leaning politicians and parties are, needless to say, all in for woke leftism (Democratic Socialists of America, Labour Party in the UK, etc.).

The State itself enforced much of this leftism on society through legislation like civil rights acts, hate speech laws, diversity quotas, etc. Public schools, run by the state, are hotbeds of leftoid ideology and brainwashing. State-owned enterprises like the NHS and BBC in England are notoriously anti-White, pro-diversity and pushing woke transsexual and gay agendas.

Other so-called “capitalists” supporting leftist political trends financially (George Soros comes to mind) are doing so mainly for non-economic ideological reasons. Soros’s son Alex said that his father does this because he’s Jewish and wants a world “safe for minorities”. That’s a fundamentally ideological motivation. Soros even attacked capitalism in an article titled “The Capitalist Threat” in which he argues for more government interventionism, social welfarism and redistributionism. Peter Sutherland, an Irish Catholic multi-millionaire who backed mass migration, seems to have been motivated by humanitarian (thus ideological) concerns stemming from his Christian beliefs in charity and helping the oppressed. Donating hundreds of millions to leftist causes and NGOs is not an economic investment since there is no economic return (Soros is losing money by doing so). It is a social investment. James Pritzker, a Jewish billionaire who funds much of the Transsexual Agenda, is a literal transsexual who calls himself Jennifer now. Another case of an ideological motive behind left-wing philanthropy. Perhaps there is some money to be made on trans surgeries and other medical procedures, but the market for that is so small that it seems unlikely that would be the only motive a wealthy billionaire like James Pritzker would be subsidizing it.

So this Marxist line, which has been smuggled into right-wing discourse by crypto-Marxist fascists, that woke leftist ideology or trends are the exclusive brainchild of corporations or “capitalists” is a distorted and twisted narrative that suits their socialistic economic agenda. They simply hate capitalism and market economics itself and will throw any dirt they think they can throw at it to undermine what’s left of it.

The only particular social issue that big businesses are expressly interested in promoting for motives of profit is immigration. It’s fairly apparent that large businesses, especially in the agricultural sector, fast food sector, and other sectors that employ low-skilled labour, want more immigration to get more workers in their low-paid, high turnover industries. But you can see that they are not alone in this desire as the big labour unions and big churches also want more immigration to fill up their own organizations and pews with new bodies. More people equals more potential union members, more potential church goers, etc. More people also means more voters and more tax payers feeding the social welfare state, which peaks the interests of politicians and the State. NGOs back it for ideological/humanitarian reasons. There are multiple factors and layers to the drive for mass immigration, both ideological and economic.

To solve the latter issue one need only impose an immigration moratorium, shut down the borders, deport all illegals and then ignore all of these lobbyists on a political level. Hell, ban lobbying entirely. Or one could implement a robust guest worker program, properly enforced, that could solve any potential labour shortages in the low-skilled industries who can’t find enough domestic workers.

Evil Marxist shitheads like Hinkle and Haz exist as Trojan Horse enemies within the gates. As anti-White, anti-Western agents they’re pursuing most of the traditional objectives of Soviet Marxist Communism: the destruction of Western civilization, the weakening of Western economies and militaries, the abolition of NATO, the abolition of capitalism and private property, the political and economic empowerment of non-White Global South nations, etc. All of that is manifestly evident in their perverse belligerent support for all Third World communist, socialist and Islamic governments and groups who are enemies of the West and their cheerleading for Russian imperialism in Ukraine and Chinese imperialism against Taiwan, Tibet, etc. Like Putin, they dress up their anti-Westernism in some performative anti-wokeism to make it more sellable to gullible conservatives who aren’t clued into all of these ideologies and the agendas behind them.

If you enjoyed this article and wish to see more, consider a small contribution.

The talentless, worthless criminal has no specific knowledge about any subject other than washing money for criminal gangs (something he is “proud of”), yet he spends about 8 hours a day grift streaming to his audience of autistic teenagers and fellow congenital criminals, browsing through movie clips while spouting kook-brained conspiracy theories about UFOs, nanobots in the vaccines, the flat earth and Nephilim monsters lurking in the hollow earth.

Since being convicted and jailed for helping a Pakistani swindler steal three million pounds from elderly Brits, the fugitive (who most likely lives in Thailand or Dubai among the brown people he supposedly hates) has turned to e-hustling, turning his tricks on the digital street corner as a fake “Christian” and “National Socialist”; aka a lazy parasite who demands the taxpayers foot his bills for being a societal menace.

It has recently come to light that the shylock has impregnated a Jewish female-to-male transsexual named Leah Holland, a schizophrenic female from Florida who has been e-larping as a neo-nazi for a few years. The clearly schizophrenic femzoid has gone through radical ideological transformations, starting off as a Hebrew-school attending, Yarmulke-donning Jewish transsexual who boasted of getting transition surgery and broadcast her extreme gender-bending homo-erotic degeneracy on Tumbler, to a Hitler-worshipping neo-nazi.

The Telegram channel Wignattery unearthed a trove of evidence that Smollfash aka Leah Holland is both Jewish and a hideous tranny who was in a sexual relationship with a brown male.

Here is Holland as a transitioned “male”:

In her Tumbler bio, Holland says she “was close to having a Barmitzvah” and had a year of training for the Jewish ceremony, while she attended both Synagogue and Hebrew school.

On her Facebook account, she recited a Hebrew prayer.

Elsewhere on Twitter she referenced her Jewish heritage multiple times.

On LinkedIn she liked various posts by ADL chairman Jonathan Greenblatt, which she continues to do to this day even while larping as a Nazi.

As she transitioned into her current e-larp as a neo-nazi schizo, she lied about all of this and said she had never attended synagogue and has no Jews in her family line; obvious lies to cover her tracks among her new circle of low-IQ skinheads, some of whom believe her despite all this proof (a testament to their fake ideology and low intelligence).

On Tumbler, Holland explored her transgenderism and homosexuality, stating variously that she’s gay and bisexual, that she’s “a boy, penis and all,” and posting obscene commentary about her sex fetishes.

Here’s a few comments from Holland:

Pic 1: in response to a picture of a man wearing BDSM gear she wrote: “pls fuck me”

Pic 2: a shirtless man she replies “fuck me now”

Pic 3: A man picking his nose she replies, “I love you and I want to sit on your penis. I want to anally rape you”

Pic 4: In response to a pic of two gay men touching she wrote, “I want both naked and on top of me”

Here’s more of her obscene depravity:

Pic 1: She writes “how to free pizza,” someone responds “free blow jobs,” and she replies “I must practice”

Pic 2: “this is my official coming out, I’m bi, romantically and physically into both boys and girls”

Pic 3: “You’re so beautiful that I’d drag my balls against barbed wire just to suck the cock that screwed you last night”

She referenced her “balls” there which would imply that she has fake testicles surgically sown onto her body.

Pic 4: “hello sexual frustration”

Pic 5: “shower me in cute Spanish boys”

Pic 6: “My mom walked in on me being touchy…I’m screaming”

Pic 7: “good wow I’m horny today”

This is her years later boasting about draining men’s wallets as an e-whore:

There’s much more on the Wignattery Telegram with screenshots.

When this information came to light, the delusional pathological liar Shylock Parasite engaged in his usual con-man shitbag deflection, denying it all with laughable copes about all of this being “a big troll” despite some of it being said over 10 years ago, long before her foray into larptard neo-Nazism. He hand-waved the Yarmulke picture with a story about how his father, also a con-man (like father like son), used to wear a Yarmulke around London to avoid being scrutinized by the police after doing criminal things in the city.

So Leah Holland describing in depth her Jewish roots on Tumbler as a 13-year-old (long before becoming a neo-nazi or “red pilled”), wearing a Yarmulke and holding up a Menorah in a photo (as a teen, again long before any “red pilling”), speaking about attending Synagogue and Hebrew school, reciting a Hebrew prayer on Facebook and then referencing this multiple times on Twitter years later, is all somehow “trolling”. Only braindead morons would believe their lies.

The crackhead then doubled down on his relationship with Jewish transsexual Holland stating their Frankenstein baby will “look like a postcard from 1930s Germany”.

This is golden material for an episode of Jerry Springer or Maury. It could be titled: “The unlikely couple: British con-man neo-nazi has a baby with schizophrenic Jewish transsexual”.

These two subhumans are the perfect match made in hell.

If you enjoyed this content consider a small contribution or becoming a member.

So there you have a slew of the elite intellectual fascists of the interwebz telling us that they’re virtually the same thing as communists, that they want the state to “seize the means of production” (Marx would be proud) and are authoritarian-leftists. Their only beef with what I’m saying is that I don’t like their slightly modified variant of Marxist Communism and they think it’s great. But they’re still mad that I point this out in a negative way because they’re trying to sell it to socially right-wing people as some kind of one-stop shop fix for all our problems by dipping their variant of Marxism into identity politics to make it more appealing.

This guy who I’ll be responding to here calls himself “Caesar Avg”. He’s basically an anon “reply guy” on the website Odysee and does little more than spam wall-texts full of pseudo-intellectual pretentious bafflegab. The following meandering vomit of strawmen and lies was sent to me by a colleague and I thought it yet another good opportunity to dunk on these disingenuous, bad faith, eternally butthurt spergs.

Let’s begin.

Nothing about Brandon Marrothbard is ‘Right- wing’ or ‘nationalist’.

So social conservatism, ethno-cultural-preservation, closed borders/restricted immigration, pro-family, a competitive market economy and fiscal conservatism (balanced budgets) is not “right-wing” or “nationalist”? Ok retard. You have no actual definition of “right-wing” then, you’re making it up to suit your Marxist whims. You are an economic leftist socialist (aka an egalitarian) so it’s funny you’re trying to appropriate the “right-wing” label for yourself, which is dishonest. I’ve never even read anything from Rothbard nor do I cite him as inspiration for anything so to imply I’m some kind of disciple of his is fan fiction invented by Third Position crypto-communists.

He is on record as opposing all of the following, all of which can be reliably sourced against any attempt at denial or removal

If I am on record then why does this screed of yours contain not a single actual in-context quote from me but a bunch of deceptively “paraphrased” misrepresented strawmen and lies? You didn’t want to quote me directly because that would ruin your whole psyop.

Autarky: ‘socialist nonsense’

A full throttle autarky has never been achieved by any country anywhere, not even your beloved Third Reich. Hitler himself admitted a complete autarky with no trade was impossible in the short term and his attempt at achieving it long term led him to invade Russia to get the resources he wanted, causing 30 million deaths. Well done.

A country should aim to produce in-house what it needs, but there are some things it must get abroad if it doesn’t have the capacity to produce it all in-house. Small countries and island countries for example would not survive long if they attempted “autarky”. They don’t have the labour base or space to be able to produce what they need or might want domestically. Bigger countries can manufacture more but they also have to import stuff they need and to export their own products abroad to bring in revenue. I’m not for a “free” trade but a controlled or limited trade with allied countries.

Isolationism

If isolationism is what you’re after, then your gods Hitler and Mussolini miserably failed the litmus test, having intervened and invaded most of Europe and parts of Africa during their heyday. Their war-hawk expansionism was the opposite of “isolationism” (in fact fascism is inherently war-like and imperialistic) and yet this is the ideology you are defending in your own comment. I am for a type of isolationism when it comes to the non-European world. I don’t think we should get much involved in places like the Middle East or Africa unless there is a vital interest there. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a foreign policy at all, which actually puts you more in line with the libertarians (who are to-a-man isolationists) you hate than me. I think coming to the aid of allied countries in Europe when they are in need, like in Ukraine now, is not a bad thing. If your country was attacked, you will need the aid of other countries too. When Europe is threatened by regimes like Russia and China, an alliance of European countries would do well to put resources together to stop it. Nothing wrong with that, but you’re a libertarian don’t-tread-on-me “isolationist” so you don’t care about anything but yourself right?

Nationalisms, including Nordicism and German and Russian nationalisms, laughably conflated with Communazism

This is dishonest bullshit. I obviously support “nationalism” including that of Germany, Russia and any other country, but you’re dishonestly conflating nationalism with “Nordicism,” which can be interpreted multiple ways, but the variant I oppose is the imperialist one espoused by Hitler and the Nazis. Here’s how Hitler described his foreign policy:

“…the Anglo-Saxons have the mission to govern the people they have subdued, precisely in the name of their superiority. The Nordic race is called to dominate the world, and this right must guide our foreign policy. The goal was the Nordic domination of Europe, and through America Nordic-Germanic domination of the world.”

I do not however oppose Nordic self-preservation, which is different to what Hitler was doing, which was Germanic EXPANSION. I explained that here:

He states there “Russian nationalism” but what he’s actually referring to is my opposition to Russian-Eurasianist imperialism of Putin, which he clearly supports, because if he didn’t support it he’d have to stop defending Hitler’s Lebensraum. So this sack of dogshit is trying to sell you Eurasian IMPERIALISM as if nationalism when it’s much closer to homogenizing globalism as it’s erasing borders in Eastern Europe and Russifies the regions it conquers.

and the very same Zionism that he otherwise defends, all to be replaced with a homogenizing pan-Europeanism: an EU minus non-whites, an Americanization of Europe

Yeah I’m such a huge defender of Zionism, like this video here right? You’re a stupid bad faith liar.

If by “support” you mean I think Israel already exists, likely won’t go away any time soon and diaspora Jews should probably go live there instead of in our countries, then guilty as charged. But that’s what any decent European nationalist would support, not some third worldist Islamist like yourself doing the reply guy Internet Intifada bit.

My Pan-Europeanism is not “homogenizing” because I don’t advocate we erase any current borders nor do I even support the EU’s current existence. It is merely a sentiment of brotherhood among European countries so that we can cooperate and avoid the murderous fratricidal infighting of the past, which you clearly revel in. Your fascist hero Oswald Mosley however did support a “homogenizing” pan-Europeanism, what he called “Europe a Nation”:

It says he was inspired to that idea by none other than Benito Mussolini whose “manifesto of the Italian Social Republic included a call for the establishment of a European Community”. So your own ideological godfathers supported this idea that you are falsely attributing to me. Talk about a massive SELF OWN! So you are out of step with your own demigods. Wow, you really dug yourself a hole here didn’t you retard?

I’ve never supported the “Americanization of Europe” either, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Just another strawman invention of this rat.

Revanchism

So his real views come out. What he is defending is not “nationalism” but revanchism, which is the lust to reclaim perceived lost territory. Revanchism is imperialism and doesn’t usually end with taking back just some “lost territory” but expanding further, as Hitler and Mussolini both did. This is also what Putin is doing and this scumbag supports both Hitler and Putin’s revanchist imperialism. Revanchism is a recipe for eternal conflict in Europe. Borders have shifted and changed so many times that if every Euro country decided to do militarist revanchism tomorrow, the entire continent would go up in flames. I bet you want that because you like to see bloodshed and death of Europeans. I think border disputes among Europeans can be worked out amicably without killing each other.

State-ownership, erroneously conflated with Marxism and socialism

That’s exactly what Marxist Socialism advocates, you moron.

The only way to “collectivize” all businesses and property is to have a centralized state take it over, which was the method that every single self-defined communist or socialist state employed to achieve this end. Mao’s China, Soviet Russia, Castro’s Cuba, Kim’s North Korea, East Germany, etc., all did this. Do I really have to explain the basics to this uninformed child?

Marrothbard claims that possessing economic similarities to some Marxist, somewhere, is proof of that person’s Marxism

It’s not just some similarities to “some Marxist somewhere” but to Marxism itself, you assclown. It’s proof that your ideology was inspired by and was a variant of classical Marxism, which most intellectuals of fascism readily admit, you fucking moron. Here’s what Mussolini said about himself:

It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of talisman… [Marx] had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet. – Talks With Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Pg. 38

Here’s what the other founder of fascism Giovanni Gentile said about it:

It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism.

Here’s what the most prolific scholar of fascism A. James Gregor said of it:

[Italian] Fascism was a variant of classical Marxism, a belief system that pressed some themes argued by both Marx and Engels until they found expression in the form of ‘national syndicalism’ that was to animate the first Fascism.

So your own ideological godfathers and leading scholars of the ideology agree with me and not you. You’re a dishonest charlatan.

He continues:

Intriguingly, since he also (mis-)perceives Marxism as overwhelmingly economic

The reason this fascist wants to say that Marxism is not principally economic is precisely because that is where the intense similarities lie, and he wants to distance his ideology from it. It’s the same method that Marxists use to distance themselves from fascism. But when you read Marx’s main two works The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, you will see that it’s almost exclusively an economic doctrine of anti-capitalism and not much else.

Here’s a synopsis of Communist Manifesto:

“Class relations,” “economic forces driving history,” “proletarian revolution to overthrow capitalism,” etc.

And here’s a synopsis of Das Kapital:

“An analysis of capitalism,” “economic structure of society,” “economic organization,” “critique of capitalism” and its defenders, etc.

Does any of that sound like much more than economics to you? Marx identified himself as both a philosopher and ECONOMIST. He was obsessed with economics and wrote almost exclusively against capitalism in economic terms. Whatever social shit he wrote, he also linked that back to his economic fixation with anti-capitalism. So when Engels writes against the “nuclear family,” he does so because he believes the nuclear family is part of “the capitalist system” and must be dismantled. It all comes back to anti-capitalism.

The sperg continues:

he routinely commits the same ‘economic spergery’ and ‘rigidity’ of which he has in the past accused others (‘you agree with me on everything but economic issue X, therefore you’re my enemy and worse than liberals and libertarians’)

I’m simply insisting that someone who calls themselves an “anti-communist” actually be one and not a crypto-communist as fascists are. If fascists want to do economic spergery as they often do (anyone who doesn’t profess hardcore socialism is deemed an enemy) and insist that anyone who is “pro-White” adopt their gay socialist economic leftism, then why should I not return the favour in reverse? Either way, this relationship won’t work out.

and his arguments for capitalism verily demonstrate his own crass materialism

Arguments you’ve yet to cite or even refute.

The birth rates of North Korea and eastern Germany, for instance, are significantly higher than those of South Korea and western Germany

So you are confirming that you are a communist who favours North Korea and commie East Germany over their more capitalist counterparts… and exclusively over birth rates? Birthrates ebb and flow and generally the more prosperous a country the lower the birthrates, should we take that as an argument against prosperity and for poverty? North Korea today has a below replacement level birthrate:

Socialist countries were generally the most favourable to women’s rights/education/advancement and were some of the most pro-abortion countries in the world, so an economic system alone won’t change that. That’s mainly in the realm of social policy.

but Marrothbard will preference the latter over trivialities such as higher GDP per capita. Anyone who chooses GDPPC over birth rates and racial homogeneity demonstrates that he has nothing to do with the Right: he demonstrates, au contraire, his extreme economism driven by completely misplaced priorities

Firstly, it’s a false dichotomy. I don’t have to choose between a “low birthrate capitalist country” and a “higher birthrate socialist one”. I can choose a higher birthrate capitalist one or strive for it. And it’s just a complete lie and you can’t quote me saying that anywhere because I haven’t said it. If I had to choose between a country with a lower GDP (that doesn’t mean it’s “socialist” it just has a lower GDP) but was racially homogenous or a country with higher GDP but racially not homogenous I’d chose the former. So you’re just a liar.

He writes:

Were Marxism purely economic, his attitudes to it immediately become laughable and unwarranted: declaring economics- those of an ethnostate that you will never get your master motive is such a moronic choice of a hill to die on

Marxism is mostly economic as I showed earlier, you child. I’m not dying on any hill least of all the fictional hill you’ve invented and attributed to me, you dipshit.

Totalitarianism, which he fallaciously posits necessitates submission to Leftist and liberal states, demonstrating a total lack of logical and political-philosophical understanding.

Totalitarianism can come in many forms, also leftist forms, so genuflecting to totalitarianism in general is misguided, but typical of fascist blockheads like this. Fascism is indeed totalitarian statism paired with economic leftism. And if you believe fascist doctrine, then yes, you MUST submit to leftist and liberal states too since they are STATES and the STATE is supreme in your doctrine. If you don’t obey these leftist and liberal states, then you’re implicitly acknowledging that states are NOT supreme and can be opposed by “individuals” (citizens). Your entire ideology is thus refuted by your actions!

Let’s quote Mussolini:

The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual… And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.

Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14). No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). …The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans. If classical liberalism spells individualism Fascism spells government. The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity.

If you take all that garbled bafflegab literally, what Mussolini’s saying is that the State is God and you, mere mortal, are its slave. “Nothing outside the state,” is the motto of fascism, which means, that everything and everyone is consumed by that mammoth beast of a state. Where in the world would “private property” fit into that? Private property is outside the state, which cannot be so, under fascism. You have no rights and certainly no right to “rebel against any law of the collectivity (aka the state),” which is a crystal clear edict from Lord Mussolini that rebellion against states is invalid (according to him).

If these totalitarian principles don’t apply to ALL states, including “leftist and liberal” ones, then why should they apply to ANY state? Why does a state run by bald-headed adulterer Mussolini get this privilege of tolerating no rebellion and opposition but no other type of state does? If the principle is not universal, then it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. When a law says “thou shall not kill another person,” that can’t be interpreted as “thou shall not kill… except in X Y Z circumstances where it is ok to kill”.

The sperg continues (yes it goes on and on):

In addition to rejecting everything Right-wing and nationalist

You failed miserably to prove any of that outside ridiculous strawmen you invented.

he is also on record as believing in all of the following, all of which can be reliably sourced, and which demonstrate remarkably that he is more Marx-rothbard than Marrothbard: the schizophrenic, feces-packed cloaca of a dyed-in-the-wool Left-liberal who exhibits signs of literal drug addiction or mental illness

So now the crackpot dives into a litany of ad homs because he’s got nothing left in the chamber.

including obsessiveness, e.g. about the pack of trivialities collectively known as
Communazism

Communazism: let’s ask Goebbels about that one.

“We want the Germany of labor. What does that mean? We want a Germany in which labor and accomplishment are the highest moral and political values. We are today a workers’ party in the best sense of the word. Once we have taken over the state, Germany will become a state of labor, a workers’ state.” – source

“Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler…the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight…” – source

“It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism.” – source

So Goebbels admired Lenin, said the differences between communism and Hitlerism were “very slight,” and that he’d rather go down with Bolshevism than Capitalism. Yeah, he sounds very anti-communist doesn’t he? Hitler also admired Stalin including his economic system.

Here’s a few more quotes from actual experts and historians:

“[Hiter] had become a vehement critic of the system of free enterprise and a confirmed adherent of the system of a planned, state-controlled economy.”
— Dr. Rainer Zitelmann, historian
ㅤ
“[Hitler’s] concept of organized economy was close to genuine socialism”
— Dr John Toland, historian
ㅤ
“It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.”
— Dr George Watson, historian
ㅤ
“Another source of the Nazi Party’s popularity was its liberal borrowing from the intellectual tradition of the socialist left. Many of the men who would become the movement’s leaders had been involved in communist and socialist circles.”
— Götz Aly, historian
ㅤ
“One final point of similarity between Nazi and Soviet policies should be noted, although its meaning is far from clear. Both governments reorganized industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity”
— Peter Temin, economic historian
ㅤ
“Government finances for state-owned enterprises rose from RM 4,000m. in 1933 to RM 16,000m. ten years later; the capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during the same period, and the number of state-owned firms topped 500”
— Richard Overy, historian

“Those [capitalist] firms and organizations that regularly engaged in large-scale political funding continued—right down to the last election prior to Hitler’s appointment as chancellor—to bestow the bulk of their funds on opponents or rivals of the Nazis.”
— Henry Ashby Turner, historian
ㅤ
“The [Nazi] government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham.”
— Dr Ludwig von Mises, economist

“the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development.”
— Ian Kershaw, historianㅤ
ㅤ
“The [Nazi] government did place restraints on foreign exchange, imports and exports, prices, wages, and the allocation of labor. It determined the quantity and nature of what should be produced. Profits were limited and directed by the government back into reinvestment for expansion or for the acquisition of government bonds”
— Jackson Spielvogel, historian
ㅤ
“The economic tendencies of fascist states… … would be more correctly described as anti-capitalist than capitalist.”
— Alan Milward, historian

The case is closed on this one, kid. Communazism is not the figment of some boomer’s imagination, as fascists love to claim, it’s very much a real thing that can be proven with the words of Nazis and fascists themselves. They’re not called Beefsteak Nazis for nothing (red on the inside, brown on the outside).

The sperg continues:

and paranoia, e.g. obsessively defending against imagined Marxist infiltrators, and just plain mental illness, including a grossly exaggerated sense of self-importance.

The reason he doesn’t want me to sniff out “Marxist infiltrators” is because he is a classic example of such infiltration. Really, he’s a confused Marxist who doesn’t realize the extent of his ideology’s tie-ins with Marxism or if he does realize it he wants to cloak it in bafflegab to psyop you into embracing it.

Marx- rothbard believes, to pick but a few examples that:
The Axis were the real aggressors in WWII (and, by extension, Leftists and liberals were merely innocent victims of their aggression-precisely the Leftist and liberal version of WWII)

They were undoubtedly the initial aggressors as I discussed here about Hitler’s Lebensraum:

The only people who deny this are fascists and Hitlerists who have concocted a fictional revisionism designed to rehabilitate Nazism so they can pass it off as the only “solution” to anti-White leftism. Moreover, his labeling of “leftists and liberals” as the Axis’ opponents falls short. If he’s referring to Stalin, well Stalin was once an ally of Hitler, and he was a fellow brother-socialist with Hitler. Mussolini was a leftist-socialist-authoritarian. FDR was no capitalist, he was a socialist-leaning Keynesian who was praised by Hitler and Mussolini for his New Deal interventionism. They considered him at that time one of them. Oswald Mosley also met with FDR. FDR also praised Italian Fascism.

FDR was also privately anti-Semitic and he and Churchill were more or less “White nationalists” in their day. So who are the “liberals” in this picture? Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and FDR were all economic leftists and Churchill was the only free market guy in that equation. On social policy all of them had a mixture of left and right policies, including Stalin who banned abortion and homosexuality, so these labels are meaningless here. “Left-Liberal” appears to be a catch-all insult that fascists use for anyone who doesn’t support fascism. It’s equivalent to the way leftists use the label “fascist” for anyone right of center on social issues.

This has laughably led this supposed anti-Marxist to oppose the Axis invasion of Marxism’s own ‘motherland’, the USSR

I oppose it because it led to the deaths of 30 million Europeans and crusader Hitler was not even a genuine “anti-Marxist” as he claimed, he was a crypto-Marxist who just wanted to replace Stalin’s version of Communism with his own modified ethnically exclusive version, while ethnically replacing Slavs from their lands to facilitate Germanic ethnic expansion. He kept Stalin’s collective farm system in place in Ukraine, for example, what a heroic saviour from Communism! Only a truly homicidal lunatic would support that endeavor.

This is what Nazi Germany had in store for the Slavs as Rosenberg confessed:

“From the point of view of cultural policy, the German Reich is in a position to promote and direct national culture and science in many fields. It will be necessary that in some territories an uprooting and resettlement of various racial stocks [Voelkerschaften] will have to be effected.”

“In his “Instructions for a Reich Commissar in the Baltic Countries and White Russia” (officially referred to together as the “Ostland”), Rosenberg directs that the Ostland be transformed into a part of the Greater German Reich by Germanizing racially possible elements, colonizing Germanic races, and banishing undesirable elements.”

So the sperg supports homicidal imperialism and ethnic replacement policies and tries to sell it to you as “based right-wing nationalism bro!”

Sperg goes on:

Power is intrinsically bad, and that governments are intrinsically prone to mass murder statements that logically lead to anarchism and libertarianism

Never said that “power is intrinsically bad,” more fan fiction. Totalitarian governments are prone to mass murder and repression, as all of history has shown (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, etc.), but I don’t take that to mean that a government isn’t required to have a functioning society and can’t be made into something good. Governments are what you make it. It’s the type of people running it and their values/intentions that make a gov good or bad, not necessarily the thing itself, although I believe a certain level of checks and balances are needed to keep the state from abusing its power against citizens. I’m not a totalitarian but neither am I an anarchist or doctrinaire libertarian. I’m somewhere in between those two extremes.

Jews are not intrinsically bad. Only Left-wing Jews are bad. But this is only because they are Left-wing, not because they are Jews.

Why would I argue that Jews are “intrinsically bad”… like they’re racially pre-destined to be bad? I have no scientific evidence to prove that, so why would I assert it? I think their culture and religion has bad elements in it that lead them to do bad things, certainly tribal things that harm us when left unchecked, but that’s different from saying they’re genetically evil or whatever you’re implying. And that’s not even a true statement. I have also said that right-wing Zionist Jews are bad insofar as they don’t care about Whites, use us for their own gain and are not our “allies” as some civnats assert. So you’re lying about my positions here again. Take this video:

But if hypothetically most Jews (who are a small minority) were not left-wing and promoting left-wing social agendas and were just minding their own business, then what genuine reason would I have to dislike them? Just because they are Jews? That’s the exact kind of meme Hitlertard anti-Semitism that groups like the ADL want us to embrace because it’s so easy to discredit since it has no logic behind it.

No part of their ‘badness’ is because of their Jewishness, only their Leftism a classic case of liberal- conservative, Trumpian Zionist reasoning that aids Marx-rothbard’s preoccupation with spewing defences of Israel, cloaked under the farcical excuse

Again false as I’ve said there are bad parts of their culture and religion, such as the “chosen people” and “tikkun olam” bullshit. I’m just not willing to make the bold claim that it’s some genetic thing, which neither you or I can prove with science, so you’re the idiot here making claims you can’t prove to “one up” my measured and rational anti-Semitism with your unprovable unhinged 4chan version of it.

(a repetition of his one-time obsession with pro- Ukrainianism, one replaced as rapidly as he took it up because Azov = Communazism, also characteristic of drug-fuelled obsessiveness and/or clout- chasing)

The unhinged butt-blasted sperg has little left in the tank so all he’s got now is laughably false accusations of drug-taking and clout-chasing, despite the fact that my stance against both Putin and Hitler are unpopular among the blockheads of the e-right, so that’s total proof I’m doing the opposite of clout chasing and am pursuing the truth because I think the truth matters more than illusory internet clout. And his anti-Ukrainian bias comes out too, so he’s a Zigger in addition to a Hitlertard. The two often go hand in hand.

of merely correcting a pre- existing pro-Palestinian (earlier, pro- Russian) bias

I never had a “pro-Russian bias” and have supported Ukraine since 2014.

Belief in Communazism led him to abandon the Ukraine; belief in Islamofascism led him to take up Israel in its stead

I haven’t abandoned Ukraine, more lies. I recently did a debate destroying some zigger on the issue. And I don’t “support” Israel in any real sense either. A “supporter” of Israel would not make the kinds of statements about them that I have. This asshole has to lie his ass off about my positions, misrepresent and just make shit up because he can’t refute my actual positions which trump his own garbled bafflegab crypto-Marxism.

That the State is already too powerful where private interests are concerned, easily refuted by the statistical fact that tax avoidance is rampant and immensely costly to governments worldwide, precisely because it is those said private interests who are, conversely, too powerful where the State is concerned

This is of course your Marxist perception, but the State is handily in control of things not “private interests”. If private businesses had more power than the State, they would stop paying taxes tomorrow and they would abolish all regulations that inhibit them. All they can do is find legal ways to shelter their wealth. Big companies do pay all kinds of taxes beyond what is called “federal income tax”. They have state or provincial taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc. Why pay any of that if they’re above the state? The reason why some corporations get away with paying no “federal” income tax is because despite what their financial statements say, they either ran at a net loss that year or wrote off net losses from previous years. This article explains this:

The state has the power to tax, regulate, imprison citizens, start wars, print currency, break up companies (anti-trust), etc. All powers that private companies do not have. During covid they forced all businesses to shut down, causing many to go bust including large companies, not possible if “private interests” run the state. Governments have broken up big companies using anti-trust laws, like Theodore Roosevelt did during the trust busting era, like Reagan did with AT&T, and they have nationalized businesses. They’re still launching anti-trust lawsuits against corps today.

I’m not saying that this shouldn’t be the case, but let’s not lie to ourselves that it’s not already the case everywhere.

The sperg is really mad now:

He is incredibly destructive, harmful, spiteful, and repellant: his ignorant ideological regression; his oversensitiveness to criticism; his incessant over-opinionation

What I’m really destroying is your ideology in real time bud. There’s no regression merely a realization of what fascism is, what fascists themselves say that they are and what all the scholars agree that they are: an offshoot of classical Marxism. You’re in denial about that because you’re a deluded idiot who is choking on his own perverse pseudo-intellectual bafflegab.

his paranoid, obsessive witch-hunt for imagined Marxist subversives-one particularly laughable when Haz/Maupin are openly courting libertarians, not the Right

No they’re courting MAGA types and preach unvarnished radical state socialism, which would have virtually no appeal to “libertarians”. And you’re not “the Right” you’re an economic leftist who cloaks his leftism in racialism.

his constant hammering of divisive wedge issues, which, far from increasing his reach as he so hopes, merely split an already small group into smaller and smaller ones over mere trivialities

If these are mere trivialities, then why are you so butt-blasted about them that you spam-post wall-text after wall-text attacking me about these same trivialities that you don’t care about? What’s funny is that you would have no issue with me hammering JQ, race, trannies or whatever else you agree with me on, but you have a massive pickle up your ass about me hammering these Putintards and Hitlertards on their flaws and bullshit because you are both. You basically just want me to get out of the way and let you retards hijack right-wing politics and turn it into a Hitler/Putin demon cult.

as evidenced, for instance, by his ever-declining views and likes

So first he says I’m a clout-chaser and now he says that my positions on these “wedge issues” are not good for clout, so which is it retard? You’re just pissing in the wind now aren’t you faggot? Evidently, I don’t care about likes and clout like some woman. I care about the truth.

his Al impersonation of Johnny Gat’, which borders on the criminal

A stupid hoax made up by this homosexual pole dancer you can see below. Very credible source indeed.

The pole dancer’s “evidence” for that is that me and Johnny Gat have similar positions on Ukraine. Wow, total proof bro. It doesn’t even make any logical sense why I would do that which would amount to me putting in tens of hours of work making two feature length documentaries just to give Gat the credit for it all? It’s so retarded but that’s what you get from 60-IQ criminally paranoid wignats.

This sperg wants to talk about obsessiveness while he clearly has some kind of Martinez Derangement Syndrome and is seething endlessly about me in comment sections.

If he is not being paid for this, he should be: he has done immense unpaid labour for the Right’s enemies

But once again you’re not even right-wing, you’re an economic leftist larping as the epitome of “right-wing” when even your own fascist compatriots say fascism is “authoritarian-left”.

This sperg also showed up on my Odysee channel trying to claim that apartheid South Africa was not truly capitalist because it created some state-enterprises, he says:

Having learned more about SA since this exchange, I feel compelled to remark in hindsight that this is clearly false. The Apartheid-era economy was totally dominated by state-run parastatals. These parastatals, such as Eskom, were privatized by the very same ANC who you think are for State ownership owing to your conflation of State capitalism with socialism. They are far less efficient now than then. Apartheid SA works against your narrative.

According to various sources these state-run enterprises were created to counteract global sanctions.

“Many state-owned firms were established during the apartheid era to counter the impact of international sanctions against the country” – Wiki

“When white rule came to an end in 1994 the government of Nelson Mandela inherited a siege economy, full of state-backed firms whose job had been to soften the pain of sanctions by pursuing self-sufficiency.”  – TIME

Ok so no country is capitalist then because most countries have some state-owned enterprises (SOEs) alongside a mostly privatized economy. This South African guy says at 12:00 of the video that “for white people South Africa had one of the purest forms of free market capitalism in the world”. 

Mind you, this was a country with “Anti-Communism” laws on the books, so if they were communists themselves, that’d be a major psyop. At worst, they were Keynesians.

Then he said that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are inherently good (of course, he’s a commie after all) and that South Africa is doing worse after some privatizations of these SOEs.

The Apartheid-era economy was totally dominated by state-run parastatals. These parastatals, such as Eskom, were privatized by the very same ANC who you think are for State ownership owing to your conflation of State capitalism with socialism. They are far less efficient now than then. Apartheid SA works against your narrative.

Those parastatals are still state run today. A brief period of privatizations was reversed.

Wiki lists all these companies as SOEs today:

“DPE has oversight responsibility in full or in part for six of the approximately 700 SOEs that exist at the national, provincial, and local levels: Alexkor (diamonds), Denel (military equipment), Eskom (electricity generation), Transnet (railway transport and pipelines) South African Express, South African Forestry Company (SAFCOL) (forestry), South African Broadcasting Corporation” 

Eskom, state run energy, is listed today as a “public utility”:

They had to lay off thousands of people because of inefficiencies and losses:

“Between 2020 and 2021, two thousand employees lost their jobs at the power utility. 6000 more jobs are reportedly at risk in order for the company to continue operating” 

I looked up how well these SOEs are performing today and, despite Mr. Caesar’s claims, it’s a sad sight indeed. They’re all massively in debt, racking up huge losses, plagued with corruption and need constant bailouts:

By the end of the Zuma administration in 2018 corruption within South African state owned enterprises by individuals connected to government such as the controversial Gupta family had led to many enterprises facing deep financial difficulty.[4] Deepening financial issues, mismanagement, maladministration and government bailouts of enterprises such as the South African Broadcasting Corporation,[5][6][7] South African Airways,[8][9][10] Eskom,[11][12] Denel,[13][14] PRASA,[15] and Transnet caused increased public controversy. By the end of 2015–16 combined government guarantees on debts owed by state owned enterprises had reached R467 billion (equivalent to US$33.1 billion) and were expected to reach R500 billion by 2020 representing 10 percent of South Africa’s GDP.[4] The situation at Eskom was regarded as so serious as to lead the South African business newspaper Business Day to speculate that it could cause a national banking crisis.[12] In 2021 the South African Treasury reported that South African Airways had accumulated a total loss between 2008 and 2020 of R32 billion (US$ 2.1 billion) and received a total of R60 billion (US$ 4 billion) in government guarantees.[16]

That doesn’t sound like your beloved state-owned enterprises are being run efficiently to me.

Here’s what TIME Magazine had to say about these wondrous state-owned enterprises in South Africa:

“SCOOPING up gems from the beaches that form part of one of the world’s richest diamond deposits ought to be about as profitable as, well, scooping up diamonds from a beach. Yet South Africa’s state-owned diamond miner, Alexkor, has managed to make a hash of it. Over the past decade it has posted losses more often than profits and has needed frequent bail-outs…. As many as half of the diamonds it mines there fail to make their way onto Alexkor’s income statement, according to diamond-industry insiders. (The government says that only 10% are stolen.) … In this it is not unique. South Africa has more than 700 state-owned firms, though only a few count for much. The biggest include Eskom, the power monopoly, Transnet, the railway and ports monopoly, South African Airways (SAA) and Denel, an arms firm. Between them they account for at least 5% of the country’s economic output. Yet these behemoths are mighty drags on growth. During the global commodity boom before the 2008 financial crisis South Africa’s mines struggled to expand because underinvestment by Transnet had led to bottlenecks at ports and on the railways. Some reckon the country’s coal and iron ore mines could have increased their exports by as much as 50% had they had the means to get their minerals out to international markets. Chronic underinvestment by Eskom, meanwhile, has led to rolling power cuts that have slashed productivity in factories and mines (as well as irritating South Africans, who like light in their homes). Many state-owned firms are also racking up large losses (see chart) and guzzling subsidies. Petro SA, a national oil company that wants to build the largest oil refinery in Africa, will in fact gain a superlative even if that plan doesn’t go ahead: it is about to post a loss of about 15 billion rand ($1.1 billion), the largest ever by a state-owned company in South Africa.”

“SAA, meanwhile, has soaked up more than 30 billion rand ($2.3 billion) in bail-outs over two decades. In the process it has managed to smother domestic competition: ten of the 11 private airlines that opened after South Africa’s skies were deregulated in 1991 have gone out of business.
Instead of learning the obvious lesson—that the state is not good at running businesses—the South African government seems keen to double down. In mining, for instance, ministers talk about having a state-owned firm take over existing mines that are cutting jobs or going out of business because of low commodity prices. Instead of “unpatriotic” capitalist mines, the government would like more state-owned ones. “We think we should give it a push and see if it works,” says Ngoako Ramatlhodi, the minerals and energy minister. His policies reflect a wider shift in the government’s move away from markets and towards a “developmental state” in which the government owns “strategic” industries and uses them to pursue goals other than profitability.” 

So not only has South Africa not moved towards privatization, it is still moving away from it. Despite all these failures, the South African state is doubling down on their SOEs and are modeling themselves now on China:

Most new plans for the economy are now drawn up by two communists, Ebrahim Patel, the economic development minister, and Rob Davies, a trade minister who doesn’t seem to think much of trade. Their model is China. An ANC policy document gushes that the economic “leadership of the Communist Party of China…should be a guiding lodestar of our own struggle.” Many in the ANC like the idea that the ruling party should control businesses directly, and China’s recent troubles probably won’t change their minds.

SA President Cyril Rhamposa admitted the SOEs are a disaster:

During last night’s State of the Nation Address, President Cyril Ramaphosa acknowledged that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local government are the state’s greatest weaknesses. Many SOEs are struggling with significant debt, under-investment in infrastructure, the effects of state capture and a shortage of skills, the President said.

But I bet our fascist friend will say that this is only because they’re being run by black people. White Communism is so much better, he will say. It is marginally better, I will say, but not desirable.

At least when in the private sector, the inefficient businesses go under, better ones pop up and taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for incompetence or poor business decisions, whereas inefficient state run enterprises just get a bailout every year.

TIPS

TIPS

The logic of the Siegetards (based on the writings of Mason) is that “there’s no political solution” to our current problems and so the only way for Whites to win is to provoke a Helter Skelter cataclysmic collapse of the system through violence, race war and destruction. That cabal has been essentially taken over by satanic pedophiles, following the example of their godfather James Mason, who was also a convicted pedophile.

Form Mason’s wiki bio:

In 1988 and 1991, police raided Mason’s home in Ohio and seized pornographic photos of a 15-year-old girl. In 1992, he pleaded guilty to two counts of “illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material”,[3] for which he was sentenced to a $500 fine and a suspended sentence.[12] In May 1994, Mason was arrested and charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Mason threatened his ex-girlfriend, who was then 16 years old, and a Latino man whom she had been dating, with a firearm. Mason struck a plea bargain and was convicted of weapons charges,[12] for which he was sentenced to three years of incarceration before being released in August 1999.[3]

Mason became the advisor to Siege-inspired sperg group Atomwaffen Division, which has been thoroughly penetrated by Feds and bad actors. One member of that group, Devon Arthur, converted to radical Islam and then killed two other members of the group because they made fun of his new religion.

Hilariously Mason himself lives in Denver off of government welfare and soup kitchens.

Mason operates as an Osama bin Laden type figure, inciting and inspiring young hotheads to go out and do violent attacks while he collects his welfare check and hangs out in local soup kitchens. Like Bin Laden did, Mason preys on these young, dejected, low-IQ loner/incel type people who have nothing to lose.

Another major player in the Siege cult was Joshua Caleb Sutter, who published books on National Socialism and satanism, fusing the two things together in what Rolling Stone described as a “lunatic mashup of vampirism, Columbine-style death worship, and edgelord posturing, specifically designed to lure in the lost, angry, and transgressive types like Melzer.” Sutter’s writings and published literature became prominent in this cult grouping of neo-Nazi satanists. He was also on the payroll of the FBI from the outset.

USA Today:

For years, Joshua Caleb Sutter, an avowed white supremacist from South Carolina, has published and sold books glorifying torture, child abuse, rape, terrorism, mass murder and more – all in the name of his racist and satanic beliefs.

His self-published books have become go-to texts for some of the most extreme and violent white supremacists across the world. They have become required reading in a sinister satanist cult that has spread to several countries and has already inspired several known terrorists and would-be mass killers. 

The ideas Sutter pushes are so vile they have proven too much even for some of the country’s most dangerous and violent neo-Nazis. In 2018 several people left the white supremacist domestic terrorism group Atomwaffen Division, citing Sutter’s books – and his growing influence in the organization – as too radical even for them.

Since 2004, while his publishing business and his influence over radical white supremacists have swelled, Sutter has had another benefactor: the American taxpayer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has paid him at least $140,000 over the past 18 years to provide information about the extremist groups he associates with, according to court records. 

…

The partnership between the FBI and Sutter was first revealed in the trial last year of a leader of the violent white supremacist group Atomwaffen Division. 

The payments highlight the delicate balance federal agents strike when working with confidential informants inside extremist groups, former FBI agents and security experts told USA TODAY. Paid informants can provide invaluable information, but they also need to be handled very carefully, and the FBI doesn’t always do a good job monitoring the people it’s paying for information, former agents acknowledged. 

In September, Sutter was called as a witness in the trial of Kaleb Cole, one of the former leaders of Atomwaffen Division. Cole was being prosecuted for his role in a conspiracy to threaten journalists at various publications and researchers at the Anti-Defamation League.

Now in his early 40s, Sutter has been an active white supremacist since his teens. On the stand, he was frank about his long history of working with the FBI. Federal agents first approached him in the early 2000s, he testified, while he was serving a two-year prison sentence for possessing a pistol with an obliterated serial number.

“It was proposed that I could act in a deep-cover capacity,” he told the court, according to a transcript obtained by USA TODAY. “I was instructed to continue the relationships that I had in the right wing.”  Immediately after his release in 2004, Sutter went to work for the FBI doing surveillance, attending in-person meetings and traveling around the country targeting different networks, he testified. It was work that he did continuously over the nearly 20 years since then, he said. 

Sutter was drawn to the satanic white supremacist movement called the “Order of Nine Angles,” a group that was spreading across the globe via the internet, attracting troubled young men and women interested in violence, gore and the infliction of pain and suffering. 

Founded in the United Kingdom in the 1970s, the order claims to have chapters, called “Nexions,” across the world. This is how Koch, the Israeli academic, described the group in a research paper published earlier this year: “A loose and leaderless network of individuals and groups that merges National Socialism and Satanism; endorses tyrants, cult leaders, non-National Socialist terrorists and child-abusers; promotes violence, celebrates death, and advocates for real-life action.” 

Sutter founded a North American wing inspired by the order, giving it the title “Tempel ov Blood.” 

The Order of Nine Angels (ONA) satanic Natsoc group mentioned there was founded by another kook named David Myatt, based in the UK, who himself converted to Islam and wrote propaganda for Islamists:

At a 2003 UNESCO conference in Paris, which concerned the growth of antisemitism, it was stated that “David Myatt, the leading hardline Nazi intellectual in Britain since the 1960s […] has converted to Islam, praises bin Laden and al Qaeda, calls the 9/11 attacks ‘acts of heroism,’ and urges the killing of Jews. Myatt, under the name Abdul Aziz Ibn Myatt supports suicide missions and urges young Muslims to take up Jihad. Observers warn that Myatt is a dangerous man…”[15] This view of Myatt as a radical Muslim, or Jihadi,[16] is supported by Professor Robert S. Wistrich, who writes that Myatt, when a Muslim, was a staunch advocate of “Jihad, suicide missions and killing Jews…” and also “an ardent defender of bin Laden”.[17] One of Myatt’s writings justifying suicide attacks was, for several years, on the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing) section of the Hamas website.[18]

Atomwaffen and other spin-offs like The Base (which was named after and modeled on Al-Qaeda and whose leader is an American ex-intel spook married to a Russian and lives in Russia) are more or less ONA offshoots:

The Order of Nine Angles is British-based, but steeped in Nazism. A fringe occultist group whose literature encourages human sacrifices, the ONA champions Nazi Germany and pushes Holocaust denialism. One of the group’s longest-running leaders, Anton Long, is rumored to have been a pseudonym for the known neo-Nazi David Myatt.

The ONA requires members (called Noctulians) to spend six months either hitchhiking, working as a burglar, working as a police officer, or infiltrating an extremist political group.

“Undertake the role of extreme political activist and so champion heretical views (by, e.g. becoming involved in extreme Right-Wing activism),” the group demands in one of its introductory books. “The aim is to express fanaticism in action and be seen by all ‘right-thinking people’ as an extremist, and a dangerous one.”

That book is also recommended reading for Atomwaffen members. On a recently defunct website, Atomwaffen uploaded the book in full in the “spirituality” section of its “library.” The library also encouraged Atomwaffen members to read Iron Gates, a gruesome sci-fi novel penned by the occult group Tempel of Blood, which is openly affiliated with the ONA.

“While officially a separate organization, the Tempel acknowledges its ties to the Order, and credits the ONA for much of its terminology and mythos,” Tempel’s website reads.

Iron Gates is listed as required reading on Atomwaffen’s current website.

Atomwaffen’s satanism-heavy reading list has apparently driven away some former members who were only in the group for the Nazism. In January, a purported former Atomwaffen member quit the group dramatically, publishing a 27-page Google document claiming to document the group’s growing satanic ties.

“A plague has befallen the movement yet again,” the former Atomwaffen member wrote about satanism (not about murder). “We WILL purge the Noctulian scum from our ranks, and never again will this happen.”

Atomwaffen went on to inspire various murders and an attempted murder plot on US soldiers by Ethan Melzer:

The key evangelical for O9A, the figure who facilitated this macabre wedding of apocalyptic death cults, is Joshua Caleb Sutter, a 41-year-old ex-convict, prolific satanist, publisher of manuscripts advocating murder, torture, rape, and child abuse — and a paid FBI informant since 2004.

Sutter’s O9A message is a lunatic mashup of vampirism, Columbine-style death worship, and edgelord posturing, specifically designed to lure in the lost, angry, and transgressive types like Melzer.

Indeed, for his part, Melzer’s indoctrination seemed complete. “Fascism is more the law of nature than anything, [its] worldview is that by causing absolute chaos, anarchy, whatever you want to call it, the law of nature will naturally take over once again,” Melzer wrote on a Telegram channel devoted to satanism.

In spring 2020, Melzer learned of the 173rd Airborne Brigade’s upcoming deployment from Camp Ederle in Vicenza, Italy, to a base in Turkey. Prosecutors allege that Melzer passed on highly classified details of his unit’s forthcoming assignment to fellow satanists on Telegram, and to a person he believed was a member of Al Qaeda. The intelligence was sent with the intent of having the 173rd ambushed by terrorists and triggering a “mascal” — military speak for a “mass casualty” event, prosecutors say.

In the back and forth over a number of days in May 2020, according to the evidence presented by federal prosecutors, Melzer and his alleged Al Qaeda and satanist co-conspirators discussed the location of the base, the precise number of personnel stationed there, and the unit’s defensive capabilities. Melzer also allegedly shared satellite images of the outpost’s layout. The proposed carnage apparently didn’t bother Melzer in the least. In fact, he reveled in the potential fallout from a massacre of American soldiers by jihadis, even if that meant losing his own life.

According to the New York Post:

several O9A texts promote rape and pedophilia as a way to transgress against civilized norms. As of 2019, six neo-Nazi followers of O9A in the US and the UK have been convicted of sexual assault and possession of child abuse material.

Following in the footsteps of their sage, James Mason, the pedophile. This makes sense since Satanism is a demented death cult that promotes all kinds of “transgressive” behaviors designed to desensitize people to violence, death and chaos, to usher in their satanic end times apocalypse. This is why these satanic pedophile neo-nazis become fascinated with Islamic terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as foreign dictatorships like North Korea. Anything that is looked upon as “verboten” in society, they will embrace it as rebel contrarians, which is what nihilistic Satanism is all about.

Another ONA/Atomwaffen spin-off was the UK’s National Action. They used the same bad optics, demonic aesthetics (skull masks), and extreme rhetoric. The group was eventually shut down by the UK government and its leader Jack Renshaw was convicted of homosexual grooming of minors:

Renshaw, a campaigner against child sexual exploitation, was secretly a paedophile who had been grooming boys for sex. For nearly a year he had been using a fake Facebook profile to sexually groom two boys, who were aged between 13 and 15 at the time.

Despite not meeting the children, he offered them money for sex and requested intimate photographs. Police were alerted after a relative saw messages on one of the boy’s phones. Detectives established the Facebook messages had been sent from the Blackpool address occupied by Jack Renshaw.

When first arrested in January, he had only been interviewed in relation to the speeches, before being released on bail while inquiries continued. One of the investigating officers – Det Con Victoria Henderson – was tasked with keeping in touch with the suspect and she also became involved in the sexual offences inquiry.

In May that year, Renshaw was re-arrested and questioned about the grooming. He must have realised his deception was at an end. DC Henderson later said Renshaw had been “shocked and upset” and “gone visibly white and was very teary”.

He denied grooming the boys, despite evidence of the offending having been found on his own phones. The suspect, who had a history of making homophobic statements, told DC Henderson he was still a virgin, did not believe in sex outside marriage, and that his taste in pornography was “quite traditional” and “quite conservative”.

While admitting to having searched online for gay pornography “out of interest”, he denied being homosexual and said same-sex relationships were “unnatural”. Within two days of being released on bail, Renshaw searched for DC Henderson on Facebook.

…

Renshaw eventually faced four trials over the past 14 months. In January 2018, at Preston Crown Court, he was convicted of two counts of stirring up racial hatred in speeches and later sentenced to three years in prison In June, at the same court, he was convicted of four counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and jailed for an additional 18 months.

The case can only be reported now his final trial has concluded. In the dock in Preston he appeared sheepish as videos of police interviews with his two young victims, conducted by DC Henderson, were shown to the court. One boy described how Renshaw – using a fake Facebook profile under an assumed name – called him a “hottie” and “jailbait”. “He was getting too weird, saying he wanted to do weird sexual things to me,” the victim said. “Deffo getting cuddled you,” Renshaw had informed him.

…

Renshaw asked the child for explicit photos and tried to entice him into sex by offering money, drugs and pizza: “One night. 10 grand. Me and you.” “I was scared for my life,” the child told DC Henderson. The second boy said Renshaw bombarded him with messages daily.

Around Christmas time, he sent the child an image of some presents and said he could have them in exchange for intimate pictures. Renshaw even sent the boy graphic photos of himself. When the child called Renshaw a “dirty paedophile” he replied by saying “that turned him on”, the victim recalled.

Renshaw, in the witness box, said his only explanation for how evidence of his sexual interest in children – including very explicit search terms – came to be on four separate mobile phones to which only he had access, that were seized by police over a period of several months, was “real time synchronised access” by Hope not Hate.

Hacking, to put it another way. Hacking so complex it was beyond the capabilities of advanced states. The fake Facebook profile had been accessed during bursts of online activity that Renshaw admitted were his own, including sometimes within seconds of social media accounts in his own name being used.

So it seems that pedophilia and satanism follows these people around like flies on shit. That’s because it’s a feature of the O9A cult’s ideology and was the perverse habit of James Mason too. Mason claims to disavow the satanism stuff but whatever the case is, his own ideology is not far off from it and he’s a confirmed pedophile scumbag.

The only people who would be attracted to this extreme shit would be mentally ill, maladjusted, social defects as William Pierce described them.

And that is exactly the types of people I have witnessed in those circles. Their ranks are filled with low-IQ, poorly educated, socially inept, drug addicted, criminally inclined types who get involved in extreme politics because it is a form of escapism from their sad lives. They want a rush and some attention from strangers.

These people do absolutely no good for Whites and purposely wrap themselves in White advocacy to undermine it and make it appear as vile and repugnant as possible to the average White person. If they didn’t exist on their own, the ADL and FBI would invent them to discredit good faith genuine pro-White activism and politics. These dipshits offer nothing positive for right-wing Europeans going forward other than either premature death or imprisonment. If you want to keep your sanity, health and life then stay as far away from these satanic pedophile rats as you can.

Firstly, Sewell and I used to have a genuine friendship (at least on my end) and I supported him both through promotion and financially. Overall I probably sent him about 1K in crypto to help him deal with his legal issues. I didn’t have to do that, but I thought he was very much on point (and still is) on numerous issues that we face today. He’s an eloquent speaker and passionate representative of White Australian interests with many of the right instincts against the malaise that afflicts Europeans today.

I suspected that whatever gratitude he showed me in the past would quickly evaporate over my change of opinion about Hitler and fascism, the gnostic cult he has committed his life to, which shows that he was never a true friend but only an acquaintance who was using me as a signal boost to propel the ideology.

My views are not as different now as he claims they are. Because he’s a Hitler worshipper with tunnel vision he’s obsessing over this one viewpoint change, which is not even an important one. Anyone who follows my content knows that my political views are largely the same as before, except for this one historical topic. Many less astute people mistake an optical shift for an ideological shift, but they’re not the same thing. But as you can see, I don’t care about winning the approval of other people. I am my own man and have genuine beliefs of my own. I don’t follow trends or cults and if I see issues, contradictions and problems with an ideology that I can’t stand by, then I will call that out no matter who dislikes me because of it.

Sewell has been sucked so far into the rabbit hole of Neo-Nazism and this cultic Hitler worship nonsense that it’ll take a miracle to break him out of that mold. He’s invested far too much of his life into it that he can’t escape it now. If he changes course even slightly, he’ll lose his paypigs and followers. His friend Blair Cottrell wisely warned him about the destructive path he was on with his ridiculous KKK cosplay, cross burnings, and Hitler séance rituals, and how all that does nothing to advance pro-White politics but rather undermines it. I was on Sewell’s side at that time because I was in the cult, but I’ve come to realize how correct Cottrell was about all that jazz over time.

He accuses me here in that clip of being a “bad faith actor” because of my change of view on Hitler. He provides no evidence for this other than that he doesn’t like my views about Hitler. Then he misrepresents what I say about Hitler to create a fake strawman. He says that I say Hitler was anti-White because he fought against White people. That’s not what I argue. If I ever did say that it was a misstatement. What I do say is that Hitler was anti-Slavic, that’s undeniable. You can be pro-German and anti-Slavic at the same time, as Hitler was, which means that Hitler wasn’t “pro-White”. Just as you can be pro-Irish but anti-English, pro-Serb but anti-Croat, pro-Basque but anti-Spanish, etc. That’s different from being anti-White. Those are internal blood feuds among Europeans, which I oppose. Slavs are White, so hating them means you’re not pro-White. “Pro-White” means you love/support all Europeans not just North Western ones.

Hitler’s anti-Slavicism is beyond dispute. I wrote a massive article documenting tons of evidence that Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Bormann and others hated the Slavs and viewed them as an inferior race. Here’s a few quotes:

“For the organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. Numerous mighty empires on earth have been created in this way. Lower nations led by Germanic organizers and overlords have more than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured as long as the racial nucleus of the creative state race maintained itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. Today it can be regarded as almost totally exterminated and extinguished.” – Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 14

“Your errors in the domain of foreign policy are explained by your ignorance of racial factors. For example, you are enthusiastic about the Hindu independence movement … you know the Anglo-Saxons have the mission to govern the people they have subdued, precisely in the name of their superiority. The Nordic race is called to dominate the world, and this right must guide our foreign policy. It’s why we cannot envision any rapprochement with Russia, which is a Slavic-Tatar body surmounted by a Jewish head. I knew Slavs from my home country. In the era where a Germanic head ruled the Slavic body, entente was possible, Bismarck outlined this rapprochement before. But today, it would be a crime.” – 1930, Hitler in discussion with Otto Strasser

“Not only in Austria, however, but also in Germany, these so-called national circles were, and still are, influenced by similarly false ideas. A Polish policy, involving a Germanization of the East, was demanded by many and was unfortunately based on the same false reasoning. Here again it was believed that a Germanization of the Polish element could occur by a purely linguistic union. The result would have been catastrophic: A foreign people expressing their foreign thoughts in the German language, thus compromising the dignity and nobility of our own nation by their inferiority.” – Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter Two

“The Führer’s verdict on the Poles is scathing. More animals than men, completely dull and amorphous. Next to them a slaughtering class, which is at least the product of the lower classes mixed with an Aryan master class. The filth of the Poles is unimaginable. Their judgment is also nil. Even Lipski believed that a nervous crisis would break out in our country in 8 days during the war. Poor madman! The Führer does not want assimilation with the Poles. They are to be squeezed into their reduced state and left entirely to themselves.” – Goebbels diaries

“The incidents that Sepp Dietrich related to me about the Russian people in the occupied areas are simply hair-raising. They are not a people, but a conglomeration of animals. The greatest danger threatening us in the East is the stolid dullness of this mass. That applies both to the civilian population and to the soldiers. The soldiers won’t surrender, as is the fashion in western Europe, when completely surrounded, but continue to fight until they are beaten to death. Bolshevism has merely accentuated this racial propensity of the Russian people. In other words, we are facing an adversary about whom we must be careful. The human mind cannot possibly imagine what it would mean if this opponent were to pour into western Europe like a flood.” – Goebbels on the Russians, diaries

“The Slavs are to work for us [Germans]. Insofar as we do not need them, they may die. Therefore, compulsory vaccination and German health service are superfluous. THE FERTILITY OF THE SLAVS IS UNDESIRABLE. THEY MAY USE CONTRACEPTIVES OR PRACTICE… ABORTION, THE MORE THE BETTER. Education is dangerous. It is enough if they can count up to 100. At best an education which produces useful coolies for us is admissible. Every educated person is a future enemy. Religion we leave to them as a means of diversion. As for food, they will not get any more than is necessary. We are the masters; we come first.” – Martin Bormann in letter to Rosenberg on Eastern policy

“I am not in the least interested in the fate of a Russian or a Czech. We will take from other Nations the blood of our type that they can give us. If necessary, we will take their children away from them and bring them up in our environment. Whether other peoples live in contentment or starve to death is of interest to me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise, it does not interest me. If ten thousand Russian women fall from exhaustion while digging anti-tank ditches, it will only interest me to the extent that this anti-tank ditch is ready for Germany.” – Himmler’s speech at a meeting of SS gruppenfuhrers in Poznan on October 4, 1943

There’s much more where that came from. Sewell does not dispute this information, he hasn’t even tried. He can’t because it’s all true. It’s right in his bible, Mein Kampf.

Here’s Sewell getting asked how many Whites Hitler killed:

He first refuses to answer and then says, “Hitler was fighting for White living space”. This is wrong. He was fighting for GERMAN living space AGAINST other White people (Slavs). As I showed in my Lebensraum video, Hitler states explicitly in Chapter 14 of Mein Kampf that he believed the 1914 borders of Germany were insufficient living space not worth fighting for, and that the only way for Germany to become a “great power” again was by expanding East and seizing new land from Russia. It’s all there in black and white.

Sewell is being tricky here by using the term “White” instead of “German” to confuse people. Hitler was not for “Whites” he was for “Germans” only. He disliked other Whites, especially Poles and Russians, because he was trying to otherize them in order to justify invading, subjugating and colonizing their lands for German exploitation as he said in a 1941 meeting.

So according to Sewell, it’s OK to invade and kill Whites so long as you’re doing so to benefit a different group of Whites. This is a brazen contradiction to his alleged “pro-White” worldview. And I very much doubt he would have the same opinion if it were Meds or Slavs invading Nordic countries to expand their living space. He clearly favours GERMAN Whites over Slavic/Polish/Russian (and most certainly Mediterranean) Whites. When you get into the details here, his bias comes out. Natsocs like Sewell are NORDICISTS with a particular fetish for Germany and Germans. They care more about North West Euros than other ones. That’s clear. He’s being dishonest when he says he’s “Pro-White”. His in-group is not “Whites” as a whole, it’s North Western Europeans. I don’t have a huge problem with that in principle, but I do have a big fucking problem with these Nordicists trying to justify colonialism and imperialism against other White people (as they do with Hitler). They call themselves “pro-White” right now because they see a common non-White foe coming in via mass immigration, but when the dust settles on that question, they’ll turn their guns on Meds and Slavs who they truly view as “not White enough” (one drop rule).

If Hitler is not bad for killing millions of Whites, sticking them in slave labour camps and colonizing their land for the exclusive benefit of his ethnic group, then why is Stalin bad for doing all of that? They have no answer. Hitler can do anything and they will support it because it’s a deranged cult.

Moving on from that point, there’s obviously other issues I have with Hitler and fascism, such as its close parallels with Marxism, but I won’t go over that here. I do resent Sewell’s claim that I’m not pursuing the truth intellectually. That’s exactly what I’m doing. I wrote an article about how I changed my view of Hitler after the Russia/Ukraine war started. I saw many parallels between Putin’s justifications for his invasion of Ukraine and Hitler’s for his invasions, and I saw many Neo-Nazis backing Putin on the same grounds that they back Hitler. They must do that because it’s nearly the same policy: German ethnic Lebensraum vs Russian cultural Lebensraum. To denounce Putin for his version of Lebensraum would call into question their defense of Hitler’s.

I resent a lot Sewell’s assertion that I’m a bad faith actor, whatever that means, which he has no proof of. I could easily throw that accusation back at him. In a way he’s forced to say that about me to appease his flock. He’s auditioning to be the next Führer and as such must “defend the faith” (aka cult) against all dissenters left, right and center. He is an intelligent and astute person so I can’t understand why he has embraced such a stupid posture in public with his cosplay antics. He endorses mentally retarded wigger glowops like GDL/Bloodtribe, people that even William Pierce would have denounced as “defective freaks and misfits”.

Sewell’s a hotheaded zealot who gets himself into trouble, maybe on purpose to get some camera time which he seems addicted to. He has said his genius “political strategy” is being a “lightning rod” for government suppression, whatever that’s supposed to accomplish. So how can he hate the Australian government for suppressing him when he says that’s exactly what he wants it to do?

He is a chronic fedposter who has embraced a version of siegetard violent accelerationism; he has praised mass shooter Brenton Tarrant and bragged about trying to recruit him; here he praises the murder of White leftists by blacks; here he is basically calling for race war and the mass murder of “anti-Whites” ; he called Whites in South Africa “disgusting cowards who deserve their fate” because he says they’re not doing enough violence in response to black violence:

He said on Chris Mitchell’s podcast that UK cops deserve to get raped; he pretty clearly used disproportionate force to attack a security guard who grabbed his friend when trying to get some media face-time; the list goes on. All of this berserk behaviour is what one may expect from a true “bad faith actor” looking to get the people who associate with him into legal trouble.

Sewell has criminals in his group and recruits convicted felons as well as prison and biker gang members.

This has been one of my main critiques of the skinhead/neo-nazi scene. It’s full of low-IQ ex-cons. These natsoc groups are glorified prison gangs. Sewell recruits from jails because criminals have little to nothing to lose so they make better “revolutionaries,” in his mind. His hard edge off-putting optics will scare away most normal White people with middle or upper class lifestyles and jobs, so he’s left with looking for members among the less educated and less intelligent lower classes, unskilled labourers, and ex-cons. Hence why modern National Socialism is a notoriously low-IQ movement full of Jerry Springer drama spergs.

Sewell is definitely a step above your average unhinged natsoc spergnat, which I guess he understands and thinks he’s going to make them into better men. But at the end of the day, you’ll be judged by the company you keep and the company he keeps is ugly. I don’t think Sewell’s a “fed” because I’m not a paranoid schizo conspiracy theorist like most natsocs are, but I do think he can’t control his emotions and is drunk on accelerationist Turner Diaries fan fiction, which has led him into this peculiar path to nowhere.

Despite all the ideological and optical disagreements, I don’t wish any harm comes his way in Australia. I fully support the pro-White effort to win back their country, not only in Australia but everywhere. But I cannot endorse him or the company he keeps. I hope one day he can see where he has gone wrong, where he can improve and corrects course into something more productive.

Syrian Girl

So right there she fully justified and supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine based on a semitic blood ritual revenge fantasy that Ukraine had limited involvement in the Iraq war and so got what it deserved. She applies that collective blood guilt to all Europeans and supports violence against us.

Andrew Anglin

That’s from an article Anglin wrote supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine and saying that he supports Russia killing “as many [Ukrainian] civilians as they need to” to win the war.

Eric Striker aka Joseph Jordan

As you can see there, Venezuelan communist Striker was one of the loudest proponents of the Russian attack on Ukraine, called Ukraine a “fake country,” advocated for it to be dismantled, said “the way [the Russians] are fighting this war is exemplary,” and ran cover for the Chechen rape jihadists that Putin sent in to colonize the country.

Ryan Dawson

Dawson vehemently shilled for Russia’s war in Ukraine and said “the best outcome for the world is a decisive Russian victory”.

Nick Fuentes

Fuentes was one of the loudest and most obnoxious cheerleaders for the war in Ukraine actively defending attacks on civilians.

You can find many more “alt-media” scum personalities like these using their platforms as bullhorns for Russian pro-war propaganda. Yet all of them are now clutching their pearls and grinding their teeth about the dead Arabs in Gaza after Hamas surprise attacked Israel.

I don’t pick a side in that Semitic squabble between Israel and Palestine, but I think it can be used to illustrate the duplicity of these alt-media personalities and their hyper-selective and tactical outrage about wars. All of these Kremlin shills clearly value the lives of Arabs above Whites since they supported Russia killing Whites but oppose Israel killing Arabs.

It’s all tactical selective bullshit to service what they think is maximally detrimental to Jews or Washington.

People like Syrian Girl and Ryan Dawson are non-White Arab supremacists themselves so that’s not surprising. Their worldview is “what’s good for the Arabs is good” and little more. They are radioactive trash smeared in dogshit. They exist to advocate for the demise and destruction of the West and the rise of the East.

The wignats are not far off from that position. People like Fuentes, Striker and Anglin are even more duplicitous because they larp around as “pro-White” advocates yet clearly value the lives of Arabs (Palestinians) above Whites (Ukrainians) looking at their rancid output over the last few years. Since the new war between Hamas and Israel has kicked off, all of these retards have been wailing histrionically about the poor Arabs and their right to self-defense, a right they don’t likewise grant to the Ukrainians fighting the Russian occupiers who pay them.

All of this shows that “alt-media” personalities are just as dubious, dishonest and compromised as mainstream ones, just on different topics and in different ways. We need to be just as skeptical of those presenting themselves as “alternative” because they hide behind a veneer of impartiality when in fact they too have vested interests to shill for certain causes and governments that align with their own political agendas.

If you liked this content, consider making a contribution or becoming a member.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact:

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union with secret protocol that partitioned Central and Eastern Europe between them. The pact was signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939 by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov[1] and was officially known as the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.[2][3] Unofficially, it has also been referred to as the Hitler–Stalin Pact,[4][5] Nazi–Soviet Pact[6] or Nazi–Soviet Alliance.[7]

From “How Adolf Hitler Began to Admire Josef Stalin“:

Adolf Hitler’s assessment of the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin demonstrates the contradiction between National Socialist propaganda and Hitler’s actual opinions. While he never tired of attacking the “Jewish-Bolshevist conspiracy” in his speeches, from no later than 1940 onwards he changed his opinion: Stalin was, in Hitler’s eyes, no longer the representative of “Jewish interests” but was now pursuing a nationalistic Russian policy in the tradition of Peter the Great.

Hitler first alluded to the possibility of such a development in his “Second Book,” which he wrote in 1928, but was never published: However, it is conceivable that in Russia itself an inner change within the Bolshevist world could take place insofar as the Jewish element could perhaps be forced aside by a more or less Russian national one. Then it could also not be excluded that the present real Jewish-capitalist-Bolshevist Russia could be driven to national-anti-capitalist tendencies.

What Hitler later stated as a fact, namely Russia’s change from a “Jewish dictatorship” into a national Russian anti-capitalist state, he described in 1928 as being a possibility and a tendency. It is difficult to determine when Hitler finally revised his assessment of the conflict between Stalin and Leo Trotsky and came to the view he later constantly advocated, that Stalin had emancipated himself from the Jews and was pursuing a national and anti-Jewish policy.

Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, reported in his diary on January 25, 1937, that Hitler had not yet completely made up his mind about the events in Russia and his assessment of Stalin:

In Moscow another show trial. This time solely against Jews again. Radek etc. Führer still doubtful whether not with hidden anti-Semitic tendency after all. Perhaps Stalin wants to drive the Jews out after all. The military is also supposed to be strongly anti-Semitic. Therefore keep eyes open. For the time being remain in wait and see position.

From early 1940 onwards, however, there were an increasing number of statements made by Hitler in which his admiration for Stalin and the Bolshevist regime become clear. These, no doubt, also served the purpose of defending the pact he had concluded with Stalin in 1939. But even after the attack on the USSR, when Hitler no longer had an alliance to justify, he clung to his positive assessment of Stalin. On September 23, 1941, Sturmabteilung (SA) Standartenführer Werner Koeppen noted the following statement by Hitler:

Stalin was one of the greatest of living men because he succeeded in forging a state out of this Slavic family of rabbits, albeit only with the harshest of compulsion. For this he naturally had to avail himself of the Jews, because the thin Europeanized class which had formerly carried the state had been exterminated, and these forces would never again grow up out of the actual Russianhood.

Of course, this assessment did not prevent Hitler from continuing to spread the thesis of “Jewish Bolshevism” in his speeches for propaganda purposes. But in contrast to these public propaganda statements, Hitler said in a table talk in early January 1942 that:

Stalin is seen as the man who had intended to help the Bolshevist idea to victory. In reality he is only Russia, the continuation of Tsarist pan-Slavism! For him Bolshevism is only a means to an end. It serves as a camouflage vis-à-vis the Germanic and Romanic nations.

On July 24, 1942, he claimed that “in front of Ribbentrop Stalin had made no bones at all about the fact that he was only waiting for the moment of maturity of their own intelligentsia in the USSR in order to make an end of the Jewry he still needed today as a leadership.”

Henry Picker, who recorded Hitler’s table talks, reports on numerous further talks in which Hitler expressed his admiration for Stalin or defended him against critical remarks. Hitler had always, for example, become angry when someone called Stalin a former “bank robber.” Hitler would then immediately defend Stalin with the declaration that Stalin had not carried out his bank robberies as a private person nor for the benefit of his own pocket, “but as a revolutionary and in order to finance the Communist movement.” For Stalin, Hitler said on July 22, 1942, “one has to have respect in any case. In his way he is quite a brilliant chap!”

Heinrich Heim, another witness who recorded Hitler’s table talks, also noted many positive statements by Hitler about Stalin. On August 26, 1942, Hitler said:

If Stalin had continued to work for another ten to fifteen years Soviet Russia would have become the most powerful nation on earth, 150, 200, 300 years may go by, that is such a unique phenomenon! That the general standard of living rose, there can be no doubt. The people did not suffer from hunger. Taking everything together we have to say: They built factories here where two years ago there was nothing but forgotten villages, factories which are as big as the Hermann Göring Works. They have railways that are not even marked on the maps. Here with us we argue about the tariffs before the railway is even built. I have a book about Stalin; one has to say: That is an enormous personality, a real ascetic, who has brought that huge empire together with an iron fist. Only when someone says that is a social state, then that is a gigantic swindle! It is a national capital state: 200 million people, iron, manganese, nickel, oil, petroleum and what you like – unlimited. At the head a man who said: Do you think the loss of 13 million people is too much for a great idea?

The things Hitler admired in Stalin become particularly clear in this statement: the consistency, even brutality (“iron fist”), with which Stalin—even with the sacrifice of millions of people—implemented the “great idea” and created a powerful industrial state impressed Hitler. In Stalin, he saw his own reflection, namely the executor of the dictatorship of modernization who did not shrink from the employment of even the most brutal methods.

Scheidt, who, as adjutant to Hitler’s “representative for military history” Walther Scherff and a member of the Führer Headquarters group, had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in the “briefings.” Scheidt writes in his notes:

Hitler began secretly to admire Stalin. From then on his hatred was determined by envy … He clung to the hope that he could defeat Bolshevism with its own weapons if he copied it in Germany and the occupied regions … He increasingly held the Russian methods up to his associates as being exemplary. We cannot fight this battle for existence without their hardness and ruthlessness, he was wont to say. He rejected any objections as being bourgeois.

After July 20, 1944, for example, Hitler bemoaned the fact that he had not purged the Wehrmacht like Stalin had and converted it into a National Socialist revolutionary army. Hitler’s architect Albert Speer reports on a meeting of ministers on July 21, 1944:

Today he [Hitler] realized that in his case against Tuchatshevsky Stalin had taken the decisive step for a successful waging of the war. By having liquidated the General Staff he had made room for fresh forces, who no longer stemmed from the age of the Tsars. He had formerly always held the accusations at the Moscow trials of 1937 to be trumped up. Now, after the experience of 20 July he was wondering whether there had not been something to them after all. While he did not have any evidence for it, Hitler continued, he could still no longer exclude a treasonable co-operation between the two general staffs.

Two months before the assassination attempt, in a presentation to generals and officers, Hitler had said:

This problem has been completely solved in Bolshevist Russia. Completely unequivocal situations, clear unequivocal statements by the officer to these points of view, which concern the state, to the whole of expert opinion and with this, naturally, an unequivocal relationship to allegiance, a completely clear relationship. In Germany this whole process was unfortunately interrupted much too quickly by the war, because you can be sure that these courses which take place today would perhaps never have become necessary if the war had not come about.

What Hitler, therefore, primarily admired in Stalin was his revolutionary consistency in the elimination of the former élites. Hitler’s admiration for Stalin was not only an expression of the respect he felt for him personally; his relationship with Stalin also reflected his ambivalent position on Marxism/Communism, which was always characterized by simultaneous fear and admiration. Hitler admired Stalin’s revolutionary consistency above all, but exactly this consistency, which went far further than his own, also made him afraid, and made Bolshevism appear as the only serious opponent.

The fact that Hitler privately said that Stalin had eliminated the Jewish members of his regime and thus “Russified” Bolshevism itself undermines Hitler’s own war propaganda that he invaded Russia to “liberate” it from “Judeo-Bolshevism”. According to Hitler, Stalin had already done that job for him by the early 30s.

From Ian Kershaw’s “Hitler: Nemesis”:

‘Alluding to Mussolini’s letter in January, and to his own reply a few days before the meeting, Hitler emphasized how British intransigence had forced him to conclude an alliance with Russia. But, although Stalin had deprived Bolshevism of its Jewish and international character and turned it into a ‘slavic Moscowitism’, Russia remained for Germany an ‘absolutely foreign world’. ‘For Germany only one partner came into question: Italy. Russia was only insurance cover.’

From “How Hitler Became a Believer in the State-Planned Economy”:

to a certain extent we can only speculate on Hitler’s true position before 1933 because Hitler kept his plans strictly secret, primarily in order not to offend the businessmen. In his talks with Otto Wagener, the chief of the economic policy section of the NSDAP, Hitler underlined the importance of keeping his economic plans secret time and again. In September 1931, for example, he said:

“The conclusion from this is what I have said all along, that this idea is not to become a subject for propaganda, or even for any sort of discussion, except within the innermost study group. It can only be implemented in any case when we hold political power in our hands. And even then we will have as opponents, besides the Jews, all of private industry, particularly heavy industry, as well as the medium and large landholders, and naturally the banks.”

In speeches to industrialists before 1933, Hitler presented himself as a supporter of private ownership; in other speeches, he sharply attacked capitalism. Often tactical considerations played a role, and sometimes he was only saying what he knew his audience wanted to hear. One thing is certain, however: Hitler’s main intention was obviously to reconcile the advantages of the principles of competition and selection (in the socio-Darwinistic sense) with the “advantages” of a state-controlled economy.

So we can see here that before getting into power, Hitler’s Machiavellian tactic was to feign different positions to different audiences on this question. In front of lower class workers, he’d preach anti-capitalism; in front of a room of business owners, he preach anti-communism. But he was really fooling the business owners not the workers as we shall see.

More from previous source:

While the state was to direct the economy according to the principle “common interest before self-interest” and to set the objectives, within this framework the principle of competition was not to be abolished, because in Hitler’s view it was an important mainspring for economic development and technical progress. What was important, however, was that Hitler did not share the beliefs of economic liberalism, according to which the common good would come about as a result of the play of the various self-interests.

This is made clear in a speech Hitler delivered on November, 13 1930:

“In all of business, in all of life in fact, we will have to do away with the concept that the benefit to the individual is what is most important, and that from the self-interest of the individual the benefit to the whole is built up, therefore that it is the benefit to the individual which only makes up the benefit to the community at all. The opposite is true. The benefit to the community determines the benefit to the individual. The profit of the individual is only weighed out from the profit of the community…. If this principle is not accepted, then an egoism must necessarily develop which will destroy the community.”

In view of the successes then achieved by the economic policies of the government, Hitler’s reservations against state planning of the economy gradually diminished. How important Hitler considered the question of state-controlled planning of the economy to be can be seen from the fact that in August 1936 he personally wrote a “Memorandum on the Four-Year Plan 1936.” In this memorandum his admiration and fear of the Soviet system of planned economy were expressed: “The German economy, however, will learn to understand the new economic tasks, or it will prove itself to be incapable of continuing to survive in these modern times in which the Soviet state sets up a gigantic plan.”

Hitler was convinced of the superiority of the Soviet planned economy system over the capitalist economic system. This must be regarded as an essential reason why he so vehemently demanded and enforced the extension of state control of the economy in Germany as well.

Hitler attributed the success of National Socialist economic policy primarily to state control of the economy. From 1940 at the latest, Hitler increasingly became a proponent of the state planned economy – partly because he was convinced of the superiority of the Soviet Union and its economic system. In his monologs to his inner circle (known as “table talks”) on July 27-28, 1941 Hitler said that “A sensible employment of the powers of a nation can only be achieved with a planned economy from above.”

About two weeks later he said: “As far as the planning of the economy is concerned, we are still very much at the beginning and I imagine it will be something wonderfully nice to build up an encompassing German and European economic order.” The statement that as far as the planning of the economy was concerned one was still at the very beginning is important because it shows that Hitler was not thinking at all of a reduction of state intervention – not even for the time after the war – but, on the contrary, intended to expand the instruments of state control of the economy even further.

So here we see that by 1936, Hitler had thrust the economy into a mode of full-scale economic planning from above and that he modeled all of this on the Soviet Union. He later said that this state control of the economy was “only the beginning,” meaning that he was not planning to let off these controls after the war, he intended to keep them in place. That coincides nicely with two statements Hitler makes in 1934 and 1943 in which he calls outright for the elimination of “castes and classes” to equalize all Germans onto a level playing field:

“And we want that you, German boys and girls, to absorb everything that we wish for Germany. We want to be one people and through you, to become this people. We want a society with neither castes nor ranks and you must not allow these ideas to grow within you.” – Triumph of the Will (1934)

“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” – Speech for the Heroes’ Memorial Day (1943)

More from Zitelmann:

On July 5, 1942 Hitler expressed the opinion that if the German economy had been able so far to deal with innumerable problems “… this was also due in the end to the fact that the direction of the economy had gradually become more controlled by the state. Only thus had it been possible to enforce the overall national objective against the interests of individual groups. Even after the war we would not be able to renounce state control of the economy, because then every interest group would think exclusively of the fulfillment of its wishes.”

Hitler’s view of the Soviet economic system apparently also changed from skepticism to admiration. In a table talk on July 22, 1942, Hitler vehemently defended the Soviet economic system and even the so-called “Stachanow System,” which it was “exceedingly stupid” to ridicule: “One has to have unqualified respect for Stalin. In his way, the guy is quite a genius! His ideals such as Genghis Khan and so forth he knows very well, and his economic planning is so all-encompassing that it is only exceeded by our own Four-Year Plan. I have no doubts whatsoever that there have been no unemployed in the USSR, as opposed to capitalist countries such as the USA.”

Hitler’s admiration for the Soviet system is also confirmed in the notes of Wilhelm Scheidt, who—as adjutant to Hitler’s “representative for military history” Walther Scherff and a member of the Führer Headquarters group—had close contact with Hitler and sometimes even took part in briefings. Scheidt writes that Hitler underwent a “conversion to Bolshevism.” From Hitler’s remarks, he says, the following reactions could be derived: “Firstly, Hitler was enough of a materialist to be the first to recognise the enormous armament achievements of the USSR in the context of her strong, generous and all-encompassing economic organisation.”

Scheidt writes that in view of such impressions Hitler had recognised and expressed “the inner relationship of his system with the so heatedly opposed Bolshevism,” whereby he had to admit that “this system of the enemy was developed far more completely and straightforwardly. His enemy became his secret example.” The “experience of Communist Russia,” particularly the impression of the alleged superiority of the Soviet economic system, had produced a strong reaction in Hitler and the circle of his faithful: “The other economic systems appeared not to be competitive in comparison.” About the impression of the rational organisation of farming in the USSR and the “gigantic industrial plants which gave eloquent testimony despite their destruction,” Hitler, says Scheidt, had been “enthusiastic”.

The German dictator admitted during a conversation with Benito Mussolini on April 22, 1944, he had become convinced: “Capitalism too had run its course, the nations were no longer willing to stand for it. The victors to survive would be Fascism, and National Socialism – maybe Bolshevism in the East.”

Hitler himself was convinced, as he emphasized in his last radio address on January, 30, 1945, “that the age of unrestricted economic liberalism had outlived itself.” These statements of Hitler’s in 1935 to 1945, but particularly from the beginning of the 1940s on, show that he had become a vehement critic of the system of free enterprise and a confirmed adherent of the system of a planned, state-controlled economy.

Operation Pike shows the extent of Soviet-Nazi collaboration worried the Anglo-French alliance:

Operation Pike was the code-name for a strategic bombing plan overseen by UK Air Commodore John Slessor against the USSR by the Anglo-French alliance.[2] British military planning against the Soviet Union occurred during the first two years of the Second World War, when, despite Soviet neutrality, the British and French concluded that the German–Soviet pact made Stalin an accomplice of Hitler.[3] The plan was designed to destroy the Soviet oil industry to cause the collapse of the Soviet economy and deprive Germany of Soviet resources, which, if successful, would have enabled Germany’s victory on the Eastern front. After the conclusion of the German-Soviet Pact, Britain and France became concerned that the Soviets supplied oil to the Germans.[4]

Volker Ullrich confirms Hitler’s private admiration for Stalin in “Hitler’s Downfall“:

“In the days that followed, much to the surprise of his lunch guests, Hitler continued to express his regard for Stalin. The Soviet dictator’s life resembled his own, he told them: the Georgian, too, had worked his way up from ‘an unknown man to the leader of a state’.”

From “When Stalin Was Hitler’s Ally”:

Between 1939 and 1941, as the Soviet Union presented Nazi Germany in its own internal propaganda as a friendly state, Soviet society ceased to criticize German policies and began to publish Nazi speeches. People in public meetings occasionally misspoke, praising “Comrade Hitler” or calling for “the triumph of international fascism.” Swastikas began to appear on buildings or even on posters of Soviet leaders.

David Irving reports the following in “Hitler’s War”:

“The next day, Papen also raised Stalin’s future with Hitler, and the Fiihrer repeated what he had told Goebbels a month before — that once the Wehrmacht had occupied a certain forward line in Russia, it might be possible to find common ground with the Red dictator, who was after all a man of enormous achievements. As another diplomat — Hasso von Etzdorf — noted: ‘ [Hitler] sees two possibilities as to Stalin’s fate; either he gets bumped off by his own people, or he tries to make peace with us. Because, he says, Stalin as the greatest living statesman must realise that at sixty-six you can’t begin your life’s work all over again if it will take a lifetime to complete it; so he’ll try to salvage what he can, with our acquiescence. And in this we should meet him halfway. If Stalin could only decide to seek expansion for Russia toward the south, the Persian Gulf, as he [Hitler] recommended to him once [November 1940], then peaceful co-existence between Russia and Germany would be conceivable.“

So Hitler was absolutely considering a world in which he could live in co-existence with Stalin if the Red Dictator had directed his own expansionism south and not west into lands Hitler wanted for German living space.

Hitler sent birthday wishes to Stalin in 1939:

New York Times:

Of the many books that deal with these two world-changing figures, “Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives,” by the British historian Alan Bullock, published in 1992, is the best — and certainly, at more than 1,000 pages, the most comprehensive. Bullock’s thesis is persuasive. Despite their differences in age, background and temperament — and despite their mortal enmity in World War II — there was a symbiosis, even an affinity, between the two: in their careers, their ideologies, their methods and their psyches.

They were both outsiders: the master of the Kremlin was a Georgian, not a Russian; the German Führer was an Austrian. Both, Bullock says, were narcissists. Both insisted on cults of personality and made themselves into high priests of warped versions of 19th-century social theories (Stalin’s Marxism, Hitler’s toxic combination of social Darwinism and the zanier ideas of Nietzsche). Both were homicidal paranoiacs, determined to deport, enslave and exterminate entire categories of human beings: in Stalin’s case, the kulaks during the collectivization campaign; in Hitler’s, not just Jews but Slavs, Romani and numerous others. Crucially, neither of these malevolent geniuses would have emerged from obscurity were it not for the first great cataclysm of the 20th century, then known as the Great War.

… As Bullock shuttles between his two subjects, he continues to refute commentators who have treated Stalinism and Nazism as diametrically opposed ideologies by labeling the first internationalist and the second nationalist. In fact, those terms were, in this pairing, a distinction without a difference. Both regimes were chauvinistic and expansionist, and both were police states with one-man rule and a reliance on terror, concentration camps and the Big Lie.

Hitler believed that the Third Reich would endure a thousand years. It lasted a dozen. For the first eight, he and Stalin, while geopolitical rivals, sometimes found common ground. Hitler’s minions admired and copied some of Stalin’s techniques of spying and liquidating enemies.

In 1939, much as Lenin and Kaiser Wilhelm had done, Stalin and Hitler made peace — though pre-emptively. They had their foreign ministers sign a pact guaranteeing that neither side would attack the other, while divvying up Poland and smaller countries. Late that year and into the next, the German Gestapo and the Soviet secret police, the N.K.V.D., held a series of conferences to coordinate their occupations.

Had Hitler held to that agreement, it is possible he might have won the war. Stalin might have sat out the conflict as it raged in the West, biding his time, then possibly consolidating with Hitler a condominium of totalitarian superstates.

What did happen was the Wehrmacht’s blitzkrieg into the Soviet Union in 1941, which caught Stalin by surprise. Why Hitler delivered this deadly but also dangerous blow, bringing new hope to Winston Churchill and the Allies, is still debated.

Bullock’s answer to that question came in his earlier biography of Hitler, who “invaded Russia for the simple but sufficient reason that he had always meant to establish the foundations of his thousand-year Reich by the annexation of the territory between the Vistula and the Urals.”

Wall Street Journal:

Known officially as the Treaty of Non-Aggression Between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Hitler-Stalin pact—signed 80 years ago Friday—stunned the world. Some said that by uniting implacable ideological foes it had turned isms into wasms.

That wasn’t quite right. As German negotiator Karl Schnurre had observed the month before, “despite all the differences in their respective worldviews, there is one common element in the ideologies of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies. Neither we nor Italy have anything in common with the capitalist West. Therefore it seems to us rather unnatural that a socialist state would stand on the side of the Western democracies.” Since capitalist democracy was their common enemy, why not pool resources?

Hitler and Stalin had demonized each other over several years, but they also had interlocking interests. Hitler wanted to invade Poland without fear of war on two fronts, so he had to neutralize the Soviets. He also needed access to Russia’s natural resources. Stalin coveted German industrial and weapons technology. To his cadre, he explained that he could destroy Germany later, after Hitler had assisted him in destroying the most “reactionary” imperialist capitalist countries, England and France. Though some balked, most communists world-wide acquiesced. Even the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm later acknowledged he’d had “no reservations” about it at the time.

Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939. Sixteen days later, so did Stalin, allegedly to “protect” the newly occupied “brothers of the same blood.” As revealed only after the war’s end, the dual move had been effectively sanctioned by a Secret Protocol accompanying the pact, which defined the borders of Soviet and German “spheres of interest” in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and parts of Romania.

Joseph Maiolo, a historian at King’s College London, wrote in 2014 that the arrangement “enabled the two regimes to experiment in brutal imposition of their ideological visions on the peoples of Eastern Europe.” British historian Roger Moorhouse, whose 2014 book, “The Devils’ Alliance,” incorporates recently released Soviet-era documents, amply demonstrates that “a remarkable symmetry emerged between the occupation policies adopted by the Nazis and the Soviets. . . . The two sides even employed similar tactics: deportation, hard labor, and execution.”

The devils’ alliance seemed cordial. In December 1939, Hitler wished Stalin on his birthday “a happy future with the peoples of a friendly Soviet Union.” Stalin responded with a toast to “the friendship between the peoples of the Soviet Union and Germany, cemented in blood.” But when Stalin occupied part Northern Bukovina, part of Romania, in the summer of 1940, Hitler is said to have flown into a rage. Hitler worried about the proximity of Soviet forces to the Romanian oil fields, which were indispensable to Germany. Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary in early July 1940: “Maybe we will have to move against the Soviets after all.”

On June 22, 1941, they did. Stalin didn’t believe the intelligence warning of a German invasion. But he soon came up with a rationalization for his oversight: The pact had secured his country months of peace and provided “the opportunity” to rearm. That became the official line. The Secret Protocol, which revealed Stalin’s real strategy, was never mentioned. Rumors of its existence circulated, and an English translation was published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Only in 1948 did the U.S. State Department release an official copy, alongside thousands of other documents seized from the Germans. Moscow issued a communiqué declaring it a forgery and itself “offended” at the “falsification of history.”

The second and third paragraphs stating that the Nazis had nothing in common with the “capitalist West” and thus were more tailored to break bread with the Soviet communists fits like a glove with what Zitelmann quoted from Hitler in 1944:

The German dictator admitted during a conversation with Benito Mussolini on April 22, 1944, he had become convinced: “Capitalism too had run its course, the nations were no longer willing to stand for it. The victors to survive would be Fascism, and National Socialism – maybe Bolshevism in the East.”

Historian John Lukacs informs us that Stalin liked and admired Hitler too and ignored dozens of clear intelligence warnings of a German attack believing his friend Hitler would never do so:

CONAN: And then there is Stalin. Universally described as shrewd and suspicious, canny, but who could not bring himself to accept overwhelming evidence that an invasion was about to happen.

Mr. LUKACS: He didn’t–there was more than one reason in his mind. One of them was obvious. He knew that, particularly Churchill would like to see a war between Germany and Russia. He believed it was in the British interest for that to happen. So he was with his usual suspicion–and also to some extent lack of profound knowledge of the western world–believed that much of this was machination, because Hitler, and this comes as a second element, would be foolish. It would be very unlikely for Hitler to start a war, a two-front war, when the one-front war is not at all concluded.

Now added to this comes a very important element that some people have known, and that’s Stalin had a liking for Hitler. Stalin greatly admired Hitler. The odd thing is that his respect and admiration for Hitler appeared in drips and drabs even after the war started, even toward the end of the war, here and there he dropped some quite comfortable remarks about Hitler, or rather he had admired.

And another element connected with this is that Stalin had a great liking and respect for Germans and for Germany. And that goes back to pretty early in his career.

Mussolini made a similar statement to Hitler that the fascists had more in common with the Soviet communists than the “demo-plutocratic capitalism of the Western powers”. From “Killing History”:

Time and again the National Socialists and Fascists tell us of their affinities for and similarities with communists. Here’s another from Mussolini, in which he told the son of a US Republican Senator, that “fascism is the same thing as Communism”:

Mussolini said Stalin was a “fellow fascist”:

Both Fascism and Marxist Communism created welfare-warfare states:

The infighting between fascists and communists was a brother war between ideological kin fighting for power:

By 1943 Mussolini was once again pronouncing his desire to eliminate what was left of free enterprise in Italy:

In 1933 speech Mussolini declared the “end of laissez-faire” and a march towards socialism:

In a Jan 30, 1945 address Hitler too proclaimed that he was done with free enterprise entirely and would move sharply towards Communism:

Hitler himself was convinced, as he emphasized in his last radio address on January, 30, 1945, “that the age of unrestricted economic liberalism had outlived itself.” These statements of Hitler’s in 1935 to 1945, but particularly from the beginning of the 1940s on, show that he had become a vehement critic of the system of free enterprise and a confirmed adherent of the system of a planned, state-controlled economy.

In the 1940s as his rule was coming to an end, Mussolini wrote anonymous articles calling for another bloody socialist revolution against capitalism (which he had already eliminated in Italy) and that his government was the only truly socialist one next to Soviet Russia:

Adolf Eichmann explained in his memoirs that he was just as much a radical socialist as a nationalist:

L. K. Samuels in “Killing History” describes Mussolini as a closeted Marxist who hated the monarchy and the Church:

Hitler and Mussolini praised FDR for his interventionist economic policies only to later decry him as a “capitalist” when they went to war:

Former Italian politician Nitti said that fascists are “revolutionary socialists”:

The Reich leadership referring to Gauleiter Eric Koch as a “second Stalin” as a compliment for his brutality in Ukraine:

“Opposing Rosenberg’s wishes, Hitler had yielded in the conference of 16 July to the suggestion of Göring, backed by Bormann, that the – even by Nazi standards – extraordinarily brutal and independent-minded Erich Koch, Gauleiter of East Prussia, should be made Reich Commissar of the key territory of the Ukraine. Koch, like Hitler, but in contrast to Rosenberg, rejected any idea of a Ukrainian buffer-state. His view was that from the very beginning it was necessary ‘to be hard and brutal’. He was held in favour in Führer Headquarters. Everyone there thought he was the most suitable person to carry out the requirements in the Ukraine. It was seen as a compliment when they called him the ‘second Stalin’.” (Source: Ian Kershaw, Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis)

“The mood at the Führer’s headquarters is very favorable for Erich Koch. Everyone considers him the right man for the job and a “second Stalin” who will fulfill his appointed tasks. ” (Source: Werner Koeppen, pp. 24f. (entry for 19 Sept. 1941))

Götz Aly in “Hitler’s Beneficiaries” tells us of the “liberal borrowing” the Nazis employed from socialist rhetoric:

“Another source of the Nazi Party’s popularity was its LIBERAL BORROWING FROM THE INTELLECTUAL TRADITION OF THE SOCIALIST LEFT. Many of the men who would become the movement’s leaders had been INVOLVED IN COMMUNIST AND SOCIALIST CIRCLES in the waning years of the Weimar Republic. In his memoirs, Adolf Eichmann repeatedly asserted: “My political sentiments inclined toward the left and emphasized socialist aspects every bit as much as nationalist ones.” In the days when the movement was still doing battle in the streets, Eichmann added, HE AND HIS COMRADES HAD VIEWED NAZISM AND COMMUNISM AS “QUASI-SIBLINGS.”

Scholar of fascism A. James Gregor gives us these gems:

What should be recognized at this point is the fact that Mussolini, whatever else he was, was a collectivist, who conceived human beings as social animals. He had learned that man was a communal being from Marx.

By 1938, Mussolini could confidently assert that ‘in the face of the total collapse of the system [bequeathed] by Lenin, Stalin has covertly transformed himself into a Fascist.’

All totalitarianism of the twentieth century were predicated on a systematic, anti-individualistic collectivism. In the case of Marxist-Leninism, the source was classical Marxism. [Giovanni] Gentile had carefully dissected the neo-Hegelian roots of that collectivism. What he found missing in the collectivism of Marx was ethical concern. He sought to provide that concern to the collectivism of Fascism—a collectivism that shared a common intellectual origin with Marxism and Marxism-Leninism.

What some of the revolutionary syndicalists proceed to do was to identify the ‘communality’ of man not will class, but with the nation. The first intimations of a ‘revolutionary nationalism’ made their appearance among the most radical Marxists.

Whether their ideological commitment was to proletarian communism, or the Nordic race, or the restoration of Italy to its proper place in the community of nations, they all chose the hierarchically structured, charismatically led single party state to pursue their ends—a state first fixed in the political doctrine by Fascism.

Gentile’s rationale was neo-Hegelian in origin, the same source out of which Marxism and Marxism-Leninism were to emerge. In fact, Gentile understood Marxism so well that his essay on the thought of the young Marx has not only withstood the test of time, but was, on the occasion of its publication, recommended as particularly insightful by V.I. Lenin.

By the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Marxist theoreticians had begun to evaluate fascism in a totally unanticipated fashion… More than that, as Marxist theorists were compelled to reinterpret fascism in the light of empirical evidence and political circumstances, the fundamental affinities shared by Marxist and fascist regimes became apparent.

The first Fascists were almost all Marxists—serious theorists who had long been identified with Italy’s intelligentsia of the Left.

Fascism… was the socialism of ‘proletarian nations.’

Fascist social welfare legislation compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive.

Fascism’s most direct ideological inspiration came from the collateral influence of Italy’s most radical ‘subversives’ — the Marxists of revolutionary syndicalism.

[Italian] Fascism was a variant of classical Marxism, a believe system that pressed some themes argued by both Marx and Engels until they found expression in the form of ‘national syndicalism’ that was to animate the first Fascism.

Thus, by 1925, both Leninism and Fascism, variants of Marxism, had created political and economic systems that shared singular properties… Both sought order and disciple of entire populations in the service of an exclusivistic party and an ideology that found its origins in classical Marxism… Both created a kind of ‘state capitalism,’ informed by a unitary party, and responsible to a ‘charismatics’ leader.

It can be said, in a qualified sense, that Gentile entertained considerable sympathy for the neo-Hegelian Marxist intellectual tradition.

Fascism never served the interests of Italian business… there is no credible evidence that Fascism controlled the nation’s economy for the benefit of the ‘possessing classes.’

Neither Stalinism nor Fascist totalitarianism would have been possible without the transmogrified Marxism, that infilled both.

In what bizarre universe are these two sister ideologies of radical socialist progressivism opposites?

Hitler and Stalin saw themselves in the other.

Topic: In this episode I look into the relationship of Hitler and Stalin; did they admire each other? Or were they diametrically opposed?; the evidence is overwhelming that Stalin and Hitler admired each other; Hitler privately praised the communist butcher as “brilliant” and “the greatest living statesmen”; he was impressed with Stalin’s brutality and “revolutionary consistency”; Stalin liked Hitler too; he was so enamored with Hitler that he ignored clear intelligence warnings of an impending invasion believing his friend Hitler would not do it; Hitler eventually came to support and copy the Soviet planned economic model to achieve his own military and imperial goals of Lebensraum and autarky; Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all shared a common hatred of capitalism, money and wealth. (Sources used: Rainer Zitelmann, L. K. Samuels, Timothy Snyder, Volker Ullrich, David Irving, Alan Bullock, Juliana Geran Pilon, John Lukacs, A. James Gregor & others)

TIPS