Wednesday, 7 June 2017
Totally Left. Totally Right. (Wilberg on Wednesday)
TOTALLY LEFT. TOTALLY RIGHT.
Its Essence, Roots and Contemporary Relevance
2011, revised 2017
On the term ‘National Bolshevism’...................................................................................4
‘Social Revolutionary Nationalism’ versus ‘National Socialism’.......................................4
National Bolshevism, National Socialism and ‘Strasserism’.............................................6
A New Spiritual and Philosophical Foundation for National Bolshevism ........................9
The Awareness Principle................................................................................................. 11
This essay aims to provide both a new Marxist political-economic analysis and a wholly new spiritual-philosophical foundation by which to redefine ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. In doing so it seeks to unite and update the best and most relevant elements of Hitler’s ‘National Socialism’ - which was ‘Left Wing Nationalism’ - and Stalin’s ‘Socialism in One Country’. It does so under the banner of ‘National Bolshevism’ – understood not as a far-right movement but as ‘Totally Left’ and therefore ‘Totally Right’ under whatever name: Social Nationalism, National Socialism, National Marxism, National Communism, ‘Nazi Bolshevism’ (Nazbol) or ‘Communo-Nazism’ (...names to truly haunt international capitalism and the global ruling elite!). National Bolshevism is above all directed against the domination of all nations the global banking and monetary system and all its political puppets.
The National Bolshevism and National Socialism of the NPP opposes both the pseudo- nationalist and purely immigration and raced-based ideologies and extremist Islamophobia of many ultra-right parties - many of which are directly financed by international Zionist interests to divide, rule and destroy Europe - just as it also opposes the pseudo-Marxist ideologies of ‘international’ socialism propagated by ultra-left Trotskyists who propose no limits to immigration and give no recognition to native ethnic cultures and identities.
In contrast to purely racist nationalism and socialist internationalism it recognises that, since the fall of the Soviet Union and the global deregulation of banking, the class struggle has itself become an essentially national struggle of all peoples against the power of the banks and the global dominance of international finance capital and its puppet politicians in different countries. Corporate wage-slavery is now compounded and aggravated by debt slavery - the surrender of national sovereignty through enforced ‘sovereign debt’ to the institutions of international finance capital - the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements in Basel.
National Bolshevism recognises that we live in an era characterised by the total global financialisation of capitalism, allowing international ‘money capitalism’ (Marx) to become totally parasitic on industrial capitalism. This is leading to the ruination of entire national economies (such as those of Greece, Spain and Italy) on a scale not seen since the debts imposed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty. Yet bourgeois economists and the capitalist media continue to propagate the ‘Big Lie’ of a ‘global financial crisis’ – which in essence is nothing but a crisis of private international banks themselves. These vampire banks are now being handed trillions of Euros by European central banks to rescue them from their crisis – itself an inevitable result of their greed to accumulate money purely as debt and interest. The result is that the peoples of Europe and the U.S.A. are now being plunged into poverty, joblessness and homelessness on an unprecedented scale through internationally enforced ‘fiscal fascism’ and ‘austerity terrorism’.
No one however – even on the socialist Left or nationalist Right – yet dares to suggest the only real ‘solution’ to this ‘global financial crisis’ – namely the creation of fully state-owned National People’s Banks, each of which is free to affirm the sovereign right of all nations. This is the right to issue their own interest-free money without having to borrow it from private and international banks – a right long since surrendered by governments to the private international banking system.
Whilst supporting the educational efforts of movements for radical ‘monetary reform’ such as ‘Positive Money’ and the movements for Monetary Reform and Public Banking in the United States, the National People’s Party rejects their essentially naive assumption that the right of nations to issue their own sovereign, debt-free money can be achieved simply through rational persuasion aimed at parliamentary politicians of both left and right – thus ignoring the fundamental conflict of interests between the working peoples of all nations and the instruments and beneficiaries of international finance capital. True national democracy is not false parliamentary democracy but economic democracy – the democratisation of the workplace and industrial corporations. True international democracy means defying the threats and indirect dictatorship of the financial markets. Neither form of democracy can be achieved by anything else than a national ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ i.e. ‘national socialism’ or ‘national bolshevism’ in the literal, Marxist sense of these terms. Central to a new understanding of both ‘national socialism’ and ‘socialism in one country’ is the redefinition of ‘socialism’ as the the nationalisation of money-creation, granting each nation the power to issue its own debt- and interest-free money. Without this form of monetary autonomy all other forms of national sovereignty are illusory. The renationalisation of money-creation (the very essence of socialism today) was the great achievement of Hitler’s Germany:
“Through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” Henry C. K. Liu AsiaTimes (May 24, 2005).
“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt.”
Sheldon Emry Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People
“... the National Socialists, who came to power in 1933, thwarted the international banking cartel by issuing their own money. In this they took their cue from Abraham Lincoln, who funded the American Civil War with government-issued paper money called ‘Greenbacks’. Hitler began his national credit program by devising a plan of public works. Projects earmarked for funding included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new buildings, roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. One billion non- inflationary bills of exchange, called Labour Treasury Certificates, were then issued against this cost. Millions of people were put to work on these projects, and the workers were paid with the Treasury Certificates. This government-issued money wasn’t backed by gold, but it was backed by something of real value. It was essentially a receipt for labour and materials delivered to the government. The workers then spent the Certificates on other goods and services, creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers. Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved and the country was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries were still out of work and living on welfare. Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, although it was denied foreign credit and was faced with an economic boycott abroad. It did this by using a barter system: equipment and commodities were exchanged directly with other countries, circumventing the international banks. This system of direct exchange occurred without debt and without trade deficits. Stephen Zarlenga suggests in The Lost Science of Money that this was because he temporarily rescued Germany from English economic theory — the theory that money must be borrowed against the reserves of a private banking cartel rather than issued outright by the government.”
from Ellen Brown on ‘How a Bankrupt German solved its Infrastructure Problems’
Hitler, despite his avowed anti-Marxism, in reality fulfilled a leading policy of the Communists who declared that “...we will ruthlessly put a stop to the machinations of the bank magnates who impose their will on our land today. We will implement the proletarian nationalisation of the banks and annul all debts to German and foreign capitalists.”
In the post-war years, it was only through its publicly owned ‘Landesbanks’ (which played a vital role in Germany’s ‘Economic Miracle’) that the monopoly of profit-hungry private banks over the money and credit supply of the country was hindered for several decades. That is why it is no surprise that since the nineties the private Deutsche Bank AG, together with the IMF and European Commission put enormous pressure on the German government to privatise these public banks - which were began in the 18th century as non-profit institutions to offer low- interest credit to individuals and to small and medium-sized enterprises. The result of this pressure was that in 2001 the European Commission succeeded in removing state credit guarantees from the Landesbanks – in order to push their still unusually high market share of the banking system in Germany into the hands of the big private banks and turn them into instruments of deregulated speculative trading.
On the term ‘National Bolshevism’
Though the term ‘National Bolshevism’ was not, as in Russia today, the name of any organised party or group in Germany, it is in Germany that it had its roots - the very terms ‘National Communism’ and ‘National Bolshevism’ having first been coined by the German communists Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim (the latter himself Jewish by birth) at the end of the 1st World War. What defined their stance was an appeal to German workers’ councils and soldiers, now freed from the dictates of the Kaiser and his generals, to reject the Versailles Treaty and instead continue the war against the Anglo-French entente - yet this time as a national revolutionary war – conducted in alliance with Soviet Russia against international finance capitalism.
Although their appeal to Lenin to follow this line was rejected, it was his slogan that they used to define ‘National Bolshevism’: “Make the question of the people a question of the nation; then the question of the nation will become the question of the people!”
“Laufenberg and Wolffheim were expelled from the KPD after they attempted to resist the leadership of Wilhelm Pieck. Radek, after showing initial enthusiasm, soon also denounced Laufenberg’s ‘National Bolshevism’ vehemently. Laufenberg went on to become a founder member of the Communist Workers Party of Germany (KAPD), joining Wolffheim at the Heidelberg conference establishing the party. By 1920 however he had been expelled from the party, with his national Bolshevism the official reason for his departure. Laufenberg was mourned as a pioneer of National Bolshevism by Ernst Niekisch who wrote that “in 1919 Laufenberg already thought in terms of continents”.”
Karl Otto Paetel
“Laufenberg ... who in pre-war times had already made his name as a historian of the Hamburg workers’ movement, sickened by the dividedness of the working class and the impotent fight of all against all whilst the nation suffered unspeakably under the oppression of the victorious powers, demanded, together with his friend Wolffheim, the building up of a free and cohesive people’s organisation to bring down exploitative international finance capitalism. They sought to win allies from all strata among the freedom-loving people, conspiring also with officers, because only the unity of soldiers and workers could free the nation. The official parties defamed both determined heads as ‘National Bolsheviks’... “
‘Social Revolutionary Nationalism’ versus ‘National Socialism’
The failure of the ‘National Communism’ of Laufenberg and Wolffheim was by no means the end of the story as regards the story of National Bolshevism in Germany i.e. the principle of uniting factions from both Right and Light, including dissident members of both the Nazi and Communist parties. In 1930 a new step in this direction was initiated under the banner of a new, ‘Social Revolutionary Nationalism’ - this time from associations of the nationalist Right and Nationalist youth. Hence the following press declaration from ‘Die Kommenden’ (‘The Ones to Come’) a weekly journal of the Association of National Revolutionary Youth [Bündisch- Nationalrevolutionären Jugend].
“On Ascension day 1930, what for long had been a loosely connected group of young National Revolutionaries who saw socialism as the essence of true nationalism were called together from different parts of the country to form a ‘Socialist Revolutionary Nationalist Group’ [‘Gruppe social revolutionärer Nationalisten’ or GSRN]. The group does not wish to form a new organisation but to create an umbrella embracing all young people with a similar world-view from diverse nationalistic groupings and associations – including both National Socialists and people from the ‘left’ – under the slogan of ‘Nation and Socialism’ and its realisation in the form of a state based on people’s councils.”
The aim of the Group was not only to build an “Anti-Capitalist Front of youth from both Right and Left” but an Anti-Fascist one – hence also the use of the term ‘Socialist Nationalism’ instead of ‘National Socialism’. And as its founder - Karl Otto Paetel - points out, the fact that it included in its ranks card-carrying members of Hitler’s National Socialist Party was so that the Nazi party could itself be infiltrated and its leadership ultimately overtaken, and its programme transformed into a thoroughly socialist one free of fascist elements. Indeed a new, more radically socialist manifesto for the National Socialist Party was distributed at a Nuremberg Party Conference. This concluded with the following words:
“Since total control over the whole of German industry lies today in the hands of organs of international finance capitalism, the national revolution is directed unconditionally against international finance capitalism. As a result, any fully realised German revolution will immediately call forth the use of all powers and means by America and its leagues of countries against the German worker’s and peasants’ state. The first task of National Socialist foreign policy is therefore the organisation of a revolutionary defence against the imperialist powers, unity with the Soviet Union and support for revolutionary movements in all countries of the world that oppose international finance capital.”
When, in 1931, a circular was sent out to a range of seemingly ‘right-wing’ individuals, parties and nationalist associations in Germany asking if they would support an imperialist war on the Soviet Union, the answer was mostly a resounding ‘NO!’. On the very day that Hitler was appointed Chancellor – January 30, 1933 – the first explicit ‘National Bolshevik Manifesto’ was released in Germany by Karl Otto Paetel - only a few copies of which found their way to interested readers before the majority were seized. The Social Revolutionary Nationalists soon went underground, as did the German Communist Party – with whom Paetel himself insisted an alliance was now vital. Yet once in power Hitler did confront the power of international finance capitalism in a way unseen since the times of Lincoln.
National Bolshevism, National Socialism and ‘Strasserism’
As Karl Otto Paetel points out, the term ‘National Socialism’ was not invented by Hitler and only achieved notoriety through its incorporation into the official designation of the Party he came to lead, i.e. the ‘German National Socialist Workers Party’. Until this party achieved the status of a successful mass movement and political organisation, terms such as ‘German socialism’, ‘socialist nationalism’, ‘national communism’ - and ‘national socialism’ – were all used as symbols of a general recognition that the suffering of the German people and their interests as a nation could not be realised except on a national socialist basis.
In actuality however, the NSDAP welcomed in its ranks “monarchists and republicans, Christian and anti-Christians, social revolutionaries and social reactionaries ... groups that felt themselves as right-wing nationalist and as left-wing German socialists...”. A conventional left narrative has it that the greater Hitler’s control over the party the more it veered away from a fully socialist platform – not least through Hitler’s singling out ‘Marxism’ as one of its chief enemies. The left-wing of the Party, disturbed by this tendency, eventually found a figurehead in Otto Strasser. Persuaded to join the Party in 1925 by his brother Gregor Strasser – who would later become a victim of Hitler’s infamous ‘Night of the Long Knives’. In reality, this was a response to a planned military coup by the S.A., - who failed to realise that they could neither replace the German army - whom they felt themselves in competition - nor in any way handle the demands of government administration. It was only through the defeat of the S.A. leadership plot and the cultivation of the S.S. under Himmler that Hitler was spared the need to purge Germany’s entire military leadership (as Stalin had done).
Otto Strasser had announced on the 4th July, 1930 that “The socialists are leaving the NSDAP”. Followed by a few hundred more deserters, he formed a ‘Combat League of Revolutionary National Socialists’ with a new symbol (hammer and sword), a new salute (Hail Germany!), a program that included nationalisation of the banks, belief in allying with the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union and also support for the anti-imperialist struggles of people in countries East – for example China and India. He also coined the term ‘Black Front’ as an umbrella term in order to suggest the existence of a hidden ‘Order’ of far greater numbers embracing dissident national revolutionary groupings and still-existing members of the S.A. and N.S.D.A.P.
Yet from his own words we can see how, just like Hitler and Stalin, he levelled his main critique not as Marxism as such but at its Trotskyist form, i.e. “international socialism”.
“According to its essence, we understood and understand National Socialism as equally hostile to the capitalist bourgeoisie as to international Marxism, and see its task as the overcoming of both, notwithstanding the fact that in Marxism what in essence is a proper feeling for socialism is bound to the false teachings of liberal materialism and internationalism, and that in the bourgeoisie what in essence is a proper feeling for nationalism is bound to the false teaching of liberal rationalism and capitalism ... We therefore saw and are seeing no essential difference in our opposition to Marxism and the bourgeoisie, as the liberalism working in both makes them equally into our enemy. For this reason we perceived the increasingly one-sided slogan of the leadership of the NSDAP “against Marxism” as a half-truth, and were filled increasingly with the concern that behind this there was a sympathy for the bourgeoisie, which with the same slogans, pursues its own capitalist interests with which we never have and still do not have anything in common.”
The idea of Marxism as merely having a proper “feeling” for socialism – rather than being the deepest, most incisive, comprehensive and radical critique of capitalism ever articulated – and hence the most solid foundation for ‘socialism’ – is of course questionable, together with the identification of Marxism not just with Trotskyist “internationalism” but with “liberal materialism”.
At the same time as Strasser was writing, Stalin, under the banner of Leninist Marxism or ‘Marxist-Leninism’, had already, in opposition to Trotsky, consolidated the concept of ‘national socialism’ through the principle of first-of-all building up and defending ‘socialism in one country’. Strasser’s basic misunderstanding of Marxism prevented him from drafting his own political-economic program on the basis of a both a Leninist and a Hitlerist foundation. For in contrast to Strasser, both Lenin and Hitler had recognised the growing primacy of usury-based finance capitalism over industrial capitalism.
Hitler himself only entered politics in the first place through hearing talks by his own economic mentor, Gottfried Feder, whose writings were principally aimed against usury – against interest-bearing private loan capital and what he called ‘Mammonism’. Of course Feder was almost completely wrong when he wrote that:
“It is astonishing to see how the socialist thought-world of Marx and Engels ... halts, as if by command, before the interests of loan capitalism. The sacredness of interest is taboo; interest is the holy of holies ...”
One need only contrast these words with those of Marx himself, who railed against usury and against what Feder call Mammonism – which Marx himself called “the Monotheism of Money”.
“Usury centralises money wealth,” Marx states. “It does not alter the mode of production, but attaches itself to it as a parasite and makes it miserable. It sucks its blood, kills its nerve, and compels reproduction to proceed under even more disheartening conditions. ... usurer’s capital does not confront the laborer as industrial capital,” but “impoverishes this mode of production, paralyzes the productive forces instead of developing them.”
“Under the form of interest the whole of the surplus over the necessary means of subsistence (the amount of what becomes wages later on) of the producers may here be devoured by usury...”
On the other hand, it is true to say that in his own time Marx (unlike Engels) failed to foresee the increasingly ‘parasitic’ role that ‘usury capital’ would come to play and its role in impoverishing national economies and diverting the profits of industrial capitalism into the wholly unproductive sphere of financial speculation – a ‘casino economy’ totally divorced from the real economy and sucking surplus capital from both industrial capitalism and the working class. Today this process has reached its apotheosis, one made possible, as would be expected from a Marxist perspective, by technological developments in the means of production - in this case, however, the means of production of money itself – its digitisation in electronic form. It is this that allows banks to put money they don’t actually have into borrowers’ accounts - simply by keying in a figure which the borrower must pay off, at interest, by their labour.
Thus Feder’s emphasis on the catastrophic effects of the ever-more unsustainable interest-burden placed by usury capital on both producers and consumers, both industrial capitalism and the working class – resulting also in the impoverishment of the middle class - has an even greater validity today than in his own time. And it is to be noted that he too insisted – as Marx had already done in The Communist Manifesto - that all credit be centralised in the hands of the the state. In practical terms, this means that national and/or regional public banks could then issue their own interest-free money for investment in industry, infrastructure, technical innovation, culture, education and social welfare. This is banned under international banking regulations, since it would strip the private international banking sector of its complete monopoly over money creation and its complete control over the money supply of all nations. And yet Hitler defined the international banksters.
Note: This was why Churchill declared in the run-up to WW2 that “Hitler will have this war whether she wants it or not” - stating that his aim was to prevent Germany’s astonishing debt-free economic prosperity and welfare system, achieved in only 5 years, from upsetting the world banking system and spreading to others countries. For Churchill this meant completing extirpating the German soul, German culture, the German nation - and the German people - if necessary not just by criminal mass fire-bombing of civilians (the only true Holocaust of WW2) but by starvation, euthanasia or even poison gas.
"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn't want to." Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)
"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore..." Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960)
Hitler’s Mistake - falling for the Jewish idea of a Jewish ‘Race’
It was Hitler's belief from 1919 that Germany was defeated in World War 1 because most wealthy of Germany and the Entente countries were capitalist Jews. He believed they conspired together to sell the country out. In his earliest political campaigns Hitler also made it clear that the economic challenges of the Weimar Republic and the crushing debt of the Versailles war reparations were foisted by Jewish bankers. Hitler also believed that America, Britain and France were controlled by capitalist Jews put profits ahead of anything else, including the well being of their country's own citizens. In all these respects, Hitler was right. But he also fell for the very Jewish idea of a Jewish ‘race’. This is an idea which has since been exposed as a myth, even though Talmudic Judaism - like modern day Zionism - is obscenely racist through and through. The myth of a Jewish race has long been exposed, most recently by Gilad Atzmon in his book The Wandering Who? He argues convincingly that a Jew is essentially nothing but anyone who identifies themselves principally AS a Jew - and identifies also and principally with the Zionist state of Israel as their ‘homeland’ - no matter what their formal nationality or even biological ethnicity is. But ‘Jewishness’ is essentially neither a matter of parenthood, religion or race but is a form of tribal identification, collusion and cohesion among self-identifying ‘Jews’, i.e. those who do indeed regard themselves as an innately superior race, and one ‘chosen’ by God - according to the Jewish religion itself - to rule the world. As for the founders of Zionism, they welcomed ‘anti-Semitism’ - not least of the extreme racial and biological sort believed in by Hitler - and regarded it as their most valuable ally. That is also why the new religion of the ‘Holocaust’ (a term first created in the 70s) is now effectively the sole foundation of ‘Jewish identity’, even in Israel. On the other hand Atzmon does also emphasise that religious Jewish Khazar communities practiced a form of eugenics for centuries - marrying their cleverest male religious scholars to the daughters of their richest and best merchants - and that this eugenic practice may have led to those characteristics marked out as particularly Jewish - being both extremely clever and/or being good at making money. And of course, religious indoctrination in the racial-supremacist ideology of Judaism has gone on for centuries - and left its mark. As a result, the machinations of the elite of ‘World Jewry’ throughout history is not a myth, but a nefarious economic and political reality, as evidenced also by Trotsky’s Jewish racial supremacism and the rivers of blood it created. And Hitler’s awareness of the dominant role of Jews in the Russian Revolution was one of the principle reasons for his distrust of Marxism and Bolshevism. All this played into the hands of those elites who wanted nothing more than a Soviet-German war.
Marx on ‘The Jewish Question’
“Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value...The god of the Jews has [therefore] become secularized and become the god of the world.”
“The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews ...
Captain Hamilton, for example, reports:
‘The devout and politically free [Christian] inhabitant of New England .... makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view the world is no more than a Stock Exchange, and he is convinced that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbor. Trade has seized upon all his thoughts, and he has no other recreation than to exchange objects. When he travels he carries, so to speak, his goods and his counter on his back and talks only of interest and profit. If he loses sight of his own business for an instant it is only in order to pry into the business of his competitors.’
Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals.
According to Marx then, the total economic secularisation of Judaism throughout supposedly ‘Christian’ capitalist societies rendered the entire racial dimension of Jewishness together with the surviving religious ritualism of bearded religious Jews – constantly caricatured in Nazi propaganda images - a wholly irrelevant and marginal phenomenon. In contrast, Franz Schauwecker wrote of “German-ness” as having nothing to do with bodily appearance or racial ‘science’ but as a belief in the fulfilment of a particular “value feeling” (Nietzsche) or “soul value”.
“This piety of the Germans rests in the German sermons of Eckehart, in the fugues, preludes and chorales of Bach, in the Sonatas of Beethoven, in the deeds of Frederick the Great and the Hohenstaufen dynasty, in the great world-feeling of Goethe and in the German armies ... The realm of the Germans is the realm of God.”
A New Spiritual and Philosophical Foundation for National Bolshevism
The National People’s Party is not anti-semitic or racist, and nor does it draw on so-called ‘Folk’ history, religions and identity. Instead it is Marxist through-and-through - and yet it adds a soul- spiritual dimension to Marxism, taking its cue from Marx’s essay ‘On The Jewish Question’. For it was in this essay that Marx recognised that the essence of Judaism in his time no longer had anything at all to do with being religiously or ‘racially’ Jewish at all, but was essentially a hidden secular religion – a ‘Monotheism of Money’ that now pervaded all capitalist countries and cultures, of whatever religion or ethnicity.
So whilst it was historically true that many Jews were forced to practice usury and became bankers through being banned from other trades by their Christian rulers (who themselves were proscribed by their religion from practicing usury) and though many notorious banksters such as the Rothschilds were indeed Jews, many others, such as J.P. Morgan were not. The even more fundamental reality is that in principle the modern international capitalist banking system has never been dominated by individuals of any religion or race – but rather has always served to eradicate or marginalise all ethnic cultures – including both Islam, Christianity and even the most orthodox forms of religious Judaism itself. Hence the motto that ‘Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools’.
Marx was neither a crude, atheistic ‘materialist’ nor a ‘positivist’ or ‘objectivist’ scientist. This was made clear in his Theses on Feuerbach - in which he criticises all previous forms of materialism for not recognising the essentially subjective nature of sensuously perceived actuality and human sensuous activity. Whilst not being a materialist in the conventional sense, Marx recognised two forms of ‘immaterialism’ – one religious and the other economic and monetary.
The economic aspect lay in Marx’s recognition was that money has its roots in the seemingly immaterial nature of the ‘exchange value’ of commodities – as opposed to their sensuous or ‘material’ reality and ‘use-value’ as objects. When the ‘sell to buy’ formula of simpler market economies that Marx termed Commodity-Money-Commodity (C-M-C) was superseded by the ‘buy to sell’ formula of M-C-M (Money-Commodity-Money) this was reflected in the rise of religious monotheisms which saw God, like Money as having the power to rule man and to create things as material commodities out of nothing.
At first the ‘spirit’ of money itself i.e. the mysteriously immaterial nature of the exchange value of commodities - was ‘materialised’ in the form a material commodities themselves - such as of gold and other material currencies. Today it does not even take the form of paper but instead the truly ghostly or immaterial form of mere ‘number money’, ‘digital money’ or ‘virtual money’ – fictitious money literally created out of nothing by private banks. The spiritual dimension of National Bolshevism can be understood as a form of ‘reverse Marxism’. Marx saw in Money that secular ‘god’ out of which it seemed all things are ‘created’ or ‘materialised’ from nothing. Yet this ‘god’ is but the perverse economic mirror image of an immaterial awareness or ‘spirit’ - a divine-universal awareness of which all things and all beings are already a manifestation and expression.
This philosophy opposes a ‘Monism of Awareness’ to what Marx called the ‘Monotheism of Money’. This monotheism is the essence of all forms of religious monotheism which posit a supreme creator god for whom consciousness or awareness itself is a form of private property - a God which ‘has’ rather than IS awareness.
Rejecting religious monotheisms however, does not imply a return to ‘pagan’ or heathen ‘polytheism’ – for the multiplicity of gods worshipped in spiritual and religious traditions of the past have today become just a mirror image of the multiplication of consumer brands and commodities. Indeed such traditions have today become marketed as ‘spiritual commodities’ in themselves – targeted at ‘spiritual consumers’ in search of a spiritual identity – and eager to attain it through identifications of all sorts, whether ethnic, religious, political or national.
On the other hand, it is no less important to recognise that individuals, groups and communities of all sorts – whether ethnic, vocational, linguistic or religious, together with whole ‘peoples’, may indeed share common leanings and creative potentials, “fundamental moods” (Heidegger), “value-feelings” (Nietzsche) or “qualities of consciousness” (Wilberg) and that these may either be affirmed and reflected or devalued and marginalised in the national state and its culture. Therein lies the danger however - for the commercial and/or political branding and marketing of such shared leanings, qualities and value feelings can easily turn into an instrument of the ‘One True God’ that actually rules internationally - the universal God of Money which is the “devaluation of all values”.
“Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value.” Marx, On the Jewish Question
In the identity-seeking and identity-consuming world of global capitalist economics and culture, Money is the ‘One True God’. Yet the Monotheism of Money that rules today world however, is but a perverse mirror image of a different metaphysical reality – one that can only be reflected in a spiritual philosophy that can be called the ‘Monism of Awareness’ or ‘The Awareness Principle’.
The Awareness Principle
This is the recognition that the ultimate nature of reality lies, in principle, in a singular (‘monistic’) and universal awareness - one that is not the private property of any being or beings, even ‘God’ understood as a ‘Supreme Being’.
This awareness is no mere immaterial ‘product’ of any seemingly ‘material’ thing such as the human body or brain. It is not an awareness that is ‘yours’ or ‘mine’, the private property of persons or a product of their brains, but an awareness which is trans-personal, universal and the very essence of the divine - both embracing and transcending individual, group and national identities. All things and all worlds, all beings and all bodies, all selves and identities are individualised portions, expressions or embodiments of that divine-universal awareness which IS the very essence of what we call ‘God’.
From this spiritual-philosophical perspective, ‘communism’ is not ‘collectivism’ but a state-less communist society in which, in accordance with the words of The Communist Manifesto itself: “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all“.
This statement of Marx simply does not tally with any form of liberal or bourgeois ‘individualism’ of the sort which promotes identification with the competitive greed of the individual ego or ‘subject’. Nor however, does it tally with any attempt to achieve spiritual transcendence through surrender of the ego to identification with a collective will or ‘subject’ – whether personified in the state or in the ‘super-ego’ of a Leader.
Bourgeois egoism and “the free development of each” are not the same – indeed they are the very opposite of one another. For the road to true individual freedom and fulfilment is not through the power of money but through the innate power and potentials of awareness or subjectivity as a such - understood not as any form of ‘ego’ or ‘subject’ but as ‘spirit’ and ’soul’.The new soul-spiritual principle of National Bolshevism - ‘The Awareness Principle’ - affirms neither egotistic individualism nor collectivism; it is neither worship of an individual ego or subject (human or divine) nor is it subservience to a collective ‘subject’. Instead it is the recognition that each individual is an individualised embodiment of a universal subjectivity or awareness - an all-pervading ‘world soul’ or ‘universal soul’.
Yet there are not just three but four dimensions of consciousness or ‘subjectivity’ - the individual, the collective, the universal – and the inter-subjective or relational dimension. And it is above all this fourth dimension - the manner in which individuals receive, affirm, recognise and relate to one another as individuals within a nation, state or collective of any sort that constitutes the key axis of revolutionary change, i.e. whether they do so competitively and egotistically or in a way that recognises all individuals – and all peoples and cultures - as unique expression of a universal awareness or ‘spirit’ each with its own unique ‘soul’. National Bolshevism is therefore what I call ‘socialism with soul’ – this being the very opposite of the essentially soul-destroying and soul-less character of capitalism, which (as Marx was so strongly aware) turns relations between human beings into relations between things - commodities – thus emptying human relations of all soul-spiritual depth.
‘Spirit’ and ‘soul’ are in turn but outer and inner dimensions of awareness. Thus only by learning to invest ever greater awareness in our everyday lives, relationships and the world around us can we transform “the accumulation of capital” into an accumulation of awareness – and the new insights it gives birth to.
Historically however, the development of property relations and class society went together with the idea that ‘subjectivity’ or consciousness itself was the private property of individual subjects and their ‘ego’ or ‘I’. Yet how can it be, since the very experience of a self or subject, mind or body, ego or ‘I’ assumes an awareness of that self or subject, mind or body, ego or ‘I’. This awareness therefore, cannot – in principle – be reduced to the property or product of any self or subject, being or body of which it is aware. This is ‘The Awareness Principle’ in a nutshell – a philosophy which overcomes the centuries old identification of the soul with an individual or collective ‘subject’ or ego – and instead reintroduces the notion of the divine as a universal consciousness or awareness of which all souls are a portion and expression.
In Indian and Asian thought, the notion of consciousness or awareness as something absolute and universal - subjectivity without a supreme subject – has long been acknowledged. Thus the Indian god Shiva came to symbolise this absolute and universal awareness or ‘spirit’, just as the god Krishna embodied and symbolised the inner self or ‘soul’ of each individual – something far more rich and many-faceted than the individual ego or ‘subject’.
Today even Western ‘post-modern’ philosophy has finally been forced to catch up with capitalist economic reality and transcend the old Cartesian notion that consciousness is the private property of individual ‘subjects’. For in the era of global financialisation of capitalism, it has become clear that “the invisible hand of the market” – and the financial markets in particular - is not the hand of any one individual, group or political state but is that which subjects all individuals and nations to its domination.
Politics itself therefore, no longer has a centre in political personages or ‘subjects’ or in the will of sovereign nation states -for these are all subjected to the impersonal rule of money and finance capital. Money and Capital alone and as such are the sole real or effective ‘subject’ in the era of finance capitalism - its effective ‘God’ and the basis of the ‘Monotheism of Money’.
‘Socialism’ on the other hand, is understood within National Bolshevism as socialism with spirit and soul. This in turn requires a new understanding of “scientific socialism” (Engels) as a science of spirit and soul – one which recognises a universal awareness as the absolute underlying reality or ‘soul’ of all things and all beings, all individuals and all cultures, all worlds and universes.
This new science is neither materialistic nor idealistic in the Hegelian sense, but is ‘subjectivist’ in the absolute sense - based on a ‘Monism of Awareness’ which recognises ‘spirit’ as the pure or transcendent dimension of an absolute and universal awareness and ‘soul’ as its immanent, inner and individualised dimension.
The recognition of such a universal or ‘transcendental’ awareness has its historic source in both Indian religious thought and in the ‘phenomenological science’ of the German philosophers Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. Hence its essentially Indo-Germanic, Indo-European or ‘Eurasian’ character.
Hence also my books entitled ‘What is Hinduism?’ and ‘Rudra’s Red Banner’ - in which I argue that the split between religious and Marxist philosophies and political movements in India itself is wholly unnecessary – based on a failure to understand the common and revolutionary essence of both in undermining the Monotheism of Money.
Yet there is now new evidence to show that Indian religious traditions themselves share common roots with an advanced pre-Indo-European (‘pre-Aryan’) civilisation covering the entire area known as Eurasia. This pre-historic civilisation had centres not only in the Indus valley, but also in Sumeria (whose language was neither Indo-European nor Semitic), the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Crete and Mycenaea, and, as archaeological discoveries show, in Russia, where, in 1987 evidence was found in the Southern Urals (the ARKAIM site) of an advanced proto- -Slavic ‘Arctic’ civilisation referred to by Plato as Hyperborea, and sharing a similar script and scriptures to Sanskrit and the Vedas.
This pre-historic Eurasian civilisation was seeded and guided long ago in the past by the advanced inner knowledge or gnosis of their ruler priests. The rebirth in Russia of a future Eurasian culture and civilisation - one that will replace the currently dominant global capitalist or ‘Atlanticist’ culture of the U.S.A. - was anticipated by the German theosophist Rudolf Steiner, and is promoted by the International Eurasian Movement. Here the word ‘international’ means what it should, a cooperative ‘inter-nationalism’ of sovereign states – not least those of Europe and Eurasia - instead of their subjection to global financial imperialism and the global power of a single American ‘superstate’. Thus central to any Eurasian concept is a spiritual and political alliance of Germany and Russia of a sort that formed the geo-political basis of National Bolshevik groups in interwar Germany – and did so long before the creation of a ‘National Bolshevik Party’ and ‘Eurasian Movement’ in post-Soviet Russia.
For the truth remains that:
“America ... has created a ‘civilization’ that represents an exact contradiction of the ancient European tradition. It has introduced the religion of praxis and productivity; it has put the quest for profit, great industrial production, and mechanical, visible, and quantitative achievements over any other interest. It has generated a soulless greatness of a purely technological and collective nature, lacking any background of transcendence, inner light, and true spirituality. America has [built a society where] man becomes a mere instrument of production and material productivity within a conformist social conglomerate.” Julius Evola
“In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti- American revolution.” ...”The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union.”
Understood in this way, National Bolshevism is socialism of a sort that unites a new political and economic awareness with a new religious and spiritual awareness. Only such a socialism can also unite Marxism and Nationalism, Stalin’s ‘Socialism in One Country’ and Hitler’s ‘National Socialism’. It can only do so in the context of a larger ‘Eurasianist’ philosophy that totally transcends Western ‘scientific’ and ‘Enlightenment’ thinking. The National People’s Party in the U.K. seeks contact and federation with other National Bolshevik groups and parties in both Europe and Asia - offering them as it does a new religious- philosophical foundation as well as a new political-economic focus – both of which serve the revolutionary purpose of overcoming the global religion and global reality of the day – rule by the ‘Monotheism of Money’.
Postscript: a brief background to both World Wars
1. Halford Mackinder’s 1904 Geostrategical World Map - dividing the world into sea powers (Britain, Australia, New Zealand, America) and a continental land power, ‘pivot’ or ‘heartland’ centred in Russia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
2. Aims of British Foreign policy before and after WW1 To use all possible means to create conflict in Europe - particularly between Germany and Russia - thus preventing prevent Europe uniting with its pivot or ‘heartland’. Recognising the growing importance of oil rather than coal for for the navy, to use war to break up the Ottoman Empire and divide up its oil rich territories with France (the Sykes-Picot agreement). Anglo-French preparations for a war on Germany had begun already in 1906.
3. Obstacles - and a Solution The old ruler of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Franz Joseph, had already decided before his death, that his successor should give Slavs the same status as Hungary in the empire. Franz Joseph’s successor Archduke Franz Ferdinand was married to a Czech woman - thus promising a continued era of peace in the Empire. Not good for the British and French, or for Russian imperial and Serbian nationalist interests. Wanting to unite all South Slavic nations under Serbian domination the Serbian ‘Black Hand’ organise the assassination of Ferdinand and his Czech wife (it is thought with Russian and British help). Austro-Hungary declares war on Serbia - despite all attempts by Germany to stop it. But Germany, bound by treaty with both Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, enters the war. Another treaty agreed - in 1837 - between ‘neutral’ Belgium and Britain did not oblige Britain to enter the war.The Germans see the war as a battle against English-style of capitalism, i.e. to protect workers’ rights (already and first established in Germany) and European cultural values.
4. The Victory of Germany Russia, France and England are all quickly defeated by Germany. Russian soldiers desert. Britain in despair. Germany offers peace and immediate withdrawal to all previous borders. Offer rejected. Why? American Zionists and Jewish bankers promised to bring America into the war if they get Palestine in exchange. The Balfour agreement is signed by the British with Baron Rothschild in 1916. The entire Jewish-American press (previously pro-German, and very much wanting to stay out of the war) are then suddenly orchestrated by the Zionist movement to spread anti-German propaganda and launch a huge campaign to bring America into the war - for absolutely no reason that could benefit America at all.
5. The Defeat of Germany Germany is defeated as a result of America’s entry into the war - but then blamed for starting it! The British and French get their Middle East oil. But a post-war British blockade starves millions of Germans - and the ruinous Versailles Treaty imposed by Jewish bankers on Germany throws its economy into an ever worsening state, with mass poverty and over 6 million unemployed. Churchill openly announces that if the German nation and economy ever recover again, then the whole aim of WW1 would not have succeeded. When Hitler succeeds in completely restoring the German economy in just 5 years, plans to start a new war against Germany begin.
Postscript: “In order to maintain her own interests, England cannot allow any country on the European Continent to grow too strong, and when any other country grows too strong, she must get all other countries to join her in overthrowing that country. When another country is strong enough to be utilized, Britain sacrifices her own allies to satisfy its desires, but when that country becomes too weak to be of any use to herself, she sacrifices it to please other countries." Sun Yat Sen, founder of modern China.
For a much more detailed story see the excellent and detailed talks of historian and Anthroposophist Terry Boardman on WW1. Here is an extract from his website (www.threeman.org). Boardman on the real aim of British foreign policy: to keep the Germans and Russians at war:
“What the British elite feared above all in the years 1900-1914 was what could conceivably take Britain’s imperial acquisitions from them, namely, an accommodation between Germany and Russia. The fear in the Foreign Office, the fear of Sir Edward Grey and his Permanent Under-Secretary Sir Arthur Nicolson, was that if Britain did not do what Russia wanted, then Russia would turn towards Germany, as she seemed almost to do in 1905 when the German Kaiser Wilhelm II nearly succeeded in getting Czar Nicholas II to sign a treaty with Germany. After all, the two countries had been allies from 1879-1890 and had maintained friendly relations before that. The combination of modern German technology and know-how with Russian manpower and natural resources could have led to the building of a globally active mega-fleet and eventually, even to the loss of India, Britain’s ‘jewel in the imperial Crown’ – this was the ultimate nightmare for the British elite. For members of the British elite such as Lords Milner and Esher, and Sir Arthur Balfour, it was therefore imperative that Britain should strive a) to keep as close as possible to the USA and even to unite with her in some kind of ‘Anglo-saxon confederation’ and b) to keep Russia and Germany apart and indeed, to keep them involved in mutual tension, strife and eventually, warfare. France’s desire for revanche over Alsace-Lorraine (7) and Russia’s clash of interests with Germany’s ally Austria-Hungary in the Balkans were the two instruments the British used to stir this Russo-German antipathy. The strategy – first conceived by Lord Salisbury in the 1880s and formalised between 1904 and 1919 by the geopolitician Halford J. Mackinder, a protegé of Lord Milner, worked brilliantly. It remained the keystone of British strategy throughout the 20th century; its second phase resulted in the Russo-German conflict 1941-45, when in effect, the British stood back and waited while the German Nazis and the Russian Communists fought each other, and it was passed on to the Americans after the Second World War in the Cold War phase of the strategy, in which Germany was divided between Russia and the English-speaking world (US-UK). We have seen a fourth phase of the strategy emerge this year (2014) in what the western media are already calling “Cold War II” – the isolation, ostracism or ‘excommunication’ of Russia and the attempt to sever its economic links with the West, especially with Germany.”