Icke's use of "fascism" in review of "Superclass"

[brtanner]

In an email list I follow, the moderator took exception to David's use of "fascism" in describing the global elite gently outed by David Rothkopf in "Superclass." My first reply to this was:
-----------------

Fascism: Right or Left?

I started discussing whether or not the current globalist agenda was Fascist intensely back in the early 90's with self-identified Progressive activists organized around the struggle to save Berkeley California's KPFA radio. Mostly people on those message boards disagreed with my assertions that the government was moving distinctly toward Fascism. At that time, from a Progressive perspective, they thought that Fascism would look like Nazism in Germany or Italy in the 1930's, and were not interested in the unseen aspects of that movement, which was financed and enabled by the same forces working to control the devolution of society now.

The power elite have no qualms whatsoever about what surface identities of the institutions or forces they use to obtain their objectives. They are just as happy with using so-called Left elements in their social manipulation as with overtly authoritarian ones. Notice for instance the recent publicity around James Woolsey's involvement in "Green Power" and environmental causes, while he still identifies himself as having Neocon roots.

In my opinion Wilhelm Reich came close to the truth about the causes of totalitarianism and hierarchical control when he described it as "emotional plague" which mirrored the armoring, or chronic psychosomatic tension, of an individual at the societal level. He wrote about the similarities between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, both of which he was intimately familiar. It seems to me that this top down, controlling behavior can also be seen as reflecting the structural nature of the ego as described in depth by Eckhart Tolle. His assertion, which conforms to my observations, is that every person who falls, as almost all of us in this culture do, into thinking that s/he is in fact a distinct phenomenon, separate from the unitary whole of formal reality, tends toward characteristic beliefs and behaviors. These include denying our connection to each other and to life as a whole, seeing the world we see "outside" as threatening, and projecting our suppressed ideas about the separate person we think we are out onto others and society. We see others as something dangerous to be controlled (as we coincidentally see our true selves, the formless consciousness we essentially are).

Again IMO, the people who think that they are driving the movement toward global hierarchical control have basically the same vision as did the Nazi's in that they envision using technology and hard and soft weaponry to achieve cradle-to-grave social engineering. I think their ultimate vision is of attaining some kind of sustainable techno-feudalism that enables their hierarchies to exist indefinitely without being threatened by any resurgence of the unconditioned intelligence that underlies and supports the moment-to-moment life of the phenomenal world. They particularly want to keep anyone outside of themselves from threatening their rigid stance of control, but are also in terror of such an outbreak from within themselves.

We're in a situation in which we've been socialized into thinking that we know who we are and what's going on, without actually generally having the capacity to ask ourselves if this Cartesian worldview is true, or to see the erroneous assumptions (supported by massive anecdotal evidence due to collective misapprehensions of our direct experience) that underpin the house-of-cards. The widespread and divergent ideas that we are rapidly approaching some kind of shift in our understanding of ourselves and in planetary human affairs reflects a gradual breakdown of the spell of this highly limited consensus view of reality. Many people, including me, believe that some kind of awakening to the possibility that our minds can't comprehend the nature of what we are or our situation in a final way is unfolding in current affairs.

This implies an awakening of a direct experiential nature to the unconditioned awareness of the heart-mind, deep self, stillness, or whatever pointer to "it" works for us at a given moment, on an unprecedented mass scale. If it is true that elite planners are basically motivated by defense of their ego structures, such an awakening, about which there is a very large amount of well-correlated intuitive information available which would obviously be of great pertinence to any effective defense of hierarchical social order, would be a worst-case scenario, on steroids.

Which is what David Icke, who has articulated the manipulation of both polarities of the Left-Right political spectrum by the global Superclass over a period of years now, with exhaustive evidence to suggest its truth, is saying when, at the end of his analysis of the book, says that "For the Hidden Hand time is short, so I doubt it will be long" before they advance on the "Superclass" modified-limited-hangout of suggesting that there might be an elite category of global citizens with more initiative and power than most of us. I know several otherwise smart and conventionally well-meaning people who believe that global governance is a complex thing beyond normal understanding, and should be left to those who know how (don't try this at home). Moreover, they think that it's going to happen anyway, so why waste our bandwidth considering the implications?

If we're facing something tantamount to unassailable global slavery, does the question of whether it's Neo-Liberal or Neo-Conservative matter much?
----------------

The moderator responded with an adamant assertion that Fascism was one of three kinds of socialism, as described by Fredrich Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom," and that what he call the Oligopoly is Capitalist, which is modeled on "free trade" to create control, and therefor absolutely not Fascism. So I sent another piece to him I'll put in a following post...

Bruce

[brtanner]

As I said in last post, while the list moderator published my previous post, he still held strongly that the current Global Management Team is an Oligopoly of Capitalists, distinctly not Socialists, therefor not Fascists. My second reply, not published on the list, was:

In reponse to The Global Elite - is it Fascist? from Peter M., May 7:

“Fascism is capitalism plus murder.” - Upton Sinclair

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” - Benito Mussolini

"The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity. The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other." - Bertrand Russell: Freedom, Harcourt Brace, 1940
-------------------

*Fascism - What's in this word and is it of use?*
by Bruce Tanner

Fascism derives its name from the fasces, a bundle of sticks surrounding a central stick with an axe-blade mounted in it. The bundle represented the power of the state when its subjects were bound together under what Mussolini later fatuously identified as a religious system of thought that bound individuals in "conscious membership in a spiritual society" (I hope it's obvious that this is "emotional excitement" that's eliciting the utter opposite of "conscious membership" from the True Believers). The axe-blade represented the power of life and death possessed by the Roman lictors, or office holders, when outside of the formal boundaries of Rome proper. The fasces are symbolically resonant as the banding together of a social collective with the capacity for aggression against those outside it - The Others. Wilhelm Reich, who ultimately denounced all collective political structures as a toxic Emotional Plague, described them as a betrayal of the healthy person arising out out of deep antipathy toward the self and others. Any group that has a collective identity of being different or superior to others is particularly ripe for being bound together with each other in a struggle against the perceived inferior outsiders.

Fascism is generally understood as an Authoritarian regime, particularly under the dictatorship of a single leader, though that leader may be a figurehead for a ruling faction or oligarchy. It's also usually thought of as the mode of organization of a nation-state, which begs the question of whether the idea still applies when the ruling elites seem to favor a global system that supersedes all nations.

One thing that should be adequately clear regarding the current Terror State emerging in the United States, and, by implication of the involvement of the internationalist "think-tanks" such as the Bilderbergers, the Club of Rome, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, Chatham House, the over-arching Round Table, etc., in the globalist agenda, is that it is undergirded by an ongoing power-structure that has continued to guide social and political affairs, at least in the West, for, at a minimum, several hundred years. Clearly, the elite planners controlling institutions in the U.S. were intimately involved in making the rise of Nazism, particularly as a modern armed power capable of launching trans-continental war, possible. There is also ample evidence that they funded and profited from the arming of all parties in that war, as well as in most wars in recent history.

If there is, indeed, an international oligarchy, surely its pinnacles of power must be associated with major banking power, and with ownership of the national and international central banks. Only through control of finance, which is the power to make demands on everyone living in societies based on monetary exchange, can the virtually unlimited resources necessary to shape institutions impacting every aspect of political and social change be realized.

This is not the result of unfettered competition, at least not in the public arena. John D. Rockefeller is famously quoted as saying "competition is a sin." Rather, this ongoing process of centuries, if not millenia, is covert warfare in which the primary actors have always been those with more than an average share of financial resources, with the outwardly hostile determination to extend their preeminence to its maximum extent.

In the modern day, they include, of course, George Soros, who seems to be a sort of modern day Mayer Amschel Rothschild in that he saw and acted on possibilities of exploiting how people saw and used money to great effect. But as to whether his philanthropic activities actually indicate his true social views or philosophy is extremely questionable. I would argue that, like the Rockefellers (allies, certainly of the Rothschild interests), Fords, Carnegies, and, now, Warren Buffet and the Gates', he uses charity as another salient of a strategic plan to affect society and the world in ways that increase his ambit and enhance the probability of success as defined by his ego-mind.

So we have these globalists, "a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires, baby," who want to represent that they have the interests of all god's chillen, the environment, and now, Gaia herself, at heart. Apparently, perhaps, a very different breed of cat than Adolf and Benito, they're far-seeing visionaries now warning us of the impending catastrophes of global warming and the end of the cheap energy needed to feed the burgeoning human family. Yet, if they're so powerful and compassionate, why do they seem so bent on lying to the people of the world through their privately controlled media? Why does crisis after crisis develop, apparently out of control until you find through the alternative media that these same elite citizens have economic interests and are meddling where the fires breakout? Why have GMOs been allowed to proliferate without common-sense oversight or attention to the mass of scientific and anecdotal information that suggests that their impact on the human food supply will disastrously outstrip that of Peak Oil(TM) or climate change? Why do arms continue to flow to every insurgency that can be whipped up anywhere on the planet? Why have dozens, if not hundreds, of discoveries in the areas of alternative energy, or even ways in which not-so-alternative energy could drastically reduce the need for petroleum and coal, been ignored or violently suppressed? Why is there such a constantly orchestrated campaign to paint diligent researchers in any areas that contradict popular mythologies as "conspiracy theorists," or coming soon, I'm sure, terrorists?

Is is plausible that these captains of finance and (to a lesser extent these days) industry, who have the best intelligence that money can buy in every area of concern to them, don't know what I've been able to figure out while struggling under the constraints of paying the rent and keeping my head above water? I doubt it sincerely. We are being sold 24-7-365 that these men and women are working devotedly to make the world less chaotic and more user-friendly, and that love and tolerance for those of a different (fill in the blank) than us is key to making this work. Yet if you watch TV for five minutes, all you see in hot-and-cold running judge-thy-neighbor and a bunch of stuff that you're a chump if you don't own.

It's been common-place a century or more for people in the know to say things like "nothing in politics happens by accident." And the non-accidental message is that we need to stick together in the bundle-of-sticks because the situation is so chaotic that if we don't terrorists are going to get your mama. Leave the research and decision-making to experts and reduce your carbon footprint. All political systems function on a collectivist principle, from the top down, perhaps with subtle differences in criteria for the top dogs. And at a certain point near the top of the pyramid, the pinnacle vanishes. It's just an oligarchy of fabulously successful social Darwinists, doing the best they can. But the effect is attack on, disempowerment, brutalization, empoverishment, cooptation, starvation and murder (and potentially massive genocide) of the great mass of humanity, sewing the seeds of anger and judgment toward ourselves and anyone we see as different along the way.

I say that if it swims like a duck and it quacks like a duck and if it always wants more like a duck, then it's a duck. This is a Fascist power structure, searching for a single dictatorial leader. The top of the pyramid is invisible, but if you understand YOUR OWN ego structure you'll know that there is no peace up there. Up there its an enhanced case of "there's no honor among thieves," where the players all check each other out endlessly, envy those seen as more powerful while scheming to usurp their places, and cast glances nervously below. How do I know this? Because it's what my ego does when I forget my true nature and fall into believing I'm separate from life. Will they find their Ultimate Leader? To answer this question, try looking at George Bush. What's going on there? Is he a reflection of our unconsciousness or what? I recommend highly Paul Levy's "The Madness of George W. Bush: A Reflection on Our Collective Psychosis" to pursue this in more depth. But if David Icke is right, the final vision is for a one-world government with a single army, lifetime tracking and psychological management of each human, and one official Truth, not legally subject to scrutiny. It's absurd, but there it is. And I think it's fair to call it Fascist.