The Jewish conspiracy is more fact than theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigjon

Seems like you support communism, book.

---

Seems like you support strasserism, Bigjon.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Strasserism (German: Strasserismus or Straßerismus) is a strand of Nazism that calls for a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism—hostile to Jews not from a racial, ethnic, cultural or religious perspective, but from an anti-capitalist basis—to achieve a national rebirth. It derives its name from Gregor and Otto Strasser, the two Nazi brothers initially associated with this position.

Opposed on strategic views to Adolf Hitler, Otto Strasser was expelled from the Nazi Party in 1930 and went into exile in Czechoslovakia while Gregor Strasser was murdered in Germany on 30 June 1934 during the Night of the Long Knives. Strasserism remains an active position within strands of neo-Nazism.

---

Unfortunately nobody ever created a name for a governing politic that endorsed Capitalism while newtering Monopoly.

So it was named Hornism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jewboo

Seems like you support strasserism, Bigjon.

:rolleyes:

---

It might be. Somehow I doubt if Strasser would endorse the definition of Strasserism by his mortal enemies.

Quote:

---

The father of true 'National Socialism' was T.G. Masaryk, and none other.
In about 1887 he delivered a crushing attack on Marxist Socialism, his main arguments being that it was wrong because it was international and anti-Christian. He inspired, by these arguments, Klovacs, a young Czech labour leader and Socialist member of the Vienna Parliament, who about 1892 seceded with the Czech workers from the Socialist Party in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire because the leadership of that party was 'Jewish, international and German'. In 1897 Klovacs founded the first National Socialist Party in the world. T.G. Masaryk had a few years earlier founded his Realist Party, of which he was the only member in the Vienna Parliament. This united with Klovacs's party and Masaryk became president of this first National Socialist Party until his death, with Edouard Benesh as his second in command.

About 1903 the Sudeten Germans took up Masaryk's idea and founded a second, German National Socialist Party in the Austro-Hungarian Empire under Jungand Knirsch, both members of the Vienna Parliament. In 1907 the Austrians followed suit, with a third, Austrian National Socialist Party. From these Czech, Sudeten German and Austrian models, the Bavarians in their turn took over the idea in 1917, when Harrer and Anton Drexler formed the Bavarian National Socialist Party, the fourth in the line of direct descent.

The guiding principle of all these parties was Masaryk's original one: Christian and national socialism, as opposed to anti Christian and international, or super-national, Marxist socialism.

Hitler, the destroyer of the idea, intercepted the process in 1919 when, at the bidding of Roehm, he attended a meeting of the little Bavarian party, subsequently gaining control of it by purchase. He changed the whole idea and outlook of the party under the influence of Italian Fascism, which had a quite different history and other antecedents, and was inspired by Communism.

Hitler turned the National Socialist movement into 'Hitlerism'; in its original form it was something entirely different. Nor was Hitler, as he claimed in Mein Kampf, the party's 'seventh member'. Apart from the other, earlier parties, the Bavarian one already had several hundred members when this Mephisto was sent to report on it and became the seventh member of its executive committee, in charge of publicity.

Thus national socialism, as Otto Strasser continued in search of it, was quite unlike what Hitler later made of it, but in 1923 Strasser could not foresee that. He later explained what he sought in his book, The Structure of German Socialism, published in 1930. It joins up with original and genuine national, Christian socialism, and was then, and remains today, fully consistent with all his words and deeds; although he has changed the name to Solidarism, he has not sensibly changed the content, which is summarized later in this book. It is a political theory deriving directly from Masaryk's idea, as developed by Strasser's own life and experience.

In 1923 he could not know what this newcomer Hitler would do with national socialism. Nobody knew, for the thing had not been put to the test. Then something happened to make him wonder if he had been right in his distrust of the new man, Hitler, and to awaken in him the hope that the party led by this Hitler might, after all, lead to the Christian, national socialism which he sought.

---

From The Controversy of Zion ch 14 p 82:


The core of dogma remained as Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah had shaped and enforced it; but the Talmud, in effect, had taken the place of the Torah, as the Torah earlier had supplanted the “oral traditions.” The heads of the academies of Sura and Pumbedita were called Gaonim and began to exercise autocratic power over the scattered Jews. The shadowy Exilarchs (later Nasim, or princes) were dependent on their approval and the Sanhedrin surrendered its functions to them, or was deprived of these. When doubt arose among Jews, anywhere in the world, about the interpretation or application of the Law in any matter of the day, the question was referred to the Gaonate. The verdicts and judgments returned (in the name of Jehovah) from the distant government were the Gaonic Reponses, or laws enacted from Babylonia, to which Jews everywhere submitted, or incurred danger of excommunication.

In this manner the Talmudic thrall spread round the dispersed Jews, wherever they dwelt, “like a closely woven net … over ordinary days and holidays, over their actions and over their prayers, over their whole lives and every step they took … Nothing in their external lives was any longer allowed to be the sport of arbitrary settlement or of chance.” This is the picture of an absolute despotism, different from other despotisms only in the element of distance between the despots and their subjects. Given a benevolent mission, a community of people so

82

closely controlled might immensely fructify the life of peoples; given a destructive one, their presence among others is like that of a blasting charge in rock, operated by a distant hand on a plunger.

Same page:

For six hundred years the Talmudic government, at Jamnia, Usha, and Sura, remained in or near to its native, oriental climate, where its nature was comprehended by other peoples; they knew how to cope with and counter the savage tribal creed and, as long as they were not hampered or constrained by foreign powers in their dealings with it, they were always able to find a workaday compromise, which enabled all to live in practical amity side by side.

Then came the event which has produced such violent results in our time: the Talmudic government moved into Christianized Europe and established itself among peoples to whom the nature of its dogma and its methods were strange and even incomprehensible. This led, in the course of many centuries, to the recurrent clash of the alien ambition and creed against native interest, which our century is again experiencing.

The nature of Westerners (more especially in the northern latitudes) is to be candid, to declare purposes, and to use words to express intention, and Christianity developed these native traits. The force which appeared among them was of the opposite character, oriental, infinitely subtle, secretive, conspiratorial, and practised in the use of language to disguise real purposes. Therein lay its greatest strength in the encounter with the West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jewboo

Seems like you support strasserism, Bigjon.

:rolleyes:

---

Otto Strasser's dilemma is clear. In one of his books he called himself a conservative revolutionary, and perhaps that makes clearer what he truly is.
He is in the line of the barons of Runnymede and the American colonists, whose spiritual descendants are in a kind of spiritual exile today, equally in England and in the American Republic. Such men, who fight against tyranny from above whenever and in whatever form it appears, are the true and continuing revolutionaries of all the generations,the revolutionaries of construction.

The 'revolutionaries' of Moscow in 1917 and of Berlin in 1933 are the counter-revolutionaries, the revolutionaries of destruction. This difference of motive, constructive motive and destructive motive, is the difference between Otto Strasser's 'German Socialism', or 'Solidarism', and the bogus socialisms of Moscow, Marx and Hitler. He wanted to preserve Germany; Communism and Hitlerism alike aimed at its destruction (this is plain, in the second case, from Hitler's statements, made in an expansive moment, to Hermann Rauschning, and is implicit in his deeds).

Solidarism stands today as in 1930, as Otto Strasser's programme for the salvation of Germany. Its origins are important to understand. The programmes of Marxist and Fabian Socialism were hatched out in cellars in Moscow, café-tables in Berlin and committee-rooms in Bloomsbury by Eurasian conspirators and Western professors and journalists; they had no roots in the life and needs of peoples; they were governed by the diseased ambition merely to destroy existing things and were the products of sedentary, unfulfilled men with malevolence towards mankind in their hearts and disappointment in their heads.

Otto Strasser's Solidarism is a living thing rooted deep in the history and needs of the Christian West, and then moulded by the hard experience of his life.
The difference between the two is in fact that between death and life.
The goal towards which he looked in drafting his programme was the gradual upraising of the unpropertied masses towards the level of those more fortunate, not the violent depression of those now propertied towards penury; the abolition of 'the proletariat' (which the dictionary describes as'the lowest class of the community') and not its pretended elevation.

His aim was to give that lowest class the status of independence, of co-ownership and of co-responsibility. An aim is one thing; a detailed plan for achieving it is another, and this is what he supplied.

He began his manifesto, which was a public challenge to Hitler, with a brief philosophical study of the roots of his thought. He began by protesting vigorously against 'the idolatry of race'; this was in 1930, when Hitler began his rapid rise to power on the steed of Nordic racial superiority.

Strasser held that 'the family of Europe' was a mixture of four or five races, out of which intermingling, topography, climate and historic events had made the various 'nations', the last of these to take shape being the Germans.

He rightly excluded Russia from this grouping.

In the history of Europe, which he thus pictured as a community of interrelated nations, he perceived a rhythm of epochs recurring about every hundred or hundred and fifty years, from the Reformation of around 1500 to the English Revolution of 1640-59 and the French Revolution of 1789-1799. In each of these revolutions he saw the recurrent conflict between two primitive instincts, those of self-preservation (which he identified with 'Liberalism', or each man for himself) and of the preservation of the species ('Conservatism', or each man for the community).

The pendulum of history, he wrote, swung continuously to and fro between these ideas of self and species. The English Revolution had brought the victory of the conservative idea and the French Revolution that of the liberal idea. The epoch of liberalism, he wrote in 1930, was inevitably approaching its end and bringing with it that of Marxist Socialism, which had borrowed so much from liberalism (for instance, internationalism, class-warfare and materialism) that it was bound to founder with it.

Otto Strasser, in 1930, saw a new epoch of the second idea approaching. Since 1914, he wrote, the pendulum of history had been swinging over towards a new era of conservatism and its associated ideas, true socialism, patriotism and national idealism, and the violent eruption of those ideas in Germany would be the German Revolution. It was for this future that he planned. He identified 'capitalism', as we have known it, with the liberal era; and Socialism, as it has been perverted and practised in our time, with State capitalism. Its governing principle, in either form, was 'the sanctity of property' (whether held privately or by the State) and the condition of its existence was that the masses of the people should have no property. Any system under which the community was divided into exploiters and exploited, and the overwhelming majority of the people denied the right of property, was in its nature immoral.
Thus Otto Strasser, contemplating a 'German Socialism' in a 'Fourth Reich', sought a way that would preclude State-capitalism and unbridled private capitalism alike. The cornerstone of his German socialism was the abolition of 'the right of private property'. This basic tenet appeared to be identical with the primary demand of Marxist Socialism, but was in fact entirely different in the application which he proposed; this was where the historic origins of his Christian national socialism came in.

His solution was derived from the study of German history, the German character and German needs. The basis of his thought was that what was needed was to make more people well-to-do, not fewer people rich.

He desired in fact to give every German 'the right of private property', because he held that this feeling of ownership alone gave the independence of thought, sense of responsibility and creative energy which allow a man to feel himself a man. Thus the means (abolition of the dogma) was to the end of establishing the reality.

He defined his 'German Socialism' in relation to property thus: 'No German shall in future own as private property land and estate, mineral resources, or the means of production; every German shall come to possession of land and estate mineral resources, and the means of production.' He attached cardinal importance to this distinction between 'ownership', a conception without limits, and'possession', which signifies an occupancy subject to limits. 'To own a thing', he wrote, 'means to be able to do anything you like with it; to sell, damage, or destroy it. To possess it means to administer it, to have its use and enjoyment, to hold it in usufruct on behalf of another, namely, the Owner.
The Owner will in future be exclusively the community, the Nation. But the Nation, through its outward form, the State, will not itself operate or manage; it will delegate operation and management to individuals or groups in Erblehen (hereditary fief).'

This was Otto Strasser's solution to the great dilemma, his answer to the age old problem of the propertied and the unpropertied, the insiders and the outsiders. The abolition of the legal conception of 'the sanctity of private property' and the substitution, in things vital for the nation, of this system of the hereditary fief, was the foundation stone of his 'Structure of German Socialism', then, and is that of his 'Solidarism' today. It alone, he said, enabled that marriage of private profit and general welfare which the common weal demanded. The division of all possessions among the community of the nation whether in individual or in collective holding, was necessary to end the evils to which capitalism had led. The system of the hereditary fief, which for centuries was the legal form of the German economic system, alone offered the practical means.

The copy of the Christian Bible which I have states that “the churches of all denominations receive and accept” the Old Testament “as given by inspiration of God, therefore being for them a Divine rule or guide of faith and practice,” a ruling which comes down from the Council of Trent. A question therefore arises: in what way was the inspiration of the Talmud different from that of the Torah? If it was not different, then why should not the anti-Christian Talmud be added to the Christian Bible?

If that were done the entire work would extend along several shelves of a library, and the New Testament would be a tiny pamphlet, lost among and excommunicated by the Talmudic mass, the teaching of which is thus summarized by the Talmudic scholar Drach:

“The precepts of justice, of equity, of charity towards one's neighbours, are not only not applicable with regard to the Christian, but constitute a crime in anyone who would act differently … The Talmud expressly forbids one to save a

89

non-Jew from death … to restore lost goods, etc., to him, to have pity on him.”

The theological decision about the “equal divine authority” of the Torah seems to have introduced an element of confusion into the Christian lesson from which Christianity itself in the end might not recover.

Lots of very useful quotes from Reed's work:


In the sixty years which have passed since Chamberlain wrote the process observed by him and Herder has gathered pace and power. The question no longer simply “affects the future of the world”; it is with us every day and we have no present that is not shaped by it; it has already altered the nature of the world and of man's lot in it. “Our governments,” in the half-century that has elapsed, have become such “willing slaves” of the Judaic master-sect that they are in fact the bailiffs or agents of a new, international ruling-class, and not true governors at all.

More from the book:

When he founded his Illuminati, on May 1, 1776, Weishaupt was dean of the faculty of law at Ingolstadt University (in our day university professors who are secret Communists are often to be found in the faculties of law). He had been brought up by the Jesuits, whom he came to hate, and he borrowed from them, and perverted to the opposite purpose, their secret of organization: the method which (as his associate Mirabeau said) “under one head, made men dispersed over the universe tend towards the same goal.” This idea, of leagueing men together in secret conspiracy and using them to achieve an aim which they do not comprehend, pervades the entire mass of letters and other Illuminist documents seized by the Bavarian Government.

The idea is presented with ardent fondness and the many ways of realizing it

140

are of high ingenuity. The accumulated experience of ages, in conspiracy, must have been drawn on and Mrs. Nesta Webster, in her search for the source of this morbid and perverse doctrine, found herself led back to the start of the Christian era and further. For instance, M. Silvestre de Sacy says that the method used by the Ismailis (a subversive sect within Islam in the 8th Century) was to enlist “partisans in all places and in all classes of society” in the attempt to destroy their professed faith and government; the Ismaili leader, Abdullah ibn Maymun, set out “to unite in the form of a vast secret society with many degrees of initiation freethinkers, who regarded religion only as a curb for the people, and bigots of all sects.” The achievement of Abdulla ibn Maymun, according to another authority, M. Reinhart Dozy, was that “by means such as these the extraordinary result was brought about that a multitude of men of divers beliefs were all working together for an object known only to a few of them.” These quotations exactly describe both the aims, methods and achievement of Adam Weishaupt and of Communism and they could be multiplied by extracts from the literature of the Cabalists, the Gnostics and the Manicheans.


And more:

At the centre of this web sat Weishaupt, and held all threads in his hands. “One must show how easy it would be for one clever head to direct hundreds and thousands of men,” he wrote above the diagram, and below it he added, “I have two immediately below me into whom I breathe my whole spirit, and each of these two has again two others, and so on. In this way I can set a thousand men in motion and on fire in the simplest manner, and in this way one must impart orders and operate on politics.”

End Quote.


I can only imagine how much of a 'high' a power hungry, mad individual, must get from exercising and testing a secret web of power that is described here. To make an edict and see the results miraculously produced must be a stunning thing indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=364cxeR5EAg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=364cxeR5EAg


TheJohnBirchSociety




Arthur R. Thompson provides a glimpse into his newest book, "To the Victor Go the Myths & Monuments," which focuses on the history of the first 100 years of war against God and the Constitution, 1776-1876, and its modern impact.

📕 Get Art's book here:https://www.jbs.org/store/shopjbs/boo...📲

Kindle download:https://amzn.to/2Nj71Ji