EITHER US - OR NOTHING
EITHER US - OR NOTHING
It is possible to divide Bolshevism as a historical phenomenon in two parts. On one side, the doctrinal field of various pre-Marxist socialist and communist visions and theories existed as its parallels and continued their existence as intellectual motives after Marxism was forced to the final ideology. This first stage could be called "the Bolshevism project". The second stage is the incarnation of this project in concrete historical reality in the form of Russian social-democracy, later the Communist party, and, on the final stage, the history of the Soviet State and the ruling party. The first part is undisputedly wider than the second and, like any plan, supersedes the second. But we cannot understand one without the other. The realization makes no sense, if we do not know the plan, and a plan without a realization is a plain abstraction, and its possible realizations can go for better or worse in various circumstances.
National-Socialism and fascism present a similar scenario. On one side we have a theoretical dogma, philosophy, economic and historical views, all brought together by a common viewpoint ("the Fascist project") - on the other hand, the practices of historical parties (Nazi and Fascist), as well as the state organism of Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. However, there is one basic difference: "The Fascist project" of Germany and Italy was much farther from its incarnation than "the Bolshevik project" from the Soviet reality.
It is widely known, that the historical Bolshevik and Fascist parties and regimes were against one another, and this resulted in bloody fights, the biggest of which was the second World War, also known as the Great Patriotic War. But this hostility was never absolute and there were some examples of Fascists and Bolsheviks coming together even on the external, purely political, level: The Soviet State gladly recognized the Fascist order in Italy; German nationalists joined forces during the "Schlageter Course", announced by Radek; Finally, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Yet these two projects have much more in common. If we look at Bolshevism as an ideology that includes Marxism, but crosses its borders (that's how it was - after all, Lenin's idea of "building Communism in one state only" is against Marx), and apply the same method to fascism and Nazism (especially focusing on the ideologists who laid the base for the Nazi power, but remained in the opposition against the regime they saw as a caricature of their own views), we are bound to notice that the two projects have a lot in common. Actually, they have so much in common that theoretically it would be possible to suggest the existence of a metaideology of sorts that would be common to both projects.
This one single metaideology that lies not only beyond political concretization of Bolshevism and Fascism, but their political ideologies as well, is National-Bolshevism in its absolute essence. This metaideology has never before been recognized by anyone in its entirety; Only the deepest minds of both camps have intuitively guessed that it exists, trying to express these visions even remotely.
National-Bolshevism does not mean the pragmatic ways of Bolsheviks and European Nationalists, conditioned by Realpolitik. Nor does it mean the identical aspects of both "projects". It is something deeper that could appear only after the fall of the historical incarnation of one of the ideologies - the Soviet Union. (The actual incarnation of the Fascist project fell 50 years ago.)
These are the basic elements of this metaideology:
- 1. Eschatological awareness, clear understanding of the fact that the civilization is finally nearing its end. This leads us to the idea of eschatological restoration. There is also an effort to perform this Restoration of the Golden Age by political means.
- 2. The idea of inadequacy of the existing religious institutions of eschatological goals - the hidden anti-radicalism, reincarnations, and pharisaism of the traditional western religions. The spirit of reformation or "new spirituality" (mysticism, Gnosticism, paganism).
- 3. Hate for the modern world, the Western civilization, with its roots in the spirit of Enlightenment. Identification of the cosmopolitan imperialist capitalism with the extreme global evil. Anti-bourgeois pathos.
- 4. Interest for the East and dislike for the West. Geopolitical orientation towards Eurasia.
- 5. Spartan (Prussian) ascetism. Pathos for Work and the Working Man. The basic idea of the primary spiritual origin among the people, among its lowest levels who have been safe from the depravity of the last few centuries, in comparison with the degenerated elite of the old regimes. The principle of "new aristocracy", rising from the masses of the people.
- 6. Understanding the people and the society as an organic brotherly collective, based on moral and spiritual solidarity. Radical denial of individualism, consumption and exploitation. Effort to bring all peoples to the state of the "golden age".
- 7. Dislike for the cultural, religious and economic traditions of Semitic origin (Judaism, Islam), setting Indo-Europeic traditions against them, since the social class of "merchants" (with its mentality) did not exist as such.
- 8. Readiness to sacrifice oneself for this ideal and what it's worth. Hate for mediocrity and petty-bourgeoisie. Clear revolutionary spirit.
All the elements hereby numbered are to be found in any concrete dogma (Fascist or Bolshevik). They may vary by ideology or author, and may even appear together with other ideas that might contradict other points.
The historical National-Bolsheviks (Nikisch, Ustryalov, Thiriart) have intuitively come close to this complex, but even they have faltered from the path: Nikisch saw positive meaning in technology and process, Ustryalov flirted with NEP and wasn't aware of Germany's meaning for Russia, Tieriard denied esoterism and religion, remaining a materialist pragmatic.
National-Bolshevism is by far the most interesting phenomenon of the 20th century. It has adopted everything that fascinates us within Bolshevism or fascism. Whatever brought these ideologies to an end, contradicts with the spirit of this virtual doctrine.
National-Bolshevism helps us understand where the anti-liberal regimes of our century went wrong and why they were bound to fall. This analysis is loyal to the past and graphic, when it comes to our time, when the "new" right and "new" left are but parodies of what even in its own time were merely parodies of the virtual National-Bolshevism.
The National-Bolshevik ideology is free from all the crimes of the past. The historical National-Bolsheviks blamed the Nazis and Communists of perverting the theories, and thus became victims of the totalitarian Moloch. As the doctrine is taking form only now, even this argument cannot be the most decisive one.
National-Bolshevism is what has never been. It has never been in practice, nor even in theory. National-Bolshevism is what is to come. To come, as this doctrine will be a metaphysical and ideological sanctuary for those, who deny the modern world, the system of liberal capitalism that has become the sole basis of modern society. the protest will be forever. The old anti-bourgeois ideologies have proven their limits. Theoretical errors have sooner or later resulted in a historical fall. Who doesn't understand this, has no place in history.
The sole alternative for the modern world, this empire of the "liberal" antichrist, is NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM.
Either it, or nothing. No compromise will change anything. If the system has survived the proud Reich and the great Soviet Union (destroying the traditional monarchies and empires before these two), with political parties and armed extremists it should deal without any problem.
The point is that National-Bolshevism has its own spiritual line, speaking of which would yet be untimely. This is an alternative secret that will stand against the opening "secret of illegality" during the final times. Without this force, the Bolshevik and Fascist experiments were forceless. Only after a certain distortion of the instruments of policy this force has left the above-mentioned movements, leaving them for fate to take care before the face of the "Master of the Universe", clearly standing for a liberalist society. There are signs telling that this force has lately taken a new (final) form that will come up to its nature.
I think someone might already guess what I am talking about.