A Third-Rate Mind “Examines” FascismMorris van de Camp
Fascism: A Warning
New York: Harper Collins Publishing, 2018
Although many on the Right saw Bill Clinton as the devil incarnate, I’d like to first point out that the Clinton Administration was not entirely evil. Clinton’s first crisis was the Haitian refugee swarm, which he turned back. Clinton also attempted the sort of immigration reform we could get behind – a policy which was gutted by nonwhite activists and Chamber of Commerce Republicans. Clinton’s gentrification and prison policies ended three decades of an appalling Negro-fueled crime wave. This isn’t an exaggeration, folks; in the late 1980s anyone living in the cities of the East Coast could hear automatic fire from the ghettos in the many “drug deals gone bad.”
Despite the above, the Clinton Administration was a regime that diverged from the interests of American whites in many ways. Bill Clinton had a solar system of Jewish orbiters. This includes Robert Rubin (Treasury), Lawrence Summers (World Bank/Treasury), Daniel Glickman (Agriculture), Robert Reich (Labor), and Michael Kantor (WTO/Commerce). There was also half-Jewish Richard Cohen (Defense). And then there was the Jewess Monica Lewinski.
Additionally, there was a curious set of courtiers in the Clinton Regime who were Jewish but claimed they didn’t know until later, or were possibly not Jewish but claimed to be anyway. An example of the latter was Richard Holbrooke (Ambassador to the UN). Cases of the former include General Wesley Clark (SACEUR), and Madeline Albright (State). A major part of Albright’s self-promoted backstory was she didn’t know she was a Jew until there was some “big reveal” during her later childhood. Apparently, until that point, she had never looked in a mirror.
Madeline Albright and her metapolitical propaganda book called Fascism: A Warning is the subject of this article. What I mean to review here is both the book and her statements regarding this book in interviews and promotional events. After reading this book and watching her speeches this reviewer must conclude that Albright has an un-reflective third-rate mind. The book and her speeches are pretty weak intellectual gruel. Albright’s definition of fascism is meaningless, and her understanding of the actual circumstances in which fascism arose is limited. More on this will be explained below. This article will also examine Albright’s own actions while in the Clinton Administration. Looking at them, one will see that a “fascist” is far less a danger to world peace than a third-rate mind on an idealistic crusade with access to a well-oiled military machine.
Before getting further about Albright, a few things must be explained since most members of the political Right today were only a babe-in-arms during the Clinton ’90s. Albright’s tenure as Secretary of State occurred with these big events:
- First, the unrest in the Balkans that led to World War I and subsequent 20th-century disasters had resumed. During this conflict and for reasons I frankly still don’t understand, Madeline Albright and the Mainstream Media made the Serbs out to be the Bad Guys and the Moslem Bosnians and Albanians to be the Good Guys. Throughout the 1990s there was an ever-escalating push, often led by Albright, for greater American involvement in the conflict in Yugoslavia. The conflict culminated in the 1999 Kosovo Campaign.
- Second, while Americans eventually got involved in Yugoslavia’s war, the Clinton Administration was giving a half-hearted effort to defeat Islamic terrorism. It turned out that Mahometans in caves were far more dangerous to Americans than any Serb called a “Nazi” by the MSM. For one who lived through the events, it was clear that something like 9-11 was highly probable given the logic of the situation. That Albright and the Clinton Administration focused on Kosovo and not on Wahhabi Islam is an act of gross geostrategic malpractice.
- Finally, the Clinton Administration was continuing to keep tensions high with Iraq guaranteeing a second conflict with that nation. The US and Iraq came very close to war in 1998 and military drills were designed around a scenario with Iraq as the enemy were conducted from 1991–2003. At any point after the 1992 US Presidential Election, this tension could have been lessened. Albright however kept the tension up, as described in the following exchange on 60 Minutes:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.”
A Bit about the Book
Much of the book is just a poorly told history of inter-war fascism. It includes references to the Charlie Chaplin movie The Great Dictator (1940) when discussing Mussolini and Hitler’s alliance but not the very real and very serious mistakes in British Diplomacy that allowed such an alliance to occur. Additionally, Albright throws in the fascist category a few additional people — like the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez (1954–2013) and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. She also has some snide swipes against President Trump, although less in the book and more in her speeches promoting the book. Essentially she downplays the serious concerns that “fascists” like Trump or Orbán have about the details of trade policy, military intervention, immigration, and other matters.
Albright positively refers to the Czechoslovak Government of Edvard Beneš (1884–1948) in which her father was a diplomat. However, Beneš was no saint. He was responsible for very bloody ethnic cleansing of Germans and Hungarians at the end of the Second World War. Furthermore, his decisions following the conflict eventually allowed that land to be controlled by the Soviets, a people who were far crueler to the Czechoslovakians than the Nazis. Beneš’s dubious legacy was further degraded when Czechoslovakia fell apart at the end of the Cold War. Concern for Czechoslovakia during the 1930s was all for nothing. Beneš was a danger to his own people as well as others while claiming to be victims. Neville Chamberlain was right to compromise at Munich. He should have compromised at Warsaw.
Albright also talks about Russian and Turkish influence over American society, but ignores the elephant in the room that is Israel. For all her talk about fascists, Israeli policy towards the Palestinians is brutal — but she says nothing about that. She uses terms like democracy, scapegoats, and fascism so loosely that one can conclude she thinks democracy is what she likes, and fascism is what she dislikes. She also seems to not understand that the FBI, the “Intelligence Community,” and the media aren’t really “democratic institutions.”
Pursuing Jewish Interests
Although she claimed to have no real Jewish identity until later in life, Albright’s actions are best understood if one sees that her outlook is based on the Jewish view of World War II. To explain, World War II was really avoidable at any point until 10 May 1940–when Germany invaded France and the Low Countries. Until then, the French and British could have made a compromise with Hitler. Compromise didn’t occur in no small part due to domestic Jewish pressure groups within those nations. From the perspective of the soon-to-be ruined French and British Empires, this domestic pressure to create a “red line” in Poland would prove a disaster.
It must be emphasized that the Jewish view of Hitler’s Germany was entirely hostile and uncompromising from the beginning. The somewhat well-known Daily Express headline Judea Declares War on Germany occurred in March 24, 1933. The shouted-to-the-sky “Kristallnacht” occurred many months later, in November 1938, and it was in response to the murder of a German diplomat. The Jewish view of World War II also believes that the Munich Conference of 1938 was a mistake, and war should have been declared as early as possible. Albright’s philosophy while in government was based on the “aggression at Munich” idea. She was always in-line with intervention. In Albright’s mind, the American military during World War II was a force for good whose presence saved people in Europe from both the Nazi’s and the Soviets. While all sorts of ideas exist regarding missing an opportunity at Munich, the idea that the Nazis could have be beaten in the election after 1933 had an antifa waif not burned down the Reichstag is never considered.
Albright’s View of Fascism
Fascism, strictly speaking, is an anti-Communist, pro-nationalist ideology which became political parties with political platforms in Spain, France, Italy, and other places. Technically, Germany at that time was National Socialist, but this is a small distinction. Albright views Fascism far more broadly and, said one reviewer, “Unfortunately, she never really explains what she means by it.” Her best definition of fascism is in the blurb on the book’s dust cover. A fascist, “is someone who claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is utterly unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use violence and whatever other means are necessary to achieve the goals he or she might have.”
I’ve paraphrased Albright’s further definition of fascism based on her comments during a promotional event for the book.  To her, a fascist:
- Plots or plans to identify with a tribe and discriminate against those not in the group.
- Deprecates democratic institutions.
- Uses propaganda and information to get the [fascist] message out.
- Has rallies where [the fascist] says terrible things about opponents and encourages violence.
- Tries to get control of all power and have a surrounding military/security force.
- Never listens to anyone who disagrees with [the fascist].
Patrick Le Brun writing for counter-currents.com has a better definition:
The Fascist mindset is the result of two things. One is a reaction, not necessarily to the rise of the Left, but to the rise of the special interests. These special interests will fight to the death over very narrow areas of policy-making power, which others see as a minor concern. Multiply this by every narrow area of policy-making and government becomes a market in which residents are butchered for lobbies of every kind, from right to left, from capitalists to public sector employee unions. Asymmetric Interest Theory tells us that the special interest lobby will win every time . . . unless there is an authoritarian figure keeping all parties in line.
The second aspect of the Fascist mindset is not the result of a strong nationalist sentiment, as many believe, but is in fact the creative response to the problem of a void of nationalism. When very few citizens are dedicated to the identity to which the state’s borders correspond, chaos and corruption will follow. Italy was a very young country filled with regionalists and amoral familists when Mussolini adapted socialism to their unique circumstances and created a new nationalism.
Madeline Albright in Power: Claimed to Speak for America, Unconcerned with the Rights of Others, Willing, Very Willing, to Use Violence to Achieve her Goals
During the Clinton Regime, Albright immediately emerged as the “pro-war hawk.” She famously screeched at the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell the line, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” She said this even as the useless deployment to Somalia was turning into the disaster that keeps on giving. Albright seems impervious to facts and unable to see the hypocrisy in her statements. Here are a few:
- She writes in Fascism: A Warning, negatively about, “…the belief that one’s own nation has attributes and rights above all others.” While she was Secretary of State she called the United States “the indispensable nation” while carrying out a policy that came to ironically be called “humanitarian bombing.” She also thought starving out Iraqis through sanctions “was worth it.”
- Another thing is a statement written in the book made in sarcasm (with the implication she is referring to President Trump) is a hypothetical Georgetown course name called “How to Destroy Political Rivals Through Phony Investigations and Fake News.” In light of the crumbling Mueller Special Counsel and Time Magazine’s recent misleading cover Albright appears . . . well . . . not really self-aware.
- In a promotional event for Fascism: A Warning the moderator asks,
“Have you ever met Donald Trump?”
“No,” replies Albright
“Would you like to meet Donald Trump?”
After further discussion she states, “I have nothing to say to him.” Wasn’t a fascist someone who didn’t listen to someone you disagree with? By listen here, I mean converse, for listening is part of a conversation. Albright said this to a mostly Jewish audience in a location with an enormous menorah. Now that we know Albright won’t talk or listen to President Trump, and is comfortable in an environment of naked Jewish ethno-religious chauvinism one must ask — would Albright listen to enemies of Israel (but not necessarily the United States) Bashar al Assad, Mahmoud Abbas, or Hassan Rouhani?
As far as scapegoats, the term itself is misleading. Scapegoating is a religious ritual where one applying one’s personal sins to an innocent animal to get right with God. This doesn’t apply to different groups of people in a conflict. Groups can have conflicts of interests that can only be resolved by force of arms — unfortunately. In fact, the Moslem Ban was proposed by Candidate Trump after a shocking act of Islamic terror. Moslem immigrants aren’t Amish. Beyond Islam, America’s refugee policy helps those who don’t need help and cause real problems for the communities getting them. I have personal experience with this — I was in Miami during the 1980 Muriel Boat lift. The place went nuts.
If indeed Albright has a third rate mind, than her career proves that the ability to network, go to the right schools, and control the actions of a dedicated military is more important than philosophical soundness.
The Deep State’s War with Russia
During the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton staked a major part of her campaign on a policy of aggressive action against Russia. During the debates, Hillary invoked the concerns of the “national security officials” and misinterpreted Trump’s jokes about her email troubles to mean he endorsed Russian spying. As a result public came to be aware of what has since come to be called the “Deep State” and its war with Russia.
Part of the reason for the Deep State’s war with Russia involves the expansion of NATO in the 1990s. There really is a sharp conflict in the Baltics made harsher by Russians ethnics living in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and the Russian occupation of Königsberg. Ukraine is also divided between a Russian, Eastern Orthodox population in Crimea and Donbass and a Ukrainian, European-looking Roman Catholic population in the West. The Yul Brynner movie Taras Bulba (1962) explores this situation.
Going east looks easy in the spring: The expansion of NATO has resulted in a situation where quarrels between Russia’s western neighbors are America’s problem by treaty. However, Baltic feuds might not really matter to America.
The other reason, and perhaps this is the primary reason, for the Deep State’s war with Russia has more to do with Jewish neurosis than America’s national interest. As mentioned above, Jews hold many high positions in the US Government. Consider this, Russians and Jews have a long, hostile history documented by none other than Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his book Two Hundred Years Together. The Russian Revolution was an ethnic conflict consisting of Jews and other minorities in Russia against Great Russians and others, such as Russian-Germans. During the Cold War, Jews in the United States worked with an intensity to undermine the US atom bomb monopoly and support Communist/Soviet (i.e. mostly Jewish) aims.
Only after the USSR started to support the Arabs against Israel in the late 1960s that Jews started to work against the Soviets. Immediately after the Cold War ended Jews like Lawrence Summers worked with Jews in Russia to rob that nation of much wealth.
This neurosis was translated into US Government policy during the Clinton Administration. The exact date this Deep State War against Russia started on 12 June 1999. On that date, Russian Airborne Troops occupied the airport at Pristina, Kosovo ahead of NATO troops. The aforementioned (half/crypto?) Jew Wesley Clark ordered the British commander responsible for the area to use deadly force to dislodge the Russians. The latter officer refused to start World War III. Nonetheless, tense standoff resulted and eventually NATO and the Russians came to an accommodation.
Since then, the Deep State has waged an undeclared, unexamined, and undiscussed war with Russia. No politician has campaigned on this, and no explanation has been given, for no explanation other than the above makes sense given the intense passion for the conflict among so many elite quarters. On a final note, we can all thank Madeline Albright for the fact that today Albanians are free from the fear of genocide, and can fill their destiny as Europe’s primer pimps, car thieves, and hustlers.
 Whose mother was not Jewish making him not Jewish under Jewish law. However, his name was Cohen.
 William Luther Pierce called Albright a “Horrid little Jew troll.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf6xUrxZ8LA
 This is a true, but for brevity’s sake, simplistic take on the matter. The parts of Yugoslavia that had been in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and sent their young men into the Waffen SS during WWII were quietly supported by the Establishment through the 1990s. Samuel Huntington explores Clinton’s response to the Yugoslav Wars in depth in his book The Clash of Civilizations. https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-Order/dp/1451628978 The original article that launched the book is here: http://online.sfsu.edu/mroozbeh/CLASS/h-607-pdfs/S.Huntington-Clash.pdf
 Marinus van der Lubbe, who was convicted and executed for the fire, matches the profile of left wing violence such as the shooting of Republicans at softball practice in the wake of President Trump’s election. The rise of Hitler was met with a rise in alarmist, gaslighting on the part of the media. A marginal character like Marinus van der Lubbe would have easily been persuaded to do something dumb.
 Such as Lebanon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Gemayel
 Page 11
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irjbQ4x4Uuk (6:18 – 7:13)
 Page 95
 Page 168
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irjbQ4x4Uuk (29:24 – 29:36)
 Yul Brynner is the second coolest actor ever. Steve McQueen is the coolest.
 https://www.unz.com/isteve/real-larry-summers-scandal/ This affair is really best described in David Duke’s book Jewish Supremacism.
Prioritizing Prestige Over Accomplishment: Britain from 1950 to 1956
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
The Honorable Cause: A Review
George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
No Brexit This Way
An excellent and well researched article. Thanks and congrats to the author.
On the question of why the American establishment/MSM portrayed the Serbs as evil incarnate during the disintegration of Yugoslavia, my impression is that the deep state saw Serbs as Slavic cousins of the hated Russians – and Cold War impulses kicked in. Y’know. Bombin muh commies and all.
Albright fails to recognise that this same preoccupation with the ‘evils of Communism’ is a recurring theme in classical Fascism.
Serbs appear to be very much out of place in their corner of the world. Their neighboring countries are culturally/politically integrated with various surrounding powers, whereas they are like a lone island of Russians surrounded by those who were historically more of less inimical to Russian interests.
Yes, I think you’re right. A similar situation exists with the Russia-aligned people in Transnistria.
Regardless of how one feels towards Bosnians and Albanians, Serbian crimes against Croats and Hungarians (not only during the last war, but throughout history) are also a fact and make it hard for Western reactionary to sympathize with them in any non-ironic way. And then there is the whole matter of WWI…
That Balkans would be better, for our purposes, with them neutralized is something that most folks on left AND right will agree, regardless on their individual positions, one of few such subjects.
“Jew Wesley Clark ordered the British commander responsible for the area to use deadly force to dislodge the Russians. The latter officer refused to start World War III.”
Bizarrely enough James Blunt, that awful sappy British singer, played a prominent part in this little episode of madness. Thankfully a sane one.
She spent a portion of childhood in Belgrade, did she not? Perhaps her seemingly pathological dislike for that country and its people can be tracked down to her experiences from that period of her life.
Any idea who the ghostwriter for this is?
Bill Woodward is the ghost, but credited, as usual.
“Apparently, until that point, she had never looked in a mirror.”
Ha, Ha! William L. Pierce said something to that effect in one of his weekly broadcasts back then.
A frequent criticism of Bill Clinton at the time was that he “governed by the polls”. He came in a liberal but then became a conservative after the Gengrich revolution of 1994 and did welfare reform and the balanced budget.
In hindsight, you could do a lot worse than a president who governs from the polls. But I doubt that a Bill Clinton could get the Democratic nomination today.
An excellent balanced article, although the author seems to believe in the official 9/11 story.
But one point needs correction:
“World War II was really avoidable at any point until 10 May 1940–when Germany invaded France and the Low Countries. Until then, the French and British could have made a compromise with Hitler”
Did I get that right: WWII could not be avoided because Germany invaded France?
So France and Britain declare war on Germany in 1939, but when German troops enter French territory in 1940, they say: hey, hey, we didn’t mean war, now you invaded us, now we cannot compromise anymore!
Yes, all parties could have walked things back from the abyss during the Phoney War.
That applies almost exclusively to France and England, as Germany has made several attempts to end the state of war between the time of victory in Poland and the 10th of May.
I heard within the last half year on FOX news Mark Steyn mention that Germany had “made war” on France. I have forgotten just exactly what part of WWII was being discussed.
But anyway, that was patently false. France, along with England, are the ones who had declared war on Germany for invading Poland, in response to Polish abuse of German ethnics.
Additionally, England/France didn’t declare war on the USSR for invading Poland from the East just weeks after Germany. Sure sign of duplicitous plans by England/France toward Germany and eastern Europe.
Germany offered a peace treaty to France and England after the Polish campaign and the two dismissed it.
Then Germany constructed the (rather expensive) West Wall with France, due to the topographic advantage that France has with Germany; Vosges Mtns (another version of Ardennais) for France and relatively flat/open land for Germany. Not exactly an aggressive act for a supposedly fanatically militant Germany.
Then Germany discovered, via a shot down British military aircraft, that Holland/Belgium were conspiring to let France/England to transit their territory to put Brit/French forces on the lower Rhine against Germany. Those two nations had no one but themselves to blame for getting swept up into that war.
Then after France had fallen, Germany offered England another peace treaty; again, dismissed. Plus, Germany allowed France to keep its SE territory including along the Med. Sea, its capital naval ships (that Germany sorely needed), and some naval bases in (I think) Syria and Algeria.
I don’t agree with your analysis of Madeline Albright. She behaved like a typical jew, her actions always redounded to the benefit of Israel, and to the detriment of western civilization. If that is not the signs of a first-class jewish mind, I don’t know what is. I think you make the mistake of trying to hold Madeline Albright up to western standards of a higher ethical behavior, and morality. Remember, jews are not white, by her standards she behaved as a saint. The jews are not like us in thought, behavior, morality, ethics, or deeds. You wouldn’t ask a lion why it is trying to eat you, that just how they are biologically hard-wired.
Excellent precis. I had a piece half-written on the same book, but am glad Morris got there first. He makes most of the same points, but has the advantage of taking the thing seriously. I could not read it as other than the misinformed potboiler that it is. This is just another of the oblique slams at American nationalism.
The Serbs thought their case was transparent and self-evident. Croatia and Bosnia separated from Yugoslavia based on their right of self-determination. They brought with them large blocks of Serb majority territories situated along the new borders. The Serbs in these territories wanted to separate based on the same right of self-determination that was invoked by the Croats/Bosnians just 5 minutes before. The Croats/Bosnians refused to let them, and their territories, go. Ultimately the war was fought for Serbian land, for Serbian towns, for Serbian villages. So the Serbs believed the world would surely see the truth of their case.
The Croats/Bosnians also had their own truth – the Serbs are unpleasant rulers, to say the least -, but didn’t count on the world seeing it. They collected money in the diaspora and hired the baddest, meanest, most aggressive lobby firms and lawyers in Washington and London (Hill and Knowlton, Ruder Finn). Guess which strategy worked.
See Diana Johnstone’s book Fool’s Crusade. Heavily pro-Serb slant but still the best account of the Balkan wars. Excerpt on the PR war and the Jewish angle.
According to a school of geopolitical thought (Brzezinski, Kissinger, Spykman, Mackinder) America’s main national interest is to keep Central and Eastern Europe – Germany and Russia – apart. “Whoever rules East Europe, will rule Heartland, whoever rules the Heartland, will rule the World Island, whoever rules the World Island, will rule the world.” There are are 2 legs of this policy:
1. Prometheism. Explode Russia along ethnic division lines.
2. A cordon sanitaire between Russia and Western Europe. The latest version, dated from around 2008-2009, is packaged under the brand name Intermarium. See Stratfor/George Friedman on this. The idea is to have a string of small countries from the Baltics to the Black Sea and the Adriatic under U.S. control, in the fashion of 1970s Latin America: have nominal governments, flags, and all such paraphernalia, but make them dependent on American weapons and liquid gas, and run their affairs from the U.S. embassies. (The V4 has an anti-Intermarium feel, and Orbán signed energy deals with the Russians – just in case you wondered why he hasn’t been invited to the Trump White House.)
Jewish ‘neurosis’ may also play a part, in the sense that a gentile America would probably just sit on her bum and mind her own business, instead of cooking up plans for world domination.
Ethnonationalists here at CC and around Central and Eastern Europe favor the Intermarium idea as a third way between Russia and the West and hope the V4 will be the nucleus of the Intermarium.
Your analysis is pretty much exactly what a Duginist would say about the idea.
I am very much in favor of a proud and independent Intermarium, in fact my small personal “movement” project is aimed at making Intermarium happen. But I just can’t help noticing that at the moment I’m marching in lockstep with Victoria Nuland.
Initial Serbian belief in the certainty of Western support for their cause was rooted in their civilian casualties during the WW2, which were by far the most numerous among the Yugoslav nations. That spilt blood was to secure them moral high-ground and a free pass, of sorts.
Of course, that was not the case.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment