When Jews Define Fascism

Concluding one of America’s more infamous obscenity trials in 1964, Justice Potter Stewart absolved a controversial French motion picture with an opinion that has since passed into common parlance: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” The opinion was celebrated at the time as a victory for freedom of expression, and paved the way for a later deluge of Western cultural degradation. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that almost 60 years later “I know it when I see it” has become a political philosophy in its own right, adopted and pursued by a radical Left intent on curtailing that very same freedom by claiming an exclusive and unaccountable ability to define Fascism. This was the starkest message from The Burkean’s unprecedented recent Irish Antifa Project, which was designed to infiltrate and expose self-styled Antifa networks in mainstream Irish academia and politics.

In my view, the most predictable revelation from the Irish Antifa Project was the extent of historical and cultural ignorance among the profiled activists. None of the intellectually and professionally mediocre individuals exposed by The Burkean appeared capable of articulating what Fascism was, or is alleged to be today. Fascism instead seems to have been adopted by these non-entities as a vague catch-all for anything touching upon capitalism, conservatism, religion, or tradition. Equally vague are the proposed activist methodologies of these individuals, which range from the compiling of databases with the names of those deemed to be Fascists, to tentative but deniable support for violence. With the exception of a small number of fanatical Jews like Trinity College student Jacob Woolf, “anti-Fascism” has evidently been adopted by the majority of those concerned as a kind of half-hearted virtue signaling hobby or political side gig, albeit one with sinister potential.

Unfortunately, the problems posed by an uninformed, unaccountable, and unhinged “anti-Fascist” radical Left aren’t helped by the fact confusion about the nature of Fascism is endemic in society as a whole. There are essentially three traditions when it comes to explaining Fascism. One can be found within Fascism itself, and demonstrates how self-defined Fascists see themselves. This material is overwhelmingly historical. Another tradition can be found in contemporary mainstream academia and, although biased, it is at least academic in style, serious, and relatively comprehensive. The work of the late Roger Griffin is perhaps the best available in the English language in terms of this tradition, and is also largely concerned with history. The third tradition, on the other hand, is popular, highly politicised, always concerned with contemporary politics, and is abridged to the point of being a pop-Left caricature of serious studies of Fascism. It is particularly problematic because it has tremendous traction among the masses and, despite being propaganda for extremist politics of its own sort, always presents itself as objective and neutral.

The individuals profiled by The Burkean are unquestionably disciples of the latter tradition, a recent example of which is Jason Stanley’s How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018). Stanley, a Jewish professor at Yale whose background is in language and epistemology and not history or politics, hasn’t published any peer-reviewed material on Fascism or anti-Fascism, but his 2018 book proved a moderate publishing sensation because it represented a thinly veiled attack on the Trump administration. The same administration provoked similar ill-conceived and unhelpful monographs on Fascism from Cass Sunstein (Can it Happen Here?), Madeleine Albright (Fascism: A Warning), and Harvard duo Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (How Democracies Die). All of these individuals are Jews, and this is not a coincidence. In fact, since the production of Leon Trotsky’s Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It (compiled between 1922 and 1933) and the Frankfurt School’s project on the “Authoritarian Personality,” Jews have been at the forefront of paving the cultural, as well as political, path to Antifa activity. They do so by bastardising public understanding of the nature of Fascist politics, thereby shaping “anti-Fascism” as a vehicle for the undermining of the White nation. When it comes to Fascism, “Jews know it when they see it,” a pronouncement we are all encouraged to accept without question.

Jewish Definitions of Fascism

A common theme in influential books like Stanley’s, destined for a modicum of success in the paperback mass market thanks to dramatic titles and relentless marketing, is their incredibly—and deliberately—vague definition of Fascism. These Jewish activists know this, of course, but they push ahead regardless. Stanley, for example, excuses the gaps and logical leaps inherent in his dubious study by arguing that “generalization is necessary in the current moment.” But if he is defining the “current moment” as Fascist under his generalized definition, isn’t he simply using generalization to excuse the same generalization? Isn’t this tantamount to saying to his readers: “The present moment is so obviously Fascist that we really don’t need to define Fascism”? Such considerations don’t slow Stanley down for a second, and this celebrated Yale professor slips off the hook to pronounce, even more unhelpfully, “I have chosen the label “Fascism” for ultranationalism of some variety.” What variety? What’s his definition of “ultranationalism”? It doesn’t matter. What is clear in texts like Stanley’s is that you aren’t here to be encouraged to think or ask questions, but to absorb a discourse and accept a dogma. The authority behind such demands stems predominantly from emotional blackmail — Stanley cashes in his card as the son of “Holocaust survivors,” and explains that “My family background has saddled me with difficult emotional baggage. But it also, crucially, prepared me to write this book.” His lack of education and reading in the subject is therefore apparently more than compensated for in the fact he is emotionally distressed by it. Right.

Jason Stanley: Bravely struggling with his emotional baggage

Not only are Jewish definitions of Fascism deliberately inadequate and disingenuous, they’re often completely wrongheaded. Stanley in his first chapter “The Mythic Past,” for example, describes Fascist propaganda as relying on a unique blend of mythic, romanticised, and normally rural evocations of the past, and that the same propaganda offers a future return to this idyll. It goes without saying that this provides an extremely convenient way for Jewish and Leftist activists to attack almost all genuine conservatives as Fascists. But is such propaganda even inherently Fascist or even right-wing? We might consider the following quote from a well-known historical figure: “The position of the English agricultural labourer from 1770 to 1780, with regard to his food and dwelling, as well as to his self-respect, amusements etc., is an ideal never attained again since that time.” The ideologue behind this quote proposed a future in which the national community of citizens enjoyed something like a return to this pastoral idyll, filling their days with productive work, music, and leisure (“hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise [literature] in the evening”). It really is quite a vision. But the problem is that these proposals aren’t from the works of Sir Oswald Mosley, but from Karl Marx’s Capital and The German Ideology, and they were a key aspect of the early promotion of Communism. The idea that Fascism uniquely appeals to notions of making one’s country “great again” is an unsophisticated trope and, ultimately, a political weapon.

The truth of the matter is that politicised nostalgia and visions of national rebirth are common to ideologies of all stripes, and are useless as tools for examining the specific nature of genuine political and cultural manifestations of Fascism. The only possible exception is Roger Griffin’s highly nuanced theory of palingenetic ultrationationalism, which is corrupted and glossed in Jewish treatments of the subject in order to indict all expressions of White discontent in modernity. Presentations of ideal pasts and futures are quite obviously utilised by all political actors keen to exploit the public instinct to reject the status quo. Barack Obama’s campaigns based on “Hope,” “Change,” and “Progress,” and Trump’s “MAGA” are not substantially different in style or method, the only significant dissimilarity being the demonising of the latter and the feverish and irrational presentation of its ethos as an early symptom of an impending Fascist takeover. The preoccupation of Cultural Marxist anthropologists with describing putatively utopian modes of life in primitive societies can also clearly be seen as a call to “make society great again” by demolishing capitalism, the family, etc. The oldest and most profound political expression of resurrecting a glorious past rooted in the land is, of course, not even to be found in European Fascism at all, but in the quintessential palingenetic ultranationalism of Zionism, a subject strangely never covered by our Jewish authors, presumably because of other “difficult emotional baggage.”

Similar definitions of Fascism, this time refracted through a lens of Leftist pop-culture garbage, can be found in Cass Sunstein’s 2018 Can It Happen Here? Sunstein’s expertise is ostensibly law, though his most successful work is apparently The World According to Star Wars (2016). In another time and context, someone like Sunstein would cut a ridiculous figure, in much the same way that the Romans found it hilarious that the people squatting in the hovel that was 1st century Judea regarded themselves as a superior nation. Sunstein has shaped his career as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School around such efforts as inaugurating a “celebrate tax day” and ending all government recognition of marriage. But Star Wars books and outlandish schemes aside, Sunstein is a deeply sinister individual. He is particularly concerned by “conspiracy theories,” and has developed policy suggestions that governments engage in the “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” by entering “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.” In other words, Sunstein is a major contributor to the concept of “thought crime” and a high-profile advocate for the same kind of law enforcement online disinformation and entrapment activity that regularly snares exuberant White teenage gamers and presents them to the media as right-wing terrorists.

Cass Sunstein: “We need a cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”

Sunstein edited, and contributed to, Can It Happen Here?, along with a motley of other Jews, including Eric Posner, Jack Balkin, Tyler Cowen, Jack Goldsmith, Tom Ginsburg, Noah Feldman, Jonathan Haidt, Bruce Ackerman, Jon Elster, Martha Minow, David Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone. In fact, of the 17 essays comprising the volume, 13 are written by Jews. One of the non-Jews is Sunstein’s Irish-American wife, the shabbos goy and ADL darling Samantha Power, and two are Muslims. Can It Happen Here?, subtitled Authoritarianism in America, is therefore little more than an exercise in Jewish paranoia and a glaring example of the way in which Jews invoke vague caricatures of Fascism in order to attack the traditional structures of White nations. Posner, for example, cites Trump’s hostility to elements of the press and the fact his initial success occurred somewhat outside the two-party structure of American politics as sufficient evidence of a Fascist threat. In other words, Jews, who dominate the press and have very significant financial interests in the trajectories of both major parties, regard anything not fully within their control as tantamount to Fascism.

The same fearmongering yet vague template is followed by Levitsky and Ziblatt in How Democracies Die (2018), which opens with the authors declaring that authoritarianism has been for them an “occupational obsession.” Levitsky and Ziblatt “feel dread … We worry.” What has them most worried is “intimidation of the press” and the fact some politicians “view their rivals as enemies.”  Trump terrifies due to his “clear authoritarian tendencies.” He is said to follow in an American tradition of “extremist demagogues” that includes “Henry Ford, Huey Long, Joseph McCarthy, and George Wallace.” America “failed the test” when it elected Trump in November 2016.  Like Sunstein and Posner, Levitsky and Ziblatt are especially concerned by “extreme partisan polarization,” which is another way of saying that they are very worried that the two main political parties may actually diverge in a meaningful way from one another and therefore run the risk of engaging in a genuine politics. Since the same complaint is made by Stanley and Sunstein, we might assume that Jews are most comfortable with two-party systems in which the parties and their policies are almost indistinguishable and in which there is a high level of ideological consensus. Anything outside this comfort zone is Fascism.

Levitsky and Ziblatt: “We feel dread … We worry.”

Equally terrified is Madeleine Albright, whose Fascism: A Warning (2018) is derived from an identical playbook to that employed by Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, and Ziblatt. Albright opens the 2019 edition of her book with a new preface in which she poses as a benevolent granny, writing with detachment and objectivity, she claims, at her “farm” in Virginia. Granny Albright, who once declared the Serbs to be “disgusting” and opined that starving half a million Iraqi children via UN sanctions was “worth it,” now spends her days tending to her tomatoes and pondering with great bemusement why a reporter recently branded her a “war mongering ghoul.” As she observes the serenity of the evergreens around her, it is quite the mystery why multicultural America seems to be “at each other’s throats.” We might think that Granny Albright could answer such a question by leaving rural Virginia and moving to America’s multicultural heartlands. But no, from her safe and isolated vantage point she has it all figured out. Her answer is simple, and has nothing to do with the fact multiculturalism is itself a poisonous doctrine —  multiculturalism isn’t working because Donald Trump and Fascism are on the verge of a devastating takeover. But what is Fascism? This is never clear anywhere in the book. Albright vaguely explains that Fascism is a “spread of anti-democratic trends.” [Translation: “The controlled two-party system has been weakened”] Fascist “attitudes” develop when “the perception grows that everybody lies.” [Translation: “The goyim know”] Fascism is “a doctrine of anger and fear.” [Translation: “I’m worried. Shut it down.”]

Andrew Rawnsley, Guardian journalist, aware of the this glaring weakness in the book, interviewed Albright prior to writing his review: “I suggest to her that the book struggles to offer a satisfactory definition of fascism. ‘Defining fascism is difficult,’ she responds. ‘First of all, I don’t think fascism is an ideology. I think it is a method, it’s a system’.” In other words, Fascism is a label that can be applied to any kind of politics that unsettles Jews and offers authentic alternative political methodologies. By refusing to acknowledge Fascism as a specific historical political ideology with identifiable and fixed traits, Albright and the other Jewish activists mentioned here can free it up as a system of mere “methods” that can then be interpreted in general terms in order to attack those elements of White society deemed oppositional to Jewish interests. So-called Antifascism, which draws all of its cultural power from this kind of Jewish propaganda, is therefore not against Fascism at all, but against any “methods” or “trends” that aren’t conducive to Jews.

Madeleine Albright: Wrote a book about something she can’t define

Stanley’s book is an excellent guide to Jewish paranoia about the “methods” hinted at by Albright. His text is divided into chapters titled “The Mythic Past,” “Propaganda,” “Anti-Intellectual,” “Unreality,” “Hierarchy,” “Victimhood,” “Law and Order,” “Sexual Anxiety,” “Sodom and Gomorrah,” and, since Jews inevitably view all dissent from their interests as leading ultimately to outlandish forms of mass murder, the final chapter is headed “Arbeit Macht Frei.” Each of these chapters deals with entirely subjective material and ideas, and there is no serious engagement with any scholarly literature on historical Fascism.

As discussed above, “the mythic past” is only a problem for Jews like Stanley when the past in question isn’t conducive to Jewish goals. Fictional multicultural pasts where ancient “Cheddar Man” Britons had dark skin, Africans lived in England before the English, and Whites demonstrated unique evil, are currently the height of intellectual and cultural fashion. These are the versions of “the mythic past” that Jews celebrate and promote. On the other hand, conceptions of the past as involving mono-ethnic cultures, celebrations of European racial glory, and acknowledgement of White group achievement are branded Fascist and beyond the pale. In the Jewish vision, the histories of Europeans are irredeemably shameful and therefore any attempt to make one’s nation “great again” is both irrational (“they were never great in the first place!”) and threatening. In this reading, all positive reflections on the European past are part of the Fascist methodology and should therefore be ruthlessly opposed. When Jews like Stanley and Albright include references to “the mythic past” in their “warnings” about Fascism they are in fact warning and shaming Whites against asserting their own interests and group pride.

The same framework is employed in discussing the alleged propaganda and “anti-intellectual” qualities of Fascism. Stanley argues that Fascists “attack and devalue education, expertise, and language.” This argument is, at best, entirely subjective and at worst complete nonsense. The idea that Fascists have been against intellectualism in general is simply ridiculous. As John Whittam writes in his Fascist Italy:

Fascism suffered not from the lack of ideas but from too many. Despite their rhetoric and pronounced hostility towards the intellectuals of the old liberal establishment, Futurists, syndicalists, ex-socialists, and even the ras professed an ideology and invariably had access to a newspaper where their views could be expressed. After the conquest of power one of the major problems was the formulation of an ideology from the bewildering array of distinctive ideologies within the Fascist movement.[1] [emphasis added]

Underlying Stanley’s accusatory statement is the simple fact that Fascists oppose liberal, left-wing, and Jewish intellectualism. Jewish activists like Stanley believe, of course, that theirs are the only legitimate and authentic intellectual activities in the public sphere. An attack on their position is therefore seen as an attack on all genuine intellectualism. The accusation that Fascists are anti-intellectual thus speaks of a profound arrogance in the accuser.

Equally revealing are Stanley’s chapters on “Sexual Anxiety” and “Sodom and Gomorrah.” These chapters are more or less an apologetic for Weimar-style sexual degeneracy, and insinuate that all attempts to prevent descent into such an abyss are pathological and Fascist. Some interesting context in this regard can be found back in 2016 when Stanley became embroiled in controversy after a Facebook exchange with fellow Jewish academic Rebecca Kukla, of Georgetown University, was widely disseminated. The pair had been discussing Richard Swinburne, an Orthodox Christian philosopher, and were incensed after Swinburne addressed the Society of Christian Philosophers and lectured on Christian ethics, including the religion’s stance on homosexuality. Swinburne made the argument that homosexuality could be understood as an illness, even a form of disability, since it acted against the otherwise natural imperative to reproduce. Stanley, in a conversation with other Jewish academics, accused Swinburne of “promoting homophobia,” paving the way for another Holocaust, and then finished his tirade with “Fuck those assholes. Seriously.” The charming Dr. Kukla, presumably equally engaged in employing vigorous intellectualism against the Fascist encroachment of Prof. Swinburne, added, “Those douche tankards can suck my giant queer cock.”

Rebecca Kukla: Stunning and brave intellectual fighting against Fascist anti-intellectuals

When the exchange went viral, both Stanley and Kukla scattered like cockroaches under torchlight, hiding under pity narratives and accusations of anti-Semitism. In a remarkable piece worth quoting here at length, Stanley wrote shortly afterwards:

I wanted to address the situation that has arisen from the series of articles in right-wing media outlets about me, and then me and Professor Kukla, that resulted from a private Facebook exchange being published and taken out of context … I was almost always the only Jewish person in my classes growing up. In my high schools in tenth and eleventh grade, I was the first Jewish person to attend. I am very familiar with the isolation that is involved, even when there is no overt discrimination (though I grew up being asked if I had horns and such like, this was ignorance and not malice). It is woven into the tapestry of my existence what it is like to be in a minority faith among a majority … My central concern right now is entirely about our gay colleagues in academia who have been watching this episode in horror, rightly concerned that any complaints about discrimination they may raise, even in private spaces, will result in the kind of incredibly intense retribution that Rebecca Kukla and I have been singled out and subject to over the past week. And those concerns would be legitimate. I need to end with the issue of anti-Semitism. On my public post, someone posted a disturbing comment about Swinburne’s death. I contemplated deleting it but then wanted to wait to see if anyone would ‘like’ it before addressing its horrors (no one did). It is hard to avoid the suspicion that the media discussion starting with the September 28th piece in The American Conservative, and then the Washington Times, is straightforwardly anti-Semitic. How did a non-story about the complexity of communication that results when screenshots from private conversations are made public, become a national story about two leftist Jewish professors and the dangers they pose? At first, the story was solely about me. Then, the other Jewish philosopher who posted on that thread, Rebecca Kukla, was also targeted. What ensued was a terrible anti-Semitic narrative, channeling a virulent 20th century form of anti-Semitism.

When I first read this piece, I have to confess without exaggeration that I laughed so hard I was literally gasping for air. It positively drips with a comic level of Jewish stereotype. Consider the speed with which Stanley morosely explains how he felt as “the only Jew in the class.” Observe the fake worry about the “Other,” in this case his “gay colleagues.” And reflect on the final, truly beautiful, example of the shameless Jewish recourse to the protective embrace of the anti-Semitism accusation — and not just any anti-Semitism but that infamous “virulent” kind. Every ingredient of “crying out as they strike you” is present here in perfect, distilled form. All my differences with him aside, Stanley is to be congratulated on being an excellent student of his people’s craft.

When we therefore read Stanley’s chapters on “Sexual Anxiety” and “Sodom and Gomorrah” we know precisely the kind of attitudes that our esteemed Yale professor brings to the table. He advances a theory that Fascists merely pretend to be upset about the rape of White women in order to reinforce the patriarchy. Take, for example, his outlandish claim that “The crime of rape is basic to fascist politics because it raises sexual anxiety and an attendant need for protection of the nation’s manhood by the fascist authority.” For Stanley, all rhetoric with the purpose of supporting stable, growing White families is Fascist, along with any attempts to challenge the “liberation” of women into sterility, promiscuity, vacuous careerism, grooming gangs, and abortion. But the deeper problem here is that there is no serious literature on any such fixation on rape within Fascism, and Stanley seems to pluck his concept of rape as “basic to fascist politics” from thin air. In reality, antifascist propaganda has been noted many times in the scholarly literature for its reliance on rape metaphors to attack the psychological appeal of Fascism (e.g. “Fascism rapes the mind of the masses”[2]). We can quite easily surmise that Stanley is probably aware that his argument is nonsense, and that he simply prefers to stigmatise any attempt to protect White women. The same methodology is employed when Stanley proposes that homosexuality and race-mixing are inherently good, being valiant sins “against Fascist ideology.” This is what now passes for an education at Yale.


Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, Ziblatt, and Albright have produced quite typical examples of Jewish propaganda disguised as “anti-Fascist” literature. The key features of such works are invariably a vague definition of Fascism, an attempt to relate “warnings” to some aspect of contemporary politics, melodramatic admonitions about a putative future violent catastrophe that must be avoided, and maudlin appeals to personal family history and “emotional baggage.” Underlying the surface veneer, these works are highly focussed efforts to pathologise aspects of White culture and politics deemed oppositional to Jewish interests. These efforts, and their framing, are quite obviously derived from Cultural Marxism, especially Adorno’s work with the Frankfurt School on The Authoritarian Personality, and from earlier forms of Jewish activism witnessed from the end of the 19th century and culminating in Weimar Germany (e.g. the work of Magnus Hirschfeld). The family, the acknowledgement of heterosexuality as culturally and biologically normative and preferential, the desirability of mono-ethnic cultures, and the acknowledgement of inequality among human beings are reframed in this kind of “warning literature” as inherently Fascistic.

It is very worrying that our culture has bequeathed a great deal of respect and legitimacy to Jewish intellectuals, especially in relation to the subject of Fascism. We have allowed them to assert that “they know it when they see it.” The fundamental crisis of our civilization is that they see it everywhere, and they won’t rest until this phantom of their paranoia, and us with it, are abolished.

[1] J. Whittam, Fascist Italy, (New York: Manchester University Press, 1995), 81-2.

[2] See, for example, S. Chakotin, The Rape of the Masses: The Psychology of Totalitarian Political Propaganda (1940).


70 replies
  1. Reb Kittredge
    Reb Kittredge says:

    Great article! Reminds me of Greg Johnson’s reviews of books dealing with national populism that are supposed to comprise his forthcoming book, White Identity Politics. I wish this one by Dr. Joyce were part of such a series culminating in a book. . . I’d buy it.

    • Cat
      Cat says:

      My wish? An veritable Andrew Joyce Reader containing every single one of his essays and an appendix with all the comments. I would pay a pretty penny for that book. I started creating PDFs of all his work to put in a notebook, but it became too voluminous. It has to be a book.

  2. Canadian guy
    Canadian guy says:

    Interestingly enough, I’m reading through The Anti-Fascist Handbook.

    This is how the scheme works:

    1. Left wing radicalism is the doctrine of revolution for the purpose of taking power by Jews. It can mean allying with the proletariat, the working class, or as of late – racial and sexual minorities

    2. Fascism is the counter-point to Jewish power. Left and right, communism and fascism – both are proxies for ethnic struggle between Jews and Gentiles. The Jewish religion teaches that Jews should set up a socialist world government run by them with the wealth of the world owned by them. That is what they are moving towards! It is built into their religion. Read “The Jewish Utopia” by Michael Higger or “The New Babylon” by Michael Collins Piper.

    The Jewish mythology is is that white Europeans believe they are racially superior (they call this white supremacy) and because of that white supremacy they want to take over the world. This is baked into the holocaust mythology. National socialist germany (according to Jews) was not a struggle between Jewish communist revolutionaries and native Germans – with the victory going to the native Germans. According to the myth of white supremacy national socialist germany was about Germans believing they are racially superior.

    This idea of white supremacy got baked into power-war Jewish radicalism and they used that as a justification for uniting all other groups against us so they could get back to work trying to overthrow our civilization so that they could set up their beloved socialist police state.

    As crazy as Jews are and as insane as their schemes are – I really do fear that they are going to achieve their goal of completely crushing white America into the ground and building a Cuba/Venezuela style communist police state on top with a black-brown majority and a Jewish elite. Any opposition to that is what they call fascism.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “As crazy as Jews are and as insane as their schemes are – I really do fear that they are going to achieve their goal of completely crushing white America into the ground and building a Cuba/Venezuela style communist police state on top with a black-brown majority and a Jewish elite. Any opposition to that is what they call fascism.”

      Great paragraph from a great comment about a great article.

      What you said in the above quote and what Andrew says at the end of his essay is true. They’re out to do us in. And they might. They haven’t yet. But they might.

      Still, their efforts are doomed to failure. The best they’ll ever manage is a Pyrrhic Victory.

      Mostly, if not entirely, because, you’re right, they are insane.

      An example of this can be seen in their explanations of the world. Or explanation.

      Jews pride themselves on their intellect. But the more they dominate, the more they take center stage the more we can see just how crazy they really are.

      Poke past the surface sophistication and self-confidence, or, chutzpah, and their explanations of the world are mostly based on fantasy.

      This is why, as I’ve said often here, Schopenhauer said of them that nothing about them could ever be confused with reason.

      They’re fundamentally unreasonable.

      Just look at any one of their explanatory systems, which can be arranged into an overriding explanatory system.

      Simply take the initial bracketing sentence and the concluding sentence and look at everything in between and examine that system with an awareness of the conditions of explanation itself.

      What you’ll see is a torn tissue of absurdities

      Every. Single. Time.

      Also, every single one of their most important intellectuals has, in one way or another, been discredited, from Marx, to Fraud, I mean Freud, down to S.J. Gould and Chomsky.

      Someone, at some point, finds something bogus, or fraudulent about about their work.

      Their explanation of themselves and of the world is as fake as their economic Ponzi schemes. And that’s saying plenty.

      So, nothing they build will stand, let alone last.

      It isn’t now.

      Just go online or look out of your window.

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        by “the conditions of explanation” is meant,

        causality, meaning, rhetoric, logic, mind, intention, stimulus, reponse, conditioning and reinforcement.

        In other words, a more in-depth look into explanation from the point of view of behavior – something none of us can avoid.

        And I don’t mean academic behavioralism, because that’s never been nearly behavioral enough.

        Just look at what people say (verbal behavior) and do (non-verbal behavior).

        The more one does this the more the work of the people mentioned in Andrew’s article appears like intellectual comedy of the highest order. Though they probably thought they were doing something else.

        They key point is, they control our social institutions.

        And social institutions aren’t similar to explanations.

        A social institution IS an explanation.

        So, if their explanations are made up out of thin air and based on nothing, like their money, well, how long can the social institutions they now control last?

        The question answers itself.

        Again, for proof, just go online, look at the news, or look out of your window.

        Evidence of their Pyrrhic Victory is proven on every street corner.

      • Achilles Wannabe
        Achilles Wannabe says:

        Schopenhauer said of them that nothing about them could ever be confused with reason.

        Where did he say this? I am looking to read a little of him but I don’t know where to begin. Seems right to start with this.

    • Bruno Pierre Gebarski
      Bruno Pierre Gebarski says:

      Israeli British Jazz musician and politial activist Gilad Atzmon told Dr. E. Michael Jones in a recent Interview: “ATHENS [Greece] tought us HOW to think; but now JERUSALEM [the Zionist Troskyist Bolshevik Neo-Conservatives] tell us WHAT to think.

  3. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    Fascism means loyalty. When Jews attack fascism, they intend to break down loyalty of others’ toward their kin.

  4. someone
    someone says:

    “Though I grew up being asked if I had horns and such like, this was ignorance and not malice.”

    This is from a movie called Norma Rae.

    • Ben
      Ben says:

      I’m quite sure that he was never ever asked that question and absorbed it by osmosis through a relative who also never experienced it.

      These people are in denial and lie like it’s going out of style

    • Canadian guy
      Canadian guy says:

      Fascism: the career of a concept by Paul Gottfried.


      • Achilles Wannabe
        Achilles Wannabe says:

        I heard him on Luke Ford. He buys the fairy tales about WW2. I think he also plays down the America First’s take on Jews in the 30’s. I almost bought his book on fascism but I came away for the Ford show thinking of him as C.O. You do know he is a Jew?

  5. Tom
    Tom says:

    As usual, impeccable scholarship by Dr. Joyce. But basically, a fascist, in the delusional minds of leftists, is anyone who believes in Life, Liberty, Property – Natural Law – and our proud “anti-fascists” are those who believe in violence, statism, and universal perversion.

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      I don’t know Tom. Your idea about what
      fascism is seems awfully like Anglo libertarianism to me

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        I would add to that list placing the highest priority on the well-being of all of the people — not just the rich and influential — and making sure that everyone who is able and willing to contribute will be decently compensated and be regarded as fully equal to the “high and mighty.”

        This is the “socialist” aspect of National Socialism. It dovetails neatly with the social doctrine and subsidiarity of the traditional Catholic Church — we are equal as children of God. We must work together as a team to improve and defend our society.

        The utilitarian ethics of Communism and left-wing socialism (which will sacrifice the individual to the supposed well-being of the group) and the de-ontological or “rationalist” ethics of libertarianism and unrestrained capitalism (which will sacrifice the well being of large sectors of the population to the vicissitudes of a rigged market place) are rejected by fascism in its various forms.

        They are replaced by virtue ethics. What a man deserves depends on his character as judged by ordinary, decent people. Is he honest, brave, generous? Does he do his share of the work? If yes, then he is honored and rewarded. If no, then he Is pressured to reform his character in a more virtuous direction.

        There is no reason why — within this context — there can’t be a lot of room for personal freedom and individual achievement. A fascist society does not have to consist of mindless conformists. Nor does it have to disregard individual rights and freedoms. But when its very survival is at stake, personal preferences must give way to supporting one’s brothers. Authoritarianism can be a necessity. We’ve even seen it in our own society during the world wars.

        If Covid-19 were not a hoax, and bad people weren’t allowed to riot in the streets with hardly any intervention by the police while other, law-abiding people faced brutal police action for not “social distancing,” then the lockdown might well serve as an example of individuals sacrificing for the common good. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. What we have in the U.S. is Clown World, not anything that could be called rational or just.

      • Achilles Wannabe
        Achilles Wannabe says:

        Sorry Tom I misread you. I thought you were saying that liberty etc was fascism. I have to stop coming here so late

  6. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    Fascist, Nazi, Racist, Xenofabo, White Supremacist …, are part of the dialectical arsenal, as a Jewish Pavlovian control of western society. The Jewish parasite is the causative agent of the disease of the white west, but it is also necessary to make it very clear that the defensive immune system of the west was gradually weakening, which allowed the parasite to dominate almost completely.
    I said it before: The three primary factors of every great civilization are, Ethnocentrism, Homogeneity and High IQ, if any of the three fails it will be harmful. In the case of the white west, the three factors mentioned above are weakening. Nothing will be achieved by crying over the milk already spilled, it is urgent to find solutions now, or otherwise it will be too late for the West. The parasite must know that if his host perishes, he also perishes, it is most likely that he must be looking for another host, strong, healthy, vigorous and prosperous (East Asia).

  7. 9593
    9593 says:

    Wikipedia does a pretty good job of characterizing “fascism” as, essentially, without a firm definition, a word that has escaped from the lexicographers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

    As an aside: President Franklin Roosevelt is quoted: ” The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.[52][53][54][55]” Which sounds like the situation today in the USA.

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      Fascism is not about private power. That is the way the Left defines Fascism as if Fascism
      and corporate capitalism were allies. It was Very much the opposite which is why WASP’s and the international Jews were terrified of fascism and conspired to bring it down. Fascism is socialism that actually worked -and could work again – because it was national socialism. But don’t wait for Wikepedia to tell you that

  8. Fenria
    Fenria says:

    It’s all just so much clever wordsmithing and obfuscation with jews. It always is. All these red herrings thrown in the ideological road to deter people from seeing the real source of jewish fear. Jews demand an open society. They demand cosmopolitanism and a kind of rootlessness / atomization for all other non jews which allows jews to adeptly exploit any situation to their advantage. They demand a culture of degeneracy to weaken all non jews. They demand to force these things on any nation at any time. If anything gets in the way of these demands, they will label it with whatever recoil producing buzzword is popular at the time. The actual meaning of such is unimportant. The goal of the label is simply to shut down anything that threatens their open societies, and to deflect attention away from the fact that jews are actively working to undermine their host nations for their own benefit.

    There’s a reason why they don’t care about properly defining fascism. The actual meaning doesn’t matter to them at all. The only thing that matters is that the term “fascism” is loaded enough to be used as a suitable pejorative to make their opponents shut up and stop doing whatever anti-new world order thing they’re trying to do.

    • Henry
      Henry says:

      An absolutely brilliant summary of the situation, Fenria! So good, in fact, that I have saved it in a “Jew Stuff” Word document that I keep on my computer for the purpose of accumulating ammunition to use against Jews in their daily whining about being the poor victims of irrational anti-Semitism. Right now the document is up to 25 pages. Maybe I’ll put it all in a book someday. A self-published book, of course, as Jews are the gatekeepers of publishing as well.

      Anyway, thanks so much for your comment. You really nailed it.

      • Achilles Wannabe
        Achilles Wannabe says:

        Yeah, I too have a “Jew Stuff” file and
        Fenria is going in it. My book will deal with my boomer brainwash at the hands of the chosen. Unfortunately I am new in recovery and do not have close to 25 pages of stuff. but I will persevere if the BUG doesn’t get me

  9. Transvaal Boer
    Transvaal Boer says:

    Brilliant article as always, Dr. Joyce. What I would want to know (from any reader, not the author in particular), is whether anybody can provide a true definition of “Fascism”, then? Not necessarily a one or two sentence dictionary definition, but a thorough exposition. Does such a document exist? Is it reliable? Incidentally, this has been troubling me for some time now.

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      Yeah, I suffer from the same curiosity. I have concluded that it would really help to be able to read in German, Italian and Spanish. Then it would really help to be able to get the relevant documents which our friends the Jews and their WASP allies(we must never forget the WASP in these discussions) have made it very difficult to access. I suppose we could just start with Mein Kamph which is available on line in translation. Somehow that one got through the screen. I am reading it. Very interesting and quite unlike anything I had heard about it from academics or Hollywood Hitler was not who I was taught to think he was

  10. Eric
    Eric says:

    I don’t think a coherent definition of fascism is possible. The three main centers of so-called fascism were National Socialist Germany, Italy under Benito Mussolini, and Spain under Francisco Franco.

    Franco was a military general when Communists established a so-called “republic” in Spain. As a conservative Catholic, like many Spaniards, he wanted nothing to do with Communism. A civil war ensued, with National Socialist Germany helping Franco and the Soviet Union helping the Communists.

    The Communists showed their true character during the Spanish Civil War by butchering Catholic priests and nuns. Apparently, this was just fine with Jews in the West, who supported the Communist side in that war.

    Mussolini was never a conservative Catholic. He began as a socialist. I don’t know much about Italian fascism, but I do know that it did not have the same roots as Franco’s fascism — which in my opinion was basically traditionalism fighting against those who would attack tradition.

    Adolf Hitler was a German nationalist and populist who blamed international Jewry for undermining the German people. He noted the heavy Jewish presence in the leadership of international Communism, which proposed as part of its program the elimination of tradition, nation, church and family.

    Hitler also noted that the Jews — who had been welcome in Germany up until that point — betrayed the German nation by making a deal with the British during WW I: to wit, that the Jews would use their influence to bring the United States into the war against Germany in return for the British giving them Palestine.

    Hitler, like the philosopher Schopenhauer, recognized that the Jews were a “nation” unto themselves, with no loyalty to any non-Jewish nation in which they happened to live. They would betray their host nation if they thought doing so would advance their interests.

    The Jews were (and are to this day) a “rootless international clique,” at home everywhere and nowhere. Whether they were capitalists or Communists, Jews were the enemies of the common people. They had always been so, allying themselves with unscrupulous rulers in order to empower themselves and lord it over Christians. Their hatred of Christian white people was acted out most intensely in the Red Terror and Holodomor, in which millions of white Christians were tortured, starved and murdered.

    So what is fascism? In the final analysis, it’s what Jews don’t like.

    They don’t like white people (unless they happen to be Jewish). They don’t like Christians. They don’t like non-Jewish white nationalism. They don’t like non-Jewish white populism.

    How do the Jews attack what they consider to be fascism?

    They push for the mass immigration of non-whites into white nations. They support discrimination against non-Jewish whites, particularly white males. They support forced racial integration and the miscegenation of whites with non-whites. They favor globalism, diversity, multiculturalism, and a one-world government. Globalism can be achieved through capitalism, Communism, or a combination of both. It doesn’t matter which. In the U.S. today, we have a combination of globalist crony capitalism and cultural Marxism.

    The Jews demonize non-Jewish whites and try to stir up hatred of whites by non-whites. They advocate the suppression of Christian symbols. They support what traditional Christians oppose: casual sex, abortion, pornography, etc. They support attacks on traditional white Christian values and mores: traditional sex roles, the traditional family. They undermine common decency and claim that there is no absolute truth, no absolute good, and no absolute standard of beauty.

    They infiltrate all of the cultural, economic and political “choke points” in the host society in order to wield maximum power and influence. In the U.S., they are disproportionately represented in banking, finance, corporate leadership, the millionaire and billionaire class, academia, publishing, journalism, social media, Hollywood, the music industry and the fine arts.

    They claim that this is because they are smarter than everyone else. But they are not. Their success is based on networking and nepotism. They act as a team — one that transcends national borders — while non-Jewish whites fight and compete with each other.

    Jewish opposition to fascism — as the Jews define it — means that non-Jewish white people have a profound moral obligation. That obligation is to be fascist as the Jews define fascism.

    • Panadechi
      Panadechi says:

      They promote and strengthen the Jewish ethnic social node to protect their interests, while demonizing that whites foren their own social nodes, and defend their interests.

    • ChilledBee
      ChilledBee says:

      Hit the nail on the head. Alas, this kind of information is routinely censored by them in the media. Hence why most Christians have never heard of the Holomodor, let alone be familiar with the absolute atrocities that were committed against them. There is only one atrocity that has ever occurred in history and that, of course, is the Holocaust.

  11. Sophie
    Sophie says:

    Brilliant work, Dr Joyce! Thank you. You remove the Stanley-Kukla-etc. brand of cancer that has invaded the body politic — and you do it with the skill of a master surgeon. For sure, they are squirming.

  12. Hungarist
    Hungarist says:

    Fascism also used collectively for Nazism, Hungarism, etc….driven by both venom and ignorance .

  13. Bruno
    Bruno says:

    I’m sitting in my car. It’s difficult to reply to this. I would like to Say that I greatly Admire The author. Like me he has been all over the world. It is also obvious he’s well read. As an individual he has High moral standards. He Practices what he preaches. I admire him for having four children. It would be a wonderful thing for humanity if he were a university professor or somehow connected to major political figures. In my heart he is a giant of a man. What I don’t like is that he uses his name. I think this is not advantageous. I have composed articles in various languages and more often than not used a different name. I think he should consider this. Well, I am in a car and it’s very difficult to dictate. He deserves credit.

    • Al Ross
      Al Ross says:

      Hear hear ! Everything you wrote accords perfectly with my view of AJ. If anyone can fill KM’s Paul Bunyan – like shoes it is Andrew Joyce.

      However, I would prefer AJ to retain his anonymity as he is probably not protected by the security of tenure that ring – fenced both KM and the late great RP Oliver.

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      I am under the impression that he is not using his real name. I think he said that in some article. I think he said he is not Irish but rather anglo who has lived or maybe even grown up in Ireland. I use anglo as short for scotch, Welsh, scotch Irish, I don’t know which applies to him

  14. 9593
    9593 says:

    Here is a tangential excursion from fascism, but about messing with the language. “Antisemitism” has opportunistically been made into a virus, a pandemic, with mutations, on US public television in a new 1.5-hour documentary, last Monday. Do you get the connection? New PBS program, available on DVD for $25:


    Free for viewing until June 23.

    • Phil
      Phil says:

      ““Antisemitism” has opportunistically been made into a virus, a pandemic, with mutations, on US public television in a new 1.5-hour documentary”

      Oh Lord. These devils never quit.

      One definition of “antisemitism” is anyone who stands in the way of the Jewish agenda.

      Long live “antisemitism.”

  15. Stogumber
    Stogumber says:

    For people who are looking for a distanced comparative study of the Fascist movements in their era: The historian prominent for this approach here in Germany has been the late Ernst Nolte. In his definition, the center of Fascism was its rivalry to Socialism/Bolshevism – which the Fascists tried to defeat, halfway by appropriating its means and imitating its successes.

    By the way, the Jewish infatuation with homosexuality is not very old and stems from the 1960s. (When Evangelicals propagated the “Pink Swastika” – vilifying homosexuality because of its intersecions with Nazism – they mostly relied on Jewish literature of the 1930s and 1940s.) There is always a danger that non-Jews take too serious what the Jews tell the world about themselves. And this includes the kitschy self-concept of the Jew as an advocate for all deviants and minorities.

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      Well, the Jews do seem to have invented transsexualism. It was a homosexual Jewish doctor in the Weimar who performed the first male to female operation. He actually tired to put ovaries into the poor bastard. The patient died There are several movies about this. But that same Doctor ran some sort of gay hangout in Munich I think. Check out a woman who calls herself Darkmoon. She may write on this site. She writes about jews and homosexuals in the Wiemar

  16. Peter
    Peter says:

    Thanks for this interesting article Dr Joyce: just a couple of comments.

    (1) “The late Roger Griffin” is (AFAIK) still alive, unless you know different.

    (2) The Jewish commentators you analyse seem to conflate fascism, national socialism, and ‘racism’. This wasn’t always the case – there was a time when it was convenient for Jews to recognise that there were forms of ‘fascism’ that were decidedly non-‘racist’ and non-‘antisemitic’. Indeed Jabotinsky’s movement (ideological grandfather of Netanyahu’s party) was in a sense a form of ‘Jewish fascism’. A crypto-Jew and gangster called Juan March was the main financial backer of Franco at the start of the Spanish Civil War and was the main MI6 asset inside Spain during the war with close ties to the military and political elite. And even in the late 1960s and early 1970s Carlos Thompson, an agent of Jewish and Churchillian cabals targeting David Irving, was a staunch defender of Franco’s Spain.
    Perhaps the closest equivalent to such people in 2020 are those Jews who back Trump and Orban, a Zionist faction for whom it doesn’t matter how ‘right-wing’ a political leader is, so long as he is pro-Israel.

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      Yeah, ironically Israel is successful fascism. They are raciialist, socially and economically supportive of their Jewish population and seeking Liebensraum for the future – Eretz Yisrael. They just want to deny fascism to everyone else so their Zionist countrymen can bleed denationalized states for their Jewish
      Deutschland über alles. Hitler would have been impressed. Eichman saw it all coming and respected it. He was Zionist. Hannah Arendt the Jew said that

      • Achilles Wannabe
        Achilles Wannabe says:

        Yeah I read somewhere that Italian Fascism was not essentially antisemitic; Mussolini kicked the Jews out of a fascism as a sop to Hitler in their alliance and Italian antisemitism was always token, I have also read that Italian Jews were much more compatible with Italian culture than the German Jews or especially the eastern European Jewish immigrants were with German culture. I think it is important that we learn how to make distinctions among breeds of Jews but without falling into the philo semetic trap of thinking that they are all individuals about whom no generalizations can be responsibly made .

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          I don’t think Italian Jews were any better integrated than their German brethren, but were far, far fewer and saw the centralized power offered by Mussolini as serving their interests. Much like the Jews that support the Right today.

    • Ayrsson
      Ayrsson says:

      That really should be the lead motif of this article: that ‘Fascism’ is an entirely different concept from Nationalsocialism, and ever since the 1920s the Jews and the Left have tarred all patriotic white/Aryan movements with the appellation ‘Fascist’.

      Fascism is of course an Italian Nationalist-Socialist ideology, with Corporatism at it’s centre. Nationalsocialism (more correctly, ‘Hitlerism’) was against Corporatism. Hitler stated (in his Table Talk) that for one, it would eventually result in oligarchies.

      Fascism was also missing the ‘Abolition of The Thraldom of Interest (debt) Slavery’, the acknowledgement of the Jews as the agents of civilisational disease and decay amongst Aryans, and also the need for the protection of racial/ethnic identity and the understanding that culture is a product of the collective racial soul (for ex., Ludwig Clauss) and therefore quality of culture is a reflection of quality of race. These aforementioned were absolutely central pillars of the Nationalsocialist/Hitlerian worldview.

  17. Ben V.
    Ben V. says:

    All I know about the various forms of fascism is an economic system where the nation controls its own money and businesses are allowed to be run but have to benefit the worker and are made to do so. The nation must homogeneous with a shared culture, race and language in order for it to thrive.

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      I think you just nailed it Ben and that is exactly why the internationalist Jews and the WASP’s – capitalism’s vanguard – had to bring fascism down. They also had to prevent boomers from knowing what the “Good War” was really all about. That was the real Big Lie and probably the greatest brainwash in history. Everything that is destroying whites
      including WASPs, today has followed from that success.

  18. Spam Houston
    Spam Houston says:

    “generalization is necessary in the current moment.”

    Their definition of Fascism, apparently, is the same as their definition of racism: anything in the best interests of White people.

  19. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    1) For what it’s worth, I first ran across the name Rebecca Kukla three or four years ago. Whether it was or wasn’t in the context of the fracas referred to by Dr. Joyce is something I don’t recall. What made her name significant then was that it stirred a memory of the wonderful children’s TV show “Kukla, Fran, and Ollie.” The headliners of the show were Fran Allison, an attractive human of the female persuasion, and Kukla and Ollie, who were hand puppets, as were the several supporting players. Ollie was supposed to be a one-toothed dragon, and that was precisely what he looked like. Kukla, on the other hand, was supposed to be a little boy, but his big round red nose made him look ever so much like a puppy, at least to the little boy that I was at the time.

    I think the fact that everything about Professor Kukla, especially but not exclusively the precise nature of her sexual orientation, was dubious or confusing is what vividly linked her in my mind with Kukla the puppet. Unlike the puppet, alas, the professor cannot be recommended to connoisseurs of reflective wit or charm.

    2) Professor Kukla’s Wikipedia entry reads even more like an Onion parody than most of its companions do. The primary drafter of the piece—evidently a true believer in the insanity of infinite gender diversification—refers to her subject using the possessives “they,” “them,” and “their” and the plural forms of attendant verbs. The hilarious result is that an association is suggested between Kukla and the forms used in papal encyclicals and bulls—or far, far more grandly, the forms used by an editor of the “New York Times”!

  20. Achilles Wannabe
    Achilles Wannabe says:

    Fine article on what Fascism isn’t. But why don’t we have more articles on this site about what Fascism is or was? Or for that matter what the Holocaust was or wasn’t? Why is it, given that TOQ is a web site devoted to smoking the Jews out, we have to go to Unz Review for articles on these subjects?
    (Mod. Note: Achilles, please note the mission statement in the header of TOO. It doesn’t say what you say it’s “devoted to” above. Be careful about imposing your interpretation and confusing it with the stated purpose. Thanks.)

    • Achilles Wannabe
      Achilles Wannabe says:

      OK, I will accede to that correction and try not to confuse my uses of TOQ with TOQ’s stated goals. Actually I hadn’t even read the MIssion
      Statement until just now. I had just cut to the chase. Apologies.

    • Phil
      Phil says:

      “Fine article on what Fascism isn’t. But why don’t we have more articles on this site about what Fascism is or was?”

      Fascism reminds us that National life, like individual life, is not only pleasure, but constant submission to the sense of duty, honor, and work. In national life, as with individual life, nothing beautiful or great is achieved without effort and sacrifice. Fascism is the war cry against unhealthy forces, against social injustices, destructive doctrines, demoralizing principles, at the same time as the cry of resurrection and rebirth, a frank, clear and pure cry that penetrates into the great inner collective consciousness and will save us if we can repeat it over and over until the day of the great awakening. And we will summarize this cry, which will oppose all materialistic cries, in a way that real French Canadians will understand, having been so long asleep: “Soul of old Quebec, awake!”

      — From Adrien Arcand’s Fascism or Socialism? (1933)

  21. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    The thing about capitalists is it’s difficult to find people to fight for you. After all, capitalism is about rule by rich oligarchs. While people will fight and use violence to protect their own property, most people won’t go out on a limb to defend the privilege and wealth of oligarchs and uber-bourgeoisie. You buy guns to protect your own home and family, not to defend Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

    Now, what will people fight for other than for their own family and property? People, especially those with rightist inclinations, will fight for blood & soil, nationalism, and tribalism. People, especially those of leftist inclinations, will fight for the cult of justice or messianic ideology. Rightists prefer the sacred, leftists prefer the sanctimonious. Rightists will fight for their hole in the ground, leftist will fight for holier-than-thou. Neither rightists nor leftists want to fight, kill, and die for the sake of rich people.
    And this is why capitalists need ‘fascists’ or ‘communists’ as shock troops. It’s like the rich oligarchs and Jewish globalists needed ‘Neo-Nazis’ in Ukraine to pull off the Maidan coup. This is why the oligarchy and deep state in the US recruit Jihadis and ISIS to fight in Syria. Not because the oligarchs and religious nuts believe in the same thing but because the oligarchs know that only Jihadis have the balls/nuttery to fight to the death.

    So, there has been the history of fascism and communism but also the history of ‘fascism’ and ‘communism’ as the tools of capitalists, i.e. capitalists used those ideologies/movements as tools and weapons than as desired objectives or goals. Generally speaking, the goy conservative capitalists supported ‘fascists’ to fight radical revolution and Jewish Power to keep their privilege and maintain order. Though there were Jewish oligarchs who also supported the ‘fascists’, especially in Italy, many more Jewish capitalist oligarchs funded the ‘communists’. Not because they wanted the communists to really win and take over but to serve as shock troops against the ‘fascists’ and ‘anti-Semites’ supported by the goy conservative oligarchs.
    Now, given that fascism is far more tolerant of capitalism than communism is, one might think most Jewish capitalist oligarchs would have supported the ‘fascists’. After all, Italian Fascism and National Socialism made peace with capitalists whereas the communists who gained total power wiped them out. But Jewish oligarchs were loathe to support the ‘fascists’, especially in Germany, because fascist elements were so anti-Jewish whereas the communists, though anti-capitalist, were opposed to ‘antisemitism’ and had a large Jewish contingent. Jewish oligarchs thought, “The communists may take away our property but they won’t kill us.” Of course, they hoped that the ‘communists’ would never really take power. They figured the ‘communists’ would be too busy combating ‘fascists’ to ever get around to toppling capitalism.

    But in Israel, the Jewish oligarchs have united with the ‘fascists’ because ‘fascists’ there are Jewish. The alliance of Jewish fascists and Jewish capitalists in Israel is akin to the alliance of German fascists and German capitalists under National Socialism. The fascist-capitalist alliance is more natural/organic than the communist-capitalist one for obvious reasons as fascists seek to control capitalism whereas communism seek to eradicate it. The main reason why many Jewish capitalists supported communists(as the lesser of the two evils) against the fascists is because most fascist movements in Europe(and its crypto-types in the US) happened to be anti-Jewish. But in the case of Israel, we see a very natural alliance of Jewish capitalists and Jewish fascists.

    In the US, the most visible ‘fascist’ elements are anti-Jewish. They are opposed to capitalism to the extent that the current incarnation is ‘woke’, but they are not anti-capitalism per se. If capitalism were pro-fascist, most fascists would be okay with it. In contrast, communism is intrinsically opposed to capitalism for what it is. So, we’d expect capitalists to prefer fascists over communism.
    In a similar vein, communists in the US should be more anti-capitalist than anti-fascist. After all, communism emerged BEFORE fascism as a war against capitalism. Classic Communism even argued that fascism is just a tool of capitalism. In other words, capitalism is the ROOT of fascism: the hammer used by capitalists to beat down workers and prevent communist revolution: No capitalism, no fascism. Then, the communists should be mainly attacking the capitalists as the very source of fascism, a mere manifestation of capitalism. But Antifa and other supposedly radical leftist elements have been mostly serving the all-powerful capitalists in their hunt for mostly imaginary ‘nazis’ and KKK. If Antifa and such types are communist or radical leftist, why do they overlook the real and growing power of their core ideological enemy, the capitalists, while chasing after Nazi or KKK unicorns? And if Antifa and communists are the main ideological enemies of capitalism, why is US capitalism either supportive or at least tolerant of them against the ‘fascists’ who would welcome an alliance with capitalists as long as they aren’t ‘woke’ or anti-white?

    It’s because identity trumps ideology. Just like Hollywood capitalist Jews protected and used Hollywood Jewish communists, Jewish capitalists and Jewish handlers of Antifa see eye to eye on the main threat to Jewish Power: White Liberation and White Agency. In Israel, Jews have no need for Antifa and the like. Over the years, the Jewish Left has been losing ground in Israel because Jews there face no threat from the Goy Right. Thus, Jewish capitalists are better off promoting Jewish fascists. But ‘fascism’ in the West is dominated by goyim who tend to have hostile views toward Jews. So, Jewish capitalists must clamp down on ‘fascism’ in the West by supporting the ‘communists’. (But Jews will then support ‘fascists’ in Ukraine against Russian interests. Jewish power does indeed play it by ear.) And as Antifa has been infiltrated and guided by Jewish agents, its main agenda is always to batter down any vestige of white identity or white liberation in the name of fighting ‘nazism’ and KKK when, in fact, it’s to keep whites cucked and servile to Jewish Power.

    Now, one may ask why goy capitalists in the US, even conservative ones, are tolerant of Antifa and the ‘radical left’ while always virtue-signaling against any sign of white identity or interests as ‘Nazi’, ‘KKK’, or ‘white supremacist’? Why aren’t they like the German Conservative Oligarchs who supported the National Socialists? It’s because, since the end of WWII, Jews-Blacks-Homos have become the holy trinity of the West. Shoah-MLK-GloboHomo are so revered in the West that even goy rich go along, sincerely or cynically. Just like there was a time when one had to be Christian to gain prominent positions in European society — the main reason why certain Jews converted to Christianity — , anyone who wants to be someone in the neo-‘spiritual’ order must profess fidelity to the Holy Three of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Also, as whiteness is the New Devil of the West, even goy conservative capitalists dare not touch it with a ten foot pole.

  22. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    Thanks Dr.Joyce for an article of explanatory depth; E.Michael Jones usually touches the subject point when he ask “Who determines what an ‘anti-Semite is?”
    The mask slips and we no longer see the intellectual high-mindedness of Dr.Kukla when ‘she’ is quoted as saying “These douche tankards can suck my giant queer cock”. After checking the quote twice and re-appraising the picture I am still in considerable doubt if our eloquent Dr.Kukla is a woman or a man? Or I mis-read that section?
    As an Anglo-Irish person, like I presume you are, I give further thanks to the mention of The Burkean website which I hope to visit as much as TOO.

  23. Trace Forrest
    Trace Forrest says:

    A great example of your writing style! Humorous and cutting at the same time. If you were politically correct you would be known the nation over. Keep up the great work!

  24. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    ‘Fascism’ has some connection with Jewish views on ancient Rome – the ‘Roman salute’, army power, the bundle-of-fasces conferring strength, and wars against Jews. I’d guess this is why they use the word uniquely to convey their horror of collections of people with anti-Jewish feelings. Unfortunately – and I know this is not a popular view, even with the non-shills here – there’s plenty of evidence that ‘Fascism’ was party controlled opposition by Jews. Mussolini was funded by shady people; Japan’s war against Russia was funded by Jews; both Franco and Hitler emerged from hidden roots.

    A O Letania writes, bafflingly, on the difficulties ‘Capitalists’ have finding people to fight for them. This is historically completely wrong; all most men need to fight is pay, though unending lies help too.

    NB I don’t know where AJ gets his pin-sharp photos, but I congratulate him on his selection, especially of Albright.

  25. KingEdwardIwasRight1290
    KingEdwardIwasRight1290 says:

    “If the question is still asked why National Socialism combats the Jewish element in Germany so fanatically, the answer can only be, because National Socialism wishes to establish a real community of the people. Since we are National Socialists, we cannot permit an alien race to impose itself upon our working people as their leaders.” – Adolf Hitler

  26. kibic
    kibic says:

    Let us not forget that Hitler was of Jewish stock, as were many of his mates in NSDAP. It is a proven fact that Zionist and Hitler collaborated. Please read 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis by Lenni Brenner who is Jewish. So fascist or commi , it doesn’t matter, jewish hucpa is everywhere. You can be sure they have been in it,

Comments are closed.