Red Scare, Black Terror

Or, what Karlheinz Drescher did not say in his book God and the Fascists regarding the Vatican’s complicity in abetting and aiding the rise of contemporary fascism, or direct and indirect involvement in “the Black Terror”. It needs to be said because it is still relevant to what is going down today.

You may not even be familiar with the phrase “Black Terror”. It was a phrase used to describe right-wing, nationalist, or fascist terrorism that became rampant after the First World War. Presumably it was called such because of the penchant of the fascist legions for black uniforms, apparently in mock imitation of the Jesuit Order. If you haven’t heard the phrase “Black Terror”, it’s because there has been a concerted effort to gloss over it and cover it up, which continues to this day.

Drescher’s incendiary book on Vatican complicity in the Black Terror goes a long way in uncovering some of the “root causes” of the fascist terror — those “root causes” of terrorism generally that we are discouraged from scrutinising too closely. It caused a storm of controversy when it was first published in Germany in 1965, and has only lately become available in English.

I’ve spent the last few days almost constantly with Drescher’s book, checking and double-checking his evidence and his sources for Church complicity in the Black Terror (Drescher himself doesn’t use the phrase “Black Terror”). Some of Drescher’s evidence (who was himself a disillusioned Catholic) can be considered ambiguous, but most of it is not.  It goes a long way in clarifying some of the more puzzling aspects of fascism that have persistently perplexed scholars. Nor is it of mere historical interest, as these influences continue in various ways presently as well — recent scandals in the Vatican Bank (still in the news), the exposure of the “shadow government” called the P2 Lodge (Propaganda Due) in Italy and its involvement in possible “false flag” operations (and its possible connections with other “shadow governments” in the world) or, for that matter, trying to put Anders Behring Breivik’s neo-nazi massacre in Norway in an intelligible context.

Drescher’s book goes a long way in demystifying some of the more riddling aspects of fascism and, indeed, the history of the last century up to today. If he is right, then much of what we understand of that history is wrong, or has been deliberately suppressed. Moreover, it is now coming to the public’s attention that the “ratlines” that allowed notorious war criminals to escape justice after the Second World War, to South America and elsewhere, was organised by leading Catholic clerics within the Vatican itself.

Why? Why did the Vatican make this pact with the Devil? — The Lateran Pact (1929) with Mussolini or the Reichskonkordat (1933) with the still very young Nazi Regime in Germany? Or, to lend active support to the fascist Falange in the Spanish Civil War against the Republic?; or to aid and abet the depraved and brutal Ustase movement in Croatia? In fact, the Ustase was so primitive and brutal in its extermination of Orthodox Christian Serbs and Jews that even the Nazis, hardly sentimental about such things themselves, were appalled by Ustase brutality. Leading clerics in Croatia (Franciscans!) not only encouraged the massacres, but were actively involved in the slaughter. Some of the worst war criminals were leading clerics. As one Italian Parliamentarian (Laura Diaz) stated after the war: “The Pope’s hands dripped with blood”.

Drescher states that the Vatican under Pius XI and Pius XII, at least, made common cause with the fascists, and countenanced (even encouraged) the Black Terror, in order to preserve and protect the “interests” of the institutional Church — for reasons of self-preservation against what it saw as the principal threat, “godless Bolshevism” which had become the Red Scare after the Russian Revoluion. To this end, even certain clerics identified with fascism, and in the early twenties in Italy, at least, “clerical fascism” became a term to describe Catholic clerics who identified and aided the fascist cause, or who actively sought to create a synthesis of National Socialism and Roman Catholicism (as, for example, Father Jozef Tiso in Slovakia). Such a “synthesis” would certainly be considered heresy. So, why wasn’t it denounced by the Vatican as such and its advocates excommunicated from the Church? In fact, the phrase “Christofascism” is not of recent vintage. It was first coined by Dorothee Sölle in 1970 to describe the alliance of institutionalised Christianity with totalitarian ideology and with “imperialistic attitudes”.

This “imperialistic attitude”, as Sölle puts it, is more to the point than portrayals of the Church as either reluctant collaborators with fascism for “defensive” reasons (against “godless Bolshevism”) or even as heroic resisters against fascism. True, many lower clergy and lay Catholics distinguished themselves through heroic defiance and resistance to Nazism and fascism, and paid the ultimate price for their resistance. But they did so as individuals of conscience, and not as representatives of the Catholic Church or the ecclesiastical hierarchy. In fact, the Catholic Church abandoned them to their fate — perhaps even welcoming their purging as clergy tainted by secularism or “Bolshevism”. And so hundreds, even thousands, of lower ranking clerics, especially those who had worked with the poor, were abandoned to fascist execution squads, especially in Spain and Poland. In Poland alone, some 2,400 Catholic priests were executed by Nazi death squads.

Apparently, lower-ranking clerics (especially anti-fascist ones) were not part of the “interests of the Church” and were not covered by the Concordat.

Of course, the Vatican portrayed all this as a “defensive” struggle, even an existential struggle — including Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia! The Vatican provided diplomatic and propaganda cover for the invasion, presumably to remain in the Duce’s good books, but also for reasons of cupidity — hopes to incorporate Abyssinia into the “universal Church” militant and triumphant. And so Italian troops carried into Abyssinia portraits of the Madonna along with poison gas. “The cross follows the sword”.

“The cross follows the sword”. That principle pretty much sums up the unholy alliance of the Vatican with fascism and provides the justification for the Black Terror. The Vatican hoped to harness the fascist movement and the fascist armies to effect the Counter-Reformation and to restore the Holy Roman Empire. This Drescher did not say, but it follows from his own evidence. Counter-Reformation was the Church’s sole interest in aiding and abetting the fascist movement and the Black Terror.

Defense against “godless Bolshevism” was mainly propaganda cover for a greater ambition — to roll-back secularisation and destroy “modern rationalism” in all its forms. The Vatican welcomed fascism (“instrument of divine Providence”, “holy crusade”, “work of God”, etc, etc) in the hopes of seeing its “enemies” annihilated — liberalism, democracy, socialism, communism, “modern rationalism”. In broader terms, secularisation and secularism, and therewith also Protestantism. For it is also a peculiar fact that, after Franco’s forces seized power in Spain, the Church had all Protestant Churches shut down and, moreover, had all Bibles confiscated!

“Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly were now banned again in Spain; literature, film, and radio were massively censored; all parties apart from the Fascist Falange were banned, all non-Catholic religious faiths suppressed, and all Protestant churches and schools closed. Catholicism became the state religion; the remarkable thing here is that all the Bibles disappeared in the rural districts. The police confiscated one hundred thousand copies in Madrid. Bibles were simply taken at borders. In the last year before the civil war, the constantly increasing sales figure had reached 211,000 copies” (pp. 83 – 84)

Apparently, the peasants might get “ideas” if allowed to read the Bible, or come to the conclusion that there was a glaring contradiction between Catholic faith and Catholic practice. In fact, the hypocrisy and self-contradictions in the Church had become systemic, as the then Pope Pius XI explained to a group of Spanish refugees,

— “It is said in recent days… that religion and the Catholic Church have shown themselves to be too weak and ineffective to counter this devastation and horror [The Black Terror]. But this is disproved by the words of Manzoni’s work: ‘One never needs to retreat into examples to justify the Church. It is sufficient to research its basic principles.'”

A quite remarkable rationalisation of duplicity and justification for holy terrorism.

So, here I will complete Drescher’s thoughts, of what his evidence for Vatican complicity in the rise of fascism and the Black Terror really points to, for it is still the rationale and motive used by Anders Behring Breivik for the Norwegian massacre as he himself declared in his “manifesto”.

The Vatican State is, after all, a state with worldly and geopolitical interests.

“Remember that you are called upon to reconquer for Christ the nation of his chosen that was wrested from him by others. If you dedicate yourself completely to this noble task and sacrifice your life for it, then praise the divine mercy that shines over the conscience with sublime light of the martyr’s halo. Your heroic courage, your readiness to be a martyr, leads to the ideal: For God and Fatherland!” — From Franco’s army regulations handbook

What the Church wanted from the fascists was the restoration of “the Kingdom of Jesus Christ” which, when decoded, means the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire — a theocracy. That is still the implicit and secret ambition of the Catholic Church — to effect and bring about a Counter-Reformation. In this it even has some willing dupes and stooges amongst the Protestants and even secularists, and this even despite the present Pope’s more noble reformist ambitions (and you can bet that there are very conservative and reactionary forces at work in the Vatican to sabotage him and cut short his tenure as Pope).

The Vatican’s ambitions are best expressed in its own words (which I reprint here verbatim from the Vatican’s own website)

“How deeply we feel the need for the consecration of humanity and the world—our modern world—in union with Christ himself! For the redeeming work of Christ must be shared in by the world through the Church.” [Their emphasis].

So, what did the Vatican (and at least Piux XI and Pius XII) hope to achieve by its “solemn accommodation”, as was said, with Nazism and fascism — with Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Pavelic amongst others?

Firstly, rolling back the Modern Era in its entirety under the banner of “anti-communism”, but which was, in fact and consistent with the evidence, code for “modern rationalism” and “secularism”, for the Vatican also longed for the destruction of liberalism, democracy, socialism, and Protestantism too, (all portrayed as “Anti-Christ”) and the re-establishment of the “Kingdom of Jesus Christ”, otherwise known as “Holy Roman Empire”.

Secondly, the Vatican hoped to harness the fascist movement and its armies for the destruction of the USSR, as well as the Orthodox Church, and Russia’s forcible incorporation into the “universal Church militant and triumphant” as an old saying goes. To this end, it sanctioned the massacres of the Orthodox Serbs and Jews in the Balkans by the Catholic Ustase, in which even clerics participated in the most brutal, barbarous, and depraved manner. Some 700,000 Orthodox Serbs were massacred by the Ustase, which conflict has not even ended to this day. “Anti-communism” does not explain this. The Vatican — or at least elements within the Vatican — wanted the destruction of the Orthodox Church in the East, and the destruction of the Protestant Churches in the West. To this end, it even described the fascists as its “loyal sons” or “instruments of divine Providence”! The fascist Hlinka Guard in Slovakia was even named after a Catholic Prelate, Fr. Andrej Hlinka.

Thirdly, when it became apparent that the fascist cause was lost, elements within the Vatican organised the “ratlines” to help notorious war criminals and its “loyal sons” to escape to other jurisdictions, notably South America, and began scripting revisionist histories of the Church’s involvement in the Black Terror, which is perhaps only now coming to light.

Why do I mention any of this? Because there is not much of a difference between this “Christofascism” and what is now called “Islamofascism”. In fact, religion doesn’t really explain any of this — or at least much of this. Religion did not determine whether men and women put up heroic resistance to fascism or whether they became fascist or terrorist. It’s not religion that causes this, it’s something else entirely — something within, some inner quality, that ultimately is decisive and for which religion becomes merely a mask, in which even the “powers of darkness” come disguised as “Christian love”. What’s behind all this if not just naked “will to power”?

Or perhaps a very misguided and perverse — even demonic — understanding of the conditions necessary for human unity and the meaning of “integration”? I tend to think it is this more than anything — an inner ideal that becomes perversely expressed as the totalitarian idea.

Nor has the totalitarian idea been abandoned yet, despite its miserable and wretched failure to date — the oceans of blood and fields of destruction that have proved it’s failure, whether as communist totalitarianism or fascist totalitarianism (or for that matter clerical totalitarianism and cupidity that comes disguised as “Christian love” or in other forms — Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc).

Here in Canada, a group called “Tribute to Liberty” wants to erect a controversial monument to the Victims of Communism in the nation’s capital. It seems pretty selective in its choice of worthy victims of the totalitarian idea. I object. I’ld have no objections if it were reconsidered as a monument to the Victims of Totalitarianism. But its bias in this respect seems all too blatant, which makes mockery of its claim to be a “tribute to liberty”.

To discover the “roots of fascism” or totalitarianism more generally in economics, politics, religion or psychology is only part of it. Behind all this there seems to be a good — the ideal of unity — ill-conceived and even more badly (and evilly) implemented. Today, the totalitarian idea of global capital (neoliberalism or economism) is yet another competing totalitarian idea. The Islamicists have their own totalitarian idea. But behind the frequent official Vatican denunciations of capitalism there is probably a recognition that the capitalist totalitarian idea is in direct competition with the Catholic Church’s own totalitarian idea — Counter-Reformation and the longed for restoration of the Holy Roman Empire.



20 responses to “Red Scare, Black Terror”

  1. Scott Preston says :

    “Ratlines”, I might add in passing, is a very clever phrase –very appropriate. It refers to the belief in the omen that rats will escape along the mooring ropes of ships that are fated to sink. Evidently, it occurred to someone that the escape routes organised within the Vatican for war criminals resembled the omen for a sinking ship.

    • Steve Lavendusky says :

      Scott – I would love to have a small list of spiritual books from you. I also like David Loy and have all his books. It seems you gravitate towards Buddhism as far as having a Praxis? You can make it as long or short as you want. Just got through re-reading one of my favorites ZEN MIND BEGINNERS MIND. Also a wonderful book KUNDALINI ENERGY AND CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALITY by Philip St. Romain.


      • Scott Preston says :

        Hi Steve. Hoppy Gnu Yir to you. Congratulations on being the first poster of 2016, for what it’s worth.

        Your request took me by surprise, really. I had to think about that. I don’t particularly read “spiritual books”. I had to wander over to one of my bookshelves (where I file the books I have read) and go through them to find something that might be called spiritual. There are Castaneda’s books. There’s the Jane Roberts Seth Books (at least, the earlier ones). A book by a neurologist called “The Spiritual Brain”. There’s Rumi. There’s the Bible (English, German, and Latin editions) and the Koran. There’s Nietzsche. There’s my early (student years) studies of Carl Jung and Erich Neumann on the history and evolution of consciousness. And, of course, William Blake and Jean Gebser.

        The overwhelming (95%) of books are current events, contemporary history, cultural studies rather than anything that might be called “spiritual books”. On the other hand, to my eyes everything is “spiritual”. I’ve discovered that I don’t really see things in the same way others do and I even read all books as “spiritual” documents. I’m frequently surprised that what I understand from a book is not what others understand from the same book. To my way of thinking, the entire world is a “spiritual book”.

        And like everyone else, I’m trying to come to terms with the winds of change. And if anyone could be said to be my teacher in that respect, it is William Blake. If I have frequently called upon other sources in The Chyrsalis (Seth, Nietzsche, Gebser, Rosenstock-Huessy, et alia) it is all pretty much to draw them into relation with Blake’s fourfold vision” and his announcement of an impending “New Age”. Blake is central to me.

        And even this post on “Red Scare, Black Terror” is couched in the context of my Blake studies. Blake hated “religion”. He tried to deconstruct religion in order to reveal the authentically spiritual reality now hid within it, as in all else “Heaven in a Wild Flower, Eternity in the Hour” and the universe in a grain of sand. For Blake, everything was “spiritual”. We just had to learn to perceive it as such, for at present our perception is clouded by false beliefs which have an air of “truthiness” to them, but are limiting consciousness — what he called “the mind-forg’d manacles”. So, the aim for Blake was much as it was for Nietzsche — “the free spirit”. And whether for Nietzsche or for Blake, it goes back to the promise of Jesus “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”.

        So, that’s pretty much the whole point of The Chrysalis. What are these “mind-forg’d manacles” that prevent us from realising our freedom in truth? And probably the very worst of the mind-forg’d manacles is the belief that we are “free” already. We denizens of the “Free World” are maybe even the most deluded of all, in this. We have certain liberties, it is true. But we’ve confused “liberty” with “freedom”, just as we’ve confused a whole host of lower and higher values — the “totality” and the “whole”, or “the integral” and the assimilatory ,etc, etc. largely because of our fall int purely sensate consciousness.

        This is Blake’s project, and it’s very easy to understand. We’ve collapsed the higher “truth that sets free” into mere “facts of the matter”. So when Nietzsche gives his formula for nihilism: “all higher values devalue themselves”, this is PRECISELY equivalent to Blake’s maxim that graces the masthead of the Chrysalis:

        “For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern”

        These are identical in meaning and significance. And once this is really known, everything begins to fall into place, and especially reflected in what I’ve been calling Khayyam’s Caution: “only a hair separates the false from the true”. The “hair” is the ego-nature, the sensate-consciousness, the veil of Maya, the Cloud of Unknowing itself, and pretty much the full meaning of what Gebser means by “the mental-rational consciousness structure now functioning in deficient mode”. Or, indeed, what is meant by Blake’s “Single Vision”. Single Vision is the Kali Yuga.

        So, my whole purpose is a) identifying these “mind-forg’d manacles” which are called “interests” and b) dissolving these “mind-forg’d manacles” which is called “deconstruction” or “letting go”. That’s the whole bent of my nature. I don’t really want to substitute an old set of “mind-forg’d manacles” just for some new set of “mind-forg’d manacles”.

        Hence, by far, the largest number of books on my bookshelf are propaganda studies. That was my main area of interest as an undergrad at university, and it’s reflected in my bookshelf. But you can learn a lot — a very great deal — about the truth by reading between the lines of propaganda, or what is now called “perception management”.

        “Every thing possible to be believ’d is an image of the truth”, as per Blake — this is especially true of propaganda, secular or religious, “sacred” or “profane”. Perception management counts on this “truthiness” to construct the mind-forg’d manacles. And it is ubiquitous. And what is especially disguised by propaganda and perception management is not the “facts of the matter”, but ultimately, the “truth that sets free”. And that’s why propaganda and perception management is so insidious.

        But propaganda and perception management is also “spiritual activity”. It’s just demented and perverted spiritual activity — just like the “orcs” of Tolkein’s fantasy world were deformed and perverted elves, seduced by the “ring of power”.

        • abdulmonem says :

          May it be a year of effective spiritual consciousness. We are in a continual process of mutual shaping, the divine shapes us and we shape the divine, the world shapes us and we shape the world, others shape us and we shape others but the main task is self-shaping, that is the free will in its endeavor to shape itself in its unique mode away from all predetermined labels, benefiting from all forces seen and unseen. negative and positive. I think the Torah and the kabbala are also good sources for the spiritual journey. The launching in the spiritual road starts by realizing that by silencing the chattering brain and emptying the self and energizing the remembering brain to recognize that there are unseen forces both positive and negative that can be mobilized once the human becomes attentively aware that he is programmed to draw down the positive and shed away the negative. It is in actuality an epistemological journey that makes us realize that we are part of the same consciousness and our consciousness can be enhanced and expanded, once we learn to engender the contact with source. In all this we have to be attentive that there is a watching eye that nothing evades its attention, that is the presence and that we are all in that presence and may the presence make us aware of our presence in his presence.

  2. notabilia says :

    Fine, very worthy summary of modern religion and fascism – though, when you say it is not really “religion” in either case, it is religion. Not wholly, of course, but these were and are religious figures doing religious things, like supporting fascism and murder and genocide.

    • Scott Preston says :

      Is it really? Why is it that its always the “sinner” who feels most the need for salvation through religion? People gather to religion for different reasons — a general feeling of gratitude for life, or perhaps more from a inner sense of sinfulness instead from which they feel the need for “redemption”. Paedophiles aren’t made by religion, for example. They escape into religion and piety to escape their inner demons. Of course, it doesn’t work that way. They take their demons in with them. But I would say its a general rule — the deeper the sense of “sinfulness”, the more pious the outward expression.

  3. notabilia says :

    Like all forms of irrationalism, religion separates people into an in group and an out group, with the deluded religionist seeking an affiliation with the power of his or her chosen, artificial in group. Now what their motivations are – usually this is an admixture of family history, personal enmity towards others, self-valorization, but it would be hard to see “gratitude for life” as making the Top 10.

    • Scott Preston says :

      I think you;re confusing things that should not be confused. Like the civilisation in which the religion exists, it has a generative and vital period, and a degenerative and decadent period, or what Jean Gebser would call and “effective” or a “deficient” stage. There’s a sharp difference between what is called “primitive Christianity” and its later stages, and this is true of virtually all the so-called “religions” presently as well. The Axial Age, when religion was at its most vital, served as an important evolutionary development for the human race. In the case of Christianity, the forgery called the Donation of Constantine was probably the first step in its beginning degeneracy and decadence.

      It was Nietzsche who noted the differing motivations for what is called “religion”. In its earliest forms, a feeling of gratitude for life and existence needing to be expressed. In its later stages, it reverts to resentment of life and seeks refugee in “otherworldliness”. Early Christianity, for example, was not otherworldly nor was it exclusiveness. It was a rebellion against the powers of this world and those in “high places”. Why do you think the fascist reactionaries seized all the Bibles in Spain after Franco seized power?

      Religion is a far more interesting phenomenon than to dismiss it as “irrationalism”. Early Christianity certainly was not that, nor early Buddhism either. Nor is Yoga. Christofascism, islamofascism, “Holy War Buddhism” (ie, “Imperial Way Buddhism”) or Hindu Nationalism — these are degenerations from the original inspiration, exhausted forms of what was once authentic spiritual insight. Their present degeneracy, including the degeneracy of Reason into mere rationalisation and calculation, is part of a general decline of human civilisation at our “end of history”.

      It could hardly go unnoticed that the search for new sources of inspiration (whether called “new age” or “self-realisation”, etc, etc) has become something of an obsession, and have taken on a sense of urgency — even a new boldness, in some respects. That’s because the old forms have been exhausted.

      • Scott Preston says :

        Might add, too, that even Karlheinz Drescher, a disillusioned Catholic himself and winner of all sorts of humanist prizes for his work, attacks the Christian Churches from the vantage point of early Christianity. So did Nietzsche. Nietzsche relied on early Christianity for his “revaluation of values” just as much as he did on Heraclitus and the pre-Socratic philosophers. He also plagiarised the Sufi poet and mystic Rumi shamelessly.

      • notabilia says :

        Or, it could be that religion is basic unreason, madness, each variant only a slightly more elaborate form of haruspicy, the reading of chicken entrails.
        “Authentic spiritual insight” is impossible to distinguish from “inauthentic spiritual insight,” since each category admits no basis for evaluation of its truth claims.
        Fascists might have seized the bibles in Franco’s Spain, but fascism has always made its accommodation with the credulousness of religious believers, co-opting them into an alliance, as in Germany, which is certainly a condemnation of religion and fascism at once – why are they such natural friends?

        • Scott Preston says :

          Actually, what you’re referring to is “otherworldliness” or the mistaken assumption that religion has to do with metaphysics, which it doesn’t. When people say, for example, that they are “spiritual, but not religious” (which has become common enough these days) it is a rejection of “otherworldliness” or metaphysics or the abstractions of religion. Both Blake and Nietzsche rejected “religion” as such, but what they objected to was this “otherworldliness”, and not “religion” per se. Both Nietzsche and Blake were concerned to ground spiritual or higher truth in THIS world, not in some other world. So both Blake and Nietzsche were what we now call “post-metaphysical”.

          “Otherworldliness” was an accretion over time that was not in the original teachings at all. Jesus did not teach “otherworldliness” — but truth in THIS world “the body is the temple of the living God”, “the kingdom of heaven is within you” are not metaphysics. The “truth that sets free” is different from “the facts of the matter”. Ideally a “fact” is a faithful image of the truth, but isn’t identical with the truth itself, because it’s an image. But what we call “primitive Christianity” or “primitive Buddhism” wasn’t, originally, at all concerned with “otherworldliness”, but the here and the now. Otherworldliness was added onto Christianity by its fusion with the Greek philosophical metaphysics (St. Paul).

          If you want to understand what is going on here, I’ld recommend neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist’s book The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. Everything will become perfectly clear.

          • abdulmonem says :

            The cosmos is a work of art that need to be carefully read, appreciated and adore the one behind it. This is the message of all religions to ignite the human awareness to the wonders inside him and around and to the force behind everything and to ask questions and never stop until he goes in the ground. It is a type of enquiry that requires serious attention and honest intent. The other world is a must screen to this one in order to read the poem that we have composed during our stay on this earth. We are not de trop scattered on this earth in vain. He who is blind in this one will move with his blindness to the other one. We are in a continual search for evidences and evidences are thrown in our face everyday. Only if we trust that we are a manifestation of a wise and knowing creator. A trust that can not be settled among the believers and disbelievers in this one, since these two types are part of the divine design to keep things running, until the day of disclosure. Consciousness is not a neutral force, it is a very effective force, but alas most people believe in that not and what is going on is part of the mobilization of that effectiveness and people are in complete oblivion, thinking they are the only force working in this cosmos, What a livid mentality.

  4. alex jay says :

    “Drescher’s book goes a long way in demystifying some of the more riddling aspects of fascism and, indeed, the history of the last century up to today. If he is right, then much of what we understand of that history is wrong, or has been deliberately suppressed.”

    Holy Cow! Me thinks you’re getting it, dude (It’s all conspiracy fact – the “deliberately suppressed” ). History is virtually all bullshit as we’ve been conditioned to believe. And it’s not a “Rorschach Test” as you accused me of. I’ll never forgive you for that …. well maybe?

    • Scott Preston says :

      No. It’s not the same thing. As the reformed Conspiracy Dude in the Guardian article put it, correctly, it all boils down to “incompetence and greed”. There is no secret, immortal, organised kabal of “masters of the universe” or “committee of 300” (or least of all some superstition about the “Eternal Jew”) marching through history pulling everyone’s strings. No doubt, there are groups that would love to be that — to exercise power in secret and in darkness — but the desire to rule in secret and the reality are two different things. Reality has a way of tripping them up, or as Burns put it “the best laid schemes of mice and men…”

      Greed and incompetence are sufficient. There will always be those who want to dupe and seduce and those all too willing to be duped and seduced. It’s like any courtship or seduction, or what I call “conspiracy of desires”.

      I don’t deny that there are conspiracies against the public. Even Adam Smith acknowledged that. Why I don’t agree with (and which I think is a superstition) is that it is all connected to some mysterious, centralised, organised master plan. That’s just a secular regurgitation of the gods of high Olympus enjoying themselves pulling the strings of their human puppets.

      But unlike the gods of High Olympus, which did have a kind of quasi-existence and reality, the “masters of the universe” have none, although some self-important groups and people would very much like to be perceived by others as gods and as equally all-powerful. Some of them end up in lunatic asylums.

      Of course, there are “false fronts” (astroturf organisations) and “false flag” operations. No question. In decadent ages, everything comes wearing a mask and a disguise. “Era of Pretense”, as the Archdruid puts it. To be sure, pretence means, basically, that people think of themselves as more important in the scheme of things than they actually are, more in control of things than they actually are. But they would sure love you to think of them otherwise.

      Hidden motives, disguised intentions, hidden agendas. Sure. That’s why everyone claims to want “transparency & accountability” today. And sure, there are men like Kissinger who feel that “power is the greatest aphrodisiac”. I deny, however, that such men or women are lucid enough to actually organise themselves into a secret ruling kabal of global reach, rationally directing the course of events including chemtrails, flouride treatments, and earthquakes in British Columbia or Oklahoma.

      All that just ends up being a distraction from the real issue and the real problem, and maybe a deliberate deflection and distraction — the need for self-examination, and how much our own thought and behaviours and beliefs contribute to the deficiencies of the present. Blaming it all on others becomes an evasion of the duty and obligation of self-examination.

      As Blake put it, “Every thing possible to be believ’d is an image of the truth”. But the belief is still something different from the truth itself. We don’t need novel myths about secular gods steering the course of human events. Systemically entrenched bungling and greediness suffices.

  5. Dwig says :

    This behavior by the Catholic Church goes back well before the 20th century. For example, the inquisition was massively brutal, as were the Crusades, and then there’s the “Doctrine of Discovery” ( More recently, there was the Church hierarchy’s suppression of the outbreak of “liberation theology” in South America, where it was aligned with some typical brutal dictatorships.

    Actually, I find it useful to make a distinction between a religion, as a body of understanding of the world, and the churches that coalesce around it (all too often fighting among themselves over who has the correct understanding, and which church should hold the “keys to the mystery”). Wendell Berry observed that “Christianity is essentially an outdoor religion”, and wrote against its “imprisonment” within church walls.

    • Scott Preston says :

      Yes, the schizophrenia (which appears as hypocrisy) of the religions (and not just the institutional Church) has a long history, including the Catholic Church’s involvement in the horrific genocide of the Spanish Conquest in the Caribbean and Central America, although even then it had its lower ranking clergy, like Fr. Bartoleme de las Casas, who fought the conquistadores and the Church tooth and nail.

      I think, though, that if this schizophrenia wasn’t organised and rationalised through religion, it would just be organised and rationalised through something else — in fact, it has been, in various ways. Liberals, for example, may be appalled by the whole thing, but the Reign of Terror during the liberal Revolution (the French Revolution) was just as horrific.

      Drescher is noted for a 10 volume work called “The Criminal History of Christianity”. But a “Criminal History of the Human Race” would fill far more volumes, and it’s completely necessary to confront this as a whole and to recognise it for what it is. I’m afraid, and sorry to say, that human beings as a whole have not yet plumbed the true depths of the evil of which they are capable. The irony of Drescher’s work (which is also the irony of Nietzsche’s philosophy) is that he confronts the criminal history of Christianity from the basis of his understanding of “primitive Christianity”.

      It may well be that “greed, malice, and ignorance” — the three evils of Buddhism — are the “root cause” of mankind’s criminal history. But that knowledge did not prevent the aberration either called “Holy War Buddhism” or fascist Buddhism in Japan. The human ego-nature, being very perverse and cunning (in fact, Blake calls it the true “Satan”) may espouse the belief that “love conquers all”, but it even manages to turn the three evils of greed, malice, and ignorance into expressions of “love” or “peace”. There’s nothing for it but to confront and face our own darkness. But nobody wants to do that. Few have the strength or courage for it — that is to say, to look deeply into the entrails of human history as a whole and see it as their own autobiography. The darkness is always someone else’s problem.

      So, what are the chances, really, of humankind’s transcending itself? Slim, really. Very slim. That’s the whole meaning of “the eye of the needle” in Jesus’ parable. Blake calls it “the golden string”. Castaneda’s don Juan called it “our cubic centimetre of chance”. But, of course, we won’t look for it if we think that we’re already the good and righteous ones who have no need of redemption from our own darkness.

      And now that we’ve discovered “the lizard brain” and are poking around in it, goading it with a stick, as it were, you can expect more of the same, because the lizard brain has always been the sleeping dragon under the mountain. And we’re poking it with a stick!!

      • Dwig says :

        Good points. I’m also reminded of Huxley’s “Ape and Essence”, where Huxley’s ” ape” corresponds pretty well to the lizard. “Surely it’s evident; even a schoolchild knows it — the ends are ape-chosen; only the means are man’s*.

        • Scott Preston says :

          Yes, that’s pretty much the gist of it. Once it is integrated with the consciousness, though, it becomes something else altogether.

          I was reading an interesting thing in Hannah Arendt. She recounted the confession of an SS guard at a concentration camp. He beat prisoners until he had an orgasm. Really. He was ashamed of it, but it seemed to be a compulsion. That man was totally ruled by his “lizard brain”, and he wasn’t the least bit conscious of it, had no self-understanding in that respect. And how much violence is really of this kind? We call it “gratuitous”, but usually they make all sorts of rationalisations for it that really have nothing to do with the real motive or urge. The “urge to kill” — that also comes from the lizard brain.

  6. abdulmonem says :

    When are we going to repent. In 2003 the United States , mobilized its urge to kill and the urge of the others to commit its horrific blunder in Iraq, the blunder whose traces continue to manifest its appalling impact on a country that can no longer be called Iraq and in 2007 voted against the United Nations call to give. human rights to the indigenous. Do you think the doctrine of discovery has changed. How all these injustices can be redressed and who is going to look after the million and million of those who have been unjustly killed or evacuated from their homes over the bygone years. DIVINE JUSTICE is the only solace that keeps the faithful from leaving his faith and remains patient in the face of such aggression and atrocities and continue to fight until death draws down its curtains. Such is the game, like it or dislike it, it is going to implement its rules despite all the odds. It seems we are no longer having faith in the check and balance of the divine, in spite of our realization that the cosmos is conscious and everything in it are connected. I think this arrogance and defiance can not endure any longer. Death is the fate of everything except His face. The question is not religion or atheism. the question is to be just and truthful or not and this is the essence of religion as stipulated in the Books.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: