By Adam Ormes, Nowhere News
(Original version delivered as a speech in Porto on February 15th, 2020.)
“I would not encourage in your minds that delusion which you must carefully foster in the minds of your human victims. I mean the delusion that the fate of nations is in itself more important than that of individual souls. The overthrow of free peoples and the multiplication of slave-states are for us a means (…); the real end is the destruction of individual souls. For only individuals can be saved or damned…”
― C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (taken from Screwtape’s address to the young devils graduating from Hell’s training college).
Individualism and collectivism are two terms one often finds counterposed in the discussion of politics. Within the context of the 20th century, which might be understood as a battleground of mutually antagonistic political ideologies, we can employ George Orwell’s term oligarchical collectivism in the case of fascism and bolshevism, and modify it into oligarchical individualism to describe the liberal Pax Americana. While adherents of those ideologies may have believed themselves to be fighting in the name of their nation, class, or individual freedoms, as the case may be, in truth their ideals served as vehicles for the mobilisation of entire societies into projects which would ultimately only benefit the interests of a miniscule oligarchical class. To provide an example, I present here an extract from Kerry Bolton’s book ‘Revolution from Above’:
“Both Big Business and Marxism view history as dialectical. This means that history proceeds from the clash of opposites (thesis and antithesis) and from this tension emerges something new (synthesis). In the instance of dialectical capitalism, the synthesis that is supposed to emerge is a centralised world state controlled not by commissars and a politburo but by plutocratic coteries and their technocrats. A strategy of dialectics means backing movements in the short term to achieve quite different, even opposite goals, in the long term. Hence the rationale behind capitalists supporting socialist and even communist movements, as will be shown.
In the case of communist dialectics, the Marxists believe that socialism cannot emerge in a peasant or agricultural society and that a stage of capitalism and industrialisation must first be reached. Of course the communist analysis is wrong: the major communist revolutions have taken place in peasant societies (China, Russia, and Cuba).
On the other hand, the dialectics of Big Business considers that plutocracy cannot be achieved until a society has gone from its peasant stage into an industrial phase. In order to achieve this sudden and forced industrialisation from a peasant society, the plutocrats have used socialism. History has shown that the plutocratic dialectic is proceeding successfully: the plutocrats backed communist revolutions in Russia and China to overthrow the traditional peasant societies. Once socialism had been used to achieve the industrialisation of those societies, the next phase of the dialectic has been to introduce privatisation and globalisation to the economies of the former Eastern bloc.”
Bolton refers in part to the work of Anthony Sutton, an Englishman, who worked as a researcher at the prestigious Hoover Institution of Stanford University, until controversy surrounding his research led to his dismissal. Sutton began by studying the transfers of western technology to the Soviet Union, which led him to discover just how extensively the supposedly anti-communist Wall Street banking interests had invested in the Soviet economy, and further, that it had helped instigate the Bolshevik Revolution through its support of Trotsky and Lenin. He then went on to find much the same scenario with regards to Wall Street and the 3rd Reich. Furthermore, it is now well documented how at the beginning of the 20th century, German militarism was deliberately inflamed by the actions of the British Milner Group in order to provide a justification for their much desired war with the German state, which at the time presented a formidable obstacle to the interests of British monopolists. History, as the saying goes, is written by the victors, or indeed its instigators.
How then, first as individuals, and subsequently as communities, might it be possible to overcome the manipulations of this oligarchy, who – it must be remembered, have nearly infinite resources at their disposal, as a result of their control of the debt-based money system? Investing ourselves in the ideologies which they provide for us has consistently been our downfall. We must also recognise that it is only through mass conformity that these manipulations are able to succeed. And human communities, for the most part, constitute a very efficient mechanism for eliciting conformity from their members, especially where dissent is punishable by exclusion – something most cannot not bear to face.
Hence, two questions emerge: