Counter-Currents
1,844 words
French translation here
Kerry Bolton
Revolution from Above
London: Arktos, 2011
To those who suffer from the general malaise that is induced by American globalism today, Kerry Bolton’s new book provides a useful guide to the specific financial elites that have been directing geopolitics since the early twentieth century, beginning with the Jewish bankers Warburg and Schiff and continuing, through the CIA, with the American Council on Foreign Relations, the Institute for Policy Studies, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the foundations of Rockefeller, Ford, and Soros.
Carefully documented with references to the standard literature on these various bodies that constitute the present plutocracy of America, this work shows us how the American ambition to rule the world began indeed with President Wilson’s efforts, during and after the first World War, to end European imperialism and institute a new age of world-democracy. Wilson’s anti-imperialism also allowed America to work in sympathetic, especially financial, collaboration with the Bolsheviks during the first years of their reign of terror.
Indeed, the Cold War between American and Russia was begun only because the Bolshevik rule was transformed into a nationalistic dictatorship under Stalin and the pro-American Jewish communist leader, Leon Trotsky, was forced into exile from Russia in 1929. Since that time, America’s globalist aims have been tinged with Trotskyist internationalism and, as is well-known, even the so-called “Neo-Conservatives” of today are former Trotskyists who have transformed themselves into bourgeois capitalists.
Bolton maintains that most of the socialist revolutions of the world were simply used by the plutocratic elites to effect their own agenda of an international world order based on commercial exploitation. He devotes a lengthy chapter (Ch. 6: “Revolution from Above”) to show how the Americans supported the Bolsheviks during the Revolution and the Civil War that followed it because they hoped to achieve commercial gains from the Soviets that they could not have contemplated during the closed Tsarist regime.
The next chapters, in which Bolton demonstrates the “socialistic” techniques used by the oligarchic elites, are focused on the American leftist movements of the sixties that aimed, through feminism, drugs, and degenerate art, to destroy the family and all national authority as obstacles to the establishment of a world tyranny.
But these social evils had in fact been combated, successfully, for decades, by the Stalinist Soviet Union, which rightly considered the entire West as “decadent,” and it would have been useful if Bolton had highlighted this as indeed one of the reasons why America, in league with the Hungarian Jewish speculator billionaire George Soros, engineered the various Eastern European “color” revolutions that brought down the Soviet Union in 1989 and threaten the Russian Federation today.
Bolton goes on to show how even the “Arab Spring” revolts were, partially at least, products of secret American interventions in order to promote democracy and capitalism in the Middle East. While this cannot be denied given the fact that shady American organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the International Republican Institute do operate in these vulnerable areas, it is less clear what the American elites that already supported moderate dictators like Mubarak in the past hope to gain by revolutions against the latter and by the installation of more Islamist governments in their place.
The final chapters consider the other internationalist agendas of today, such as family planning and global warming, that serve to facilitate the establishment of a world government. This world government, Bolton predicts, will be a “World Collectivist State” that is “communistic in organisation but run by oligarchs” (p. 251).
The question of how the Marxist notion of a collectivist workers’ utopia with a total aversion to private property was turned into a bourgeois one with monstrous acquisitions of private wealth is not specifically addressed. But we may infer from the conduct of the American Trotskyists who turned into “Neo-Conservatives” that Trotskyism was only used by the American Jews to counter Stalinism while they continued to pursue their own Jewish oligarchic ambitions.
Indeed, a major fault of Bolton’s work is his failure to observe that the vast majority of the oligarchic organizations determining the agendas of globalism were, and are, predominantly Jewish. He also does not seem to have noted the chronological coincidence between the western cooperation with the Russian Revolution of October 1917 and the triumph of Zionism (itself a movement of international scope and ambition)[1] in the British Balfour Declaration of November 1917, both of which served as preparatory steps for the establishment of Wilson’s world-democracy.
Indeed, we may wonder whether the globalism that Bolton, as well as many others, rightly despises is not inextricably linked to Zionism itself and, when Bolton decries the “creation of a ‘World State’ built on the edifice of Mammon” (p. 8), whether it may not have been more pertinent to mention, instead of a god derived from classical mythology, the actual god of the Jews.
Another question that arises in connection with Bolton’s view of the globalist threat — namely, how capitalism, based on private property and individualism, can lead to a “collectivist” state — is more difficult to answer. Bolton attempts to do this by highlighting the interlocking institutions that have directed education in America towards an “international viewpoint” (p. 28) as well as the methods of indoctrination adopted by the American elite organizations that sponsored, first, abstract art, atonal music and jazz in the forties and fifties (under the guidance of the Jewish Marxist Theodor Adorno, the Institute of Social Research in New York and the CIA’s Council for Cultural Freedom) and, then, the sex, drugs and rock-and-roll revolution of the sixties.
Timothy Leary, the drug guru who was funded by the CIA, for instance, was not just a “hippy” but apparently sought to “set up new social forms” that corresponded to “the possibilities of expanded consciousness” (p. 121). The problem with such pleasure-indoctrinations (Aldous Huxley’s alternative to George Orwell’s indoctrinations of pain), however, is that they are not collectivist in any economic sense but only in a cultural one.
The danger of the American oligarchic world-rule today is, thus, no longer a problem pivoted on the old Marxist categories of collectivism and capitalism but rather one of the erosion of aristocratic social cultures by a universal proletarian one. In other words, whereas Marx focused mainly on the economic and social independence of the working classes, the American plutocrats used the Cultural Marxists to destroy the culture of all classes as a necessary condition of their international commercial gains and rule.
Bolton’s early reference (Chapter 2: “Plato: The Father of Collectivism”) to the collectivist aspects of Plato’s ideal republic is, in this respect, quite unfortunate since it seems to give the present Jewish-American world-order an excellent classical precedent. I feel obliged therefore to correct here this misleading impression. Plato’s ideal republic is, in fact, a eugenic one which is to be ruled by guardians who are “good and noble” and who unite in themselves “philosophy and spirit and swiftness and strength” (Jowett translation). The education of these guardians is aimed at controlling the intellectual and passionate aspects of the soul through a regimen of well-chosen music (as well as literature) and gymnastics. Particular care should be taken to see that the guardians do not “grow up amid images of moral deformity” which might allow them to develop “a festering mass of corruption in their own soul.” This is the very opposite of the education and art propagated by the oligarchic elites of the American world order.
As regards the equalization of the sexes, too, Plato takes care to first point out the differences between men and women: “all the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in all of them a woman is inferior to a man.” However, “those women who have such qualities [as those of the male guardians] are to be selected as the companions and colleagues of men who have similar qualities and whom they resemble in capacity and in character.”
The apparently “communistic” recommendation of the sharing of wives and children in Platonic eugenic republic is also restricted to the noble guardians of it: “’that the wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent.” The reason for this is that guardians will therefore not stoop to base actions through envy. Since all guardians “have nothing but their persons which they can call their own, suits and complaints will have no existence among them; they will be delivered from all those quarrels of which money or children or relations are the occasion.”
The more important reason for the establishment of a communal life among the guardians, however, is to instil, from the top down, a common nationalistic feeling among all the citizens of the state. Plato’s cultivation of a national aristocracy thus has something in common with the National Socialist, Walther Darré’s attempt to create a new aristocracy in Neuadel aus Blut und Boden (1930), and also with the effort to preserve the integrity of the upper castes in the caste-system of India. It has nothing to do with Marxist, or modern Jewish American, notions of the equality of the sexes or of any economic cooperatives.
Besides, Plato’s political guardians are obliged to be philosophers, for they must always have in their minds the ideal of “another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after their own private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State.” Aristocratic elevation is thus an indispensable Platonic political ideal and the entire eighth and ninth books of the Republic are devoted to a study of the inevitable ruin of nations that abandon timocracy (or aristocracy) for oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny (the chief characteristics of the present American world order).
We see, from Plato’s model of the development of states as well as Bolton’s revelations of the American oligarchic networks, that the destruction of the aristocratic rule of Europe at the end of the first World War has indeed driven the world into the hands of a primarily Jewish plutocracy that relentlessly works for “democracy” in order to establish its own “tyranny”. The reader of Bolton’s fascinating book should certainly be grateful to the author for having carefully unraveled the socio-political mechanisms of an anti-aristocratic oligarchy that can only rule the world by essentially destroying it.
Note
1. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, for instance, remarked in his work on the projected Jewish state, Der Judenstaat (1896) that “The world will be liberated by our freedom, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our greatness.”
8 comments
Dr Jacob’s constructive criticisms are taken on board. The book – which is inteded to be tightly focused – will hopefully add a dimension on practical power politics to the historical-philosophies of Yockey and Spengler, the economic history of Brookes Adams and those dealing with Zionism and Jewish interests such as Kevin MacDonald’s. Those who remember A K Chesterton’s ‘New Unhappy Lords’ for example, should be pleased with this effort.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
I’ll let Dr. Bolton address such issues as he may wish to address; I’ll just deal quickly with some of the more obvious issues worthy of discussion, and, possibly, correction.
Alexander Jacob in blockquote:
Judaism is merely the most recent outworking of a totally materialistic Culture, a “religion” whose God is its own Race, and, while the EXACT opposite of Christianity, is essentially a reworking of the Babylonian religion. Identifying such evil solely with Judaism limits the accuracy of our analysis, and implies merely a solving of the Jewish Question as the solution to all of the issues. Dr. Joseph Farrell’s “Babylon’s Banksters” might be a good introduction to this.
First, while “globalism” works perfectly to complement the practice of Judaism, it is also something much greater, much older, and much more powerful, than Judaism. Second, the Jews never name their God, for just this reason. Judaism is simply a means to an end for the Adversary. Identified openly as a God known as Ba’al might cause public relations difficulties for them, even among the most diehard Zionist Christians.
No, it’s very easy to answer. The Old Left wanted to directly own “the means of production.” The New Left wants control without the burden of direct ownership. Do you want to own, say, oil refineries, with the attendant responsibility to your followers? No. You want to control what is DONE with them, and what outcomes will be “allowed.” So, you have de facto “collectivism,” simply run by the Elite in the name of “The People.” “Capitalism” claims to be based on “private property,” and implicitly, private rights. In fact, these are trumped by two rather inconvenient truths:
One, as Terrible Tommy Metzger notes, “You have no rights. You have privileges, and those only to the extent you can enforce them.”
Two, any and all claims to “private rights” are overcome by the claim of the “public good.” Think you own your land? Eminent domain theory proves there are limits to private ownership, based on the (greater) “public good.”
Only for the masses, and not for the Elite. They have always walled their Children off with the soft walls of privilege, maintaining the best of their own Culture, which they use with an amazing focus of purpose. The graduates of Lawrencevile, Eton, and Le Rosey have very little, indeed, with the rest of us.
This Is Not By Accident.
Not for their Children. THEIR Children are groomed to see what we see as ends unto themselves, only as means to a much greater End. Their Children are groomed to run the foundations and NGO’s that shape so much of the public agenda to serve the private Will.
Bolton’s discussion of the Platonic Model dealt with it as an Ideal, and not as the Absolute made manifest.
Above all, and for this I am particularly grateful, Dr. Bolton has never fallen into the error so many have, of granting the Jewish Race powers of absolute effectiveness, always winning, and always winning perfectly.
Much more to say about this fascinating topic. I am glad Dr. Bolton is speaking with his usual depth of insight. We need more of such.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
After your wonderful review Alexander I feel I have to buy yet another book – thank you for driving me towards penury.
He devotes a lengthy chapter (Ch. 6: “Revolution from Above”) to show how the Americans supported the Bolsheviks during the Revolution and the Civil War that followed it because they hoped to achieve commercial gains from the Soviets that they could not have contemplated during the closed Tsarist regime.
I have also heard that while Henry Ford was verbally bashing the Jews with one hand he was saving their revolution with the other by building factories in the Soviet and that America came into the war to save The USSR. Gossip, sour grapes or just the complications of real life?
On another note Christianity peaked out in the 13th Century with Thomas Aquinas who was a great fan of Aristotle. The other side of the coin is the great leveler Plato whom all our “wanna be” saviours dote over. I am led to believe that Aristotle/Aquinas stood for God king and country with the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate while Plato/today’s philosophers, leaders, and saints would have us as atomized equals.
The writers of C-C certainly keep the readers gray cells working!
Plato believed in Human Hierarchy – as do our Opponents. Of course they pretend not to so believe in order to throw down OUR hierarchy. See? Their great weapon is deviousness, never saying what they really mean or believe. Always tactical.
Because Plato was a Pagan, they sometimes use him to question Christianity. Of course, many Christians loved Platonism as a “Christianity before Christ”. So it gets complicated. They will focus on Plato’s Communsim and neglect to mention that that’s only meant for the Elite. They want the opposite: Communism for the masses while they live in luxury and deal making.
Rahm Emmanual wants mandatory public service for the young. I might too – so do I support Emmanual? Hell no. As long as he and his are in power, I want small goverment, no draft, no service, no nothing. And even if we ever came to power, we should keep an “opt out” for people who disagree. It will keep us honest.
It is a privilege to read your review here on Counter Currents, Dr. Jacob. It is also refreshing to explore the obvious connection between Plato’s Republic and the Vedic Varnashrama system. It seems that many have taken Popper’s negative view of Plato without realizing that he is envisioning the most revolutionary of sociopolitical constructs: a legitimate aristocracy based on metaphysical higher-order principles of eternal Truth (the Ideal), the Soul, asceticism and reflecting the natural Cosmic hierarchical order via the organic ethnic State, which he likens to the body itself. This is therefore identical to the original Vedic caste system, where each has a meaningful place and identity and the community as a whole strives toward the same philosophical/spiritual Ideal.
The world’s masters, since the Industrial Revolution, have been bankers — not businessmen, not industrialists, not politicians, not media owners — bankers.
This is something you can instinctively guess, but it takes a thorough understanding of the modern monetary system and the history of banks to put facts on your feelings.
Murray Rothbard’s books are a good start for beginners, especially his History Of Banking. Yes, I know Rothbard is a libertarian Jew, but who knows more about banking than a Jew? Besides, he was a self-hating Jew, like Otto Weininger, and the two are welcome in the pantheon of my favorite persons.
As Hitler understood (and it was, to my mind, the proof of his great intelligence for a young age), bankers are the first to benefit from communism — because communism does not abolish money, it simply abolishes concurrence. And what is the dream of any mafioso, or any drug dealer in a neighborhood? Abolishing concurrence. How did Carlos Slim or Bill Gates became so rich? By having no concurrence. Having a monopoly means that you can demand more from people while providing less. And who owns monopolistic companies? Who profits from their profits? Banks. There are also other characteristics of socialism — like compulsory education, working females, State support of failed banks, money printing — which all converge in the same direction: adding ultimately more gold in the pockets of bankers.
Bankers can profit in any political system: pure libertarianism, social-democracy (light communism), and communism. But it is the latter that gives them the biggest power. That explains why East-Coast Jewish-American bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution, why the United States have become increasingly socialist over the last centuries, why most leftist movements in history were funded by rich people, and why Ron Paul (whose political views are not mine, but he’s right on most topics) is mocked and ruled unelectable by the Jewish press.
And, finally, that explains why the terminus destination for mankind is a world communist government ruled by capitalist oligarchs, which may or may not be democratic (if it is, then it will be with a lot of Soma and entertainment).
So, what bank did Stalin and Mao work for? How about Pol Pot? Kim Jong Il? Castro?
The USSR was the only communist experiment of Jews. The other regimes you quoted have indeed nothing to do with them; they were the creations of idealistic idiot savants or Machiavellian alpha dogs.
International Jewish central bankers, after their failure in USSR (rise of Stalin and purge of all Jews in the state and financial apparatus), understood that violent revolutions intrinsically produced great chaos and unexpected effects, and that it was better to take, very progressively, and with the appearance of democratic legitimacy*, total control of all the levies of power. That’s that they do with social-democracy today.
* Central point: authority and stability of State rests on the illusion of legitimacy (received from God, from glorious ancestors, or from universal democracy).
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.