Posted on 02/03/2010 6:16:03 PM PST by Borges
Legendary author of hundreds of books and pamphlets demolishing the lies of warmaking mainstream media, historian Eustace Mullins died Tuesday, Feb. 2, at the home of his caretaker in a small town in Texas.
Mullins, who would have been 87 in March, suffered a stroke three weeks ago in Columbus, Ohio. He had been on an extended tour of his admirers for much of the past year, visiting and chatting with many of his thousands of fans who jumped at the chance to buy his books from him in person.
The author of such incendiary books as “Secrets of the Federal Reserve,” “Murder by Injection,” and “The Curse of Canaan,” Mullins was harrassed by the FBI for almost a half century, and had one of his books burned in Germany in the 1950s. These stories are recounted in one of his books, “A Writ for Martyrs.”
A protege of the imprisoned patriotic poet Ezra Pound, Mullins compiled a well-researched corpus of works that detailed the passage down through time of a hereditary group of banker killers who have essentially ruled the world from behind the scenes since ancient times.
“Eustace Mullins was the greatest political historian of the 20th century, and not just because he was not beholden to the power structure that deters candid reports about significant events, but because, guided by the greatest poet of the 20th century who was imprisoned for broadcasting for peace, his meticulous research eventually uncovered virtually every political secret of the last 400 years,” said Internet essayist John Kaminski of Mullins’ passing.
“It’s a pity so many people are afraid to believe what Mullins told them, because it was much more of the truth than has ever been seen in our schools or our media,” Kaminski added.
I just read the Wiki entry on Julius Evola who I previously hadn’t heard of. Staggering. In regards to both Evola himself and the devoted Evola scholars who wrote it.
The most prominent of these acts is a group called Current 93.
It's interesting how many anti-Zionist musicians with indie rock respectability have ties to Current 93.
Muslimgauze, Stereolab and Coil are all revered musicians among leftists - and all have collaborated on Evolist musical projects with Current 93 and even with Death In June.
And I hadn't checked Evola on Wikipedia before - really an extensive entry!
Someone could write an interesting bestiary of this bizarre, interlocking set of subcultures.
If one takes the view that the authentic right-wing in the West is orthodox Christianity, then Nazism is decidedly left-wing.
Its insistence on the primacy of the secular state over the Church, its hyperdarwinist placement of supposed genetic purity over religious devotion as the mark of human worth, its materialist doctrine of history, its Marcionist stance toward Jews and Judaism - it's a twentieth century melange of ideas concocted in the nineteenth century by decidedly anticlerical thinkers.
The most successful advocate of Nazism in America besides Margaret Sanger (a left-wing icon) was William Pierce, author of The Turner Diaries.
Have you read that book? It's a fictional work about how the protagonist starts a "resistance movement" that ends with genocide of all non-Aryans in America. At the end of the book, with the enemies of the white race all eliminated, the new Aryan government puts all its loyal Aryan citizens to work on collective farms and enters them into breeding programs to produce even more superior specimens.
In China, they call that Maoism.
Actually, I'm surprised you've never noticed the direct link between the father of liberal higher criticism - Adolf von Harnack - and the Marcionism of the Reichskirche.
The true defining line between Left and Right is very hard to figure out, since many on both extremes sound very similar even as they hate each other. I have theorized in the past that the line is universalism vs. henotheism, or equality vs. hierarchy, or atomistic vs. "organic" collectivism, or horizontal vs. vertical collectivism. I've long since given up.
Please don't be offended by my position. I used to belong to the Birch Society, and I find much of their message to be hogwash.
I’ve always thought that the Father of Higher Criticism was Spinoza.
The Spinoza issue is interesting: Hobbes took a stab at higher criticism in his Leviathan which was published in 1651 when Spinoza was 18.
I don't think Spinoza published anything on the topic until after he was expelled from the synagogue in 1656. But I have no idea when exactly his writings were composed, distinct from their publication.
As for putative rightists selling books by National Socialists, I would say this: it was only after Hitler that racialism was expelled from the left, and racialism was only expelled from the left because the Nazis had tried to take down Stalin.
Before the end of the Soviet-Nazi alliance, socialists had no problem being openly racialist: Jack London, Margaret Sanger, etc. Even black socialists like Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. DuBois had their own views on proper "racial hygiene" - few people today realize exactly what Garvey meant by naming his organization the "United Negro Improvement Association."
My definition for the left and the right is simply this: materialism vs. trust in the Almighty.
Gehenna? That's pretty far down.
And yet you say it makes no sense to label these theories as "left wing." To me it makes perfect sense to label socialist sounding theories as left wing.
I didn't know Garvey was a socialist. I thought he was a "right winger" who advocated "Black capitalism" and who hated (and was hated by) the Communists (and the NAACP for that matter). And so far as I know, he was a devout Roman Catholic. Unfortunately, he was also anti-Semitic and expressed support for the Nazis.
Some time during the last Presidential election you posted a comment here that the liberal political cartoon poking fun at Sarah Palin for speaking in tongues would backfire because it would offend the Black Pentecostals in COGIC. That this did not happen has led me to basically write the Black church off completely. If no line has been drawn in the sand so far, one is never going to be drawn.
Unfortunately, there was a strain of leftist radicalism in Black politics from at least the early twentieth century, as represented by Hubert Henry Harrison, a militant Black nationalist and Garveyite who was also an outspoken socialist, secular humanist, Darwinist, and advocate of birth control--in other words, a living KKK caricature of Black activism. As an old Civil War Southern Republican and fan of traditional Black culture (at least as presented by B.A. Botkin folklore anthologies), I am beginning to wonder if were not Profound Left Wing Intellectuals from the very beginning, perhaps having philosophical discussions about the Hegelian dialectic to pass the time during the Middle Passage.
I am profoundly disenchanted.
Sigh . . . not this again!
The whole point is that Left and Right often say the very same things, even as they consistently oppose one another. And that I don't accept the "totalitarian to anarchism" political spectrum so many conservatives promote. In Europe the Right is quite statist and collectivist, but it's still Right.
Garvey had one of those lives.
In 1908 he was a 21 year old socialist union organizer.
He went to college in the UK and became a disciple of Dousey Muhammad Ali the Nigerian pan-African nationalist.
In 1914 he started the UNIA in furtherance of Ali's goals, as the New World wing of the African racialist movement.
He split with the NAACP in 1919 when he began the back-to-Africa movement.
It wasn't until after this break that he began becoming more of an economic conservative as a reaction to NAACP criticism. He converted to Catholicism after his return to the UK.
He died a social and economic conservative - but he wasn't one all his life.
To further buttress your point, I believe organized labor had deeply racialist roots. Most unions were open about the reason for their existence and excluded non whites.
Welcome back WideAwake ... missed seeing you around the place.
There is (was) a Freeper with the screenname “Eustace”. I wonder.....
Borges — all of us can engage in lowest-common-denominator reasoning in order to malign people and groups we disagree with.
Ultimately, one has to understand one’s core values and political convictions before making definitive statements. For example: suppose you ask Ron Paul to identify the 10 books and 10 individuals which have most influenced his beliefs and values. You certainly would NOT find much commonality between his choices and those chosen by someone like Eustace Mullins.
Consider, for example, the people, groups, and publications whom Eustace Mullins associated himself with over the past 50 years.
When I write “associated himself with” — I mean what people groups, and publications
(a) he recommended/endorsed
(b) he was employed by and/or wrote for
(c) he joined as a member or as an officer
Here is a brief list:
1. H. Keith Thompson Jr. / American Committee For Advancement of Western Culture (neo-nazi)
2. National States Rights Party (neo-nazi, racist)
3. Conde McGinley / Common Sense newspaper (racist, anti-semitic)
4. Elizabeth Dilling (anti-semitic)
5. Lyrl Clark Van Hyning / Women’s Voice newsletter (anti-semitic)
6. Matt Koehl (neo-nazi)
7. Ezra Pound (anti-semitic, pro-fascist)
8. James Madole / National Renaissance Party (neo-nazi)
9. Realpolitical Institute (racist, anti-semitic)
10. Institute for Biopolitics (racist, anti-semitic)
11. Max Nelsen / Democratic Nationalist party (neo-nazi)
12. Adm. John G. Crommelin (racist, anti-semitic)
13. Gerald L.K. Smith (anti-semitic)
There is not even one scintilla of comparable evidence with respect to Ron Paul — so linking him in any way whatsoever to fascism, nazism, racism, anti-semitism is absurd.
What IS true however is that many critics of the Federal Reserve have adopted similar arguments about how the Federal Reserve came into being and some of those critics emphasize what they consider the inordinate influence of people of Jewish heritage in the financial history of our country.
But, surely, one can make appropriate moral and practical distinctions between outright bigots versus people who simply think the Fed should be abolished?
What is missing in all of our discussions concerning “right” versus “left” is an answer to a fundamental first principle question, i.e. what is a political spectrum intended to signify or convey? For a very long time, the extreme right in our country has sought to re-invent our understanding of what a political spectrum should signify or convey.
The fundamental underlying premise of their new proposed spectrum is that government is our mortal enemy and history proves indisputably that government is evil and dangerous and it always diminishes freedom and facilitates tyranny.
Therefore, the more government activism or intervention within a society — the less freedom exists within society.
This conception of a political spectrum posits a continuous sequence of government activist ideologies (i.e. “statism” or “collectivism”) on the “left” in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other.
Consequently, the new proposed spectrum places anarchy [no government] on the extreme right and totalitarian dictatorships [total government] on the extreme left. But the key to understanding this proposed spectrum is that all forms of statism are placed on the left because they are considered exclusively the result of left-wing impulses.
Seen from this perspective, the more government involvement in our lives, the more government controls or regulates human affairs, the less freedom exists and the more opportunity exists for tyranny to flourish.
From this perspective, the worst violators of human freedom and dignity in all of history have been people who used government to maximize government intervention into people’s lives, i.e. totalitarian dictatorships — and advocates of this spectrum don’t see much point in distinguishing between nazi, fascist, or communist ideology since they ALL resulted in horrific crimes against humanity.
The new “middle” or “center” of the proposed new political spectrum consists of those individuals/groups who consider liberalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and nazism to be forms of “collectivism” or “statism” (aka PRO-government activism). ALL of them are thought to inevitably produce or act as precursors for tyranny – so not much point in making fastidious distinctions between or among them.
Groups whose ideology we currently consider “extreme right” (such as the John Birch Society) place themselves in the CENTER of the new spectrum because they claim to be ANTI-statist since they favor “limited government”.
In essence, the new spectrum is a rather transparent attempt to pretend that everything despicable, dishonorable, frightening and dangerous originates exclusively from the LEFT side of the spectrum whereas everything decent, honorable, moral, and desirable may be found exclusively in the center and center-right side of the spectrum.
Thus the REAL purpose behind this proposed new idea of a political spectrum is to create an “enemies list”. Collectivists/statists of all kinds (i.e. anyone who advocates utilizing the instrumentalities of government to accomplish anything within society—-and that includes liberals, socialists, communists, fascists, and nazis) are considered “the enemy” of human freedom.
The new proposed spectrum subverts the idea that different types of the same thing may have materially (and morally) important distinguishing features which make them incompatible with one another — just as all humans have blood, but if you are given the wrong blood type, you die.
All political radicals or extremists may share common attitudes and may suffer from the same type of intellectual and moral deficiencies – but, nevertheless, they do have unique distinguishing features which render them incompatible with each other.
Consequently, they cannot and should not be grouped together upon a political spectrum if we want to truly understand what motivates people to gravitate toward their political candidates, ideas, and proposals and if we want to understand why a specific targeted audience might become receptive to such candidates, ideas, and proposals.
Elevating the advocacy of government intervention or activity in some matter to the ultimate criterion for placement upon a political spectrum is a form of lowest-common-denominator reasoning because it does not provide a sufficient basis for making a decision about where one belongs upon a political spectrum.
Anybody can select ONE single criterion and then propose we elevate that it to the status of the single most important determinant for placement upon a political spectrum — but that artificially forces us to interpret all human behavior and human motives in a manner which distorts reality.
For those who are interested, I have posted a new edition of my Report on Eustace Mullins here:
https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/mullins
I’ve never heard of him but have heard of Willis Carto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.