-Caveat Lector-
from "THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA'S SOUL" by Balint Vazsonyi
Over time, the forces endeavoring to bring about an
equitable organization of human society were consolidated
increasingly into two opposing patterns of thinking: One evolved
from German philosophy, the other from English political and
economic principles.
Followers of German philosophy claim the supreme ability of
man to define good and evil; to differentiate successfully
between what is right and wrong for all creatures; to determine
the needs of COMMUNITIES past, present and future; and to arrange
for the administration, arbitration and fulfillment of such
needs. When translated into practice, the result is invariably a
prescription to which all are required to conform -- in other
words government by FIAT.
On the opposite, English, side the recognition has emerged
that communities consist of INDIVIDUALS whose needs are best
identified by themselves; that rights and contracts which protect
the fruits of effort constitute the best incentive for
individuals to provide for their own needs; that limiting the
rules and regulations to the necessary minimum encourages the
evolution of communities which are easy to govern because the
fewer the rules, the broader the agreement. The result is
government by consent of the governed.
In the course of the 20th century these two forces have come
to engage in ongoing, mortal combat. The two world wars ended
with the victory of the English side. The next global engagement,
the so-called Cold War, produced a similar outcome. Yet,
notwithstanding the loss of 'hot' and 'cold' wars or the apparent
verdict of History, nothing and no one as yet succeeded in
persuading the party of the first part that defeat would have to
be accepted. Indeed, while German social theory's vanguards --
Communism and National Socialism-- were leading the charge, the
next battlefield was being prepared constantly.
The United States of America, that most powerful embodiment
of English political and economic principles, could be neither
invaded nor subdued by the threat of nuclear annihilation. An
altogether fresh approach evolved, as ingenious and enticing as
German philosophy itself, which carried the battle to the
heartland of the adversary and made it a part of every-day life
in a time of peace.
This latest version of the same social theory --having
attracted proponents of whom many are uninformed about the true
nature of their beliefs-- is currently waging its most
devastating assault upon the domestic arrangements of the United
States. Many of its key elements have already pervaded our
thinking, our language, our institutions.
The urgency in wishing to publish these findings has to do
with the first 28 years of my life which were comprised of Nazi
terror, Communist terror, and being a stateless refugee. Early
experiences included saving my mother from deportation by the
Nazis and my older brother from being carted off by the KGB (then
GPU), before I turned 9. It was relatively easy then: The enemy
wore uniforms, or at least arm bands. Leather coats were
preferred. The world was at war. Even during the years of the
Cold War, in Hungary where I grew up, the only thing cold about
it was the sweat when you heard the midnight knock on the door.
Not until I became a United States citizen did the bad dreams, in
which I was discovered in the 'wrong place' and arrested, cease
to visit me.
Presentation of the argument reflects my own thought
process, initiated by the recognition of fundamental precepts
common to Communists and Nazis. When in power, they employed
different criteria for dispensing DEATH to innocent millions, but
their ideologies intend the same arid LIFE for billions around
the globe. We need to examine the fate which was forced upon the
living by shifting our gaze from the much-exposed horrors of the
exterminations (which may appear outwardly different) to the
virtually ignored nightmare of every-day realities (which will
prove remarkably similar). Acts of physical violence by the
state affected many in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but the
process of gaining control of the mind and reducing humans to
willing tools reached every man, woman and child.
This study begins, therefore, with a comparative analysis of
Communism and Nazism, followed by the exposure of their origins,
and of those among their tenets and practices which have found
their way into American life. As well as intellectual
clarification, it will provide an array of useful facts for those
who fight in "The War of the Words" as it unfolds every day and
night over the airwaves.
PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS
If, as I had suggested, Fascism, Nazism, Communism,
Bolshevism are not really different in methods and outcome, if
they are branches of the same tree, it stands to reason to look
for shared roots. Conventional wisdom holds that Communism grew
out of Karl Marx's writings, while it is customary to trace
Nazism's origins mostly to Social Darwinism.
Such oversimplifications are misleading.
Yet, one might as well begin with Marx, since his name is
associated both with the rise of Communism (the prophet to
follow), and with the rise of Nazism (the devil to exorcise).
The first question is, then, "Why Marx"?
During the second half of the 19th century, those who wished
to be informed and enlightened, and those who looked for guidance
in their endeavors to work toward a better future, were faced
with an embarrassment of riches: By then, every facet of life and
of the universe had been subjected to examination, analysis, and
synthesis. Philosophers, contemplating past and present,
concerned themselves with abstractions. Social theorists proposed
practical changes to the tangible world in an effort to improve
upon it. There even were dreamers who described visions of a
"Heaven on Earth" to arrive at some future date.
One, and one alone, presumed to present himself as all these
things: philosopher, social theorist, dreamer, even scientist. In
addition, he claimed the ability to foretell the 'inevitable'
future -- thus engaging in prophesy as well. That one was Karl
Marx. This last presumption elevated his doctrines from the
crowded library of less-than-first-rate thinkers to the unique
potential of a religion. And because German philosophy at the
time was going in the direction opposite from religion (witness
Nietzsche), it should not come as a surprise that Marx was
originally adopted in Russia — the country where religion was
indispensable and where only a new orthodoxy could replace the
existing one. Not unexpectedly, opposition to Marx took on an
equally religious fervor in the Third Reich.
Despite today's popular association of Communism with Russia
or China, the philosophical underpinnings, then, are GERMAN --
but not simply because Marx was born in Germany or because his
closest collaborator was Friedrich Engels. The development of
Marx's thought process was predicated on his studies of Hegel
(Dialectics) and of Feuerbach (Materialism), to mention but two
decisive German influences. While it is true that Marx's sudden
burst of writing activity was occasioned by Proudhon, who was
French, German thinkers by this time, owing to numbers as well as
to weight, had begun to assume the place of primary importance in
the realm of metaphysics and to eclipse the French when it came
to the construction of philosophical systems. Kant, Hegel,
Schopenhauer and (even if his counts as the 'anti-system')
Nietzsche are obvious examples, but intellectual giants like
Lessing, Goethe, Schiller or Humboldt --who would not even be
listed under "philosophy"-- would easily qualify as well.
Nevertheless, the argument becomes troublesome at this
point. While the predominance of German Classical Philosophy is
obvious when one considers that even a Dane such as Kierkegaard
is inseparable from his relationship to Hegel, it is equally true
that Hegel is unthinkable without Plato.
We might, then, use a currently-fashionable term and
recognize in all this the "German reception of Plato".
Even Social Darwinism seemed to owe its promulgation to a
German --Ernst Haeckel-- whose "reception" of Charles Darwin's
Theory of Evolution resulted in its application to human
societies. But on further investigation we find the fundamental
thesis behind Social Darwinism already proposed in Plato's
"Gorgias." Socrates rejects it, but not convincingly. Does
this make Plato responsible for Hitler and Stalin?
The initial answer has to be "No", and it applies to some
extent even to Marx or Haeckel. Lenin sought to dispense with
Marx as the theoretical foundation as soon as the revolution was
on track. Hitler accepted Social Darwinism only so long as the
'natural selection' went his way; when Nature failed to eliminate
"inferior" races, the SS stepped in. If any, the specific
responsibility of the thinker is in having provided a repertory
of texts which can be turned into pretexts with little
difficulty. There is, however, a more comprehensive
responsibility in the whole notion of self-contained systems,
with all their misleading implications.
The construction of philosophical systems which ask the
questions and attempt to provide the answers to all aspects of
the human condition proved eminently compatible with German
intellectual temperament.
To be sure, the Encyclopaedia Britannica speculates that
Marx would have strongly disapproved of practices adopted by
Communist parties in his name; how much more so Hegel or Plato.
Similarly, there is no reason to assume that Haeckel or Nietzsche
would have participated in the Nuremberg rallies of the Nazi
Party.
Yet, the proclivity of creating systems, the predisposition
to search for and provide all-encompassing answers, the
assumption that such answers even exist are, by the available
evidence, characteristically German. These qualities have given
the world the St. Matthew Passion, Faust, the Ninth Symphony. In
the search for the 'ideal world', however, these same qualities
were employed to justify the termination of life for millions and
the prescription of life for all others, be it in the Pan-German
Empire, in the Soviet, even in the Chinese Empire.
Notwithstanding French socialists, syndicalists and (later)
existentialists, the spotlight of history illuminates a long and
distinguished line of German thinkers by the time we approach the
end of the 19th century. They would have, no doubt, reigned
sovereign over the landscape, and in the minds of those who
eternally seek 'improvements' in the organization of society,
were it not for the alternative to metaphysics which came from
but a single direction.
COMBAT
We have thus seen how the chief protagonists lined up in the
course of the last centuries. One side prepares the ground for a
closed, regulated, directed-from-the-top society, holding that
such societies will, by definition, be just.
The other 'muddles' along by trial and error, trusting that
instinct and enlightened self-interest will correct aberrations
and lead to continuous improvement. In economic terms, the first
is a "zero-sum" proposition necessitating the most stringent
prescription with regard to the distribution of national product.
The other is a tale of constantly ACCUMULATING wealth,
providing INCREASED access to a GROWING number of participants.
The legal comparison is even more revealing.
The first is a matrix of codified laws to which all have to
conform, and in which guilt or innocence is established by
professional jurists; the other is an evolving web of common law
in which verdicts are delivered by citizen juries.
The clash of titans was only a matter of time. During the
latter part of the 19th century, the confrontation remained in
the realm of debate, though respective roles and styles were
clearly defined. While John Stuart Mill subjected Socialism to a
detached examination and drew his conclusions with everyone's
interest in mind, Marx attacked Capitalism with pronounced ANIMUS
and saw society's future solely in terms of war within its own
ranks. A mere assessment here; a call to arms there.
I would not presume either to recount or to dismiss the many
well-documented reasons for the outbreak of the First World War.
I venture only to suggest as well that the time had come when
representatives of these diametrically opposing attitudes to the
organization of society had to take to the battlefield. The rest,
as the saying goes, is history indeed. The English side won both
World Wars and the Cold War -- all of them extensions of the
original conflict. There are reasons, other than the Magna Carta
and John Locke, for the liberty I take in referring to it as the
"English side". Locke held that to understand our thinking and
knowing we must understand the language with which we think and
communicate our thoughts. I shall take this a step further and
suggest that, as much as our attitudes have a bearing on
language as it evolves, so language exerts a powerful influence
on our attitudes. In that sense, we may speak of the "English
side", notwithstanding the citizenship of record which may
pertain to a particular participant.
It should not be surprising that, after World War II, the
United States came to be the stalwart, the gatekeeper for the
"English side". Given the original tenets on which the U.S. was
built and the shift in military balance, this may be seen as a
natural rite of passage.
On the other hand, the spectacle of Soviet Russia and her
satellites as the living exponents of German philosophical
systems taken to their ultimate conclusion might still elicit
incredulity. It should not.
Aside from the absence of a Russian contribution in the
field of philosophy, the evidence clearly points to mostly German
("Classical", "Idealist") thinking as the basis for contemporary
assumptions that:
*It is possible for human beings to devise and prescribe the
ideal world,
and
*Those who recognize its tenets can (i.e. ought to, have the
calling to, the right to) create it for all.
There can be little doubt about Hitler's conviction that he
was moving his people toward the best of all possible worlds.
Similarly, Stalin persuaded himself that he had acquired a
comprehension of the world second to none -- the only way to
explain his megalomanic 'contributions' to any number of
scholarly fields. Mussolini's life demonstrates how easy it is to
make the switch from Socialist to Fascist. Martin Heidegger, who
vowed to "drive out academic freedom" when in 1933 Hitler made
him the first Nazi-installed university president, speaks today
through Jacques Derrida who recently assured his Riverside,
California, audience that "there is no future without Marx".
Those who visited the so-called German Democratic Republic
noted the seamless transition from Nazism to Communism. In fact,
so little was changed in the Soviet Occupation Zone after 1945 as
to make the present task enormous, now that CommuNazism (my own
term, but POSSIBLY the only appropriate designation) has really
come to an end in the former East Germany.
I ask the reader to pause now and consider the points which
may be taken as established at this stage.
We have seen that, with regard to social organization,
fundamental differences between approaches may be reduced to a
very few principles. We have seen that regimes, even at their
most brutal, need to wear the mantle of legitimate social theory.
We have seen that totalitarian states, whatever their respective
color, drew upon the same compendium of doctrines.
That being the case, labels such as "Left" and "Right"
should no longer block our vision of reality. The same is true
about words which no longer mean what they appear to be saying,
such as "Liberal" and "Conservative". (Some time ago Friedrich
Hayek noted that "Conservative" in its American usage was even
more confusing than "Liberal".)
The two sides to the dispute are perhaps best identified as
those who advocate a closed, regimented, guided-from-above world,
and those who believe that government is legitimate only through
the consent of the individuals it is called upon to serve. I have
been referring to the latter as "The English Side", but what to
call the former?
While contemplating this question, I came upon a passage by
John Plamenatz of Oxford. In his "German Marxism and Russian
Communism" --an eminently dispassionate treatment of the topic--
he permits himself some untypically passionate words to describe
what makes Marxian social theory "alien to the English, the
French, the Americans".
"...it is...demanding, arrogant, and contemptuous; it
thrusts aside with disdain whatever does not suit it, as if facts
were not worth noticing unless they bore it out. It is a German
theory, overwhelming in its profuseness, like a broad river in
full spate carrying everything before it...There is a power often
uncontrolled by reason in the roar and clatter of the long German
sentences as they make their heavy way regardless of obstacles
irresistibly towards the 'Truth'."
Following the extensive discussion in previous sections, we
can now look past the specter of Auschwitz or the Gulag, to the
dreary existence in which all participants are slowly dying.
Nowadays one says "Nazi" and people think of David Duke; one says
"Communist" and people think of... whom? (Curiously, I have not
seen the Press describe anyone as such for some time.)
For too long, Communists have deluded themselves by
believing that they represent the vanguard in the struggle
against Nazis; for too long, Nazis have taken comfort in the
converse. Such comfort should be denied. Painting the swastika on
a door does not make a person a Nazi; advocating the
classification of people by race or origin does. Wearing the
hammer-and-sickle on the lapel does not make one a Communist;
waging war on property rights does. Having established the
concurrence of the two ideologies on matters of substance, the
time has come to insist on a common designation. In the context
of this inquiry, the side opposite the "English" is undeniably
the "GERMAN".
However, these ideas have long transcended the boundaries of
their birth places, and the profusion of meanings attached over
time to existing terms leads unavoidably to confusion. Therefore,
notwithstanding the risk attendant to new terminology, I shall
henceforth refer to those on the English side as PRAGMATISTS, and
to those opposite as DOGMATISTS ...
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
