Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #798 Thrive on This! Counter-Culture Fascism in Cinema

Thrive: "Oh wow! An international Jewish banking conspiracy runs the world. Far out!"

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained here. (The flash drive includes the anti-fascist books avail­able on this site.)

Listen: MP3

Side 1  Side 2

Introduction: This program features the work of Eric Johnson, who has written an important, perhaps definitive, piece on the counter-culture fascist propaganda film Thrive.

The advance of fascism features a burgeoning array of media and organizational phenomena that direct people of more “progressive”-even “hip” orientation in the direction of bigotry and right-wing totalitarianism.

In particular, anti-Semitism–denying that it is anti-Semitic–has become something of the “flavor de jeur” for much of the so-called progressive sector. The clouding of minds with mysticism has accelerated this trend, particularly among the young.

A recent issue of the San Jose Metro–a free weekly paper in the Southern Bay Area–featured Mr. Johnson’s incisive analysis. This important article dissected the fundamentals of Thrive.

The brainchild of Proctor & Gamble fortune heir Foster Gamble, the film fuses New Age mysticism and cult “free-energy” mythology with Old Age anti-Semitic ideology pinning the world’s troubles on the Rothschilds and Jewish control of the financial industry. (Gamble himself holds forth on various subjects in the film itself.)

In addition to Gamble himself, “Thrive” presents the fascist ideology of G. Edward Griffin, a prominent John Birch Society theoretician. (The origins of the John Birch Society are detailed in AFA #11.) In addition to his doctrinaire racism, demonizing the likes of Martin Luther King, Griffin tags the Federal Reserve System as a manifestation of the “Zionist” financial cabal.

The most outlandish of the fascisti whose “thinking” is featured in the film is David Icke. A former soccer player, Icke has reinvented himself as a political guru, disseminating the view that the world’s power structure is controlled by “reptilian shape-shifters” who pose as humans, eat young children and, somehow, are part and parcel to the international financial conspiracy advanced by Griffin, Gamble and company.

Another of the old-line fascists whose ideology is contained in the film is Eustace Mullins, although his influence is upon Gamble’s theoretical outlook, rather than in “Thrive” itself. An unabashed admirer of Adolf Hitler, Mullins is among the seminal fascist ideologues to tab the Fed as an outcropping of the “international Jewish banking conspiracy.”

Not surprisingly Icke,  Mullins and Griffin have been extolled by the so-called “Truthers.” Both have also been featured on the program of former Fox pundit Glenn Beck.

Interestingly and significantly, the movie promulgates the anti-tax, right-libertarian ideology of the Tea Party, the Koch Brothers and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. (Von Mises is Foster Gamble’s ideological guru.)

In FTR #’s 756, 758, 759, we noted the profound influence of the Austrian School of economics on “The Paulistinian Libertarian Organization,” Ron and Rand Paul, Edward Snowden, the Tea Party and “the shutdown faction” of the GOP. In FTR #’s 760, 764, 770, 785 we noted the profound influence of the Austrian School on the development of Bitcoin.

In FTR #763, we noted the influence of the Austrian School on Pierre Omidyar, Glenn Greenwald’s financial angel.

In addition to the New Age mysticism, the film’s cache among “progressives” is strengthened by the inclusion of the likes of ra Deepak ChopraAmy Goodman and environmentalist (and Baskin & Robbins heir) John Robbins.

This, in combination with the dumbing-down of America, has fueled the popularity of “Thrive.” Not surprisingly, the film has garnered a considerable following among the “Occupy” movement, according to author Johnson.

“Thrive” appears to be among the most successful manifestations to date of counter-culture fascism, adding something of a bohemian flavor to the old adage that anti-Semitism is “the socialism of fools.”

(Author Peter Levenda, among others, has chronicled the overlap of alternative religions such as Satanism with fascist and Nazi elements in his book Unholy Alliance. The alternative religious connection/New Age phenomenon is central to the success of works like “Thrive.”)

For more about counter-culture fascism, see L-1, as well as FTR #’s 170, 172, 437.

Program Highlights Include: Repudiation of the film by many of its participants, including John Robbins and Deepak Chopra; review of some of the key personalities and features of the Austrian School of economics, embodied in the person of Ludwig von Mises; review of the anti-democratic theories of Friedrich von Hayek; review of the anti-democratic philosophy of Hans Hermann-Hoppe; detailed review of the links of von Mises, et al to the milieu of Edward Snowden; review and supplemental discussion of the possible role of Friedrich von Hayek as a German intelligence operative in World War II.

1. Eric Johnson sets forth key aspects of the ideology lurking behind the touch-feely New Age aspects of the film, as well as details about the people peddling those viewpoints.

“The Dangers Behind the Cult Film ‘Thrive’ ” by Eric Johnson; The San Jose Metro; 5/16/2012.

EXCERPT: Thrive, a two-hour documentary that has gone viral since its release on the web in November, sells itself as an optimistic vision of a utopian future marked by “free energy,” freedom from oppression and spiritual awakening. But on its way to depicting a dream-world utopia, Thrive delivers a dark and dishonest version of the real world and espouses a blend of paranoid conspiracy theories and right-libertarian propaganda.

The Santa Cruz couple who made the film, Foster and Kimberly Carter Gamble, build their tale around an undeniably poetic idea: that there is a secret pattern to be found in nature, and that we can learn from it. . . .

. . . In the film’s second section, Gamble sets out to show exactly how and why the government and its sponsors are duping us. This section probably accounts for its burgeoning online popularity with the Occupy movement and its supporters. (For the record, I count myself among that audience segment.)

Bringing in progressive heroes such as Vandana Shiva and Paul Hawken to recount the more or less well-known crimes against humanity perpetrated by the likes of Monsanto and Exxon-Mobil, Thrive makes the familiar, and justifiable, case that huge corporations have too much power, are largely corrupt and pose a threat to society.

But then, once again, the filmmakers jump the tracks of rationality. This is where the film should go political, but instead it plays the conspiracy card. And not just any conspiracy, but the granddaddy of them all: that a handful of families control the world and plan to enslave humanity.

In his soft voice, the gray-haired, blue-eyed Foster Gamble says, sadly: “As difficult as it was for me, I have come to an inescapable and profoundly disturbing conclusion. I believe that an elite group of people and the corporations they run have gained control over not just our energy, food supply, education and health care, but over virtually every aspect of our lives.

“When I followed the money, I found it going up the levels of a pyramid.” (As the torus symbol dominates Thrive’s first section, the pyramid dominates the second.) And at the top of this alleged pyramid of evil: the Rothschilds.

Not everyone watching this film will know that this argument has been around, and been discredited, for decades. Apparently, the desire to find someone to blame for all the world’s problems spans generations. And the Rothschilds make a pretty good target.

Are the Rothschilds very, very rich? Undoubtedly. Are the members of this family doing the work of Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama? Mostly not. Are they all-powerful puppet-masters who secretly rule the world? Are they descended from a race of snake-people? Do they eat children? Um … no, no and no.

Are they Jewish? Well, yes. And it must be said: The argument made in Thrive precisely mirrors an argument that Joseph Goebbels made in his infamous Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew: that a handful of banking families, many of them Jewish, are running the world and seeking global domination.

Foster Gamble inoculates himself against charges of anti-Semitism, stating flatly: “This is not a Jewish agenda. Let me be clear.” But while he scrubs out the openly anti-Semitic aspects of the disgraceful idea, the rest of it haunts the film.

And, once again it must be said, when describing symbolism used by his imagined Dark Lords of the Universe, Gamble does not hesitate to note that the Sign appears on the building that houses the Israeli Supreme Court, which he erroneously claims “is funded entirely by the Rothschilds.”

To prove his economic theory, Gamble invites G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jeckyll Island, which recounts the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, a historical moment which Griffin claims was orchestrated by the “global elite who want to control the world and create a New World Order.”

One of several veteran conspiracy mongers who appear onscreen in Part Two of Thrive, Griffin is a longtime leading member of the ultra-right wing John Birch Society, a fact not mentioned in the film. For those who may have forgotten—the John Birchers practically invented the modern conspiracy theory.

Founded in 1958 to carry on the work of the anti-Communist crusader Sen. Joe McCarthy, the Society went on to battle the Communist conspiracy we now known as the Civil Rights movement, and its leader, whom many of them referred to as “Martin Lucifer King.”

Then the Birchers focused their energies on revealing the existence of a Satanic (literally) group they called the Illuminati—a cadre of powerful families that secretly rule the world.

While Griffin may be the most far-right pundit to appear in Thrive, he is not the most far-out. That would be David Icke, although it would be impossible to know that from the interviews that appear in Thrive.

Icke’s role in the film is to explain the economic theory behind a common banking practice known as fractional reserve lending. He does this in less than two minutes, with the help of South Park–style animations, as though explaining the theory of relativity to an attention-challenged second-grader. And of course, he makes the practice appear sinister.

For a more sympathetic portrayal of the practice, see George Bailey’s bank-run speech in It’s a Wonderful Life: “You’re thinking of this place all wrong, as if I had the money back in a safe. The money’s not here. Your money’s in Joe’s house, that’s right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house, and Mrs. Makelin’s house, and a hundred others. You’re lending them the money to build, and then they’re going to pay it back to you as best they can.” That’s fractional reserve lending.

Point of fact: Without fractional reserve lending, almost nobody reading these words would ever be able to own a house. You would need to raise not only a down payment but the entire value of a home in order to purchase it. (Or be born with a fortune, as was Foster Gamble, whose grandfather founded Procter and Gamble.)

At any rate, Icke’s brief explication carries the day for Gamble, who concludes that with this banking ploy, “We inevitably become debt-slaves to a ruling financial elite.”

Icke then goes on to explain, in a minute or two, how banks caused the current recession purposely, in a plot to get their hands on all of the nation’s real property—a devious plot that has been “going on for centuries.” Again, as with many conspiracy theories, there’s a pretty big grain of truth to that.

According to the film’s website, this is David Icke’s area of expertise: “Icke reveals that a common formula—’problem-reaction-solution’—is used by the elite to manipulate the masses and pursue alternative agendas.”

But a glance at Icke’s own website reveals that this is not his primary area of inquiry. Icke, it seems, is bringing the work of the John Birch Society into the New Age, furthering its study into the Illuminati. Like the Birchers, he swears he is not an anti-Semite, yet his site is rife with attacks against the “Rothschild-Zionists” who have, among other things, surrounded President Obama.

Icke’s innovation is that he tells the ancient conspiracy lie in the language of a self-help guru. “The Illuminati are not in my universe, unless I allow them in,” he says. “And then, I give them power. They’re frightened, frightened entities.”

It’s telling that Icke uses the word “entities,” because Icke believes the Illuminati, the people running the world, are not people at all. David Icke, the man championed in Thrive for his insight to economics, spends most of his intellectual energies showing that the world’s leaders, from Queen Elizabeth to Bill and Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, are not human, but are members of “bloodlines” descended from an interplanetary cadre of evil, godlike human/snake hybrids he calls “Reptilians.”

Two minutes into a video on his site titled “Demonic Possessed Reptilian Rulers,” Icke explains how these creatures do their black magic. Over images of George Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama moving in super-spooky slo-mo, Icke says: “What [the Reptilians] are doing in effect, through the secret societies they’ve set up, is manipulating these bodies into power. But in doing so, they put themselves into power, because they’re controlling the mental and emotional processes of these vehicles.”

To put it another way: He isn’t one of those right-wing “Birthers” who believe Obama’s an alien. He believes Obama’s an alien.

In another video, “The Arrival of the Reptilian Empire,” Icke explains that “outside of visible light, [the Reptilians] feed off human energy, off human emotions.” And in the three-dimensional world, they feed off people. Literally. The video features an interview with a cohort named Alex Collier, who, in high dudgeon, says: “There were 31,712 children disappeared in the last 25 years in the United States. These children were food.” . . . .

. . . He [environmentalist John Robbins] says that in private correspondence, he learned that his friend [Foster Gamble] was being influenced by the ideas of Eustace Mullins, whom he calls “the most anti-Semitic public figure in U.S. history.”

Foster Gamble did not respond to an email request for an interview, but there is certainly evidence in Thrive that Mullins’ views influenced him. One of the central features of the film is the supposed revelation that the Federal Reserve Bank is a criminal enterprise; Mullins is the man who gave birth to that theory, in his 1952 book, The Secret of the Federal Reserve.

The following year, Mullins published his most notorious tract, “Adolf Hitler: An Appreciation,” which praises the fuhrer for his crusade against the “Jewish International bankers” who were attempting to take over the world. In subsequent books, Mullins argued that the Holocaust never happened and that the Jewish race is inherently “parasitic.” Incredibly, Mullins also insisted until his death that he was not an anti-Semite. . . .

. . . . Most of the solutions Thrive puts forward will resonate with its target audience of spiritually inclined progressives: stay informed, shop local, eat organic, avoid GMOs, etc. But not all. Given the troubling complexities of part two, I was only slightly surprised to find that one of the values of the future Thrive depicts is “little or no taxes.”

No taxes. Sounds good—but does that mean no public libraries? No state parks? No public transportation? How about roads? Social Security? Haven’t the Gambles seen what this kind of anti-tax rhetoric has gotten us? Doubled tuitions at the University of California, huge Reagan-era-style cuts in social services, decaying infrastructure.

Near the film’s conclusion, Gamble reveals the source of his anti-tax position, reverently introducing a man he credits with providing him with his Core Navigational Insight for the future: Ludwig von Mises. He does not mention that von Mises is the touchstone of right-libertarians, so-called anarcho-capitalists and radical Republicans such as Michele Bachmann, who quipped last year that she reads von Mises on the beach.

Gamble does lay out the core of von Mises’ philosophy of “non-violation, in which “nobody gets to violate you or” (ahem) “your property.” That philosophy translates into three rules: no involuntary taxation; no involuntary governance; and no monopoly of force.

In case anyone misses the point—that the state must wither so that man can be free—Gamble shares von Mises’ opinion that like Communism, fascism and socialism, “democracy wrongly assumes the rights of the collective, or the group, over the rights of the individual.”. . . . .

. . . . .Last fall, the acclaimed environmentalist and nutrition guru John Robbins was invited to the home of his friends Foster and Kimberly Carter Gamble, near Santa Cruz, to view the Gambles’ just-completed film, Thrive. Robbins, who makes a brief appearance in the film, says he was “overwhelmed” by what he saw.

“There were parts I liked, but there were other parts that I just detested,” he recalls. “I didn’t want to be rude—we were there with our families—so I just didn’t say anything.”

Thrive, which was released online in November, had its theater debut in March, and is now touring the country, is an uncanny hodgepodge of pseudo-science, Utopian fantasy and veiled right-wing conspiracy theory. Strangely, it also includes onscreen interviews with a number of bona fide progressives, environmentalists and spiritual leaders.

In addition to Robbins, author of the groundbreaking Diet for a New America in 1987, the film features conversations with Deepak Chopra, the superstar self-help author; Paul Hawken, the green entrepreneur and environmental economist; Elisabet Sahtouris, the evolutionary biologist and philosopher; Duane Elgin, the futurist and author of Voluntary Simplicity; Vandana Shiva, the physicist and advocate for sustainable agriculture; and former astronaut Edgar Mitchell.

In the months since the film’s release, Robbins says, he has been in communication with all of these folks. He wasn’t surprised to find that many of them agreed with his assessment of the film.

While they might have hoped the film would just disappear, Thrive has become something of a web cult phenomenon—by some estimates it’s been seen by more than a million people. And now they have decided to speak out.

Robbins, Chopra, Hawken, Sahtouris, Elgin, Shiva and Mitchell recently issued a statement saying that they have “grave disagreements with some of the film’s content.” . . . .

2. Gamble’s ideological mentor Ludwig von Mises is one of the main theoreticians of the Austrian School, along with Friedrich von Hayek. Friedrich Hayek’s ide­o­log­i­cal dis­dain for the poor and democ­racy helped cre­ated the cur­rent far right dom­i­nated polit­i­cal dynamic across the West­ern world. in pro­foundly ironic ways:

“Bill Black: How Hayek Helped the Worst Get to the Top in Eco­nom­ics and as CEOsby Bill Black [posted by Yves Smith]; Naked Cap­i­tal­ism; 6/12/2014.

Bill Black is the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an asso­ciate pro­fes­sor of eco­nom­ics and law at the Uni­ver­sity of Missouri-Kansas City. Orig­i­nally pub­lished at New Eco­nomic Perspectives

Lib­er­tar­i­ans are pro­foundly anti-democratic. The folks at Cato that I debate make no bones about their dis­dain for and fear of democ­racy. Friedrich von Hayek is so pop­u­lar among lib­er­tar­i­ans because of his denial of the legit­i­macy of demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ment and his claims that it is inher­ently mon­strous and mur­der­ous to its own cit­i­zens. Here’s an exam­ple from a lib­er­tar­ian pro­fes­sor based in Maryland.

[W]hen gov­ern­ment uses its legal monop­oly on coer­cion to con­fis­cate one person’s prop­erty and give it to another, it is engag­ing in what would nor­mally be called theft. Call­ing this immoral act “democ­racy,” “major­ity rule” or “pro­gres­sive tax­a­tion” does not make it moral. Under democ­racy, rulers con­fis­cate the income of pro­duc­tive mem­bers of soci­ety and redis­trib­ute it to var­i­ous sup­port­ers in order to keep them­selves in power.

In order to finance a cam­paign, a politi­cian must promise to steal (i.e., tax) money from those who earned it and give it to oth­ers who have no legal or moral right to it. There are (very) few excep­tions, but politi­cians must also make promises that they know they can never keep (i.e., lie). This is why so few moral peo­ple are elected to polit­i­cal office. The most suc­cess­ful politi­cians are those who are the least hin­dered by strong moral prin­ci­ples. They have the least qualms about con­fis­cat­ing other peo­ples’ prop­erty in order to main­tain their own power, perks, and income. In his best­selling 1944 book, ‘The Road to Serf­dom,’ Nobel lau­re­ate econ­o­mist F.A. Hayek described this phe­nom­e­non in a chap­ter [10] enti­tled “Why the Worst Get on Top.”

But von Hayek’s cri­tique of demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ment has proven to be the most mon­strous blood libel of the post-World War II era – falsely declar­ing that demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ment must end in tyranny and the mass mur­der of its own people.

The polit­i­cal sci­en­tist Her­man Finer … denounced [The Road to Serf­dom] as “the most sin­is­ter offen­sive against democ­racy to emerge from a demo­c­ra­tic coun­try for many years.”

The econ­o­mist Paul Samuel­son, in a rem­i­nis­cence of Hayek pub­lished last Decem­ber, was more dis­mis­sive still. “Where are their hor­ror camps?’ he asked, refer­ring to right-wing buga­boos like Swe­den, with its gen­er­ous wel­fare spend­ing. Almost 70 years after Hayek sounded his alarm, ‘hind­sight con­firms how inac­cu­rate its innu­endo about the future turned out to be.”

Why the Worst Get on Top – in Economics

Econ­o­mists claim that their work should be eval­u­ated based on pre­dic­tive suc­cess. Von Hayek was made a Nobel Lau­re­ate in 1974, three decades after his pre­dic­tion that demo­c­ra­tic states were headed to tyranny and mass mur­der of their own cit­i­zens. In those three decades of expe­ri­ence in the nations he focused on (West­ern Europe, the U.S., Canada, Aus­tralia, and New Zealand) – and the forty years since his award – this hap­pened in zero nations. He is bat­ting zero for 70 years in roughly 30 nations with, col­lec­tively, thou­sands of elec­tions. What he claimed was inevitable has never occurred.

Wes­ley Mar­shall and I are writ­ing a book about why, dis­pro­por­tion­ately, eco­nom­ics bestows its top hon­ors on those who fail their own pur­ported test of suc­cess (pre­dic­tive abil­ity). This is the only field of aca­d­e­mic study in which this occurs. We are try­ing to answer von Hayek’s ques­tion, but it his own field – “why the worst get on top.” Why do the von Hayeks of the world, the very worst of econ­o­mists, “get on top?”

I recently wrote a piece about the spec­tac­u­larly bad tim­ing of a lib­er­tar­ian who chose the 70th anniver­sary of D-Day (a prod­uct of excep­tion­ally com­pe­tent gov­ern­ment plan­ning) to denounce demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ment as inca­pable of plan­ning and invari­ably lead­ing to tyranny and the mass exe­cu­tion of its own work­ers and CEOs. As “sup­port” for this claim the colum­nist pre­sented the car­toon ver­sion of The Road to Serf­dom that Gen­eral Motors spread via pam­phlet – this the day after Gen­eral Motor’s admis­sions about the qual­ity of its cars and the indif­fer­ence to the safety of every­one on the roads by its senior man­agers and attorneys.

Why von Hayek and Mil­ton Fried­man are the Patron Saints of Plutocracy

It is telling that lib­er­tar­i­ans’ eco­nomic hero, writ­ing what they claim was his sin­gle best chap­ter, “Why the Worst Get on Top,” invari­ably proved wholly and grotesquely incor­rect about the cer­tainty of tyranny and mass mur­der. Worse, since the time von Hayek wrote his chap­ter, the demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ments he demo­nized have ceased the worst abuses against their own cit­i­zens, such as forced ster­il­iza­tions. The worst abuses – mass tor­ture and mur­der – have been com­mit­ted by fas­cist regimes that von Hayek sup­ported such as Pinochet in Chile. When we ask why von Hayek receives a Nobel Prize and remains Glenn Beck’s hero we can­not explain the results based on facts and pre­dic­tive suc­cess (fail­ure). Instead, we must look out­side the realm of real­ity and enter into the realms that von Hayek glo­ri­fied – ide­ol­ogy and greed.

Von Hayek received his Nobel Prize because he was so will­ing to be so wrong about so many things. His blood libel about the demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ments of “the West” was use­ful to another group in which “the worst get on top” in far too many cases – “impe­r­ial” CEOs. Von Hayek legit­imizes that which can­not be legit­imized through real eco­nom­ics, real­ity, ethics, or logic – plu­toc­racy. Von Hayek and Mil­ton Fried­man are the patron saints of plutocracy.

Von Hayek’s Denun­ci­a­tion of Democ­racy Rests on His Dis­dain for the Poor

Von Hayek argues that there are three rea­sons why demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ment inher­ently leads to the ele­va­tion of the “worst” to the “top” – and by the “worst” he means mur­der­ous tyrants. Von Hayek begins Chap­ter 10 with the famous quo­ta­tion from Lord Acton: “Power tends to cor­rupt, and absolute power cor­rupts absolutely.” Demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ment, of course, is con­sciously designed to pre­vent the cre­ation of “absolute power” by the state or pri­vate enti­ties. Von Hayek, there­fore, has to argue that a demo­c­ra­tic sys­tem of gov­ern­ment designed to pre­vent the cre­ation of absolute power will invari­ably pro­duce absolute power.

The third com­po­nent of the total­i­tar­ian troika is the “most impor­tant neg­a­tive ele­ment.” These are the mur­der­ous big­ots moti­vated by “hatred of an enemy … the envy of those bet­ter off.”

Von Hayek is Blighted by his Bigotry

What we are read­ing, of course, is the class hatred and big­otry com­mon to minor Aus­trian aris­to­crats like von Hayek who were born in the 19th cen­tury. (The “von” was removed from all Aus­trian fam­ily names by statute when he was a young adult.) The idea of demo­c­ra­tic rule by what he viewed as his infe­ri­ors appalled von Hayek. The fact that this kind of naked big­otry in this pas­sage that I have quoted at length is viewed by his lib­er­tar­ian devo­tees as von Hayek’s finest work reveals the depths of lib­er­tar­ian hate for and fear of demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ment.

Von Hayek’s Other Pre­dic­tive Failures

Under von Hayek’s the­o­ries, pro­gres­sive and social­ist can­di­dates should be the great ene­mies of pub­lic edu­ca­tion, for edu­ca­tion would dra­mat­i­cally reduce their core “une­d­u­cated” group. For the same rea­sons, they should avoid at all costs teach­ing stu­dents how to engage in crit­i­cal think­ing and should instead spread nationalism/patriotism memes (such as Amer­i­can “excep­tion­al­ism” and flag pins) and spread racist pro­pa­ganda attack­ing racial and eth­nic minori­ties. The oppo­site is true. They should oppose legal pro­tec­tions, e.g., against job and hous­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion. It is con­ser­v­a­tives and European-style “lib­er­als” who fought against pub­lic ele­men­tary and sec­ondary edu­ca­tion and the land grant col­leges. It is con­ser­v­a­tives who wear flag pins and claim that any acknowl­edge­ment of U.S. mis­con­duct is unpa­tri­otic. It is U.S. con­ser­v­a­tives who to this day adopt vari­ants of the racist “South­ern strat­egy,” engage in state-sponsored homo­pho­bia, and oppose anti-discrimination laws. Von Hayek pre­dicted that pro­gres­sives would deny sci­ence. The car­toon ver­sion of his book por­trays the gov­ern­ment as preach­ing that the earth is flat. The real­ity is that it is cor­po­rate CEOs who lead the anti-science cam­paigns such as global cli­mate change denial.

If You Object to an Eco­nomic Sys­tem in Which “The Worst Get on Top” You are not “Envious”

Von Hayek tips his hand and dog­mas when he uses the phrase “envy of those bet­ter off” and con­flates it with vir­u­lent racism. Von Hayek assumes away the real­ity that all too often in busi­ness “the worst get on top” by the foulest means. Oppos­ing their becom­ing “bet­ter off” through lead­ing “con­trol frauds” is not “envy” – it is jus­tice, and it is essen­tial to a well-functioning econ­omy, soci­ety, and polity.

Von Hayek implic­itly assumes that cor­rupt CEOs will not con­trol and abuse any polit­i­cal sys­tem. Assume solely for pur­pose of analy­sis that von Hayek were cor­rect that it dem­a­gogues can manip­u­late the three uneth­i­cal groups he iden­ti­fies and seize con­trol of gov­ern­ment. Under his own logic CEOs can use the seem­ing legit­i­macy, power, and wealth of “their” cor­po­ra­tions to serve directly as these dem­a­gogues or fund and con­trol proxy dem­a­gogues that will serve their inter­ests. They have vastly greater eco­nomic resources and they have the exper­tise that comes from adver­tis­ing to run pro­pa­ganda cam­paigns. They also had tremen­dous exper­tise in the era von Hayek was describ­ing in “divide and con­quer” strate­gies in the colonies that would be eas­ily trans­lated into efforts to split work­ers along eth­nic lines. The alliance of elite and poor whites in the U.S. South against the freed slaves is a clas­sic exam­ple of how such a coali­tion can pro­vide dom­i­nant polit­i­cal power for roughly a cen­tury. Under von Hayek’s own assump­tions the “inevitable” result should be plu­toc­racy through crony cap­i­tal­ism with any­one who com­plains about the resul­tant inequal­ity denounced for being “envi­ous” of his moral and intel­lec­tual superiors.

Why the Worst (CEOs) Get on Top: Account­ing Con­trol Fraud is a “Sure Thing”

I have explained this point enough times that I will sim­ply direct any new read­ers to the scores of arti­cles that explain why this is true. I also stress how impor­tant the “Gresham’s” dynamic is in explain­ing why such frauds can become epi­demic and why such epi­demics drive our recur­rent, inten­si­fy­ing finan­cial crises. The least eth­i­cal CEOs “get on top” in such a world and they pro­duce plu­toc­racy, mas­sive inequal­ity, and crony cap­i­tal­ism. Von Hayek wants pro­gres­sives to declare uni­lat­eral polit­i­cal dis­ar­ma­ment while the most cor­rupt CEOs dom­i­nate our economies and our polit­i­cal sys­tems. Von Hayek’s blood libel about pro­gres­sive, demo­c­ra­tic gov­ern­ment is a clas­sic exam­ple of Frédéric Bastiat’s warning:

When plun­der becomes a way of life for a group of men liv­ing together in soci­ety, they cre­ate for them­selves in the course of time a legal sys­tem that autho­rizes it and a moral code that glo­ri­fies it.

What a won­drous irony it is that three ultra-rightists, Lord Acton, Bas­tiat and von Hayek, should com­bine so per­fectly to explain our cur­rent plight in which plun­der by elite CEOs has become “a way of life.” CEOs do not yet have “absolute” polit­i­cal power, but their power and cor­rup­tion is ris­ing steadily and has become so great that they are able to “plun­der” with impunity. That impunity arose because von Hayek’s dis­ci­ples were able to use his anti-democratic big­otry and failed eco­nomic dog­mas to “cre­ate for them­selves in the course of time a legal sys­tem that autho­rizes [plun­der] and a moral code that glo­ri­fies it.” Von Hayek was one the prin­ci­pal framers of that immoral moral code that glo­ri­fies plun­der by CEOs. Lib­er­tar­i­ans glo­rify von Hayek’s big­oted glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of elites as our moral supe­ri­ors who have a right to rule and plun­der our Nation. Tyler Cowen calls plu­toc­racy and per­va­sive plun­der a “hyper-meritocracy,” but it is a rule by the most uneth­i­cal for the most venal of pur­poses and it is the great­est enemy of merit and justice.

3. On a speculative note: Eddie the Friendly Spook’s economic and political theories are fascist and fundamentally opposed to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. His belief that we must get rid of Social Security and bring back the gold standard are propagated by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the ideological font of Snowden’s political idol Ron Paul.

Arguably the most famous member of the Austrian School of Economics that spawned and dominates the Ludwig von Mises Institute is Friedrich von Hayek. An immigrant from Austria, von Hayek was ostensibly an “anti-Nazi.” In 1944, he published The Road to Serfdom, a muddled ideological tract which attacks the New Deal of F.D.R. Begun well before the Canaris memo, von Hayek’s work has been a staple of GOP/Underground Reich propaganda ever since its publication, as well as a foundational element of revisionist history.

We present a document drawn up by the head of German military intelligence (the Abwehr) in 1944. Abwehr chief Admiral Wilhelm Canaris notes that undercover propaganda assets in the United States should be utilized to generate anti-Roosevelt sentiment and help his electoral defeat in the 1944 elections. The Third Reich viewed the defeat of Roosevelt as consummately important.

We  wonder if von Hayek–ostensibly one of the “anti-Nazis” cryptically referred to at the end of the document below, was one of the Third Reich’s undercover propaganda and psychological warfare assets among the Allies. The Road to Serfdom was heavily publicized by The Readers Digest in the Unied States.

We are also of the considered professional opinion that the Ludwig von Mises Institute is an important element of the Underground Reich.

 Germany Plots with the Kremlin by T.H. Tetens; Henry Schuman & Sons [HC]; Copyright 1953 by Henry Schuman, Inc.; pp. 233-235.

 “Directive of the German High Command on Political Warfare in the U.S.A.”

The following directive was issued by the Chief of the Intelligence Division of the German High Command, Admiral Walter Wilhelm Canaris, in 1944. The document lays bare the basic German strategy of scaring the U.S.A. with Bolshevism . . . .



March 15, 1944

At a meeting of the representatives of the Foreign Office, the Security Division, (“SD”) and the Department of Defense (“Abwehr”), the following resolutions were adopted for unified action by all our agents in foreign countries:

Utilize to the fullest extent all available possibilities in neutral and enemy countries, in order to support our military efforts with political and propaganda campaigns.

  1. Our goal is to crush the enemy’s plan whose object is to destroy forever the German Reich militarily, economically, and culturally.

The new regulations put into effect by the political leaders for the dissolution and disintegration of the enemy bloc should be carried out more intensely. We must do our utmost to create a state of confusion and distrust among our enemies. Such a state of disunity would enable us to sue for a quick separate peace with either side. While it is true that the efforts made in that direction have failed so far due to the implacable hate policy of Roosevelt and Churchill, it does not mean that some day, under different conditions, the unnatural front of our enemies could not be broken. Roosevelt’s electoral defeat this year could have immeasurable political consequences. . . .

. . . . Right now, the chances for a separate peace with the West are a little better, especially if we succeed, through our propaganda campaignand our “confidential” channels, to convince the enemy that Roosevelt’s policy of “unconditional surrender” drives the German people towards Communism.

There is great fear in the U.S.A. of Bolshevism. The opposition against Roosevelt’s alliance with Stalin grows constantly. Our chances for success are good, if we succeed to stir up influential circles against Roosevelt’s policy. This can be done through clever pieces of information, or by references to unsuspicious neutral ecclesiastical contact men.

We have at our command in the United States efficient contacts, which have been carefully kept up even during the war. The campaign of hatred stirred up by Roosevelt and the Jews against everything German has temporarily silenced the pro-German bloc in the U.S.A. However, there is every hope that this situation will be completely changed within a few months. If the Republicans succeed in defeating Roosevelt in the coming presidential election, it would greatly influence the American conduct of war towards us.

The KO-leaders abroad and their staffs have innumerable opportunities of constantly referring to Roosevelt’s hate policy. They must use in this campaign all the existing contacts and they should try to open up new channels. We must point to the danger that Germany may be forced to cooperate with Russia. The greatest caution has to be observed in all talks and negotiations by those who, as “anti-Nazis,” maintain contact with the enemy. When fulfilling missions, they have to comply strictly with instructions. [That would include the “anti-Nazi” von Hayek–D.E.]

(Sgd.) Canaris

4. Accord­ing to a biog­ra­phy of Hayek (Friedrich Hayek: A Biog­ra­phy; Alan O. Eben­stein; 2003, p. 128.) Hayek hur­ried to fin­ish the book early in order to get it pub­lished by the the win­ter of 1943:

Friedrich Hayek: A Biog­ra­phy by Alan O. Eben­stein; 2003, p. 128.


The Road to Serf­dom was received pos­i­tively when it was pub­lished in Britain in March 1944. The war was not yet over, but it was now a ques­tion of when, not if, Nazi Ger­many would be defeated. Hayek gave his impres­sion of the book’s recep­tion in Eng­land when he said later that he could “feel only grat­i­fi­a­tion” at the suc­cess The Road to Serf­dom had in Great Brit­ian. This, while “very dif­fer­ent in kind” than in the United States, was “quan­ti­ta­tively no smaller…On the whole, the book was taken in the spirit in which it was writ­ten, and its argu­ment was seri­ously con­sid­ered by those to whom it was mainly addressed.” He became famous in Britain as a result of the work. The Road to Serf­dom was reviewed in lead­ing papers, jour­nals, and mag­a­zines. The ini­tial print run of 2,000 copies sold out within days. Accord­ing to British intel­lec­tual his­to­rian Richard Cock­ett, Hayek’s pub­lisher, Rout­ledge, ordered an imme­di­ate reprint of 1,000 copies, and in the “fol­low­ing two years they were to be engaged in a los­ing race to sat­isfy the huge pub­lic demand for the book.” Because of the wartime paper rationing, Rout­ledge could not print as many copies as it wished. The sum­mer fol­low­ing the work’s release, Hayek com­plain­ingly referred to is as “the unob­tain­able book.”

There is a small ques­tion of his exact inten­tions for the book — what sort of impact he intended. He wrote to Rout­ledge on May 30, 1943, that he had com­pleted a “semi-popular” work, and per­haps even more sig­nif­i­cantly wrote on August 9, 1943, “I have made a spe­cial effort to get it ready rather ear­lier than I expected as I believe that there are many signs that the time is becom­ing rather favourable for the recep­tion of the book of this kind and I am espe­cially anx­ious not to miss the oppor­tune moment. I believe you will find it worth­while mak­ing an effort to get it out before the win­ter”. Much of this was, how­ever, merely the pro­mo­tion that any author engages in with his pub­lisher. In an April 1945 speech, Hayek men­tioned that he did not expect more than a few hun­dred peo­ple to read the book.

5. It’s pretty clear that Hayek both wanted to make an impact and really did make that impact. Almost imme­di­ately–with the help of “lead­ing papers, jour­nals, and mag­a­zines”, at least in the UK.

For the US elec­tions in 1944, the tim­ing and of the expo­sure of The Road to Serf­dom was pretty sig­nif­i­cant. The UK edi­tion was pub­lished in March of 1944. In the US it wasn’t as read­ily accepted in the media, but after get­ting rejected by a sev­eral pub­lish­ers the book was pub­lished by the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago in Sep­tem­ber 1944, with a glow­ing review by lib­er­tar­ian jour­nal­ist Henry Hazlitt on the front page of the Book Review Sec­tion in the New York Times (Sep­tem­ber 24,1944). It was sim­i­lar to the review Hazlitt gave to Hayek’s men­tor, Lud­wig von Mises six years ear­lier in 1938:

Remem­ber­ing Henry Hazlitt

Mises Daily: Fri­day, July 27, 2007 by Bet­tina Bien Greaves

Henry Hazlitt was one of a very spe­cial breed, an eco­nomic jour­nal­ist who not only reported on eco­nomic and polit­i­cal events in clear and under­stand­able lan­guage, but also made con­tri­bu­tions to economics.

When I arrived at the Foun­da­tion for Eco­nomic Edu­ca­tion (FEE) in 1951, I was just a neo­phyte in the free­dom phi­los­o­phy. Hazlitt was a trustee, author of the best­selling Eco­nom­ics in One Les­son, and for sev­eral years an edi­tor of the fort­nightly free-market-oriented news-commentary mag­a­zine, The Free­man, pre­de­ces­sor of FEE’s The Free­man: Ideas on Liberty.

But he was easy to approach; his man­ner was pleas­ant, not aloof or over­bear­ing. He was of aver­age height. His fea­tures were reg­u­lar, and he wore a mus­tache. He dressed appro­pri­ately for a jour­nal­ist work­ing in mid­town Man­hat­tan in his day — in suit and tie. He was mod­est, always thought­ful of oth­ers, and one of the kind­est and most gra­cious men I have known. His friends called him Harry, and in time I too came to call him Harry. I was proud to have him as a friend.

Hazlitt lived an active life as a news­pa­per­man. He belonged to sev­eral lit­er­ary soci­eties, attended their lun­cheons, and met the lead­ing authors and intel­lec­tu­als of his day. He admired, he once said “almost idol­ized,” H.L. Mencken, whom he briefly suc­ceeded as edi­tor of The Amer­i­can Mer­cury. Hazlitt fre­quently debated promi­nent politi­cians on the radio: Vice Pres­i­dent Henry Wal­lace, Sec­re­tary of State Dean Ache­son, and US Sen­a­tors Paul Dou­glas and Hubert H. Humphrey. He came to know prac­ti­cally all the con­ser­v­a­tives and lib­er­tar­i­ans of his day, not only Mises and Ander­son, but also, among oth­ers, FEE founder Leonard E. Read, Isabel Pater­son, Rose Wilder Lane, John Cham­ber­lain, William F. Buck­ley Jr., Lawrence Fer­tig, Sylvester Petro, F.A. Hayek, and Ayn Rand.

In 1938 Hazlitt reviewed for the New York Times the Eng­lish trans­la­tion of Mises’s Social­ism, describ­ing the book as “the most dev­as­tat­ing analy­sis of social­ism yet penned.” Mises was then in Switzer­land, but the two men cor­re­sponded briefly. Then in 1940 Hazlitt received a tele­phone call from Mises, newly arrived in New York. Hazlitt was dumb­founded: “It was as if John Stu­art Mill had risen from the dead!”

Mises, a refugee from war-torn Europe, had been forced to leave his home in Vienna, Aus­tria, a com­fort­able posi­tion in Geneva, Switzer­land, and the aca­d­e­mic world of Europe where he was well known. He and Hazlitt soon became the best of friends, and “Lu,” short for Lud­wig, found a spe­cial place in Hazlitt’s heart and mind.

Hazlitt’s Help­ing Hand

When Mises phoned Hazlitt, Mises was try­ing to start a new life in the United States. Hazlitt was always will­ing to help his friends. Through con­tacts in the State Depart­ment, he helped Mrs. Mises’s daugh­ter to escape Nazi-occupied Paris (this was before the Japan­ese attack on Pearl Har­bor, when the United States was not yet at war). He asked his friend Ben­jamin Ander­son, who had asso­ciates at Har­vard Uni­ver­sity, to help Mises find a teach­ing posi­tion. Har­vard wasn’t inter­ested. Hazlitt arranged a din­ner for Mises with Alvin John­son, direc­tor of the New School for Social Research, where many Euro­pean vic­tims of Nazism had received posi­tions. But when John­son told Hazlitt that Mises was “too extreme,” Hazlitt real­ized that John­son only hired socialists.

By Hazlitt’s arrange­ment, Mises wrote sev­eral edi­to­ri­als for the New York Times. The Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion gave Mises a grant for sev­eral years, enabling him to write Omnipo­tent Gov­ern­ment and Bureau­cracy. Mises soon obtained a posi­tion as vis­it­ing pro­fes­sor with the New York Uni­ver­sity Grad­u­ate School of Busi­ness Admin­is­tra­tion. Then Hazlitt brought him to FEE, and Leonard Read hired him as eco­nomic adviser.

In the 1950s Mises’s NYU grad­u­ate sem­i­nar in eco­nomic the­ory was held in Gal­latin House diag­o­nally across Wash­ing­ton Square from the apart­ment where Hazlitt lived with his wife, Frances. Hazlitt felt sorry for Mises hav­ing to speak every Thurs­day evening to a small group of stu­dents who were tired after work­ing all day at their reg­u­lar jobs. So to buck Mises up, Hazlitt began attend­ing the sem­i­nar. The top­ics var­ied from year to year — epis­te­mol­ogy, his­tory, Marx­ism, cap­i­tal­ism, monop­oly, inter­ven­tion­ism, mon­e­tary the­ory, and social­ism. Mises fre­quently cited his­tor­i­cal illus­tra­tions and amus­ing examples.

“Inter­est­ingly,” Hazlitt said later, “what I found was, no mat­ter how many times I would go, no mat­ter how often I heard in effect the same lec­tures, there would always be some sen­tence, some inci­den­tal phrase or illus­tra­tion that threw more light on the subject.“[2] On one occa­sion, laugh­ter broke out. Mises: “The Sovi­ets cen­sor bad books.” And then proudly with a twin­kle in his eye: “My books!“[3]

Hazlitt con­sid­ered him­self espe­cially lucky in count­ing Mises and his fel­low noted Aus­trian econ­o­mist F.A. Hayek (1899–1992) among his friends. Hazlitt had, of course, known both for many years through their writ­ings, but it was only after he reviewed their books that they met and became friends. When F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serf­dom came out in 1944, Hazlitt reviewed it for the Times, call­ing it “one of the most impor­tant books of our gen­er­a­tion.” The book became a best­seller. Hazlitt’s review attracted Hayek’s atten­tion, and in 1947 he invited Hazlitt to attend the impor­tant first meet­ing of the free-market-oriented soci­ety he was orga­niz­ing, later inter­na­tion­ally known as the Mont Pelerin Soci­ety.



4 comments for “FTR #798 Thrive on This! Counter-Culture Fascism in Cinema”

  1. Thank you Dave Emory. I have posted several of your shows on my You Tube page. Im a liberal conspiracy realist. I make original conspiracy videos as well. I have been chewed up and spit out by Alex Jones ,Griffith ,Von Mises, The JBS, Icke, Ventura, Mark Illuminati Dice, and so many more of these fake for profit patriots. I am waging war against fascism in the truther new age movements. Thanks for the bullets. U are Important!!!

    Posted by jason roggasch | June 22, 2014, 7:57 pm
  2. Are you obsessed with fiat money and the Federal Reserve as the root of all evil? And do you live in Germany? Are your Monday’s relatively free? If so, this is the movement for you: WeAreChange:

    WeAreChange.org: European Anti-Fed Movement like “merger between OWS and Tea Party”; “What about Your City?”
    By: metamars Saturday July 26, 2014 4:13 am

    The anti-Fed, anti-mainstream media, and anti-NAT0-wars Movement* that began in Berlin, had a big, centralized demonstration on July 19, that drew over 5,000 participants from all over Germany (and doubtless some other countries). They normally meet in over 123 different cities, on Mondays, in public areas.

    Luke Rudkowski addressed this gathering, in Berlin is Inspiring the Next Revolution!.

    In Berlin Woke Up, Now What About Your City?, Rudkowski interviews Berliners about the themes.

    Some US citizens have started trying to make the movement grow in the US, namely in NYC and Santa Monica. I’ll guess that the reason I haven’t heard any reports (except for Rudkowski’s mention) is that they’re still in the embryonic stage.

    At least, I like to think that’s the reason. Like Rudkowski, I wonder “What about your city?”

    Yep, every Monday, public anti-Federal Reserve public gatherings have started, although the rally discussed above that Rudkowski spoke at was a special weekend edition. You may have heard about Luke Rudkowski if you’re an ardent anti-New World Order activist focused on freeing humanity from the shackles of central banking. If you haven’t heard of him you can check him out in the 2009 documentary New World Order about the activities of folks like Rudkowski, Jack McLamb, and Alex Jones. Or you can watch Rudkowski at the Berlin WeAreChange rally here. Given the size of these rallies, and the fact that this movement anti-Federalk Reserve movment is apparently operating in cities across Germany, it’s hard not to be impressed with Rudkowski’s organizational skills.

    But according to this posting promoting the movement at zerohedge.com, the main organizer for the Berlin rally wasn’t Rudkowski. If was a fellow named Lars Maehrholz. Check out the Rudkowski’s interview of Maerholz where they discuss Maerholz’s persecution in the media after he criticized the Fed, Maerholz’s calls for a global movement to end the Federal Reserve, Maerholz’s opposition to the neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government, and how Maerholz is totally not a Nazi or anything like that:

    Zero Hedge
    Germany’s “End The Fed” Protest Organizer Gets Car Fire-Bombed
    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/26/2014 19:33 -0400

    Anyone saying “the Fedeal Reserve Act is bad” in Germany is, according to Lars Maehrholz, looked upon by the mainstream as being a Nazi. The organizer of the widespread “End The Fed” rallies that we discussed previously, explained that he is not only under attack by the main stream media and political system in Germany but also physical threats that resulted in a car he was in getting fire bombed by an anonymous perp.

    As WeAreChange reports,

    Lars received threats that this would happen online and now his friends car that he was in, was set on fire.

    The police say that the car caught on fire by itself and are not investigating the case. Luckily Lars and his friend were not in the car when it was set on fire.

    In this video Luke Rudkowski talks to Lars Maehrholz a skydiver that became the main organizer of the massive Monday peace vigils in Berlin.

    The Monday peace vigil is an autonomous fully independent movement that gained massive popularity in Berlin that is against the U.S Federal Reserve.
    [see interview]

    Finally, if you want to learn more about Lars Maerholz and the Monday “Vigils for Peace” , here’s a Google translation of a German language article in Vice about Maerholz and the movement he’s trying to start. While the translation is somewhat unclear at points, it seems pretty clear that if you take Maereholz at his word that he isn’t a Nazi, he sure likes organizing with them:

    Confused Germany
    Monday demonstration initiator Lars Mährholz conceals his right past

    by Stefan Lauer May 21 2014

    Yesterday I was for the fourth time on the Monday demonstration in front of the Brandenburg Gate. This time a lot worse attended than in past times, there were (and I know I’m repeating myself) the usual mishmash of shortened critique of capitalism, esoterically tinged and conspiracy nonsense. As so often was the only bright spot Antifa, which was, however, together with USA and Israel flags sent off this time after a scuffle.

    Even if the peace demonstrators moved and especially commentators see it differently, so it is so that a criticism of the peace demo and to the organizers no criticism of one (albeit diffuse) is desire for peace. Peace is great. But when the call afterwards with anti-Semitic and nationalist is garnished tones, this is the first problem and second, it suggests a world view of the organizers, not just making a slender foot.

    Last week it was about exactly these people: Ken Jebsen, Jürgen Elsässer (of which one is now supposedly officially distancing , which does not prevent him next week to speak at the vigil in Erfurt) and Andreas Popp (whose Plan B on theories of Nazi and Nazi economist Gottfried Feder first hour back, the different Jewish-and-creating-so-German capital between raffendem-so).

    But let’s talk it out on the official head of the Demos, Lars Mährholz. By his own testimony he noted earlier this year that politically things are going wrong in Germany, has started thinking about it, and decided finally to call the vigil or demonstration Monday to life. On March 12, he posts a photo of the demo application on Facebook and the rest is history apparently. There are now a vigil, according to him, in over 60 German cities. Especially in Berlin, he tried to stage it, to distance themselves from extremism, and are the easy but inattentive totally cute emcee, announcing speakers and has remained unresponsive and on the floor.

    But surprise, peace friends! Lars Mährholz is not nearly as nice, “apolitical” and naive in dealing with the media, as it presents itself. The 34-year-old was 2001-2007 Member and Observers of the “Association of Young Journalists” (vj), which was founded by Torsten Witt. Witt died in 2010 , but during his lifetime was a colorful figure in the right-wing nationalist milieu. He went through several parties and settled there on always in each right wing. Is of particular interest to its membership in the National Liberal wing of the FDP of 88-97. The Berlin National Liberals had planned to take over the entire FDP and rebuild it to a German FPÖ. This internal coup was not successful and Witt joined the Confederation of Free Citizens. 1999 Witt takes together with Horst Mahler (then attorney for the NPD, now in jail for Holocaust denial and incitement of the people) in demonstrations against dual citizenship and organizes interestingly Monday demonstrations. However, not for peace, but against the planned Holocaust memorial.

    Finally in 2004 he wanted with his vj is the German Association of Journalists Brandenburg take over by the DJV collected in the more right-wing members of the vj (including Mährholz) entered and prompt him to vice-chairman elected . Members of DJV called him a right-wing extremists, while he lamented. On 07.12.2004, the Munich Higher Regional Court decreed the following on the subject, among other things: “Incidentally, the Defendant not be prohibited the applicant (Torsten Witt) generally refer to as ‘right-wing extremists’. […] Has not disputed (Witt) […] had contacts with groups that […] be classified as clearly right-wing or right-wing or were […] “.

    Of course you can now not conclude directly on the political views of Lars Mährholz, however, is characterized here but a rather different picture than the more or less apolitical hippie but just want to do something for peace. If you look at his Facebook and his website is all right a bit unpleasant.

    Since the culture period report , which was sent Monday evening, his friends list on Facebook is no longer available. As his profile but is set so that only “friends” can post on his wall, is also quickly clear who so everything hangs out in this list. Literally two clicks away from posting a Lars’ friends, for example, a swastika graphics and text on the “Jewish high finance” . Another “like” a Nazi band . Or someone posts an image on the (again) Jewish world ruler will be revealed.

    Very similar is found then also on the personal website of Lars Mährholz. The “mystery” to 9/11 are again brought out , and reviewed the manner in which German actually stateless are to Mährholz up in a row with the German Reich called. The definition also for every Monday held “Stateless” demo by Rüdiger Klasen, a former NPDler, place on the Monday demonstrators so great value, you can put in question by such stories well.

    The more things change the more they stay the same.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 26, 2014, 6:46 pm
  3. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/10/13/longtime-neo-nazi-matthias-matt-koehl-dies/

    Longtime Neo-Nazi Matthias “Matt” Koehl Dies
    By Hatewatch Staff on October 13, 2014 – 5:29 pm, Posted in Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist
    Share on facebookShare
    Share on emailEmail 1 Share on print

    Matthias “Matt” Koehl, 79, a longtime neo-Nazi who worked alongside George Lincoln Rockwell in the American Nazi Party (ANP), has died, the neo-Nazi site New Order is reporting. Koehl, according to the brief statement, died in his sleep sometime between October 9 and 10.

    Koehl’s activism began sometime in the 1950s, when he joined the National Renaissance Party (a neo-fascist group), the United White Party and the National States Rights Party (NSRP), before he eventually joined the American Nazi Party in 1960.

    It was there, in the NSRP, that Koehl met George Lincoln Rockwell. The pair worked on the campaign of segregationist and anti-Semitic candidate for Alabama governor John Crommelin. In 1963, Koehl relocated to the national office in Virginia, where he worked as the party’s national secretary.

    Rockwell renamed the ANP the National Socialist White People’s Party (NSWPP) prior to his assassination in 1967, at which point Koehl was the ranking officer of the group. He became the commander, a post he retained for over a decade, and he worked at “re-branding” the NSWPP by stopping the group’s negative attacks against racial minorities. Instead, he tried to focus on the “positive” aspects of National Socialism and the glories of an all-white race.

    The NSWPP experienced ideological divisions in the 1970s and split, with one faction forming the National Socialist Party of America. Others followed William Pierce to form the National Alliance.

    Koehl, meanwhile, continued with the NSWPP and renamed the group “New Order” in 1983, which reflected his beliefs in esoteric Nazism (Nazi mysticism) and an influence by the writings of Savitri Devi Mukherji, the pseudonym for Greek-French writer Maximiani Portas, an advocate for deep ecology, animal rights, and Nazism.

    Koehl began to suggest that National Socialism was more a religious movement than a political one, and he espoused the belief that Hitler had been sent by some divine providence to save the white race from decadence and extinction caused by miscegenation.

    Koehl dispersed New Order to Wisconsin and Michigan in the mid-1980s because of membership decline, trouble with the IRS and the high cost of living in Washington, D.C. The group still maintains a website and a post office box in Milwaukee.

    Posted by Tiffany Sunderson | October 14, 2014, 1:13 pm
  4. “He said his group will make a point not to discriminate against anyone due to race, religion or sexual orientation, the Tribune reported. The focus, Abarr said, will instead be on stopping agents of the “New World Order” attempting to bring on a tyrannical global government.” Meet Montana’s newest KKK offshoot:

    TPM Livewire
    This White Supremacist Says He Is Trying To Form An ‘All-Inclusive’ KKK
    By Brendan James
    Published November 6, 2014, 11:33 AM EST

    A Montana man says he is looking to take the “white” out of white supremacy by forming a new, supposedly all-inclusive chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.

    John Abarr, a longtime member of various white power organizations including the KKK, has dubbed his spinoff group “the Rocky Mountain Knights,” the Great Falls Tribue reported reported on Monday.

    In a move almost identical to a famous "Mr. Show" sketch, Abarr said he is looking to rebrand the KKK as a hate-free, purely “fraternal” organization.

    “White supremacy is the old Klan,” he told the Tribune. “This is the new Klan.”

    He said his group will make a point not to discriminate against anyone due to race, religion or sexual orientation, the Tribune reported. The focus, Abarr said, will instead be on stopping agents of the “New World Order” attempting to bring on a tyrannical global government.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, his attempt at a founding hate-free hate group has raised eyebrows, both among civil rights groups and the old-school Klan, according to the Tribune.

    A representative of the NAACP, which held a meeting with Abarr last year, said he believes Abarr is trying to change but insisted the recruiter should drop any trace of the KKK label.

    Awww…a non-racist KKK focused on fighting the ‘New World Order’. Imagine that.

    In other news…

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 6, 2014, 10:45 am

Post a comment