back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to contents

back to top

The New Socialism



The New Socialism and Conservative Revolutionism

The New Socialism and ‘Democracy’

The New Socialism versus Corporate Fascism

The New Socialism and Total Pacifism

The New Socialism – Against Military Totalitarianism and State Terrorism

The New Socialism and ‘Third Positionism’

The New Socialism and ‘Socialist Internationalism’

The New Socialism, Zionism and Nazism

The New Socialism, Judaism and Aryanism


The New Socialism and Conservative Revolutionism

 The various political standpoints identified with ‘Conservative Revolutionism’ emerged from the political, economic and cultural turmoil of inter-war Germany, and came to expression in the writings of a number of thinkers, notably Oswald Spengler, Thomas Mann, Carl Schmidtt and Martin Heidegger.

What united them was the understanding that the German ‘conservative’ reactionism – first to the French revolution and enlightenment rationalism, then to both Anglo-Saxon and American economic and cultural imperialism – was nothing purely ‘romantic’, ‘reactionary’ or ‘irrationalistic’ - but rather the expression of a deep-rooted and revolutionary resistance to the rise of shallow materialistic science and rampant international capitalism  - a rise foreshadowed by the previous dominance of Rome and of those Latinised ways of thinking that had obliterated the spiritual depths of the Greek and Germanic languages and the soul of Indo-European culture in general. 

Whatever the state of Germany’s spiritual power of resistance may be today (May 1917), in 1914 she had recognized as superstition the belief that the Western ideas were still the leading, victorious and revolutionary ones; she was convinced that progress, modernity, youth, genius, and novelty were on the German side; she thought it patently clear that compared with the conservatism of the immortal principles, her own psychological conservatism signified something truly revolutionary.
Thomas Mann  Reflections of a Non-political Man

 The spirit of conservative revolutionism had already been anticipated and summed up in a simple saying of Friedrich Nietzsche:

 No American Future.

 The political ideology of the American imperialism and expansionism - the Wilsonian pseudo-universalism is compared with the dogmas of the Catholic Church. This ideology reconstructs and totalizes the world in a mold for American domination and hegemony. Thus the ideology of universalism is not only dogmatically-ecumenical to its essence, it is above all totalitarian. American political ideology is compared with political theology and as such it is not only totalitarian but also totalizing in an Hegelian sense.
Nikolai von Kraitor Conservative Revolution in Sweden

 All that was advanced as ‘modern’ in Anglo-Saxon or American terms – heralding the progressive march forward of humanity, was seen by the Conservative Revolutionists as a step back to a new form of soul-less social and cultural barbarism. Hence the classic maxim favoured by the conservative revolutionary Italian thinker Julius Evola: Substine et abstine. “Stand firm and hold back.”

Von Kraitor refers also to Carl Schmidtt’s jurisprudence, noting that:

his criticism of the Wilsonian pseudo-universalism and his definition of the enemy, can be seen as an ongoing polemic against the Versailles Treaty, its prodigy - the League of Nations -  and the inner England - seen outwardly as  Anglo-Saxon world domination and inwardly in the political institutions as well as in the cultural values of the Anglo-Saxon liberal capitalism,  liberal democracy and parliamentarianism.

The resurgence of ideological tendencies in Europe now that are similar to the Conservative Revolution of the past can in many respects be seen as a reaction to a similar trauma of the American New World Order, perceived as a threat to existing state sovereignties, national identities and national culture. What was once defined as rejection of the inner England is now a rejection of the inner America.

For Julius Evola it was clear that “the conservative revolution must emerge as a predominantly spiritual phenomenon.” He understood that liberalism “mistakes the person for the individual”, for the embodiment of authentic spiritual individuality. As for society:

In the same way that a living body stays alive only when a soul is present to govern it, so every social organization not rooted in a spiritual reality is outward and transitory, unable to remain healthy and retain its identity in the struggle of the various forces; it is not really an organism, but more aptly something thrown together, an aggregate.

The true cause for the decline of the political idea in the West today is to be found in the fact that the spiritual values that once permeated the social order have been lost, without any successful efforts to put something better in their place. The problem has been lowered to the plane of economic, industrial, military, governmental, or even more sentimental factors, without considering that all this is nothing more than matter: necessary if you like, but never enough by itself, and unable to create a healthy and reasonable social order.

In contrast to the ideal of movements who proclaimed themselves as a purely political ‘vanguard’ of the proletariat or leaders who proclaimed themselves as the political elite of the nation he was aware that:

There is little hope that anything may be saved when among the leaders of a new movement there are no men capable of integrating the material struggle with a secret and inexorable knowledge, one that ... stands ... on the side of the luminous principle of traditional spirituality.

He identified this traditional spirituality both with that of the Jewish mystical Kabbalah (a word which means simply) ‘tradition’, with the yogic-tantric tradition of Hindu culture, and with the ethics of the pre-Christian Roman Republic.

To this Roman style belong virtus, in the sense not of moralism, but of virile spirit and courage; fortitudo and constantia, namely spiritual strength; sapientia, in the sense of thoughtfulness and awareness; disciplina, understood as love for a self-given law and form; fides, in the specifically Roman sense of loyalty and faithfulness; and dignitas, which in the ancient patrician society became gravitas and solemnitas, a studied and moderate seriousness.

To this he contrasted what he called ‘The Mediterranean Style’ – a culture which he describes in a way only too reminiscent of today’s global media culture or ‘Media Style’:

…love for outward appearances and grand gestures; concern to be noticed by others and to make an impact on them; the choreographic-theatrical and spectacular, comparable to the French grandeur and gloire; the tendency toward a restless, chaotic and undisciplined individualism; intolerance of any general and strict law of order; the fireworks of a creativity disjoined from any higher meaning and tradition; the pseudo-genial hypercritic, expert in eluding a law; the cunning and malicious fooler of others; a gesticulating, noisy and disordered exuberance; a manic effusiveness; excitability and verbosity; a flaunted and conventional sense of honour; immediacy of desire or affection; and a public cheeriness masking an inner hopelessness.

Martin Heidegger’s Conservative Revolutionism found expression in his philosophy of man’s progressive dislocation from the essence of his being, an understanding akin to the early Marx’s concept of the alienation of man from his essential being, the transformation of relations between human beings into relations between things – commodities - and the reduction of all human bodily senses to the single abstract sense of ‘having’. Marx too was a ‘conservative revolutionist’, the overcoming of class society and capitalist social relations constituting a higher-level return to an original communistic form of human social organisation.

In essence ‘Conservative Revolution’ is not a Right- or Left-wing political ideology or standpoint but what Heidegger would have called a ‘fundamental concept’ – the fundamental understanding that conservation of all that is most essential to the human being is the condition for an authentic renewal and revolutionary transformation of human relations - and the restoration of all that is great in the human soul. That we live in an age in which there are no longer truly great and original thinkers or poets, artists or statesmen – an age in which the very concepts of originality or greatness are an object of post-modern mockery – is no testament to human progress.  Progress without conservation has given us those revolutions that have installed great dictators and despots, whilst in our prized democracies, they have left us with great masses of mediocre academics and artists, not to mention those huge masses of human beings who live in ignorance of all the greatest historic expressions of the human soul.

The New Socialism and ‘Democracy

 True democracy is qualitative democracy - not a political system in which basic decisions are made by a mere quantitative count of heads, hands or electoral votes. In a qualitative democracy, decisions would not rest on vote counts or the push-and-pull of competing economic interest groups. Instead they would be arrived at through a consensus based on a natural harmony of soul between individuals. Yet it must not be forgotten that the dominant form of social organisation in global capitalism – and the one that wields most real power over people’s lives - is not the ‘democratic’ political state but the economic corporation. Capitalism lavishes praise on political democracy but knows nothing of economic democracy – the democracy of the workplace. The modern industrial or hi-tech corporation is the least democratic, most ‘corporatist’ form of social organisation conceivable, dependent on enforced compliance and wage-slavery, and ruled by rich executive Caesars accountable to no one except the ruling accountants of global finance capitalism. Corporate ‘cultures’, ‘philosophies’ and ‘values’ are the death of all true culture and all truly creative thinking – miniature corporatist or fascist cults whose only true values are share values, and whose only god is The Market. For all their talk of the importance of ‘innovation’ they are capable of nothing more innovative or creative than the massive wastage of natural resources for the production, packaging and over-production of competing look-alike commodities, whether cars or computers. 

The New Socialism versus Corporate Fascism

 Quality of life has nothing to do with lifestyle. It is qualitative value fulfilment XE "value fulfilment"  – the freedom of an individual to cultivate and creatively express the soul qualities they themselves value most deeply, and to discover and actualise new qualities through their interaction with others. Capitalist economies measure ‘employment’ in purely quantitative terms – the number of people employed and not the quality of their employment. Quality of employment XE "qualitative:employment"  has to do with the qualitative value fulfilment XE "value fulfilment"  provided by a job. Irrespective of quantitative employment figures, capitalism actually  creates massive levels of qualitative unemployment – failing to value, cultivate and creatively employ the qualities of individual employees, and to recognise and reward their economic value. The total devaluation of individual soul qualities generates a lack of qualitative value fulfilment through work. This lack of value fulfilment – soul fulfilment - is the source of individual and social sickness in all its forms. The sickness is not medical. It arises from a social definition of ‘health’ which reduces it to economic functionality – the individual’s capacity to go on working irrespective of the lacking fulfilment they find in their work. As Ivan Illich XE "Illich, Ivan"  notes in his powerful and revolutionary critique of modern institutionalised medicine: “People who are angered, sickened and impaired by their industrial labour and leisure can escape only into a life under medical supervision and are thereby seduced or disqualified from political struggle for a healthier world.” The health industry turns those temporarily dis-qualified through illness from participation in the labour market into consumers of profitable drug treatments in order to return them to that market – not recognising that it is wage-slavery, lacking quality of life and work that is the very source of individual and social dis-ease. All signs of true health and ‘productivity’ on the other hand – genuine originality and ethical integrity - the embodiment of deep individual soul qualities in human relations and their expression in creative labour -  are seen as sicknesses in today’s corporations - automatically disqualifying individuals from participation in a quasi-fascist ‘team spirit’. This is a ‘spirit’ which demands only drones indoctrinated in the language and ideology of corporate newspeak – capable of mouthing the corporately-correct phraseologies and mastering their impersonal technical terminologies.

The New Socialism and Total Pacifism

What did the Second World War really decide?
This world war has decided nothing – if here we use the word ‘decision’ in so
high and wide a sense that it concerns solely man’s essential fate on this earth.

 Martin Heidegger What is Called Thinking?

 The war that ‘we’ won – who exactly was or is this ‘we’? England? America? ‘The Allies’? ‘The civilised world’? Or was the war that this ‘we’ won a war that won and defeated us all – being a defeat not only for Germany but for humanity. The war that ‘we’ won – the victory of an alliance with Stalin’s sociocidal tyranny against Hitler’s genocidal tyranny.  A victory of 20 million or more deaths through freezing gulags, forced labour and firing squads over 6 million or more deaths through the concentration camps, gas chambers and their holocaust of smoking crematoria. Who would have the arrogance to compare either the quantity or the nature and ‘quality’ of these murders? The war ‘we’ won - a victory cemented and ‘crowned’ by a calculated decimation of civilian centres and populations – Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden – of the sort that Hitler could only have dreamt of.

 D-day. The day that decided nothing except to ensure a halt to the advance of Stalin’s armies into the whole of Western Europe. The use of the atomic bomb. ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ that decided nothing except to put an end to Stalin’s advance into an already defeated Japan. The Second World War – a war that decided nothing except the transformation of a single ‘hot’ war into ‘cold’ war, and thereby into countless further national wars and civil wars. The war ‘we’ one – a victory that cost over 20 million lives in the Soviet Union alone. Who now would still have the arrogance to declare that pacifism would have only cost countless innocent lives. For wherever war has been justified as a means of saving lives, it has invariably cost lives – countless lives. 3,000 or so killed in 9.11. 30,000  through the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet on the single historic occasion when pacifism was tried out – in India through Gandhi’s doctrine of non-violence – it saved lives. Politicians and thinkers of both Left and Right still consistently fail to address the decisive question of so-called total pacifism – the understanding that under no circumstance whatsoever is violence and violation of human beings or nature justifiable. They hold instead to the fanatical belief – in essence the belief of the fanatic - that ‘in the right circumstances’ - however defined - the ‘means’ (war or violence of any sort) justifies the ‘end’ (whether imperial conquest, self-defence or social revolution). Total pacifism continues to be equated with appeasement, surrender or just plain cowardice. In fact no political conviction requires greater spiritual strength and fearlessness than that of the total pacifist.  War on the other hand, is invariably a surrender to fear and fatalism – the defeatist belief that without total war certain feared consequences will inevitably result. That such consequences may indeed result is used to justify war – irrespective of its consequences – rather than to question the fears themselves. For ultimately fear itself is the basis of all violence and all wars. Fearlessness in war is therefore no substitute for a war against fear – the fatalistic fears that breed war and that both warmongers of all nations rely on to mount wars – both aggressive wars and defensive wars. It is inner capitulation to fear  and capitulations to inner fears. It is mutual capitulation to fear on the part of both aggressor and defender states or peoples that binds them together. It is this mutual capitulation to fear that precedes all wars and is their prime cause. It is because all wars are preceded by this mutual defeat that war has indeed no ‘winners’.

 This World War has decided nothing …Only the things that have remain undecided stand out somewhat more clearly.
Martin Heidegger

The New Socialism – Against Military Totalitarianism and State Terrorism

Workers! The Capitalist system - production for Profit instead of for use - is the cause of War! In the struggle for markets, in which to realise their profits, the Capitalists of the world clash, and then expect their 'hands' to become 'cannon fodder'!

ALL the Capitalists are aggressors from the workers' point of view. They rob you until you are industrial 'scrap', and will sacrifice you 'to the last man' to defend their imperial interest.

We stand for the victory over Hitlerism and Mikadoism - by the German, and the Japanese, workers, and the simultaneous overthrow of all the Allied Imperialists by the workers in Britain and America. We also wish to see the reinstitution of the Workers Soviets in Russia and the demolition of the Stalinist bureaucracy. In a word, we fight for the destruction of ALL Imperialism by the Proletarian World Revolution.

The Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation (APCF) 1939, as cited by the Anarchist Federation

… modern war itself is pre-eminently a totalitarian regime . . . consequently, the democratic powers, when faced with the necessity to wage on their own behalf a war that is necessarily conducted in the manner that is natural to their totalitarian opponents, must become, in fact, totalitarian themselves in order to carry it on at all effectively.

F.A. Ridley 1942  Ibid.

The Emergency Powers Act introduced in the Commons by Clement Attlee in May 1940 were totalitarian in nature “It is necessary that the Government should be given complete control over persons and property, not just some persons of some particular class of the community, but of all persons, rich and poor, employer and workman, man or woman, and all property.” They included an official ban on strikes, enforced overtime, state direction of where workers were employed, suspension of agreements regarding working conditions, internal surveillance, internment of 'aliens', and censorship of the media. Defence Regulation 18b empowered the Home Secretary to order, at his own discretion, the detention of any person “of hostile origin”.

At the end of 1943 Guy Aldred and J. Wynn published a well-documented pamphlet subtitled 'Investigation of Regulation 18B; its origin; its relation to the constitution; with first-hand accounts of what suffering has been involved for those who have been arrested and interned under it.' This argued that the Regulation had in effect established unrestrained executive power - in other words, a form of dictatorship: 'no man who differs from his fellows in his opinion of the Government's policy and dares to voice that opinion is safe from sudden and secret arrest ... As matters now stand there is no judicial safeguard for the liberty of the subject against arbitrary acts of the executive’.

Regulation 18B was mainly used to intern members of the British Union of Fascists, and people of Italian or German nationality or descent (some of whom had fled their native countries because of their opposition to fascism)…However, since the Regulation was operated entirely at the discretion of the Home Secretary, no-one was beyond its reach: 'All that now stands between any citizen and his secret and hurried incarceration in a gaol or prison camp is the incalculable whim of whoever may chance to be in the office of Home Secretary.'

The parallels between the emergency laws and powers introduced in Britain and America during the Second World War and those currently enforced in the name of the “War Against Terrorism” are striking – not least the use of ‘internment’ without trial, and the stoking of suspicion towards Muslims - in a manner reminiscent of the Daily Mail’s campaign to brand all Germans as a dangerous ‘Fifth Column’ – ‘The Enemy Within’ – and to have them all rounded up and interned - including Jews and courageous members of the German anti-fascist resistance.

As explained by the Anarchist Federation:

“During the First World War Lenin had argued that workers should not refuse to enter the armed forces: 'You will be given a gun. Take it and learn the military art. The proletarians need this knowledge not to shoot your brothers, the workers of other countries . . . but to fight the bourgeoisie of your own country.” The anti-parliamentarians rejected this tactic: “militarisation is intended to accustom the masses to submissiveness and ready obedience. This, in turn, leads to a psychology which would be, to say the very least, unfavourable for a flowering of real workers' democracy. Rather it would encourage the growth of the stifling fungi of bureaucracy and despotism all over again. On this triple count, therefore, militarism should be resisted in every possible way.”

The New Socialism is therefore not only anti-war but anti-militaristic in every sense, opposing the counterproductive use of military state terror and totalitarianism against military anti-state terror and totalitarianism - and vice versa. Yet it needs to be remembered that whilst around 3,000 innocent lives were lost in the 9/11 terror attack, over 10,000 innocent Iraqis and Afghans have died as a result of U.S. military counter-terror. And who in the Western media ever payed homage to the 1,000,000 murdered as a result of the U.S. backed coup in Indonesia - not to mention the countless victims of other U.S. backed regimes of terror,  and the United States’ own massive military campaigns of terroristic civilian bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Vietnam. We need to remember also that it was the United States that provided Saddam Hussein with materials and chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction and stood back as he deployed them against the Kurds, and it was the British who first contemplated their use against civilians in Iraq – just as they also invented the ‘concentration camp’.

The New Socialism and ‘Third Positionism

 As anti-Globalist and anti-capitalist sentiments spread among all people, left and right, who are opposed to the internationalist’s New World Order and their anti-working class imperialism, it is inevitable that divergent tendencies, united by a common opposition, will find themselves engaging in greater exchanges of political and cultural ideas, and that this exchange will lead to a new synthesis of doctrines which will redefine the paradigm in which social and economic struggle is conducted in the 21st Century. Key to this is the role played by the so-called ‘Third Positionist’ movement which, by rejecting Capitalism, Communism, Social Democracy and Hiterlian National Socialism, seeks to find a true working people’s socialism that accommodates unique cultural and ethnic characters while not ending support to imperialism, ethnic supremacy, or world-destroying wars.

In the struggle to come to terms with the anti-Monarchical, Bolshevist and capitalist tendencies that swept across Eurasia like the black plague, the finest minds of Europe developed ideologies which, though semantically similar to their ruling class cousins, were radically opposed to the kind of bourgeois pragmatism which catapulted leaders like Hitler and Mussolini into the seats of government. These thinkers, like Otto Strasser, who led the remnant of the left-wing of the National Socialists in revolt against Hitler after the 1934 purges, and Julius Evola, who lorded over Mussolini in his own country and who was banned from lecturing in Germany because of his seditious doctrine, have been largely ignored in the Western world until recently, as the struggle between Bolshevik communism and American centralized-capitalism dominated for fifty years the international political landscape. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the collapse of America into imperial overstretch and ideological decay, the thinkers of the world have been free to re-invent the ideas of the past and these ideas have exploded outwards in the international anti-Globalist movement. With the Zionist Third World War against Islam now looming on the horizon, and with the government of America becoming further divorced from the decentralist and anti-imperialist inclinations of its people, an understanding of the history and doctrine of these movements has become of paramount importance.

Standing in stark contrast to this are the movements of the international ruling class, whether the American Oil Barons, the Zionists, or the New World Order ‘democratic’ socialists, which seek to strip working people of their political and economic liberties in order to shape them in the image of the ‘new man’. These movements, which demand as part of their doctrine global domination and the destruction of all cultures and traditions which oppose them, have created by their evil deeds the reaction that will stand in the way of their phony ‘progress’ and bring their system to its knees. Working people today, just as the working people of a century ago, have no use for wars that bring profit to a handful of elite at the expense of the lives of the masses, and as working people see how the ideologies of the past failed to bring about their enlightenment, they are seeking out new ideas in a new field of politics that has moved ‘beyond left and right’.

Bill White  Anti-Globalist Resistance beyond Left and Right

The New Socialism is a new form of ‘Third Position’ socialism transcending the historic opposition of ‘left’ and ‘right’ –  rejecting global capitalism, corporatism and imperialism, fascism, Stalinist ‘Communism’ and Hitlerist ‘National Socialism’.

But as Bill White points out, just as Third Position ideologies are gaining more adherents “they are also becoming the target of more disinformation, as the extreme Old Left-ists of the anti-Globalist movement call conferences to attack these ideas, and as the self-righteous defenders of neo-liberalism try to force these doctrines, the ‘square peg’, into their round hole of ‘hate’ and ‘fascism’.”

All the more important then, to provide a solid theoretical framework for the ‘square peg’ of the Third Position – giving it a clear and wholly unambiguous ethical and philosophical foundation of a sort that is still lacking among the various ideologies and groupings who fall under its umbrella. The aim of The New Socialism is to provide such a new framework and foundation for the Third Position movement. In order to do so it is vital to come to a new historical understanding of those traditional ideologies and movements of the Right that have hitherto been regarded as the chief enemies of the Left.

The Old Left still hold to the historically ignorant and simplistic formula that reads ‘National Socialism = Fascism = Racism = Genocide’.

In reality the term National Socialism as employed by Hitler was his biggest of ‘big lies’. For the party that bore its name was not one party but two. One was a truly and ‘fascist’ party – a militarist and nihilistic party of National Capitalism funded by industrialists and pursuing permanent war rather than ‘permanent revolution’. As Bill White explains, this party  “developed around the alliance of Herman Göring with the German-Prussian aristocracy and the captains of German heavy industry. It is to this camp, lured by the money and the luxuries which it distributed freely to its political friends, that Hitler and his toady Göbbels came in the years before the ascension to power.” The other party was a non-racist and revolutionary socialist party called the ‘Black Front’ or ‘German Freedom Front’. This was represented by Otto Strasser, who on July 4, 1930 addressed  Hitler in the following words:

Your racial ideas - are not only a flagrant contradiction of the great mission of National Socialism - they are calculated to bring about the disintegration of the German people.

 To which Hitler responded:

What you preach is liberalism! There is only one possible kind of revolution, and it is not economic, or political, or social, but racial…

 As White correctly emphases:

 The difference betweens the two camps were not trivial. The right camp favoured socialization, meaning confiscation into the control of the state only of those industries that behaved against the interests of the nation, or, rather, who were owned by corporations that competed with the Nazi Party’s backers or that were owned by Jews. The left was in favour of the socialization, the confiscation and redistribution to the workers of all heavy industry and landed property, whether it was owned by the Germans who were funding Hitler or any of their opponents.

The two camps also disagreed on the question of nationalism and imperialism. Hitler, as early as 1920, was planning war, in alliance with Britain (he hoped), against France, for the domination of Europe, in which Germany would control the land and Britain the seas. Strasser, in contrast, advocated a German nation, freed of foreign occupation and imperialist dreams, embracing the German people without colonizing or occupying the lands of Europe’s non-German people. Hitler wanted war, and Strasser wanted peace.

Third, the two camps differed significantly on the role of the state. Hitler’s bourgeois tendencies, developed from his alliances with Germany’s ruling class, led him to embrace the essence of fascist doctrine and the idea of a corporate state that manufactured the lives of its workers as a product. The left and working class elements, however, advocated the liberty of the individual in the regulation of both their personal and economic lives, with the belief that, unimpaired by foreign doctrines and the pollution of ruling class and alien cultural control, the workers would adhere naturally to the organic tendencies towards culture that were embodied in the fundaments of their physical and spiritual being. Hitler’s Nazi state, with its total control, was viewed by the Freedom Front opposition in much the same way that Stalin’s bureaucracy was viewed by the Trotskyites…

 All revolutionary National Socialists were ruthlessly purged in 1934, following the murder of S.A. leader Ernst Röhm. The result was a situation which Otto Strasser could write in 1940 that not only Jews but:

Two million Germans have been or still are guests in the cells of the Gestapo, or are or have been familiar with the delights of Dachau, Buchenwald, or Oranienburg. These two million have parents, wives, children. In other words, about ten million human beings have suffered personally from Hitler’s methods.

Strasser therefore rejected the still-insistently propagated identification of all Germans with Hitler.

 The German people are said to be entirely devoted to their Fuehrer. No! The German people want a German revolution - they want liberty at home - they want liberty abroad - they want peace in Germany, peace in Europe, and peace in the world.

The New Socialism and ‘Socialist Internationalism

 For old-Left socialists and bourgeois liberals alike the political spectrum was once a simple and single straight-line leading from socialist internationalism on the Left, through national capitalism to capitalist imperialism on the extreme Right. The very idea of socialist nationalism or ‘national socialism’, whether in the form of Nazism or Stalinism (‘Socialism in One Country’) appeared like a contradiction in terms. In practice however, the old socialist Left, even in its most ardently ‘internationalist’ forms (Trotskyism) was forced by the reality of U.S. Imperialism to support ‘national liberation’ movements – not only Left-wing movements which had a revolutionary socialist character – movements which effectively represented forms of social nationalism or ‘national socialism’ – but also right-wing movements of national capitalism (even those with a neo-fascist character). On the other hand, the internationalist Left did nothing to promote movements of national liberation - whether of the Right or Left – in those countries dominated by Stalinist industrial feudalism and Soviet imperialism. The picture became even more complicated for the old-socialist ‘internationalists’ with the fall of the Soviet Empire and the ‘Globalisation’ of international capitalism - which released a backlash in the form of Islamic and neo-Nazi anti-Globalism, and gave rise also to new and extreme Right-wing movements of National Capitalism – both anti-American, anti-European and anti-Globalist - in both Eastern Europe and the erstwhile Republics of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile post-Maoist China had already transformed itself into a ‘fascist’ state in the purest sense – a multi-ethnic national-capitalist ‘Republic’ held together only through single-party rule supported by a powerful, property-owning military elite. It is of the utmost importance that ‘Third Positionist’ sympathisers distinguish between corrupt, fascistic and Mafia-style forms of national capitalism and industrial feudalism on the one hand (Serbia, Uzbekistan), and genuine social nationalism on the other – firmly rejecting both racist neo-Hitleritist and neo-Stalinist forms of ‘National Socialism’ or ‘National Bolshevism’.

The New Socialism, Zionism and Nazism

...Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group…

Letter to the Nazis from the Zionist Federation, June 1933

In Jewish national circles people are very pleased with the radical German policies since they strengthen the Jewish population in Palestine which would be so far increased thereby that in the foreseeable future the Jews could be reckoned upon numerical superiority over the Palestinians.

In 1937 when I had been struggling with Hebrew for two and a half years I has a chance to take a trip to Palestine. We were most interested in the Palestine immigration and I wanted to find out at what point the Jewish State in Palestine might be set up. Unfortunately Palestine was then in turmoil and the British turned down my application. I did see enough to be very impressed with what the Jewish colonists were building in their land. I admired their desperate will to live, the more so since I myself was an idealist. In the years that followed I often said to Jews whom I had dealing with that had I been a Jew I would have been a fanatical Zionist - I could not imagine being anything else, in fact I would have been the most ardent Zionist imaginable.

Adolf Eichmann

Both Zionism and Hitlerite Nazism were forms of racist and ‘volkisch’ national capitalism. Lenni Brenner, a Marxist and an expert on the suppressed history of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis and other Jew-haters reports how in1940 Abraham Stern - who later founded the terrorist military arm of Zionism – the notorious Stern gang -  sent a document to the Nazis:

The National Military Organization (NMO), which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

1.      Common interests could exist between the establishment of a New Order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

2.      Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed volkish-national Hebrium would be possible and

3.      The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition of the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognised on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.

As Brenner comments with appropriate cynicism:

In Europe they hung you for that, in Israel they elected Yitzhak Shamir who was one of the three who took over the Stern Gang - they elected him Prime Minister and he was Prime Minister for 7 years. You know if you think about Kurt Waldheim for example and all the ferocity that came out against him - Israel had a wanna-be Nazi prime minister...

Racists Support Racists - a movement that collaborated with the Nazis, that allied itself to Apartheid, that told American Jews to vote for Richard Nixon [because he was giving them guns during the 73 war], is it an accident that George Bush is their ally today? No. they have to seek their allies among the most reactionary elements in world politics - its only these bizarre elements that are themselves racist that give Zionism the time of day.

The New Socialism, Judaism and Aryanism

The history of Judaism began with the emergence of a new tribal cult among the Hebrews and the creation of a new tribal god – Jahweh - endowed with infantile, egotistical and genocidal characteristics. This was a god who inadvertently admitted the existence of other gods besides him by commanding that none be placed before him. Yet this purely local or particularistic god was gradually transformed into a global god lacking any specific identity or knowable qualities. The new global god served as a universal symbol of abstract ego-identity - an unchanging or self-same subject, ego or ‘I’ that looks down from on high on both natural man and human nature and turns them both into objects of its impersonal moral gaze. The metamorphosis of Judaism was completed through Christianity, which gave the universal god a human face – not now in the form of a particular people or race but rather in the form of an individual – Christ. In doing so Christianity transformed the original Father god with his ‘qualities’ of envy, wrath and genocidal rage into the image of ‘the Son’ – an embodiment of meekness and compassion - of ‘love and peace’. This left only the Jews themselves to maintain the values and tradition of a racially pure and highly particularistic tribal culture based on the original Jahweh cult.

The history of Aryan racial religiosity or ‘Ariosophy’ is a mirror image of the history of Judaism. It begins with the rejection of a universal or ‘cosmopolitan’ god of ego-identity and the reversion from this global ego-god instead to a religion of natural man and human nature. Yet just like early Judaism, this neo-pagan religion identified itself with a particular ‘chosen’ people and race – the Aryans. Aryanism was a historic reversion to a particularistic, racial religion – in essence a new form of Judaism – yet one that this time placed itself in direct opposition to the universal Christian god of cosmopolitan or ‘global’ capitalism that had sprung out of early Judaism – the universal god of ego-identity lacking any roots in the history, values and culture of a particular race or people. By once again elevating to superhuman status the qualities of a particular ‘chosen’ race and its tribes, Aryanism became a mirror image of traditional racial Judaism. And yet it was the Jews as a race who became a scapegoat for all the ills of a global capitalism and the ‘universal’ god of the new Protestant Christianity - neither of which respected either deep rooted cultural values or national and racial identities – replacing them all with the single god of ego-identity – monetary value.

© Peter Wilberg, 2004

back to Homepage