Nisdós III: (Shades of) Black Guelphs

This article is currently unfinished.

We've now reached the third and final installment of the Nisdós trilogy, the one where I make myself completely socially unacceptable. I had mentioned in the first installment that I was going to talk about "controversial figures," but who exactly are they? Unfortunately for anyone expecting me to be above these topics, I reached for the lowest hanging fruit and chose four "meme" figures. These four are none other than, in no particular order:

I can already feel certain sections of the audience clenching at the sight of at least one of those names. If so, you're probably well-adjusted. All four of these figures have been accused at one point or another of being vehicles for the rise of neo-fascism in America. This is, of course, despite the fact that all of these thinkers are highly divergent from, and in many ways opposed to, each other. Yet, in the public consciousness, these highly-divergent strains of thinking often get lumped into the same broad grouping. In particular, the so-called "Alt-Right" has flirted with all of these thinkers to some extent. (Though, with LaRouche, it's more with style than content.) Of course, anyone with any amount of knowledge of the "Alt-Right" would understand why they would conform to the narrative pushed by press, but I digress.

What I aim to do here is provide a sort of "mass comparison" of these thinkers. (I apologize for once again for dragging lingustics terminology into this.) This is partly to illustrate to the potentially uninformed reader of their differences, but also to illstrate for myself some schematics I conceptualized. I write with a somewhat authoritative tone of voice, but I am admittedly a relative novice regarding these sorts of topics. Believe me, this is as much for myself as it is for you.

So, what the hell is a "Black Guelph"? Well, if you search on Wikipedia, you get a page about a faction that existed during the Investiture Controversy. That's not quite what I'm referring to, though. There is another connotation to the term, that of a faction in the history told by Lyndon LaRouche. If you are unfamiliar, seek out a copy of The Campaigner, Vol. II, No. 3-4, which contains The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites. Not only a head-first dive into LaRoucheite thought, it displays exactly what I find so fascinating about LaRouche and his associated movement. He's very good at taking history and turning it into a battle of epic proportions between all-powerful factions. It gives much-desired meaning to history.

To quote from The Secrets at length:

Through three millenia of recorded history to date, centered around the Mediterranean, the civilized world has been run by two, bitterly opposed elites, the one associated with the faction of Socrates and Plato, the other with the faction of Aristotle. During these thousands of years, until the developments of approximately 1784-1818 in Europe, both factions' inner elites maintained in some fashion an unbroken continuity of organization and knowledge through all of the political catastrophes which afflicted each of them in various times and locales. -pg. 5

Beyond that first broad level of division between the knowledgeable and the credulous, the secret knowledge is distinguished by the division of elites into two irreconcilable factions. Beyond the sheep-pens of the believers in mythologies, there exist two fundamentally opposed views of what to do with the world, of what direction to adopt in steering the historical movement of the human species. One elite, the humanists, the Platonic or Neoplatonic faction, is dedicated to steering the course of history away from rule through mythologies. The other, the Aristotelians and their heirs, is committed to strengthening the rule by mythology, for the purpose of establishing a permanent, "feudal-like" utopia of obedient, simple-minded folk ruled by a tenured neo-Aristotelian oligarchy. -pg 7

The single most important "secret" of the Aristotelian, or neo-Aristotelian faction of the world's elite today is hidden behind the mythical image of Aristotle as an original philosophical thinker. In this chapter we shall trace this matter from Aristotle's time, emphasizing the role of his influence in the development of the Black Guelph faction, from the emergence of that faction around the leadership of the Pierleoni during the eleventh century AD, into the neo-Aristotelian developments associated chiefly with Francis Bacon and the late seventeenth century successors of Bacon around the British Royal Society. Once the contents of this present chapter and the next, on historiography, have been presented, the reader will have access to the most crucial of the "secrets" employed by humanity's enemies today. -pg 16

OK, so we now know who the Black Guelphs are in relation to this history, but what does this have to do with anything that I've said up until this point? Well, hold onto that thought. Here's another bit from The Secrets for you to chew on for the time being:

Apart from the work of spying, "encyclopedism," and poisoning, the principal production of the Peripatetics included the production of new religious and quasi-religious cults. (It is not entirely without significance that that portion of the Thames suffering the misfortune to lie near Oxford is named the "Isis.") We have already referred to the synthetic cults of Egypt (e.g., the Isis-Osiris cult, and others) produced by the Peripatetics under the Ptolemies. The same methods used to this purpose by the Peripatetics have been continued by their emulators down to the present day. Such British intelligence-service creations as the Hare Krishna cult, the "Children of God," and the so-called "Moonies" are only the most obvious and notorious such concoctions. The Maoist organizations of North America and Western Europe are based on the same methods and techniques of cult design, as is the British intelligence-created rock-drug counterculture, the "environmentalist" movement, and the overlapping organization of international terrorism.

The methods of creating synthetic religious cults as instruments of state domestic and foreign policies is known in some significant detail since Babylon. The original synthesis of what later becomes the Jewish religion represents only one form of such Babylonian synthetic religious cults. It is not the details of these cults that ought to occupy our attention here, but rather the characteristic features of such cult-design from then to the present time.

The usual form of the religious cult down to the Christian era was associated with a pantheon of polymorphs, gods and semi-dieties whose images combined either features of serveral animals into one form, or which combined human and animal forms. The essential, political effect of such religious cults is to destroy the concept of a qualitative distinction between man and the lower beasts. These were, indeed, all "greenie" religious cults. The interesting distinction of the Jewish cult, among the usual, polymorphous productions of the Babylonian "foreign office," is the evolution of subsequent developments away from the polymorphous image of worship. However, otherwise, the Babylonian-created cult of Judaism was the most thorough of the ancient zero-growth cults. -pg 20-22

The mention of both environmentalism and terrorism should instantly bring to mind Ted Kaczynski, who blatantly mixed both in his storied career. Kaczynski, of everyone on my list, is the most explicitly opposed to LaRouche. Kaczynski's entire worldview saw the rise of technology as ultimately harmful. LaRouche would have labeled him as a reactionary agent set out to hamper human progress, and this description could be considered correct, in a sense.

Now, a quick comment on LaRouche's views on "development" and such. LaRouche is known for praising the "city-makers" of human history. He sees development as an overall positive force in human history, in contrast to Kaczynski's assertion of its ultimate negativity, despite some benefits. One commonly parrotted aspect of LaRouche's philosophical maturation is that he was a "former Marxist" who eventually abandoned it. This is technically true. It is true that LaRouche was a member of a series of Trotskyist organizations, eventually forming the National Caucus of Labor Committees. Then, at some point, this organization officially abandoned Marxism as a philosophy, despite giving occasional positive nods to Marx's contributions. However, in truth, what many people really are referring to when they reference LaRouche being a "former Marxist" is his praise of capitalism. To quote a relevant passage from The Secrets:

The commonplace blunder of professed Marxists and others in assessing British policies is the mistaken assumption that the ruling forces of the British oligarchy are motivated by specifically capitalist impulses. It is of course the case that the British oligarchy and its global allies live in a world in which the industrial-capitalist forms of manufacturing, agriculture, trade, and culture are the premise upon which human existence depends. It is also true that world rule to this date in recent modern history has been feasible only to the extend that representatives of the Black Guelph oligarchy controlled the financial power, and state material power adapted to industrial-capitalist development. However, to conclude from such and related evidence, evidence valid up to a point, that the British oligarchy's motives are subsumed under the rubric of "capitalist" is the grossest of blunders, of incompetencies. -pg 25

This passage only appears to be anti-Marxist if one ignores a fundamental point of Marx: socialism, as a mode of production, succeeds capitalism. As in, socialism can only ever be established by passing through the stage of capitalism, not by excising it, as some mistakenly believe. What many people often refer to as "capitalism" is in fact the ruling class preventing revolutionary forces from deposing them. To put this in more LaRoucheite terminology, what these people call "capitalism," LaRouche would say is capitalism restrained by Guelphish forces. On the flipside, what others often refer to as "socialism," LaRouche would say is capitalism, unleased from its former shackles. In truth, LaRouche's later beliefs are not too far removed from proper Marxism, except for occasional clashes of terminology with mainstream Marxists. The real reason that LaRouche can safely be called a "former Marxist" is that he sees Marx, and hence Marxists, as too removed from Platonic knowledge. Firstly, because Marx's emphasis on moving away from idealism towards materialism, disconnected him from Neo-Platonic sources of "secret knowledge." Secondly, because Marx's histriography has interwoven into it what LaRouche identifies as Guelphish propaganda.

This article is currently unfinished.