I just want to say that there's been a few attempts to spread Nazi conspiracy theories like Cultural Bolshevism, International Jewry and the likes, and they will not be taken seriously or engaged with. These ideas, if it weren't for the huge unquantifiable harm they have done, would be a joke. They rely on the laziest kind of prejudiced thinking and victimhood.
I think 'international Jewry' just referred to Jews acting as an international network rather than being constrained by the limits of the nations they lived in. Lots of Jews use the term 'world Jewry', then and now, including the World Jewish Congress.
mmm, I think this happens with a lot of apparently diametrically opposed extremist positions; they are often created by each other, and justify each other, and so have a disturbing level of synergy in the kinds of ways you mention, as well as more overt. There does appear to be, for example, some overt collaboration between early zionists and nazis along their shared lines of synergy, that of nazis wanting Jewish people gone, and zionists giving them a place to go to. Though I haven't read that much into this history.
Excellent article. The imperialist states discovered the use of well-dosed fascism during the Second World War, and ever since it has been an option in their toolkit.
Here is a little-known but relevant fact: After Hitler and Goebbels offed themselves, government authority passed to Admiral Dönitz, who set up a successor government in the city of Flensburg, with the sole purpose of trying to negotiate a nazi successor state after the unconditional surrender.
The insane thing? Churchill wanted to take him up on it and was trying to convince the Americans to keep Dönitz in their back pocket as a threat against the Soviet Union. In the end, the Soviets got wind of it, and protested in the harshest terms, so the British government dropped the idea and deposed Dönitz.
It goes beyond that though: The key aim of Dönitz's plan was to keep nazi institutions intact, which is exactly what West Germany ended up doing under Adenauer a few years later, all with the Western Allies' blessing. 80% of Adenauer's foreign ministry were ex-NSDAP members, 75% of the Intelligence Agencies, 60% of the interior ministry, and so on and so forth.
West Germany was the nazi successor state in every relevant way.
Donitz was Hitler’s successor, he was not given any directions of what to do before he surrendered (Borman was supposed to tell him but he died in route). His plan was to gradually surrender to ensure his soldiers wouldn’t be in open air prisons during the winter/early Spring and to hold off the Soviets who were butchering and raping their way across Europe long enough to rescue as many East Germans as possible. Churchill didn’t agree to anything, in fact he was one of the most ardent supporters of unconditional surrender, unlike Stalin who offered a harsh peace in 1943 (and before he died he suggested the German occupation end, the states be reunified, and full democracy be restored to include the Nazis). However out of concern of the Soviets raping Scandinavia the idea of letting them stay in Norway was pondered, although idk if by Churchill. In West Germany Nazism was banned, there were years of dystopian “de-Nazification” programs (ex: destroying a majority of German books and MK Ultra) and Germany to this day is still occupied by America. All of Germany were Nazis under Hitler, so anything under 90% not being Nazi afterwards is due purely to occupation. To say Germany was Fascist post WW2 is laughable.
I don't think there's any need for the name calling. I think there's a complex and nuanced reality here, and different parts are being highlighted by both of you.
The Allied occupation was indeed extremely harsh on the German people, both in the east and west. A general program of collective punishment was applied, where the German people were held to account for the crimes of the Nazis. But at the same time, a continuation of fascist ideology, institutions and infrastructure and protection of certain high ranking Nazi personnel was present, and I do not think this is paradoxical. It's somewhat like Nazism was tokenised or alienated from its deeper programs and logic, and that this process was compatible with, or even helped, the brutal program of collective punishment applied to Germany.
Read the Patton Papers. Especially the end. De-nazification was a major controversy, and men like Patton were killed trying to stop it. You are simply seeing good men who were also Nazis surviving the war, and you are thinking there is something nefarious. Perhaps, just perhaps, those men didn't deserve to die and they did all they could to continue their goal of defending their nation against communism? Just maybe.
I see the point. This is a much more nuanced article than I expected especially when questioning the “good war” narrative.
I only see the US supporting fascist groups as them using proxies in their imperial aspirations. It didn’t matter to them their ideology, as long as they ultimately advanced US/business interests. If the fascists won ww2 they would have been supporting leftist groups in europe instead. Groups who probably would have happened to express the parts of leftism most useful to them. Similar to how the groups the soviets supported (who needed soviet support the most) would tend to be more soviet in their ideology.
You see a reverse situation with USAID, with more left wing “democratic” movements having been used to expand US interests in right wing dictatorships (and left wing ones). These leftist movements would rarely be anti US in a real economic way.
It’s all just the great game in the end. But with a varnish of ideology.
I do agree the west did adopt some things from the fascists. Where it suited them.
I think this is getting at the core of the issue, except I would drop the left/right divide completely. As you hint to, It doesn't really matter to the US if it's a left or right wing government they are supporting, as long as they are subservient to the US.
Yeah that’s because all they did was defeat the country with the fascists in it.
They didn’t defeat what fascism was.
All fascism really is, is what narcissists do when they get in power. That’s it. Every fascist political belief you ever heard was designed to get a narcissist what they want. If it doesn’t get them what they want, they don’t pretend to believe in it. If it does, then they’ll use that to control you in the exact same way a narcissist controls their victim.
Fascism is the One True Ring. It might be tempting to pick it up because you think it’s useful to defeat The Dark Lord, but it’s actually what he wants you to do.
The article definitely raises a point avout how little awareness there is of post-war history, and how the mechanism of mil-ind has asserted itself as the primary vehicle for that most evident version of fascism to date.
I would argue however, that fascism doesn't represent a new phenomenon in this global American context, but is merely an evolution of the systems of private monopolies and business influence over the government, which has existed since the Gilded Age, and under Fordism was able to acquire a new dimension that is more complete and penetrating (or totalitarian for short). German example served as a waypoint on how to do it perhaps, but where state orientation in the Germany had ideological reasoning, American hegemony is propped up, as you show, by ideological justification being the fig leaf for further economic domination.
Fascism is strictly *for a nation* which is a people, a culture, a collection of households and families coming together for a common purpose. This is a far cry different from everything that came after, and not comparable beyond from authoritarianism. It's a form of ultra-nationalism that overtakes economic and political spheres, nothing more.
The only thing boring or prejudiced is your tired old trope argument that the muhNazi’s won anything. It’s obvious to anyone with two braincells the communists and their international banking cartel allies won WWII. The policies they have implemented in the west (CRT/QRT/PC) are fully acknowledged communist theories.
They’re not Nazi “conspiracies” when the Marxists literally outlined this is what they would do to destroy the west in the Frankfurt school documents.
They’re also not “conspiracies” for those of us born behind the Iron Curtain who can smell Marxist propaganda and theories in action from 100 miles away.
They were not “conspiracies” for Yuri Bezmenov who outlined clearly in his writings what communist strategies were being implemented in the west already in the 70’s.
Much of what you point to, is just accounted for by corporate power, and their superficial way of dealing with things. You can see now that many of the big corporations are dropping all that diversity, inclusion etc stuff immediately, as soon as it's not economically convenient.
I don't honestly see much of a difference between corporate power, and bolshevism. They are both centralised economies built on authoritarianism. With the collapse of the USSR, many of the biggest Commissars, flipped to being the biggest capitalists, because the key ideology was always factory authoritarianism, scientific management, division of labour, productivity, etc.
You need to go to an additional, and unnecessary. level of complexity, to suggest that some large Marxist conspiracy is behind the nonsense corporate BS.
The rest is the fact that there are and were real, deep, racial tensions in the US, and the USSR did indeed seek to exploit that; but their interest in exploiting them, is not evidence of creating them. They were already obviously there. nor is it evidence that their exploits were of any significance.
I can't tell if you are just really unsophisticated or if you are message testing here? It's not a conspiracy, critical theory is easily traced to Marxist subversion. Are you retarded or are you trying to purposefully mislead people? I'm also extremely Jewish so just letting you know I'm very happy to pull that card. And of course good shabbos
Think you mean Global. UN, International Bank of Settlements, IMF, The Fed and its brethren, WHO. We’ve been heading toward global technocratic feudalism since the end of WWII
I’m not sure what fascism means on a global scale. It’s always been described as a form of militant nationalism. All Western nations look to me to be puppet regimes, proxies for the global banking, military-industrial, surveillance, and biomedical complex.
Fascism is a form of ultra-nationalism that uplifts the native people and culture over all others, almost like the old Roman idea of imperium, but its also connected to the Greek ethnos, and the Germanic volk theories. These are nativist, patriotic, nationalist movements. On a global scale, they look like Western nations seeking autonomy, autarky, and self-determination. This is not happening anywhere in the West. America is the closest thing to that, but real Americans (pre-1965 Hart-Celler Act, largely unpopular and unconstitutional) are being sidelined for H1b Indians, Israelis, and anyone with a big enough wallet to buy citizenship. The West is not fascist. You would know if we were fascist because people like me would be in power, not fat Zionists and liberals.
The way you describe western nations is almost accurate, but you don’t understand the politics behind global banking. Don’t just scream conspiracy theory either, these people have a public history. Anyway, all Western nations are also Zionist, the only ones who teeter away from that are Ireland and Poland, but not really if you look closer.
I do not know of any examples of fascism uplifting native people. In Germany, it did the opposite. As the post goes over, the Nazis implemented a system of mass privatisation, with the explicit purpose of placing the German people into austerity, which is what happened. Certain prominent party members and businessmen were uplifted, but that was it. Similarly, we would not expect fascism today uplift any native people; but just prominent party members and businessmen.
Interesting, because during the Wiemar period there was mass unemployment, and during the Nazi era, there was mass employment. It was said that if a man couldn't write with a pen, then he'd carry a rifle, and if all else fails, then he would get a shovel. Every man had work available to him unlike the Wiemar era. During the Wiemar era, there was a drop in fertility and in marriage rates, while the reverse is observed during the Nazi era. During the Wiemar era, there was an erosion on traditional German values, and prostitution and child sex trafficking increased. That was banned during the Nazi era, to protect the moral fabric of the people. During the Wiemar era, immigration was allowed, and as you know, parts of the Rhine was actively colonized by French colonial troops and made a whole batch of mixed raced Germans known as the Rhineland bastards. During the Nazi era, there was the exact opposite of foreign colonization, but a lebenstraum.
We might disagree on what these things mean, and why these things happened, but this is all stuff I get from people like Margaret MacMillan, a very mainstream historian.
I don't disagree that certain party members were uplifted more than the folk. Goering, for example, is a prime case of a man who abused his position. He was also a war hero who marched on the streets with the Nazis before anyone famous joined them, and he is also on record trying to make peace with the Americans right before Berlin was even surrounded. Even Goering, a megalomaniac, cared more for his people than the strange bankers who ruined Germany during the Wiemar era.
National Socialism is not exactly the same as fascism though. I have been conflating them together because you do, but in my earlier comment I made it clear that fascism is more based on the imperium idea, rather than the German volkish idea. The Nazis were inspired by fascism, but they did not adopt it wholesale.
I'm a monarchist at heart by the way, but you would probably hate every single one of my views and consider them fascist, if this is your understanding of the philosophy.
You may be missing my point: fascism cannot, by definition, be global, or spread amongst Western doctrine. Western nations are no longer sovereign. That is not a conspiracy. To believe so is delusion.
The public history you mention is used against the population in a calculated manner to accept the global vision.
You can complain or call it conspiracy but the facts of the matter do not lie: everything the fascists said would happen if they lost did in fact happen after they lost.
Germany is a shadow of its former self and had its culture forcefully eroded and its national pride quashed, Europe became the ideological battle ground between socialism in the East and liberalism in the west during the Cold War and now that communism lost it was liberalism brought to its final extreme conclusion which is the causing force behind European erosion, the Caucasian peoples of Europe are in fact being demographically replaced by mass migration orchestrated and encouraged by forces which happen to be international finance and happen to have a lot of Jews in charge of them.
You can try to deny these things but the facts are as they are, you may even disagree with the how’s and why’s of this but you cannot just dismiss these things as mere “fascist conspiracy’s and talking points” when they are demonstrated by objective reality.
You talk about facts, but present none. I don't mean this in a pejorative sense, I mean literally, you've only presented interpretations of facts; conjecture, opinion. No actual facts on which they are based.
Are you going to deny that there’s a demographic replacement of Europeans occurring and that is in no small part driven by the efforts of openly Zionist organizations?
Or maybe ignore the reality that the allied powers and the communists won the last world war and took it upon themselves to deliberately weaken and sometimes destroy and suppress European cultures?
Why do you need a complex conspiracy, when the US killing millions and reigning terror in the middle east over the last 70 years, and people naturally wanting to flee such horrific conditions, explains virtually all of this migration to Europe on its own?
For the second bit, I go over some of that in the above post.
The replacement of native demographics and their culture by mass migration as a way to serve global financial interests, this is described in the U.N. document “Replacement migration” from the Population Division
Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, would you like a PDF?
There is an alternative and one that is working quite well in a civilization that has led the world in innovation and progress for 2300 years of its 2500 year history: the socialist market economic made possible by China and now Vietnam that is exceeding anything the west has ever conjured. Of course 99.9999% of Americans know nothing of China's history or present beyond what their government and its media have told them. That economic and government structure is poison to fascism. China after all is a civilization, America and its creatures just nations. So perhaps fascism will be the downfall of America after all.
Of course it did not disappear. Most of the individuals primarily responsible for it went unpunished. Many became politicians in their own countries, found refuge abroad, moved to the United States as scientists or government employees, established new dictatorships like the GDR/DDR, or served as “consultants” to brutal regimes in Latin America, and many more.
I just want to say that there's been a few attempts to spread Nazi conspiracy theories like Cultural Bolshevism, International Jewry and the likes, and they will not be taken seriously or engaged with. These ideas, if it weren't for the huge unquantifiable harm they have done, would be a joke. They rely on the laziest kind of prejudiced thinking and victimhood.
I think 'international Jewry' just referred to Jews acting as an international network rather than being constrained by the limits of the nations they lived in. Lots of Jews use the term 'world Jewry', then and now, including the World Jewish Congress.
Reducing it down to a property of ethnicity is the problem. Jewish people are not a monolith.
mmm, I think this happens with a lot of apparently diametrically opposed extremist positions; they are often created by each other, and justify each other, and so have a disturbing level of synergy in the kinds of ways you mention, as well as more overt. There does appear to be, for example, some overt collaboration between early zionists and nazis along their shared lines of synergy, that of nazis wanting Jewish people gone, and zionists giving them a place to go to. Though I haven't read that much into this history.
Excellent article. The imperialist states discovered the use of well-dosed fascism during the Second World War, and ever since it has been an option in their toolkit.
Here is a little-known but relevant fact: After Hitler and Goebbels offed themselves, government authority passed to Admiral Dönitz, who set up a successor government in the city of Flensburg, with the sole purpose of trying to negotiate a nazi successor state after the unconditional surrender.
The insane thing? Churchill wanted to take him up on it and was trying to convince the Americans to keep Dönitz in their back pocket as a threat against the Soviet Union. In the end, the Soviets got wind of it, and protested in the harshest terms, so the British government dropped the idea and deposed Dönitz.
It goes beyond that though: The key aim of Dönitz's plan was to keep nazi institutions intact, which is exactly what West Germany ended up doing under Adenauer a few years later, all with the Western Allies' blessing. 80% of Adenauer's foreign ministry were ex-NSDAP members, 75% of the Intelligence Agencies, 60% of the interior ministry, and so on and so forth.
West Germany was the nazi successor state in every relevant way.
Of course the Marxist is a retard.
Donitz was Hitler’s successor, he was not given any directions of what to do before he surrendered (Borman was supposed to tell him but he died in route). His plan was to gradually surrender to ensure his soldiers wouldn’t be in open air prisons during the winter/early Spring and to hold off the Soviets who were butchering and raping their way across Europe long enough to rescue as many East Germans as possible. Churchill didn’t agree to anything, in fact he was one of the most ardent supporters of unconditional surrender, unlike Stalin who offered a harsh peace in 1943 (and before he died he suggested the German occupation end, the states be reunified, and full democracy be restored to include the Nazis). However out of concern of the Soviets raping Scandinavia the idea of letting them stay in Norway was pondered, although idk if by Churchill. In West Germany Nazism was banned, there were years of dystopian “de-Nazification” programs (ex: destroying a majority of German books and MK Ultra) and Germany to this day is still occupied by America. All of Germany were Nazis under Hitler, so anything under 90% not being Nazi afterwards is due purely to occupation. To say Germany was Fascist post WW2 is laughable.
I don't think there's any need for the name calling. I think there's a complex and nuanced reality here, and different parts are being highlighted by both of you.
The Allied occupation was indeed extremely harsh on the German people, both in the east and west. A general program of collective punishment was applied, where the German people were held to account for the crimes of the Nazis. But at the same time, a continuation of fascist ideology, institutions and infrastructure and protection of certain high ranking Nazi personnel was present, and I do not think this is paradoxical. It's somewhat like Nazism was tokenised or alienated from its deeper programs and logic, and that this process was compatible with, or even helped, the brutal program of collective punishment applied to Germany.
Read the Patton Papers. Especially the end. De-nazification was a major controversy, and men like Patton were killed trying to stop it. You are simply seeing good men who were also Nazis surviving the war, and you are thinking there is something nefarious. Perhaps, just perhaps, those men didn't deserve to die and they did all they could to continue their goal of defending their nation against communism? Just maybe.
None of my argument is presented on the basis of people who survived the war (or on any wartime individuals).
Thank you for laying this out 🙏 Lots to cover indeed.
I see the point. This is a much more nuanced article than I expected especially when questioning the “good war” narrative.
I only see the US supporting fascist groups as them using proxies in their imperial aspirations. It didn’t matter to them their ideology, as long as they ultimately advanced US/business interests. If the fascists won ww2 they would have been supporting leftist groups in europe instead. Groups who probably would have happened to express the parts of leftism most useful to them. Similar to how the groups the soviets supported (who needed soviet support the most) would tend to be more soviet in their ideology.
You see a reverse situation with USAID, with more left wing “democratic” movements having been used to expand US interests in right wing dictatorships (and left wing ones). These leftist movements would rarely be anti US in a real economic way.
It’s all just the great game in the end. But with a varnish of ideology.
I do agree the west did adopt some things from the fascists. Where it suited them.
I think this is getting at the core of the issue, except I would drop the left/right divide completely. As you hint to, It doesn't really matter to the US if it's a left or right wing government they are supporting, as long as they are subservient to the US.
Yeah that’s because all they did was defeat the country with the fascists in it.
They didn’t defeat what fascism was.
All fascism really is, is what narcissists do when they get in power. That’s it. Every fascist political belief you ever heard was designed to get a narcissist what they want. If it doesn’t get them what they want, they don’t pretend to believe in it. If it does, then they’ll use that to control you in the exact same way a narcissist controls their victim.
Fascism is the One True Ring. It might be tempting to pick it up because you think it’s useful to defeat The Dark Lord, but it’s actually what he wants you to do.
The article definitely raises a point avout how little awareness there is of post-war history, and how the mechanism of mil-ind has asserted itself as the primary vehicle for that most evident version of fascism to date.
I would argue however, that fascism doesn't represent a new phenomenon in this global American context, but is merely an evolution of the systems of private monopolies and business influence over the government, which has existed since the Gilded Age, and under Fordism was able to acquire a new dimension that is more complete and penetrating (or totalitarian for short). German example served as a waypoint on how to do it perhaps, but where state orientation in the Germany had ideological reasoning, American hegemony is propped up, as you show, by ideological justification being the fig leaf for further economic domination.
Certainly, nothing is wholly de novo; but I do think many of these forces were able to unite, in a somewhat new global form, as a result of WWII.
Fascism is strictly *for a nation* which is a people, a culture, a collection of households and families coming together for a common purpose. This is a far cry different from everything that came after, and not comparable beyond from authoritarianism. It's a form of ultra-nationalism that overtakes economic and political spheres, nothing more.
Yeah you got a PHD - Pure Historical Delusion
No, fascism did not survive WW2
The only thing boring or prejudiced is your tired old trope argument that the muhNazi’s won anything. It’s obvious to anyone with two braincells the communists and their international banking cartel allies won WWII. The policies they have implemented in the west (CRT/QRT/PC) are fully acknowledged communist theories.
I've never argued Nazis won anything. Fascists did though.
But you are spreading Nazi conspiracy theories, aka cultural bolshevism.
They’re not Nazi “conspiracies” when the Marxists literally outlined this is what they would do to destroy the west in the Frankfurt school documents.
They’re also not “conspiracies” for those of us born behind the Iron Curtain who can smell Marxist propaganda and theories in action from 100 miles away.
They were not “conspiracies” for Yuri Bezmenov who outlined clearly in his writings what communist strategies were being implemented in the west already in the 70’s.
Much of what you point to, is just accounted for by corporate power, and their superficial way of dealing with things. You can see now that many of the big corporations are dropping all that diversity, inclusion etc stuff immediately, as soon as it's not economically convenient.
I don't honestly see much of a difference between corporate power, and bolshevism. They are both centralised economies built on authoritarianism. With the collapse of the USSR, many of the biggest Commissars, flipped to being the biggest capitalists, because the key ideology was always factory authoritarianism, scientific management, division of labour, productivity, etc.
You need to go to an additional, and unnecessary. level of complexity, to suggest that some large Marxist conspiracy is behind the nonsense corporate BS.
The rest is the fact that there are and were real, deep, racial tensions in the US, and the USSR did indeed seek to exploit that; but their interest in exploiting them, is not evidence of creating them. They were already obviously there. nor is it evidence that their exploits were of any significance.
I can't tell if you are just really unsophisticated or if you are message testing here? It's not a conspiracy, critical theory is easily traced to Marxist subversion. Are you retarded or are you trying to purposefully mislead people? I'm also extremely Jewish so just letting you know I'm very happy to pull that card. And of course good shabbos
Thank you for the much needed sophistication, DildoBagginz.
because it did. and it’s called NATO.
There are no surfers in fascist countries
Dumb
State Capitalism won in 1945.
Think you mean Global. UN, International Bank of Settlements, IMF, The Fed and its brethren, WHO. We’ve been heading toward global technocratic feudalism since the end of WWII
So, not fascists, then?
I’m not sure what fascism means on a global scale. It’s always been described as a form of militant nationalism. All Western nations look to me to be puppet regimes, proxies for the global banking, military-industrial, surveillance, and biomedical complex.
Fascism is a form of ultra-nationalism that uplifts the native people and culture over all others, almost like the old Roman idea of imperium, but its also connected to the Greek ethnos, and the Germanic volk theories. These are nativist, patriotic, nationalist movements. On a global scale, they look like Western nations seeking autonomy, autarky, and self-determination. This is not happening anywhere in the West. America is the closest thing to that, but real Americans (pre-1965 Hart-Celler Act, largely unpopular and unconstitutional) are being sidelined for H1b Indians, Israelis, and anyone with a big enough wallet to buy citizenship. The West is not fascist. You would know if we were fascist because people like me would be in power, not fat Zionists and liberals.
The way you describe western nations is almost accurate, but you don’t understand the politics behind global banking. Don’t just scream conspiracy theory either, these people have a public history. Anyway, all Western nations are also Zionist, the only ones who teeter away from that are Ireland and Poland, but not really if you look closer.
I do not know of any examples of fascism uplifting native people. In Germany, it did the opposite. As the post goes over, the Nazis implemented a system of mass privatisation, with the explicit purpose of placing the German people into austerity, which is what happened. Certain prominent party members and businessmen were uplifted, but that was it. Similarly, we would not expect fascism today uplift any native people; but just prominent party members and businessmen.
Interesting, because during the Wiemar period there was mass unemployment, and during the Nazi era, there was mass employment. It was said that if a man couldn't write with a pen, then he'd carry a rifle, and if all else fails, then he would get a shovel. Every man had work available to him unlike the Wiemar era. During the Wiemar era, there was a drop in fertility and in marriage rates, while the reverse is observed during the Nazi era. During the Wiemar era, there was an erosion on traditional German values, and prostitution and child sex trafficking increased. That was banned during the Nazi era, to protect the moral fabric of the people. During the Wiemar era, immigration was allowed, and as you know, parts of the Rhine was actively colonized by French colonial troops and made a whole batch of mixed raced Germans known as the Rhineland bastards. During the Nazi era, there was the exact opposite of foreign colonization, but a lebenstraum.
We might disagree on what these things mean, and why these things happened, but this is all stuff I get from people like Margaret MacMillan, a very mainstream historian.
I don't disagree that certain party members were uplifted more than the folk. Goering, for example, is a prime case of a man who abused his position. He was also a war hero who marched on the streets with the Nazis before anyone famous joined them, and he is also on record trying to make peace with the Americans right before Berlin was even surrounded. Even Goering, a megalomaniac, cared more for his people than the strange bankers who ruined Germany during the Wiemar era.
National Socialism is not exactly the same as fascism though. I have been conflating them together because you do, but in my earlier comment I made it clear that fascism is more based on the imperium idea, rather than the German volkish idea. The Nazis were inspired by fascism, but they did not adopt it wholesale.
I'm a monarchist at heart by the way, but you would probably hate every single one of my views and consider them fascist, if this is your understanding of the philosophy.
You may be missing my point: fascism cannot, by definition, be global, or spread amongst Western doctrine. Western nations are no longer sovereign. That is not a conspiracy. To believe so is delusion.
The public history you mention is used against the population in a calculated manner to accept the global vision.
Of course Western nations aren’t sovereign. Communism and capitalism won WW2, and now we are moving towards a technocracy made by their descendants.
They didn’t…that’s why we’re in this situation.
You can complain or call it conspiracy but the facts of the matter do not lie: everything the fascists said would happen if they lost did in fact happen after they lost.
Germany is a shadow of its former self and had its culture forcefully eroded and its national pride quashed, Europe became the ideological battle ground between socialism in the East and liberalism in the west during the Cold War and now that communism lost it was liberalism brought to its final extreme conclusion which is the causing force behind European erosion, the Caucasian peoples of Europe are in fact being demographically replaced by mass migration orchestrated and encouraged by forces which happen to be international finance and happen to have a lot of Jews in charge of them.
You can try to deny these things but the facts are as they are, you may even disagree with the how’s and why’s of this but you cannot just dismiss these things as mere “fascist conspiracy’s and talking points” when they are demonstrated by objective reality.
You talk about facts, but present none. I don't mean this in a pejorative sense, I mean literally, you've only presented interpretations of facts; conjecture, opinion. No actual facts on which they are based.
Are you going to deny that there’s a demographic replacement of Europeans occurring and that is in no small part driven by the efforts of openly Zionist organizations?
Or maybe ignore the reality that the allied powers and the communists won the last world war and took it upon themselves to deliberately weaken and sometimes destroy and suppress European cultures?
Why do you need a complex conspiracy, when the US killing millions and reigning terror in the middle east over the last 70 years, and people naturally wanting to flee such horrific conditions, explains virtually all of this migration to Europe on its own?
For the second bit, I go over some of that in the above post.
Because it isn’t a conspiracy if it’s just reality there are plenty of official documents from the UN speaking on the matter.
what's a reality? What documents?
The replacement of native demographics and their culture by mass migration as a way to serve global financial interests, this is described in the U.N. document “Replacement migration” from the Population Division
Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, would you like a PDF?
🤣
There is an alternative and one that is working quite well in a civilization that has led the world in innovation and progress for 2300 years of its 2500 year history: the socialist market economic made possible by China and now Vietnam that is exceeding anything the west has ever conjured. Of course 99.9999% of Americans know nothing of China's history or present beyond what their government and its media have told them. That economic and government structure is poison to fascism. China after all is a civilization, America and its creatures just nations. So perhaps fascism will be the downfall of America after all.
Of course it did not disappear. Most of the individuals primarily responsible for it went unpunished. Many became politicians in their own countries, found refuge abroad, moved to the United States as scientists or government employees, established new dictatorships like the GDR/DDR, or served as “consultants” to brutal regimes in Latin America, and many more.