PDA

View Full Version : Your Opinion on National Bolshevism?



Dzerzhinsky
Tuesday, July 23rd, 2002, 12:24 AM
what do you think of it?

cosmocreator
Tuesday, July 23rd, 2002, 01:22 AM
It depends.

If its the usual anti-racist marxist crap with just a more patriotic touch, then I dont need it.
National socialism is completely capable of fighting capitalism without having to take loans from marxist Ideology.

In Germany we also had national-Bolshewik fractions (even in the NSDAP) like the Strassers or Ernst Niekish.
some were good Idealists and even fought as nationalists against the Poles in Freekorps.

I just think NS is a much more sound and well thought Idea, that would make any other form of Socialism obsolete.

Cheerio

Dzerzhinsky
Tuesday, July 23rd, 2002, 01:30 AM
If its the usual anti-racist marxist crap with just a more patriotic touch, then I dont need it.

national bolshevism is CERTAINLY not anti-racist. not in russia anyway. it is mainly very anti-semitic. it says that pure working class bolshevism was corrupted by jews and that now, jews in russia are trying to hijack capitalism for there own gains.

i used to be a member of the national bolsheviks in russia. they are good people. i fight for many of there causes and they are going about stopping jewish-mafia-capitailsm very well. i left because they were too racist though. i do belive that jews are behind the mess russia is in today, but i do not hold all jews responsible for that. some jews are ok. i just hate the jewish capitalists who are bleeding russia naturul resources dry, then giving the money back to Israel! that money should be in the hand of the Soviet people, not in the hands of a few corrupt officials, capitailsts and jewish gangsters.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, July 23rd, 2002, 02:06 AM
As far as I know, the National Bolshewists of russia have nothing against mixing with other Races. being antisemitic (or against Jews) does not have to do with Racism, as the Palestinians and Stalin proved.

"Racism" - or how we call it - "Racial awareness" does not tolerate the mixing with foreign ethnics. Its based on a Volk-community which has its roots in a common ethnic background and culture.

It sounds more to me, as if they are just against the Jews because they are capitalists.
there is no compromise for us with the Jew. No way ever!

You believe Jews are behind the mess Russia is in today? Guess what - they were behind every mess Russia has been in since 1917.

You think just because soviet Jews TALK like you want to hear it, that they are good and on your side. But they always followed their own agenda!
they were the commisars who butchered millions of Russians.
The were the Politruks in Red army who shot the russian soldiers!

They were the ones who grabbed Russian soil and heritage and pillaged and raped it.
you can say about the Tsars what you want, but these "autocrats" made Russia to what it is today. Or do you think some Jews from the ghetto would have done the same for the Russian ppl. They just sucked the Russian peasents dry over the centuries.

Unfortunately you are following the wrong track and you have been mislead by red jew propaganda. If you love YOUR PEOPLE (and only they should be in the center of your thoughts) then you will one day have to turn away from Bolshewism.

Life offers no simple answers. But if offesrs sometimes simple pictures. All u have to do is open your eyes. Look what communism did and what legacy it left behind and compare that to the few benefits it had. I think tens of millions of dead people are hardly wiorth it, to go through this again! I dont think Russia would survive it!

Cheerio

Dzerzhinsky
Tuesday, July 23rd, 2002, 02:23 AM
About communism, i call myself communist because i want a return to the Soviet days of the 70's when the standard of life was better. i want the USSR back along with the hammer and sickle, the red army and the centrally planned economy. i am a marxist, but i realise that international marxism failed. there is little future for it (at least in the near future) so the only thinkg i can support would be something that will make russia great again and improve the quality of life for russian citizens. brezhnev style communism (although i don't like brezhnev) will bring russia a better future.

About jews, it is true they have a lot to answer for in russia. IMO, the did TRY to hijack bolshevism in the early 20's, but lenin was only using them to fight the anti-semitic white armies. i know i keep saying this, but jews were badly persecuted in the USSR. it WAS NOT a jewish state. even if it was, if it was good for Russia, i wouldn't care. jews are now hijacking capitalism in Russia and are ruining the economy. it is a bleak future for Russia. the only thing we can hope for, is a return to days of food on the table and guranteed housing and employment. it may be a while before this comes though.

Ederico
Friday, July 26th, 2002, 06:45 PM
Personally I still have to form my opinion on National Bolshevism (why don't they call it National Communism?). I am a Pan-European Nationalist and I still have to find an ideology which is better than Pan-European Nationalism in safeguarding the interests of a Nation and Race.

If someone could explain the main ideals behind National Bolshevism, I could perhaps set my position on it. Personally I think it is a more digestable version of Communism for Nationalists. Since I do not agree with a totally centrally-planned economy, I still disagree with National Bolshevism.

I believe that the State should be the main directing force in the National Economy, but Free Enterprise and Private Property must be mantained, as I consider them part of the rights of Citizens. The State must only intervene in the economy to safeguard the Common-Interest of the Nation and to increase the State's revenues to be able to redistribute these revenues to Social programs and other Economic, Infrustructural and Social projects.

molusk
Saturday, August 3rd, 2002, 08:59 PM
Well I hate national bolshevism, mostly because I am an internationalist, but also as a humanitarian. National Bolshevism is at least sometimes racist, I saw a National Bolshevist flag, just like the Nazi flag but with a Hammer and a Sickle replacing the swastika. It had the white circle for purity.

Ederico
Saturday, August 3rd, 2002, 09:10 PM
Molusk (strange name) welcome to the board. Personally, I believe in international co-operation, obviously I am totally against removing nationalities as some Communists propose, and I am against undermining the integrity of the identity of a folk, by an influx of alien individuals into the folks living space. That creates tension, and it is the main cause for the rise of Racism. No one (or nearly) would hate others for their Racial being if each Ethnic and Racial group kept to their own living space, and protected the sovereignity as a Folk of their living space.

What exactly do you mean by being Humanitarian?

88and308
Sunday, August 4th, 2002, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Dzerzhinsky
national bolshevism is CERTAINLY not anti-racist. not in russia anyway. it is mainly very anti-semitic. it says that pure working class bolshevism was corrupted by jews and that now, jews in russia are trying to hijack capitalism for there own gains.

i used to be a member of the national bolsheviks in russia. they are good people. i fight for many of there causes and they are going about stopping jewish-mafia-capitailsm very well. i left because they were too racist though. i do belive that jews are behind the mess russia is in today, but i do not hold all jews responsible for that. some jews are ok. i just hate the jewish capitalists who are bleeding russia naturul resources dry, then giving the money back to Israel! that money should be in the hand of the Soviet people, not in the hands of a few corrupt officials, capitailsts and jewish gangsters.

1. How can someone be "too racist"?

2. Yes, that's what some jews do--destroy the Earth for their wallets...not all jews, but some...the others cover for them (by owning/controlling the media)...still others put up sad stories of how they're always persecuted...and yet others cover the whole flank of the jewish people by disturbing the natural order of things (ie, multiculturalism).

***ALL JEWS ARE OUR ENEMIES***

3. I agree...any wealth produced within a country should stay within that country to help its people (whether Russia, the US, or African countries--it doesn't matter) Jews don't care about other people though...as long as they have their money, the rest of us can rot!

molusk
Sunday, August 4th, 2002, 05:41 PM
I'm humanitarian in that I do not want to cause unecessary human suffering.

Ederico
Friday, August 9th, 2002, 09:37 PM
Exactly what are the differences between National Socialism and National Bolshevism?

88and308
Saturday, August 10th, 2002, 02:52 AM
..Isn't "Bolshevism" the opposite of "menshivism"?

The Marxists had a split about 1910 +/- with the fewer in number ("mensheviks") staying in England and the majority (the "bolsheviks") going to Czarist Russia...

There are two branches of Marxism:

The menshiviks favored a peaceful transition to communism (becoming the Fabian socialists) and the bolsheviks favored violent revolution.

Perhaps I am mistaken in this?

Bolsheviks (as I understand it) are "collectivists", that is, the State owns/controls everything in accordance with (current) "plans" (ie, the "5 year Plan", etc)

Socialists (not NS) prefer privately owned businesses and State-run assistance...some more than others. They do this for the good of the State.

NS does this for the good of the People (the Volk), not the State.

A "National Bolshevik" would be someone who advocates complete State control for the benefit of the original Race...

Tchort
Thursday, August 15th, 2002, 03:30 PM
http://members.odinsrage.com/natbol/


That is the new (ie 2 day old;)) National Bolshevik site for the National Bolshevik Party here in the US.
Read whats on that site for an explanation of National Bolshevism (especially the FAQ-I wrote 3/4 of it hehe)

There will be many more images and articles added in the near future, but for now it covors the basics.

In response to 88and308:

Bolshevism was Lenin's contribution to Communism. National Bolshevism supports the Fascist/National Socialist of a single labor union and government controlled economy and a Communist style distrubition of land (that is land is directly sold to the people by the government itself).

NatRev
Sunday, February 9th, 2003, 10:03 AM
I've been reading about a group called the American national Bolsheviks and I have to say that I agree with most of their policies if not all. I have always had more respect for hard line national Communists like Stalin more than I have for western liberal Marxists.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone with any ideas or thoughts on this subject.

Jack
Monday, February 10th, 2003, 10:00 AM
Stalin was an advocate of "Socialism in one country", and so he was basically a state socialist. However, he also supported Russian patriotism, so you might call him a National Bolshevik.

The Russian National Bolshevik Party mixes Communism and Russian Nationalism together, but publicly claims that it supports patriotism and not blood-nationalism - rather funny when they advocate killing Muslims, Russia for the Russians, deportation of the Jews and "the restoration of national power" :cool

The Russian National Bolshevik Party also has an intellectual strain called "Eurasianism" - the second in command of the Russian NBP is the leader of the Eurasianist movement, and a lot of his stuff can be found here :http://www.arctogaia.com/public/eng/
more about Eurasianism can be found out about here: http://www.geocities.com/eurasia_uk/

National Bolshevism is a twisted cross of Pan European Nationalism and Bolshevik socialism that has its seeds in the Conservative Revolution in Germany. The Strasser brothers, who formed the left wing of the NSDAP in Germany were National Bolsheviks, some people have called Francis Parker Yockey a National Bolshevik, but I don't really see how that works when you consider in Imperium he thought Slavs weren't part of Europe.

Ignore the crap about "Australian nationalism" (the guy who owns that site is an Arab actually, from what I know), but there should be some information about National Bolshevism here : http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/index.html

There's some more here : http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/nationalbolshevism.html

Now I've gotta go. Hope there's enough there for you to get enough idea.

NatRev
Monday, July 28th, 2003, 12:55 PM
Comrades in the east and comrades in the west,

it is time for us to unite and fight the common adversary of the neo-liberal capitalist system.

There no longer is such a thing as the Left or the Right, there is the System and the enemies of the System.

I am one of the enemies of this System and I am asking you to see if you would be interested in a new web site I have set up designed to explore the ideals of National Bolshevism.

Is National Bolshevism Communism or Fascism?

Both Communism and Fascism are DEAD! They dies a long time ago, it is sad and pathetic to think that some folks still try to reviatlise these two lumbering dinosaurs through whatever methods.

However from the twin ashes of these two ideals is borne national Bolshevism. Based on a variety of ideals and teachers, ranging from Lenin to Mosley, to Mao to Yockey, this ideal is the ONLY WAY FORWARD for European Nationalists.

We are opposed to the McAmericanisation of Europe (including Russia), the increased amounts of US imperialism either through overt militarism or covert commercialism. We are PRO EUROPEAN, Not Russian, not German, not French, English or Irish... but EUROPEAN!

We are different nations, this is true and we respect and intend to harness and cultivate these differences as this is what separates us for the Yankee colonists. Yet divided we will fall on our backs and let the USA take control of our lives and our childrens lives, united we stand against USA Imperialism.

Join us in our fight for European awakening....


For an IMPERIUM, against IMPERIALISM!


http://natbol.cjb.net


neweuropa@europe.com


all people are welcome to contribute ideas and discuss this concept, we are not anti AMERICAN, we are anti McAmerican Consumerist Imperialism.

We welcome input from any North American disidents who oppose Capitalism and the Israel-USA coallition.

Vojvoda
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 03:27 AM
Where were they when NATO shamelessly bombed the last national socialist state in Europe?.........Serbia.:grin:2guns

NatRev
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 10:41 AM
Where were they when NATO shamelessly bombed the last national socialist state in Europe?.........Serbia.:grin:2guns

Many National Bolsheviks helped fight for the Serbian side due the links culturally between Russia and Serbia.

In fact Eduard Limonov made many guest appearance meeting Serbian troops, so much so that the Bosnian government put a bounty on his head of a significant amount of money, this making him somewhat of a hero amongst both Serbs and Russians.

However, one thing is important to consider is that national Bolshevism now is not exclusively east Slavic, it is pro-European, pro-Worker and pro-Nationalist.

Read the quote that Edric put up by Francis Parkey Yockey to fully understand national Bolshevik ideals.




'There now no longer is such a thing as the Left or the Right, there is only the System and the enemies of the System'

Eduard Limonov

Smash the New World Order

Stríbog
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 07:33 PM
I have several question about this ideology:
What is your model for a state? Representative government? Dictatorship of the proletariat? Autocracy?

What is your view on currency? Can the government simply confer value on pieces of paper by saying it is so? Who issues the currency?

How would your economic system work? A central planning agency?
Who pays workers and farmers? Do private property rights exist? What about taxes?

What does this ideology say about the state's military? Do citizens or "comrades" own weapons?

I notice the concern over Africans and AIDS. I would like to point out that:
- it is their own fault, as they make their own sexual choices
- Africa's population faces much less of a crisis than do Europeans
- Africa is no concern of ours, let them learn for themselves
You criticize colonialism, but to avert this 'crisis' of which you speak, wouldn't a neo-colonialism be necessary to 'help Africa'?

I understand your concern about an Americanized, global Scheißkultur of McDonald's and MTV. However, people are stupid, and unfortunately these things do appeal to many of them, and no corporation or government can change that. Do you think that a government should dictate to people what their culture should be? This is both unnatural and doomed to failure. I advocate voluntary separation and self-segregation of communities with different cultural values.

NatRev
Tuesday, July 29th, 2003, 09:46 PM
You have given me a lot to think about and I will get back to you as soon as I get more time.

Briefly; Africa, I am 100% behind you. I am not the sole contributor to the site and although I respect the other contributors, I may not agree with some of the stuff they say. Africa is a great land of opportunity yet it is being wasted by incompetent bumbling tribal warlords who are still stuck in neolithic times. The only reason we talk about Africa is to ensure that they are self-sufficient and no longer need hand outs from the west.

I would prefer to see any financial aid from the west to go to the poverty stricken former soviet union as 1, they ARE the same people as us and 2, it would be beneficial to have them on OUR side.

The Americanisation? Yes, people are generally stupid and will buy any old crap if it's packaged well enough. The only alternative is to produce somethings of equal if not higher value with a more moral and traditional approach. Replacing McDonalds with traditional food outlets with healthier and more environmentaly produced products etc..

The curse of colonialism is that the people we once 'owned' in former colonies, are now coming back to us and saying, oh you must give us this amount of money etc.. etc... personally, I think Africa would have been a whole lot safer if whites had colonised it on a much larger scale, as in America but this time not killing all the animals, (bufallo etc...)

Personally, I do not own a weapon, if I had the opportunity to do so I think I would own one. But I think that it is wrong to be able to buy one as easily as one buys a big Mac as in the USA. I think you should go through a highly rigorous training exercise and should have some psychological tests to ensure that you are not going to kill some kids or something. Of course the NRA will moan and say that this is taking away their civil rights, yeah, well say that to the mothers that loose their kids through psychos with guns. Besides if you pass the tests, you keep your guns, no problem. If you're insane, you loose them.

I think a more militant populace is important anyway, we may differ on some issues comrade but I think most sane people would be willing to support their nation and people in he hours of need instead of just being casual pedestrians. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking, I think some kind of 'Peoples Force' needs to be set up.

I will answer your queries on economics soon. Thank you for your interest.

Evolved
Thursday, July 31st, 2003, 11:44 AM
ARE YOU RACISTS?
No. NBP in Russia do have Jews in the party, some in leading positions, and everyone is welcomed as National-Bolsheviks, regardless of ethnicity or origin. But we do recognize a Nation's or ethnicity's historical and cultural traditions and everything that it means.

Because the mass immigration 'exodus' of the Third World is created by the Liberal-Capitalist power we see it as obvious that European nations help its blood sisters and brothers. The system is the cause of problems, not the Immigrants; they're victims of the purges by the World Capitalist dreadnought. We fight for them, for their right to a prosperous homeland.

When the World Order is smashed (may that day dawn soon, inshallah) and the Third World countries liberated, the repatriation minimize Ethnic conflicts in the West and flow these undeveloped countries with the 'know-how' and intellectual power needed for social rebuilding.

About 'race mixing': We National-Bolsheviks believe it's an individual choice whom a Comrade or Citizen decide to spread his or her offspring with. It isn't a political matter. However, we believe that all ethnicities (of aesthetical as well as natural reasons) should be preserved for the future generations, and an example of an endangered 'race' is the black Africans, that after hundred of years of Colonial oppression, slavery and now, through HIV and mass starvation, faces a long-term extinction. It's a matter of enormous proportions to be solved, for the best of Mankind and the Africans, but through the existing system this in entirely impossible.

These little paragraphs are the biggest load of crap I've read all week. :D

So- Jews are ok (especially as our leaders!), race-mixing doesn't present a problem to Europeans (as long as they're Bolshevik nonwhites!), blacks are going extinct (?!) and this would be terrible for mankind (LOL!). They need to get their heads out of their asses and take a look around. This appears to be yet another example of shifty jewboys convincing vodka-swilling retards that Coca Cola and McDonalds are the biggest threat to Russia/Europe. It's the same sh1t, new name.

Hammer and sickle is more than a symbol, I'm sure both work plenty good during a pogrom. :jew

Nordgau
Thursday, July 31st, 2003, 12:51 PM
[...] convincing vodka-swilling retards that Coca Cola and McDonalds are the biggest threat to Russia/Europe. It's the same sh1t, new name.


I agree energical with this point. There's the French chief-thinker of the so-called "Nouvelle droite" (New right), Alain de Benoist, who gave a few years ago an interview to a right German newspaper. He spent great parts in telling how stupid "racism" and thinking in categories of races is, and that immigration is no threat for Europe!!! But the highlight of the interview was the sentence: "A new opened fastfood restaurant or supermarket [!!!] is a bigger threat for European culture than a new opened mosque in a European city is."

The dangerous thing is that such ideas are chic among "intellectual" pseudo-rights who don't want to have to do anything with "stupid" "racism". All matters of race or already thinking of the simple fact that our race is in danger and that our European culture has its roots in our race are "primitive" and undicussable for them. In their anti-Americanism and anti-Globalism they hope to join together with the anti-Globalist left. But this calculation won't work, because the anti-Globalist left has no real interest in protecting the European culture and race, and works for just an other kind of Globalism: a left, anti-Capitalist "One World" with race mixing and enormous benefits of the Whites to all coloured countries, and at last for the destruction of everything that is regarded as exclusive and specific White and European in such a mixed and whirled Mestizo and Mulatto world. :stop

Jack
Saturday, August 2nd, 2003, 01:35 PM
Note: Despite the contents of this message to the contrary, I am not a National Bolshevik - I once was though, which is why I know it inside out :p

In Defence of National Bolshevism

Note: The site referred to by Jotunheim was created by a friend of mine, and is in no way representative of National Bolshevik ideals. I shall attempt to sum up National Bolshevism as follows: Europe and its native White Race, Authority, Hierarchy, Discipline, Power, Unity, Identity, Market Socialism, Russian Vanguardism, Potential, Excellence, Work, Fatherland, Family and Faith. Aye, Pan-European National Socialism on steroids :D



I have several question about this ideology:
What is your model for a state? Representative government? Dictatorship of the proletariat? Autocracy?

Democratic Centralism. Cells formed at local level are organised into the Party, each cell elects a leader (the cell later becomes the basic unit of the revolutionary movement) to the regional council (I won't use the word soviet because National Bolshevism is more than socialism). Representatives, elected by the party membership, who come from the regional councils then meet together in the People's Congress, which elects the Supreme National Council. The base produces the leadership, and the base then follows the policies of the leadership. (note I just took that from the 1977 Constitution of the USSR, but I think that could work).


What is your view on currency? Can the government simply confer value on pieces of paper by saying it is so? Who issues the currency?

Currency is issued by the State (that is, the People's Congress). Banks are nationalized. Workers run the industries and elect their managers, and the State gives rewards (extra holidays, better pay, shorter hours) to workers or groups of workers who produce above a State set production aim. The State handles the distribution of products to points of sale, and value is determined by supply and demand. The State owns all property including land and resources, and rents out property to its citizens - this is essentially the same as taxation in any form - the difference is, this is acknowledged. There is no illusion of 'property rights', such rights do not exist, control is power, property only exists once it is institutionalised, which is torn away the second involuntary taxation is introduced (note you go to prison if you don't pay your taxes...). Property used against the aims af the State (survival, enhancement, expansion of the People from which it arose) is considered treason. Private Enterprise based on renting land and resources from the State on a contract basis is also considered legal - the National Bolshevik Party advocates a mix between Market Socialism and Lenin's New Economy Policy.


What does this ideology say about the state's military? Do citizens or "comrades" own weapons?

Citizens. Comrade is the name used to refer to a Party member. Citizenship would be granted upon completing a term of National Service (either civil or military), which would grant an individual the right to private economic enterprise, voting rights, the right to be candidate to public office


I notice the concern over Africans and AIDS. I would like to point out that:
- it is their own fault, as they make their own sexual choices
- Africa's population faces much less of a crisis than do Europeans
- Africa is no concern of ours, let them learn for themselves
You criticize colonialism, but to avert this 'crisis' of which you speak, wouldn't a neo-colonialism be necessary to 'help Africa'?

The difference between Proletarian Internationalism and Bourgeois Internationalism here applies. Proletarian Internationalism does not involve forcefully occupying other countries, toppling their Governments and imposing one's Political and Social structure on another. Proletarian Internationalism is international cooperation between Peoples towards a common aim - in National Bolshevism, the common aim is rejection and destruction of the Judeo-American Empire and the destruction of those who benefit from it, and the ressurection of Europe, free of foreign influence and infestation.


I understand your concern about an Americanized, global Scheißkultur of McDonald's and MTV. However, people are stupid, and unfortunately these things do appeal to many of them, and no corporation or government can change that. Do you think that a government should dictate to people what their culture should be? This is both unnatural and doomed to failure. I advocate voluntary separation and self-segregation of communities with different cultural values.

People are not stupid - they have been conditioned to be "stupid". The average White Joe and Jane living next door are not inherently dumb, they are raised in a Culture which promotes the contradictions of sensory hedonism and mass-utilitarianism, social atomism and tolerance to the point of capitulation, Statist Patriotism and Cultural Nihilistic Internationalism. National Bolshevism does not seek to destroy any cultures, rather it wishes to promote those cultural trends which are native and positive to the well-being of the European People.

Jack
Sunday, August 3rd, 2003, 03:54 AM
Why is it called Bolshevism? That will always have a negative meaning. One should choose a better name.

It is called Bolshevism because we favour aspects of Marxist-Leninism over other ideologies - Market Socialism, NEP economy, the Vanguard of the Revolution, cell networks, Democratic Centralism, total mobilization of the population for the revolution. The 'Bolshevism' in National Bolshevism serves also to distinguish it from National Socialism, which NB's view as heavily ethnocentric, and historically destructive to Europe and the white race. National Bolshevism is heavily built on pan-white internationalism (i.e. white nationalism without regards to borders), which is a characteristic of Marxism (they use it in a class sense though; we use it in a racial and civilizational sense), not NS.

National Bolshevism is hostile to all forms of 'open society' (i.e. a society which places primacy of the individual as supreme, neglecting the organic nature of communities, nations and civilizations), and draws many ideas from Plato (national service as requirement for citizenship), Marx (free development for each is the prerequisite for the free development of all), Hegel (destiny, history as struggle, national spirit), Yockey (Europe as a unified civilization, culture theory, anti-Judaism), Lenin (vanguard of the revolution, cell networks, NEP economics), Ernst Jünger (the Worker, the Rebel and the Anarch), Julius Evola (military virtues over bourgeois virtures, traditionatlism), Nietzsche (the idea of the übermensch fits in nicely with Lenin's Vanguard of the Revolution) and Mao (total mobilization of the nation to drive out foreign occupational forces).

Stríbog
Monday, August 4th, 2003, 01:55 AM
People are not stupid - they have been conditioned to be "stupid". The average White Joe and Jane living next door are not inherently dumb, they are raised in a Culture which promotes the contradictions of sensory hedonism and mass-utilitarianism, social atomism and tolerance to the point of capitulation, Statist Patriotism and Cultural Nihilistic Internationalism. National Bolshevism does not seek to destroy any cultures, rather it wishes to promote those cultural trends which are native and positive to the well-being of the European People.

Quite simply, people ARE stupid. The fact that they can be so easily indoctrinated and manipulated like cattle IS a sign of intellectual deficiency. The average Joe and Jane of *any* race or ethnicity has no appreciation of higher culture, and never has. Their concerns are day-to-day living and success, and this includes both the poor and rich; crude or cheap entertainment, from Roman bread and circus to the medieval joust to the NFL; and some kind of vague religion/belief system to fill their simple minds. This takes the form of "simple faith" seen in Christianity and Islam, as well as the mindless, unquestioning patriotism seen in Europe prior to World War I, as well as the sickening displays in post-9/11 America. I don't trust or respect humanity enough to assume anything but the worst with respect to political systems and cultural establishments.

Scáthach
Monday, August 4th, 2003, 02:23 AM
i'm not sure if i would be so quick to call that sort of life ''stupid'' or to regard the people living it to be ''stupid'' either.

''Their concerns are day-to-day living and success.''

One could take the line that that sort of approach to living is infact far more intelligent than trying to search vainly in the dark for higher meaning and the key to life. That the average Jane and Joe are just getting along and doing ok and are maybe even content with that is not *really* a sign of stupidity in my mind. Yes, they may not read Dostoevsky or Chaucer and may prefer Eastenders to Wagner, but if theyre actually happy and content in this lifestyle is it indicative of something much larger? Because the Jones' at number 5 arent the brightest does that really mean the Mulvaneys up the road and so on are the same?
I dont neccesarily think so. I really think a lot of people are under rated, either that or we may tend to over rate our very selves..
I dont think a full knowledge of how Marxism works or doesnt work is more benefical or endearing in a person than a good personality or a good sense of humour for instance. Someone could be well versed in all chapters of political ideology but may still be socially inadequate, a balance is certainly needed, ascertaining how to create one is another matter entirely. Basically, what im saying is that the average people may not have great knowledge of politics or great interest in Nietszche, but it may just be that they have a far better grasp of the Real Politik than many well-read aspiring commies/fascists have.
I dont believe people are stupid overall at all. I accept i dont live in America and it appears to be infered that the less intelligent people are there in their McAmerican states but surely it stands to reason that most people who had their interest priqued by a time in history or a political sytem could easily get thier heads around it, rather they simply havent because they have no real interest in politics/history/etc and are busy trying to pay the bills.

Scáthach
Monday, August 4th, 2003, 02:54 AM
''We are PRO EUROPEAN, Not Russian, not German, not French, English or Irish... but EUROPEAN!''

why is it not possible to be both? why should one's loyalty lie with Europe first and their country second, when for atleast 90% of the people the nation is the homeland and of far more importance than the whole of Europe. Is the assumption/worry that a united Europe would be put in danger of rival nations and their desires splitting/causing trouble for a united Europe if people thought of their nation first and Europe secondly?

''We are different nations, this is true and we respect and intend to harness and cultivate these differences as this is what separates us for the Yankee colonists. Yet divided we will fall on our backs and let the USA take control of our lives and our childrens lives, united we stand against USA Imperialism''

I would hope the only reason The National Bolsheviks intend to harness these things is not afterall, as merely a 'defence' to America, the nations should be preserved for their own sake and their preservation cannot be possible if people are preserving them for their own ends rather than for what the nation is and what it represents. If people came to strongly favour Europe over their nation who is to say it would not be through this behaviour that nations and culture dwindled rather than from a threat or action from America?

Saoirse
Monday, August 4th, 2003, 03:49 AM
Theres always Racial Socialism.

OnionPeeler
Monday, August 4th, 2003, 07:56 AM
NB is not an 'ideology' at all so much as a hodge-podge of conflicting sources often wrongly asserted or interpretted. Their aim appears to be an umbrella - already in tatters.

NB is also not 'pan-European' as any one here would understand it. Absent from this discussion, but of primary concern, is NB's "geopolitical" theorizing. In the east, and at a generous best, it might be pan-Slavic. Built into the conjectures is an assumed, if not desired, East/West rivalry which can only been seen as the seed of Europe's next fratricidal war - should NB prevail in the East. Further, some 'theorists' extend bloc competition with out regard to culture or race. Our Russian friends caught up in the web of NB need to understand one thing: culture can be rebuilt, people can not. It is not McDonald's or MTV which will destroy "Russia", but negative population growth and continued immigration. One of the fundamental expressions of power in the natural world is natural increase. With out it, you're playing chess in a burning building.

---

Left are right are dead as classification? This is either profound or nonsensical. "Left" and "Right" are binary simplification, basically a variation of 'us' and 'them.' Of course, there is no left and right, but a collection of operable forces. The most brilliant and educated human mind will gravitate to bifurcation where conflict is involved. This is natural. Marx used it. Bush uses it. But NB thrives on blurring 'traditional' distinctions and arrives at confusion where otherwise 'left' and 'right' serve just fine.

---

The notion of a continuous revolution justified by Hegelian progression is extremely dangerous. The 20th Century provides numerous examples of suicidal purges in the name of dogma. The drive of ideologues to forge humans to meet lame theory gave us the starvation of the Ukraine, Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian killing fields. It creates a plethora of 'internal' enemies to be constantly extirpated.

That said, if you want practical, recent advice on revolution, then the communist examples and Comintern are prime material. Also the French Resistance. But these are practical examples, not ideological. Also beware: mere immitation is not a good idea. For every 'advance' of tactics, a counter is developed.

Dogma must defer to nature. Not the reverse. This is 'right wing.'

---

"Naturam non vinces nisi parendo."
(You will not master nature unless you obey it.)
-- Roger Bacon

Jack
Thursday, August 7th, 2003, 01:18 AM
''We are PRO EUROPEAN, Not Russian, not German, not French, English or Irish... but EUROPEAN!''

why is it not possible to be both? why should one's loyalty lie with Europe first and their country second, when for atleast 90% of the people the nation is the homeland and of far more importance than the whole of Europe. Is the assumption/worry that a united Europe would be put in danger of rival nations and their desires splitting/causing trouble for a united Europe if people thought of their nation first and Europe secondly?

Exactly that.


I would hope the only reason The National Bolsheviks intend to harness these things is not afterall, as merely a 'defence' to America, the nations should be preserved for their own sake and their preservation cannot be possible if people are preserving them for their own ends rather than for what the nation is and what it represents. If people came to strongly favour Europe over their nation who is to say it would not be through this behaviour that nations and culture dwindled rather than from a threat or action from America?

Possibly. I'm not NB though. I'm just playing pro-NB because apart from Jotunheim (I think) I don't know of any NB's here.

OP is right - NB is not pro-European, but essentially Pan-Slavist. It's the Occidental version of NB that I've expounded here, not the Eurasianist - which I do not like. That said I wouldn't mind a drastic reduction in US national power and a fall in the effects of cultural imperialism. But OP is definetly correct in suggesting the Communist movement is a prime source of revolutionary tactics and strategies - they were at it for decades more than the nationalist movement was.

NatRev
Thursday, August 7th, 2003, 10:43 AM
The reason why I said we are pro-European rather than pro-Russian etc... is to show people that despite the facts that NB evolved primarily in Germany and Russia, we are not exclusive to those countries.

I see no problem with being pro-European and pro-Irish, English, Spanish etc. in fact the two ideals are not only compatible but essential!

But what is a Nation? Is it language, culture, ideology, tradition or what?

We are not anti-Nationalists, nor do we propose a united STATE of Europe as Mosley indicated; rather we look at Europe in a Strasserite view in the essence of a United STATES of Europe.

Indeed, we are not only in existence to counter NWO-Yankee imperialism, rather we assume that we are the logical step forward from both the extreme right and the extreme left. We understand that some of our terminology may not be appealing to some people, admittedly we openly use traditional 'leftist' terms and utilise a number of their ideals; yet we are neither left, right or even centrist for that matter.

However, the terms Left and Right in reality mean those that work for the benefit of the Community (Left) and those that work for the benefit for the Individual (Right). This ideal is an economic one and in fact leads one to conclude that political beliefs such as fascism and national socialism which prescribe a philosophy of 'all for the state, everything for the state, nothing against the state' and 'common good over individual good' are in this instance LEFT wing in context.

The true Right wing extremists, economically speaking, are the neo-liberal 'yuppie scum' Capitalists that only care for themselves and how much money they can make! They have no regard for the Community as a whole, whether socially or racially; they'll sleep with anyone and deal with anyone as long as financially it's in their own interests!

We openly seek a better future for the European people, whether you call them Volk or Proletariat, it's the same to us.

Towards IMPERIUM - Against IMPERIALISM



Possibly. I'm not NB though. I'm just playing pro-NB because apart from Jotunheim (I think) I don't know of any NB's here.

OP is right - NB is not pro-European, but essentially Pan-Slavist. It's the Occidental version of NB that I've expounded here, not the Eurasianist - which I do not like. That said I wouldn't mind a drastic reduction in US national power and a fall in the effects of cultural imperialism. But OP is definetly correct in suggesting the Communist movement is a prime source of revolutionary tactics and strategies - they were at it for decades more than the nationalist movement was.[/QUOTE]

Saoirse
Thursday, August 7th, 2003, 11:22 AM
American National Bolsheviks:

http://members.odinsrage.com/natbol/

Nordgau
Sunday, August 10th, 2003, 03:38 AM
In all this connection with National-Bolshevism I just want to mention the German thinker Ernst Niekisch. Niekisch's name often is mentioned in Germany when the catchword NB comes up, especially NB in Weimar Germany. However, I think, he never called himself a NB, but more a National-Revolutianary. He tried to connect real völkisch-national ideas with direct left-socialist revolutionarism of Marxist origin, and he also was for an alliance of Germany and Russia against "the West". He must be counted without doubt to the important political thinkers of the Weimar "Conservative Revolutionaries" (A. Mohler), in one place with Spengler, Jünger and others.

I must admit that I never read his works, except for smaller excerps, and that I only know his ideas through secondary literature, essays, books, articles about political thinking in the area between the wars - through second hand, if you want so.

It speaks for Niekisch's ideas, that the IDGR, the "Information service against right-wing extremism", a quite "official" little left encyclopedia about "right-wing extremism" in the Internet, counts him as such a "right-wing extremist", though he was quite in opposition against the National Socialists and played a part in the GDR in the first half of the Fifties. The today (always somehow multiculturalist, and in Germany aggressiv anti-Nationalist) Lefts really seem to have given him up as "ideological father" in all respects.
To stress this: In the Net there's also a scientific work about Niekisch's ideas mentioned which's title speaks volumes: Ernst Niekisch. Völkischer Sozialismus, nationale Revolution, deutsches Endimperium [Ernst Niekisch. Folkish Socialism, National Revolution, German Ultimate Imperium] (Author: Pittwald) Sounds good, lol, even if it doesn't seem to be written from a very friendly position - the publishing-house is obviously quite left.

Deling
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 11:08 AM
"These little paragraphs are the biggest load of crap I've read all week.

So- Jews are ok (especially as our leaders!), race-mixing doesn't present a problem to Europeans (as long as they're Bolshevik nonwhites!), blacks are going extinct (?!) and this would be terrible for mankind (LOL!). They need to get their heads out of their asses and take a look around. This appears to be yet another example of shifty jewboys convincing vodka-swilling retards that Coca Cola and McDonalds are the biggest threat to Russia/Europe. It's the same sh*t, new name."

I wrote this text, and I must say that your criticism is rather worthless.

1) If a French individual chose to f**k a Chinese, then it's his/her problem, but we don't encourage it. You got problems with that? As one of your friends wrote about Africans: "It's their own sexual choice". Exactly, and the same applies for whites then, I guess.

2) I don't say that Jews SHOULD be our leaders. They already are, by the way. But if a "good" Jew, like my NB comrade Lindermann, is to be a future leader of Russia or Latvia (his homeland), that's not a problem to me. Jews are not genetically evil, and there's no proof that they are either.

3) I clearly state that the "exodus" to Europa is a problem, but the origins of this problem must be adjusted at its roots; the NWO. The problem of Africa isn't entirely "blood-thirsty warlords", but the artificial borders of African countries, made up by the imperial powers in Berlin 1881, and today the Neo-Liberal policies in Africa (WTO, the World Bank, IMF). It's a fundamental problem with Africa; it's artificial borders made up by the West, and the economical exploitation. Not only the Negro's genetical heritage, but the socio-economical milieu.

3) So it's no problem if blacks are extinct? It appears to me that you're just a Yankee computer nazi without any clear ideology. So the world is a battle of Race, only Whites (what the hell that is) should remain in the world; all Chinese, Latins, Negros and Arab-Semites could just as well DIE? No offense, but I find that standpoint utterly pathetic. This is a world of Life-forms and Mankind. You, as a National-Socialist and Naturalist can't have the opinion that ANY specimen or race in the ecological system should be extincted by artificial means, it's against all Natural principles. Africa is the home of Negroes, as Europa is the home of the Germanics, Slavs, Finno-Ugrics and Spanic-Latins. "Of aesthetical as well as natural reasons" all RACES AND ETHNICITIES MUST BE PRESERVED. You got some problem with that...?

A National-Bolshevik directly or indirectly fight for every people's right to a homeland on Earth; if they're Germanic, Semitic-Sumerian, African, Arab, Slavic or whatever doesn't matter. They all, just as "we", have the right to their home, undisturbed by the Cosmopolite Capitalist Order and its anarchic-chaotic plans and ideals. National-Socialists of Europa acknowledge this too, when they send people to fight in Iraq, a.e. Legion Wasa in Sweden and some Arrow-Crossers in Slovenia and Hungary, but I don't know if they really went there.

Regarding Neo-Colonialism of Africa: this may well be necessary to try to "make things right". Not for our own, selfish Racial reasons, but for the sake of Mankind and Natural order. A "Neuordnung" of the world is indeed very necessary, even if some American nazis perhaps think that "things are good as they are, only if the Negros, Jews and Latinos could stop disturbing us Whites!".

Evolved
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 05:53 PM
I wrote this text, and I must say that your criticism is rather worthless.

Thank you. :) I must say your ideology is rather worthless. :D


1) If a French individual chose to f**k a Chinese, then it's his/her problem, but we don't encourage it.

You can not encourage something, but that isn't the same as discouraging.


2) I don't say that Jews SHOULD be our leaders. They already are, by the way. But if a "good" Jew, like my NB comrade Lindermann, is to be a future leader of Russia or Latvia (his homeland), that's not a problem to me.

Jews are not native to Russia or Latvia and shouldn't be leading those nations. I would not support a group with a jewish leadership anymore than I would black or Chinese.


3) ...............

It's much simpler: Africa is poor and sh*tty because it is full of negroes. Europe is wealthy and stable because it is full of Europeans. Negroes, rather than doing actual work to improve themselves and their surroundings simply relocate to wherever the goodies are.


So it's no problem if blacks are extinct?

Maybe it is for them, not for me. I would not cry over it. They've had a good time to evolve, but personally I don't see it happening anytime soon. I don't understand how it is in our ("white" people) interest to save them from AIDS and starvation. So they can thank us by reproducing more and sending their excess population to European lands? When there is a natural disaster in Europe/North America, how much effort does Africa put in to save whites? Little to none, and any aid is likely from white colonials.

Ask most people on this forum how they would feel if suddenly every black person on earth died or magically disappeared and you'll get pretty even answers: either :shrug or :clap


It appears to me that you're just a Yankee computer nazi without any clear ideology.

I suppose I should become a Jew-loving communist Nazi-wannabe just to have a "clear" ideology, rather than thinking for myself and forming my own opinions. :D


So the world is a battle of Race, only Whites (what the hell that is) should remain in the world; all Chinese, Latins, Negros and Arab-Semites could just as well DIE?

Hmm.. so negroes are a special distinct group we should all rally around saving from the evils of imperialism (which account for all Africa's problems including low IQ, AIDS) but as for whites it's "what the hell that is."

If Chinese, Latins, Negros and Arab-Semites die I could care less. Let them take care of themselves.


You can't have the opinion that ANY specimen or race in the ecological system should be extincted by artificial means, it's against all Natural principles.

As far as I know, AIDS is a natural phenomenon. Starvation and overpopulation are the result of stupidity, also natural.


"Of aesthetical as well as natural reasons" all RACES AND ETHNICITIES MUST BE PRESERVED. You got some problem with that...?

It shouldn't be my burden to preserve other races, particularly those who hate and envy mine and have the ability to (maliciously or benevolently) destroy it. Forest-dwelling rodents would not have "Save the Owls" campaigns. :)


National-Socialists of Europa acknowledge this too, when they send people to fight in Iraq, a.e. Legion Wasa in Sweden and some Arrow-Crossers in Slovenia and Hungary, but I don't know if they really went there.

We should be willing give our lives for the principle of freedom, no matter for whom? So why do you not go to Liberia? And you can explain all this to the people chasing you with a machete so they can kill and eat you. :)


A "Neuordnung" of the world is indeed very necessary, even if some American nazis perhaps think that "things are good as they are, only if the Negros, Jews and Latinos could stop disturbing us Whites!".

Deling
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 07:34 PM
Well, what can I say about you American nazis? I support your struggle in America, and I really hope the Race War over there will occur. Everything that is hostile to the stability of the American government and it's capital lackey organizations is good to me.

However; this "I don't care about them"-approach is what won't make me go Nazi, whatever the cause is. I think globally, you think racially. I have a stronger emotional connection to the Palestinian people than to my racial brothers of America. I'm "sorry", but that's it.

What really differs me from a Nazi is that I regard the Economical and Social factors as well as a sense of justice of the oppressed people of the world; not oppressed by White man himself, but the Western world governments and capitalist organizations. You, as American, really think U.S is doing great in the world, if only the "jewish/zionist plague" could disappear. When you blame Africa's problem on low IQ, I blame it on the socio-economical order that the Third world has been enforced to live under for 400 years and so, and logically my answer is much better in every aspect than yours. 10 or so higher average IQ by white people isn't very problematic. But to you Nazis that too isn't a problem, because "Might is Right", and because White man had the might to enslave Negros and Latinos, it's their right to do so. It's a matter of Selfish Natural Order contra Global Collective Natural Order, and we can never convince eachother about either of us being right.

An Ideology of a geopolitical "lebensraum" for all people on Earth is a better one than one of economical and racial supremacy, which won't benefit any life-form on the planet. At least if we are discussing the issue from a Utilitarian perspective, and when discussing global matters; you should.

Evolved
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 09:01 PM
I don't get why anti-Nazis and leftists always want to attach themselves to the Palestinians. They'd probably throw rocks at you, too.
:brick

Deling
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003, 10:18 PM
Please, don't call me "leftist". It's rather pathetic in most aspects. It obvious that you don't even read my answers, or don't understand what it means (or try too).

And no; Palestinians often treat foreigners there with the agenda to support them with respect and gratitude. That I know, because I was vaguely involved in ISM once.

Saoirse
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003, 02:30 AM
"But to you Nazis that too isn't a problem, because "Might is Right", and because White man had the might to enslave Negros and Latinos, it's their right to do so."

...

Why do you blame Whites for slavery? All races have and are enslaved. Slavery still exists. Always have always will.

And dont call us "Nazi's." Because we are not "Nazi's." Only liberals and Jews call us that.

OnionPeeler
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003, 02:32 AM
NB has nothing to offer the right. It avoids the "left/right" dichotomy only by being a poorly designed ideology. Marxism without determinism, national geopolitics without national survival? What exactly is NB? No one seems to really know. The bottom line is that the continued solicitations by NBs to the right will yield few recruits. NB is a weak attempt at detente between extreme right and left.


There is an irony in the origins of Marxism and National Socialism. Marxism is supposed to be grounded in science but turns to emotional pandering in practice. NS is born out of romantic love of soil, folk and nation and then turns stone cold rational in defining it.

If we are to believe Marx, his 'scientific socialism' is scientific, certain and deterministic. But in practice, and because even thorough indoctrination yields only superficial result, it was necessary to appeal to people's emotions. Social ills, disparity, justice, and oppression are all dragged out to 'win' the convert - not a scientific ideology. It is classic peasant uprising made over by a small 'ideological' elite. Generally, a scientific theory is ajudged flawed if it has no predicitive utility (confirmation). Here Marx was wrong over and over. Europeans did not rise up. El Salvadoran mountain peasants did. Ironically, many such movements had a nationalistic flavor. The Vietnamese, ANC, IRA, and others come to mind.

National Bolshevism represents a failed attempt to merge elements of right and left into a coalition. The problems are myriad: 1) NB has no coherent 'ideology' despite its claims 2) the leftist elements of NB are opposed to basic tenets of the right 3) NB has nothing to offer a well-defined right 4) NB appears to endorse geopolitical ambitions over cultural, racial and national survival.

The right, by contrast, finds its origin in love of family and homeland --- something everyone relates to. When it seeks justification it gravitates directly to nature, biology and Darwin. As sciences, these all have a genuine scientific pedigree and a solid gronding in evidence:

physics --> chemistry --> DNA ---> Darwin

Darwin --> reproduction
--> competion
--> genetic altruism

more questionably:

....--> sociobiology

Compare this to the Marxist assertion that human behavior is economic behavior wherein the supporting evidence is history as interpretted with the assumption that the original assertion is correct. See the problem for old Karl? Circular brain cannibalism.

None of modern sociology, economics, political 'science', psychology has any scientific merit. They are led by shamans, hucksters and liars. If pyschiatrists were subjected to the same malpractice rigors as surgeons, they'd be rapidly (and mercifully) out of business.

The only high level (mid level?) theory which has endured is Darwin's evolution. It is a general assertion not subject to singular Popperian negation. There are mountains of supporting evidence. The are relatively few exceptions which are attributed as unexplained or contradictory. In the latter case, the sheer variability of life systems is culprit. There is a case, for example, of a lioness 'adopting' an orphaned gazelle (aaahhh, how cute), but the complexity of mammalian nervous systems allows for such behavioral experimentation and ... at any rate ... the anomolous behavior is still subject to evolutionary correction. (The adoption only lasted a few days.)

---
As for Deling



...stronger emotional connection...

Glad you can admit it.


...logically my answer is much better in every aspect than yours...

Define 'better'?


However; this "I don't care about them"-approach is what won't make me go Nazi, whatever the cause is. I think globally, you think racially. I have a stronger emotional connection to the Palestinian people than to my racial brothers of America. I'm "sorry", but that's it.

Sooo....you don't care about your racial brothers vis-a-vis Palestinians. You contradict yourself. Tell ya what, since you think 'globally' drop the "National" from NB so we can see the real you as in ....



...I regard the Economical and Social factors as well as a sense of justice of the oppressed people of the world...
...I blame it on the socio-economical order that the Third world ...
...It's a matter of Selfish Natural Order contra Global Collective Natural Order...

Peasant pandering, environmental apologetics, grand Utopianism. Classic Marxist-Leninist tripe.


Please, don't call me "leftist".

Why not? You're not winning the 'right' here. May as well admit to what you are.

Incidentally, how is your Utopian world order any better than the NWO? Subtract capitalism, add a 'peasant' movement, and yours is hardly distinguishable. Fortunately, both are unrealistic. People will continue to be self-interested no matter what indoctrination you pitch. It's only a matter of power before your notions of international social justice turns ugly. Animal Farm. The champions of the 'oppressed' come to power and promptly oppress the perceived bourgeois.

Darwin always wins. It's just a matter of form.

Deling
Wednesday, September 3rd, 2003, 11:21 AM
IrishNationalist: I don't blame White man for the slavery. I wrote:

"I regard the Economical and Social factors as well as a sense of justice of the oppressed people of the world; not oppressed by White man himself, but the Western world governments and capitalist organizations."

I called Ladygoeth nazi, it wasn't something personal to you others. Sorry for that.

OnionPeeler: Well, really: NB has nothing to offer the right, in that case you're "right". But if I turn that question around: what can Racialists offer the world? It's clear that ordinary people doesn't like the Darwinist ideals of yours and your brother organizations. Instead National-Bolshevism, though it IS NOT a distinctive ideology (as you said, but theory is "on the way"), is steadily winning support in Russia and the former Soviet states, even attracting much activists from the Russian nationalist organisation RNU. The future surely looks brighter for National-Bolshevism than National-Socialism, and the answer to "why?" is rather simple: an ideology or movement to be successful, must base it's political world-view up-to-date with society. A.e: Marxism and it's focus on the Proletariat was right in time at the 19th Century; Fascism, with it's hybrid of Authoritarian statism and socialism was right in time too, when the former order of Europa fell after the First World War.

My question is: Has Racialism any social grounds for it's political progress? Especially in our Liberal-Hedonist-Multi Culti societies? Hard question to answer, but perhaps in America there is a future for White Nationalism. In Europa there isn't; only for some Right-Populists and National-Democrates.

"National" to Bolshevism is logical. We believe in a world of National-states after the Revolutions. It's instead Racialists and "National"-Socialists that should change the word "national", because you don't care about national borders anyway, just racial frontiers.

How can I know if our Utopia is "better" (from whose point of view, by the way?) than the NWO? It should be to Mankind's all Volk, if we look at the question from an Utilitarian perspective again. Free nations without any forced multi-culturalism or conflicts risen from Above.

I don't want to win the "right" either. The right, for a European, is a Conservative or a Neo-Liberal, in extreme senses a Right-Populist. The National-Socialists and National-Democrates call themselves "beyond left and right", just as we. You must be American if you use that term to yourself. You see: there's a difference between Europeans and Americans in politics, exceeding the Racial border. It's a matter of Culture, in this aspect.

OnionPeeler
Thursday, September 4th, 2003, 04:37 AM
I'm well aware that Europeans like to chuckle over American left/right definitions as 'simplistic', as if they are immune to classification on these continuums. I'm also aware that it's fashionable to talk of 'beyond left and right.' Limonov's declaration, however, is silly. Let's swap one bifurcation for another, says he. Let's stand against 'the system', says he. Please. Same dog, different coat. That is, denounce one system of classification and introduce another. I'm not saying an ideology can't have both left and right wing elements (see neo-conservatism), just that Europeans don't like to admit that indeed there is a constellation of dichotomies which map "left and right."

Europeans lecturing Americans on immature polity is a bit much. It is Europe, not America, which has produced the most horrific examples of simplistic extremism the world has ever seen. Until recently, Anglo-Saxon politics tended to practicality. Continentals have always been more prone to formulaic "answers." How many tens of millions died in your NS and communist experiments? The 'peoples' wisdom certainly shines through in the French Revolution and now you talk of more "revolutions" as if the result will be something good?

You over-estimate NB. A merging between RNU and NB is impossible unless one is destroyed. The temporary cooperation between 'new right' and 'old left' is severly strained and stems not from common 'ideology' via Dugin, but from marginalization and desparation. The LEFTIST bent of NB is incompatible with blood-and-soil nationalism, and it is incompatible with its own RIGHTIST bent.

You are aware that Russian NB has territorial ambitions? What difference if it is masked in 'ideology' and revolution (again). Estonia will not welcome a new Moscow hegemony. What will you tell them?

"Oh no! This is NATIONAL Bolshevism. It's GOOD for you."

"The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the
fundamental principle of the common enemy...." --- Dugin

"Russia cannot exist outside of its essence as an empire, by its
geographical situation, historical path and fate of the state." --- Ivashov

You seem to believe that NB has something GOOD for all mankind.

You state this as if :

1) ...it as an absolute truism. It doesn't matter if people like Darwin or not, evolution is operable. No ideology can be operable even if the whole world swears by it. Groups will continue to compete. New oppressors replace the old. The game of survival goes on.

2) ...it can be delivered. Another Marxist-like End of history. Triumph. Like the European fairy tale "... they all lived happily ever after." IF ONLY we follow this or that ideology, all will be well.

But are you aware that Dugin's "organic democracy" requires ethnic homogeneity? This doesn't bother me. It's one of the few sensible things he says (He borrowed it from de Benoist). But on top of 'empire' and America as evil dragon, we now add an internal enemy. Getting rid of those pesky minorities will provide the new Bolsheviks with sizable crop of kulaks.

The problem is that Dugin can, in the same breath, reject ethnicity and endorse homogeneity within the 'nation.' Keep in mind that NB also REDEFINES nation. It is become a 'geopolitical' bloc which can conveniently ignore ethnicity or require it. Go figure.

"In all the cases the question is about the geo-political and cultural nation interpretation, free from even hints on the racism, jingoism or aiming at 'ethnic purity'." -- Dugin

When you say...


...an ideology or movement to be successful, must base it's political world-view up-to-date with society.

you admit to the transient and disposable nature of ideology, including NB. Why bother with ideology at all? If it has no social, economic or governing utility, if it has no underlying evidentiary or empirical support, then it isn't theory at all. It is a mere convenience.

So at least be honest enough to further admit that NB begins with the intent of duping the masses. It is merely today's vehicle of choice.


I don't want to win the "right" either.

Of course you do. That's the purpose of political discourse. That's why any NB would come here. That's why you try to link Bolshevism with nationalism. That's why Russian NB approaches RNU. That's why NB met (unsuccessfully) with de Benoist. No right, indeed.

And finally, the imperialism prebuilt into NB does not interpret inevitable geopolitical confrontation, it ENGINEERS it. And the language of that confrontation is ugly from the start.

"... geo-political confrontation with Mammon, the Atlantic West demon, the perverted "cosmopolitical Capital’s angel'..."

And this is 'good' for who? Shall we start digging the trenches (and the graves) for yet another fratricidal European war?

The truth is NB is not ideology, but Soviet nostalgia. Even in its origin it's more of an anti-ideology than anything substantive. It is based, not on the Jew Popper's philosophy of science, but on his even more dubious 'open society' which has kinship with libertarianism. Hence, NB is "anything against" libertarianism. This is why it does not makes sense and likely never will.

-edit
As you may have guessed, I don't like 'ideologies' which fail to seek out natural confirmation. I'm not NS. But until we come up with something better, NS plus a tinge of pan-Europeanism is far superior to NB.

Deling
Thursday, September 4th, 2003, 10:46 AM
Well... what can I say? You got me! ^_^

"So at least be honest enough to further admit that NB begins with the intent of duping the masses."

Because N-B is not a comprehensive ideology, but fragments of ideological pieces put together, this is true. NBP got a very socialist-nationalist populist stance, with PR coups and extreme actions aimed to get attention in the media. the N-B movement is in the same situation as the early NS movement; it doesn't got any real ideology. It's to good Limonov exist to fix this mess, but he isn't a Hitler, even if he has written several "Mein Kampf's" (a.e 'Second Russia') in prison.

The reason why NBP don't want to form an ideology yet, is that ideology creates borders, and NBP can't have borders yet to operate freely. In the future, when the Russian NB movement has a foot-hold in society, the question of distinctive ideology can be put to discussion. But until then NBP uses their existing NB programme with it's principles, and really; in the Realpolitik Russian atmosphere this is doing only good.

Alexander Dugin is off NBP. He has nothing to do with it anymore. He was a Neo-Liberal infiltrateur all the time, working for an American academic think-tank. Today he is an advisor for Putin's government.

In Russia, most National-Bolsheviks are Nationalists, with a sense of Soviet nostalgia. The decadence of Russia since the glasnost period is clear to anyone who lives or have been in Russia. But NBP doesn't want to recreate the former Soviet Union, like the Communist wants. NBP wants a New Russia, and like the Bolsheviks of 1917 they want the ideals of this New Russia to spread to Europa as well. That's the fundamental basis of the NB Eurasia concept. It's antagonistic to all dogmatic ideologies; let it be NS, Marxism or Racialist dogmatism.

Yes, indeed! I state that National-Bolshevism is something good for mankind! Humanity cannot sink lower than now, in the ultra-individual, consumerist Liberal anti-aestethic crap societies that's the Western world. The renaissance of pre-Enlightenment ideals; true, authoritarian and healthy ideals, is the purpose of NB, together with the synthesis of modern, socialist-collectivist ones. The parasites of this planet, let it be the liberal-marxists, neo-Liberals and the Zionists in cooperation, must be eliminated by all means. They are not to corrupt our soil anymore with it's economical anti-ecological materialist system.

"And finally, the imperialism prebuilt into NB does not interpret inevitable geopolitical confrontation, it ENGINEERS it. And the language of that confrontation is ugly from the start."

Yes, that's correct too. National-Bolshevism is an idea of confrontation with the powers corrupting our world, wherever they are. I just say to you White Nationalists of America: strive for a Second American Revolution, just as we Nazbols strive for our Second Russian Revolution, and the conflicts between the West and the East diminishes. End the hegemony of the plutocracy, and there is no transatlantic geopolitical conflict!

"And this is 'good' for who? Shall we start digging the trenches (and the graves) for yet another fratricidal European war?"

European blood-sisters and brothers has spilled enough blood to benefit their own national blood-sucking bourgeousie. The Mark of Cain is forever engraved into the soul of European man. No more, I say. But the Liberation war against the NATO and its EU lackeys will not be easy or without blood. But you Americans has fought a war of independence, you now too well that freedom is only possible BY FORCE.

But from what I've come to understand, most people here like war, because it's natural that forces fight against eachother (or races). So what's the problem with more wars (of liberation) if the National-Bolsheviks gain power in Russia?

"A merging between RNU and NB is impossible unless one is destroyed."

It's true, but NBP has already won that fight. RNU is no longer more powerful than NBP, because of their lack of political ambitions and aims. RNU poses no treat to NBP whatsoever. NBP has survived it's first 'black week'.

"As you may have guessed, I don't like 'ideologies' which fail to seek out natural confirmation. I'm not NS. But until we come up with something better, NS plus a tinge of pan-Europeanism is far superior to NB."

On on which basis would this New NS-Paneuropeanism stand? We European Nazbols are Pan-European as well.

"You are aware that Russian NB has territorial ambitions? What difference if it is masked in 'ideology' and revolution (again). Estonia will not welcome a new Moscow hegemony. What will you tell them?"

True. NBP has territorial ambitions to areas where Ethnical Russians live, a.e Northern Kazakhstan (where they are being harassed and killed by the NATO despot Nazarbayev), on Crimea, in enclaves in Latvija, eastern Belorussia and parts of Ukraine. Yes, NB has territorial ambitions, but today's Europa is, just as after the First World War, a wasp hive for Nationalists. The borders are clumpsely made, especially the post-Soviet ones. Ukraine's borders are totally fictive, and ignores ethnical boundaries. The same for Belorussia and Kazakhstan. Whole Russia is indeed even a federation of people: the Karelians, the Chechens, the Tatars of Tatarstan and many, many minorities. Russia will never be a homogenous country, and because of that the former Russian minorities; the Ukrainians and the Belorussians could just as well join the Russian block once again. But NBP doesn't want to erase the former Soviet republics, just want to topple the existing regimes and put a new leadership to power, the People's leadership, loyal to the NB cause.

Vojvoda
Thursday, November 13th, 2003, 03:24 AM
http://www.arctogaia.com/public/eng-teor.htm

Moody
Thursday, November 13th, 2003, 05:14 PM
http://www.arctogaia.com/public/eng-teor.htm

Thanks for posting that link; I have only just skimmed the first pages, and I have immediate reservations which perhaps you could explode for me.
First off, I find so much stuff coming from the 'Marxist' direction to be far too wordy. Essay follows essay, and yet we seem to get nowhere, and quickly feel as if we are wading through an ideological swamp.
I admit that I am being extreme here, but that is just to make the point.

I believe that every ideology worth its salt should be able to present itself in just a few pages at most [e.g., the Communist Manifesto or the Programme of the NSDAP]. We can of course expand on that, but we need the guiding principles as a Foundation.

The arctogaia web-page begins with what for me is the crux of the problem;

"The word 'national-bolshevism' [N-B] contains a deliberate paradox. How can two mutually exclusive notions be combined in one and the same name?"

Let's look at that: N-B is a "deliberate paradox" - why so - What is the reason for making a paradox here?
Is it to overcome a particular problem? Then what is the problem?
Paradoxes may need to be described to label an actual practice that has emerged; but has N-B actually emerged, or is it rather a paradox which lay on the drawing-board, and is purely theoretical?
Now to me, good ideological writing should be able to answer such questions as soon as they bubble-up - to pre-empt such questions.
But N-B doesn't do that; it allows the difficulties to mount up, and thereby weary the reader's patience.

Also, it is admitted by arctogaia that N-B consists of two "mutually exclusive notions"; again, is this not a matter of 'oil and water'?
We know that philosophers from Zeno onwards have delighted in paradoxes - but is this of any use in politics?

My doubt is this - 'is N-B a philosophical conceit?

Where I do have some time for N-B is in the following, and I quote from the web-site that you give;

"N-B is a superideology, common for all 'open society' enemies".

But is a common enmity ENOUGH to create a new ideology?
When Capitalism and Communism united in WWII to fight fascism, was a new movement created [not such a silly question - some see many links between Capitalism and Communism].

I am interested in the Unity of Europe on a Racial Nationalist basis, so any analysis which points up common alliances is useful. However, I am far from being convinced about N-B.
I am still of the belief that an Evolved European National Socialism is the way forward.

Arctogaia does not sell N-B for me as an alternative.

Tchort
Saturday, November 29th, 2003, 07:22 PM
National Bolshevism is a Russian renassiance of true National Socialism. The original National Socialist party in Germany was split into 4 factions:

-Capitalists (land/factory owners, the rich bourgeoisie class)

-Converted Marxists (some would later rebel and earn the name 'beefsticks'- brown on the outside, red on the inside)

-Volkists (Thule Society types)

-Göbbelian/Strasserites (adherents to the original program of the NSDAP)

We all know what happened to the Strasserite faction of the NSDAP, they lost out to the capitalists. If Hitler and the NSDAP had stayed true to the proletariet and its revolutionary foundations (by replacing the German army with the S.A. and taken a hard stance on the bourgeoisie) it may have succeeded. But even though Germany lost the war, the foundation of the NSDAP has been reborn in Russia.

There should be no doubt in anyones mind that Russia is most likely the most fertile ground for a patriotic movement. Limonov's National Bolshevik Party is based on many of the same issues and ideas that made up Strasserist/Göbellian political doctrine. But it has been retuned to fit modern Russian politics.

Think of National Bolshevism as National Socialism for modern Russia, and for the rest of the world theres a better name for NB: Third Positionism.

Moody
Sunday, November 30th, 2003, 05:47 PM
Tchort; "National Bolshevism is a Russian renassiance of true National Socialism.
There should be no doubt in anyones mind that Russia is most likely the most fertile ground for a patriotic movement. Limonov's National Bolshevik Party is based on many of the same issues and ideas that made up Strasserist/Göbellian political doctrine.
For the rest of the world theres a better name for NB: Third Positionism".

Moody Lawless; Your statements are very interesting.
What I've seen of Third Positionism in the past has owed more to Roman Catholicism than to National Bolshevism.
Please describe how N-B is synonymous with 3rd Position.
You say that Limonov's ideology has much in common with early NSDAP - but where does it differ?
And can you substantiate your claim that Russia is the "most fertile ground" for a N-S type movement?
I ask in the spirit of one needing to be educated.

Vojvoda
Sunday, November 30th, 2003, 05:56 PM
Is that the same Liminov who visited Bosnia during the war?

"National Bolshevist Party

Eduard Limonov established the National Bolshevist Party in May 1993, after parting from the Liberal Democratic Party lead by Vladimir Zhirinovski. They are skinheads of Russain origin who oppose Russian Orthodox Church, which they accuse of Jewish origin, and in their activity they follow the ideology of Hitler. The movement is garishly anti-semite by nature and opposes immigrants. Lately they have tried to expand their ideology in Estonia by distributing leaflets describing armed resistance. NBP opposes itself to all other opposition powers acting in Russia, including barkashovians. The Russian expatriate writer Eduard Limonov, the founder of the Party, is currently in Lefortovo Prison, Russia, accused of several crimes, among others inciting terrorism[1].

Until now the activity of NBP has mainly been directed to protecting the rights of Russian citizens abroad, especially in the Baltic States. Lately the attacks against Estonian representation offices in Russia and Ukraine have become more frequent in connection with trials on NKVD veterans who are accused of genocide. Limonovians have broken the windows of our representative offices and written hostile slogans on the walls[2]. The fact that national bolshevists have until now attacked Estonian objects abroad and have not organised any actions in Estonia indicates that they do not have many supporters here. A new tendency of NBP is to oppose NATO and the European Union. An example of their antagonism was the action carried out in Prague during the NATO Summit on November 22, 2002, where two national bolshevists threw tomatoes at the Secretary General of NATO George Robertson[3]. However, the most brutal action of NBP took place in Latvia in 2000, where national bolshevists occupied the tower of St. Peter's Church in Riga and threatened the guard and police officials with a model grenade[4].

The abovementioned events demonstrate the aggressive and extremist aspect of NBP and indicate that we are dealing with persons who are capable of carrying out terrorist acts or other serious crimes in order to draw attention. Although there are quite few NBP supporters in Estonia it can be prognosticated that Estonia will remain in the centre of the organisation's attention for some time."

http://www.nplc.lt/criminologyseminar/medziaga/Santraukos/ando_leps_abstract.htm

Jack
Monday, December 1st, 2003, 05:59 AM
Vojvoda, that's the same Limonov.

Vojvoda
Wednesday, December 3rd, 2003, 03:13 AM
Vojvoda, that's the same Limonov.

Thank you comrade.
http://www.exile.ru/limonov/limonov0.html
http://www.exile.ru/limonov/limonov36.html

"November 1991. I went to a Serbo-Croat war at Slavonia in Vukovar. Shocked and disgusted by tortured corpses of Serb kids and elders, retrieved elsewhere amongst the ruins of just-liberated territory by Serbs town of Vukovar. I took Serbian side in conflict. Coming back to Paris I wrote about that dirty war in Parisian "Choc du mois," "Revolution," "L'Outre Journal," at Moscow's "Sovietskaya Rossiya," at Belgrade's "Borba." As television of France, of Moscow, and even that of Belgrade taught simple folks that Serbs are villains, large masses of those countries started to hate me, overnight.


Autumn of 1992. War in Bosnia. At Pale-capital of Serbian Republic of Bosnia, in military cafeteria, I was approached by a BBC television film producer Mr. Pavlikovsky. Pavlikovsky suggested me to interview Mr. Radovan Karadjic, leader of Bosnian Serbs, for his movie. During three days BBC crew have filmed President of Serbian Republic of Bosnia and me talking, visiting positions of Serbian army. Dishonest, BBC boys also in secret have filmed me firing submachine gun near Sarajevo. In 199-1995 that very film was showed in England, in the United States, by Franco-German channel "Arte," etc. I got a reputation of a bloody killer all over the Western world."

Moody
Sunday, December 21st, 2003, 05:22 PM
A quote from Ed Limonov;

"Everything is forbidden in the USA except doing business and having sex. Now, with the advent of AIDS, it's not safe to have sex, so you have only business".

Evolved
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004, 05:22 PM
Maybe I'm hostile against this Bolshevik ideology because between the ages of 14-17 I was a member of the Communist party. I guess deep down I'm some kind of freedom-loving racist hippy :D, but as for the Communist party, these things jumped out at me: The ass-backwards approach to solving the racial problems ("give minorities special treatment, mix the races up and hope for the best"). Totally ignoring any Jewish role in society's demise and blaming it all on capitalism - if only it were that easy. The whole anti-religious freedom thing made me angry too. :upset So I threw my little red books in the trash. All the other little commies in our student discussion group thought my racial ideas were too counter-revolutionary anyway. :soldier

I'm an Isolationist and maybe some Libertarian ideas about personal freedom - I don't want to get involved in anyone else's personal business and don't want anyone involved in mine. Total freedom to do whatever the hell you want unless it infringes on someone else's right to safety & happiness. Free to choose your own life style, your own ways of expressing yourself, your own religion or lack thereof. Total freedom of association, no forced diversity. Just common sense stuff. I should form my own political party. :D

Tryggvi
Wednesday, February 4th, 2004, 01:30 PM
From the National Bolshevik Party (http://www.nbp-info.org/) in Russia. Isn't that awesome? :D

More Progressive National Bolshevik Girls (http://www.nbp.nad.ru/new/photo/girls/)

Moody
Monday, March 15th, 2004, 05:42 PM
"The Hitler-Reich was an example of the triumph of demagogy over a spiritual elite. The demagogue is the travesty of the spiritual leader: he eclipses him and makes everything play into the hands of the landed or money elite".
[Ernst Niekisch, 1958]

"Ernst Niekisch was a leading exponent of National Bolshevik [N-B] fascism in the inter-war period; his anti-Hitler version of radical anti-capitalism is still regarded as significant by some neo-fascists today".
R.Griffin, Fascism Reader]

But let us look at the implications of N-B, not only in its opposition to the West, but to the 'south', as well;

"Niekisch was unequivocally in favour of a German-Russian alliance against the West. The German-Slavic union would destroy the heritage of Rome".
[Steukers, Scorpion 11]

Niekisch saw National Socialism as a product of 'Rome';

"A kind of transmogrified Catholicism, complete with vestements, service, acolytes, priests and pope".
[Scorpion 4]

Before we go further, let us define 'bolshevism';

"Bolshevism is now accepted as a standard term for Leninism as practised by the Soviet Communist Party, and as theorised in the works of Lenin himself.
It involves the advocacy of violent revolution as opposed to the gradual change sought by the mensheviks, together with a stringent form of democratic centralism: all powers are to be assumed by the state in the name of the proletariat which is to dictate during the aftermath of revolution.
The bolsheviks eventually seized power by coup d'etat, and proceeded to eliminate all remaining opposition to their rule".
[Scruton, Political Dictionary].

In 1926, Niekisch founded the review he called 'Opposition' ['Widerstand'];

"Which was an amalgam of pan-German nationalism, anti-liberalism and a strong pro-left pro-Russian sentiment [Niekisch had been a leading activist in the 1919 Munich Uprising]".
[Scorpion 4]

Because of his anti-Hitler stance, Niekisch fell foul of the N-S government after 1933, being interned in 1934 and condemned to life imprisonment in 1937.

The irony of Niekisch is probably the irony of N-B itself; Niekisch survived the war and after its end he taught in the Communist East.
However, he was expelled by the authorities in 1952 for expounding 'non-Marxist' theories!

So N-B was wanted neither by the Marxists nor the Hitlerists!
Perhaps it will have its day soon.

www.bolsheviks.org

Archangelos
Saturday, April 3rd, 2004, 01:42 AM
I was wondering how many sites are there for National Bolsehvism? How many countries have NB political parties?

Moody
Saturday, April 3rd, 2004, 01:48 AM
I was wondering how many sites are there for National Bolsehvism? How many countries have NB political parties?

Check out two of the threads below in this subforum; Dzerzhinsky's N-B and vojvoda's Metaphyics of N-B; read through - there are some links implanted in them.

Deling
Thursday, April 15th, 2004, 05:40 PM
http://www.limonka.net/

If one need to get a grip about National-Bolshevism (especially in its Russian version), this English Limonka site will help.

ogenoct
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 01:09 AM
HAIL!

Constantin von Hoffmeister sez:

This is a complex issue: I would not know what to call myself. Most categories seem to be too confined. That is why it did not bother me the least when Troy Southgate accused me of not being a National Anarchist. You are right: I do admire many elements of National Socialism. For one, I like its emphasis on race. Unfortunately, this emphasis was perverted and - to an extent - misconstrued - all due to an unwarranted Nordic superiority complex (considering that most Germans are European mutts). Also, NS has a cool sense of design and aesthetics. The Nuremberg Party Rallies were mulitmedia spectacles of the first order (think of Breker's "Cathedral of Light").

Unfortunately, Hitler's ethnocentric chauvinism ruined everything. This why I am pro-early NS (Goebbels, Roehm, etc.) but anti-Hitlerite. I am not a big fan of the early days of Communism as it was jewish-controlled and led to nothing but famine and disaster for the average Russian. This changed under Stalin since he was an ardent follower of the doctrine of Eurasianism. Stalin relentlessly purged the party and thereby Aryanized it. As with NS, I admire the aesthetics of the Stalinist regime - the monumental buildings, alleys and sculptures. They perfectly exemplify the Faustian spirit of Aryan man. None of my relatives lived under the DDR regime, but sometimes I wish that I would have! It was, after all, the "better Germany"!

I do not like the term "Conservative Revolution" too much as I do not consider myself "conservative"! This means that there are no current institutions or systems that I would want to preserve! I believe a radical synthesis is in order. We need to re-establish certain elements of NS and National Bolshevism that are of use and ruthlessly discard the rest! I have problems with National Anarchism as it seems provincial and anti-progressive to me. After all, Mars must be our race's next destination!

Moody
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 05:02 PM
Have you read the ideas of David Myatt?
There are examples of his work on these forums [i.e., Politics and Philosophy forums etc.,], as well as links. Myatt is also a considerable poet - 'rhadley' is the main Myatt contributer here.

Also, what do you think of aristocratism, elitism etc.,
I'm talking of the ideas which emanate from Gobineau and Nietzsche?

This may be the crux of our disagreement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/810000/images/_811720_myatt150.jpg
A reclusive Myatt being door-stepped by reporters.

Siegfried
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 05:31 PM
I do not like the term "Conservative Revolution" too much as I do not consider myself "conservative"! This means that there are no current institutions or systems that I would want to preserve!

Julius Evola considered himself a Conservative Revolutionary, and here's what he wrote about this matter:


Obviously, it is necessary to first to establish as exactly as possible what needs to be ‘preserved’; today there is very little that deserves to be preserved, especially as far as social structures and political institutions are concerned. [Men Among the Ruins, first chapter]

The Conservative Revolution is not about the preservation of the current rotten order, nor a sluggish continuation of past forms into the present; it means a return to origins and faithfulness to the underlying principles of Tradition [Tradition - with a capital T - being the primordial way of all higher mankind, it's acting in accordance with the Divine].
If you're interesting in the ideas of Tradition and Conservative Revolution, I suggest you read Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World (which is mainly about the spiritual meaning of Tradition and modernity) and Men Among the Ruins (which is more political).
Hope this made sense :)

Ederico
Friday, April 23rd, 2004, 06:04 PM
I too share similar opinions and was drawn to National Bolshevism in the past. I consider the Left-Wing elements of the former NSDAP to be the real National Socialists and I was drawn to their opinions whenever I came in contact with them.

Personally I believe that in order to create a Social Racial Revolution throughout Europe one needs some sort of Centralised approach. That is why I personally consider National Anarchism and other Libertarian modes of Nationalism/Racialism to be in greater difficulty when attempting to create a Nova Europa with European Civlisation and Folks at its core.

Regarding National Bolshevism and other Economically Leftist forms of Nationalism/Racialism, I find myself a bit at odds on the grounds that I do tend to believe that Capitalism (when confined within an Imperium, to use Norman Lowell's words) is a greater catalyst of Economic Progress and Wealth Creation than a System using a Command Economy. Moreover I do consider Private Property and Free Enterprise a Right that should be granted and only restricted when the Common-Interest is being infringed.

What do you think?

ogenoct
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 12:54 AM
Also, what do you think of aristocratism, elitism etc.,
I'm talking of the ideas which emanate from Gobineau and Nietzsche?
I am in favor of a Nietzschean aristocracy. However, it should not be based on class, but rather on spirit. This is why I think a true meritocracy would work best (in the original spirit of National Socialism). I believe that an Aryan elite (Aryan = "noble" in Sanskrit) should govern the populace. Side-note: Every true anti-semite must take a socialist stance since since jews are those who most actively promote capitalism, monetarism and liberalism (especially in Russia).

Constantin

Telperion
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 02:22 AM
Every true anti-semite must take a socialist stance since since jews are those who most actively promote capitalism, monetarism and liberalism (especially in Russia).

Leaving aside, of course, the Jews who dominated the leadership of the Bolshevik party, were the majority of CPSU Commissars in the 1920's and 1930's, and continue to dominate Marxist organizations to this day.

ogenoct
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 04:14 AM
Leaving aside, of course, that the jews did not make up the majority of the leadership of the Bolshevik Party under Stalin (who purged quite a few, but - due to internal conspiracies - was not able to finish this noble deed), and that today, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is possibly the most patriotic of them all. Most of its leaders are virulent anti-semites.

Constantin

nazbol1917
Wednesday, April 28th, 2004, 12:48 AM
I am a National Bolshevik from the United States. I and a few other comrades have been in contact with National Bolsheviks from Europe, and are currently working on creating a party in the US that is affiliated with the Russian NBP of Limonov. Since there seems to be some different ideas floating around as to what exacty National Bolshevism is, here are some of our ideas:

-We follow Limonov's form of National Bolshevism. The writings of Dugin, while interesting, are more theorectical in nature, and not only are not important to the practical workings of the Russian NBP, but are also made less important by Limonov's own theories. Dugin is no longer part of the party, and supports the Putin regime, saying that the NBP does not actually following the NB idealogy.
-Racial preservation is important, but niether race nor class are made the focus of National Bolshevism. The NBP-USA calls for Aryan culture to be the primery focus of the state, and supports the creation of communities of ethnically homogeneous populations to allow for diversity. The culture as a whole will be remade to form what was once a heavily European culture.
-We DO call for the nationalization of the commanding hieghts of the economy, but not for state control of small businesses.
-We are currently working on a website, literatire, and buttons and other promotional material, so hopefully you'll hear more from us in the future!

DA SMERT!
Shawn

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, April 28th, 2004, 05:44 AM
Best of luck to you comrade. But sadly I think you're fighting a non-winnable battle. National Bolshevism is largely a Continental European style philosophy system, wheras America is an Atlanticist society built on Anglo-Saxon values.

And I highly doubt any Russian system would work in America either or gain acceptance. The Cold War Russophobia is still very much alive.

Just some things to consider.

pat
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 02:24 AM
I dont know, I reckon the whole idea of National Socialism as decreed by A.H. etc is that Commies, Reds, slavs are something to hate and supress and if possible Liquidate so I do not see how you can connect commies and nazis in such a fashion.

Any common ground shared by the left and right was covered in "Mein Kamph" Thts why the N.S.D.A.P. coined it National Socialism.

Any Russian attempt to glorify their degenerate Bolshivism, or whatever you call it, is a pathethic attempt to retain some National pride in wake of the soviet collapse.

The last thing Russia or Europe needs at this stage is a Nazi/commie Hybrid

pat
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 02:43 AM
"The Hitler-Reich was an example of the triumph of demagogy over a spiritual elite. The demagogue is the travesty of the spiritual leader: he eclipses him and makes everything play into the hands of the landed or money elite".
[Ernst Niekisch, 1958]

That is the reason Hitler came to existance, to eclipse the Money hungry with nationalism and racial pride. Hitlers personality was far superior to the personality of every goverment, army and political movement at the time. He was sent from mother nature to lead us out of darkness. Humanity in its degeneracy rejected him. Stalin and Che Guevera wont save you. Nationalism and Racial Pride and purity is the only way out. Ignore Marx etc. Please!

"Ernst Niekisch was a leading exponent of National Bolshevik [N-B] fascism in the inter-war period; his anti-Hitler version of radical anti-capitalism is still regarded as significant by some neo-fascists today".
R.Griffin, Fascism Reader]

But let us look at the implications of N-B, not only in its opposition to the West, but to the 'south', as well;

"Niekisch was unequivocally in favour of a German-Russian alliance against the West. The German-Slavic union would destroy the heritage of Rome".
[Steukers, Scorpion 11]

Niekisch saw National Socialism as a product of 'Rome';

"A kind of transmogrified Catholicism, complete with vestements, service, acolytes, priests and pope".
[Scorpion 4]

Yeah, there is a difference in the Fashion Propaganda espouted by MTV today, the dress code of suit and tie of the Buisnessman and the solicitor and judge, the Heavy metal uniform of long hair and Leather jacket, the Skinhead uniform of shaven head and B@H paraphenalia, and that of the Catholic church? Vestaments and so forth? Look to the KKK maybe?

Before we go further, let us define 'bolshevism';

"Bolshevism is now accepted as a standard term for Leninism as practised by the Soviet Communist Party, and as theorised in the works of Lenin himself.
It involves the advocacy of violent revolution as opposed to the gradual change sought by the mensheviks, together with a stringent form of democratic centralism: all powers are to be assumed by the state in the name of the proletariat which is to dictate during the aftermath of revolution.
The bolsheviks eventually seized power by coup d'etat, and proceeded to eliminate all remaining opposition to their rule".
[Scruton, Political Dictionary].

Lets read Pats Dictornary as completed under Zionist oppression from 1977 to 2004/ "Bolshevism is a degenerate political belief practised by the self inflicted stupiditly retarded adherents of Socialism in the 20th and 21st century as a direct result of the white races alienation from its ancient culture, since replaced by the Jew religion of "Christ" "MTV" and "Zionist appreciation and white guilt"

In 1926, Niekisch founded the review he called 'Opposition' ['Widerstand'];

"Which was an amalgam of pan-German nationalism, anti-liberalism and a strong pro-left pro-Russian sentiment [Niekisch had been a leading activist in the 1919 Munich Uprising]".
[Scorpion 4]

Because of his anti-Hitler stance, Niekisch fell foul of the N-S government after 1933, being interned in 1934 and condemned to life imprisonment in 1937.

Should of shot him in all fairness.

The irony of Niekisch is probably the irony of N-B itself; Niekisch survived the war and after its end he taught in the Communist East.
However, he was expelled by the authorities in 1952 for expounding 'non-Marxist' theories!

So N-B was wanted neither by the Marxists nor the Hitlerists!
Perhaps it will have its day soon.

Over my dead body.

www.bolsheviks.org

Turificator
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 09:33 AM
As far as I'm aware, there's no NatBol Party in Italy. However, there a several organizations which follow similar ideals (one of them is the Associazione Limes (http://www.asslimes.com/)). 'Orion' is a well-known 'neither left nor right' magazine, and articles by Carlo Terracciano can often be found there.

I wish the best of luck to anyone fighting the liberal-capitalist system, although I completely disagree with the bolschevik ideology of the NBP (industrialisation, 'workers' state', central government buraucracy, etc. it all makes me sick!!...). NatBols seem honest enough, although the only country where at the moment they have any visibility on the political level is Russia.

'There is no longer any left or right. There is the System and the enemies of the System' (E. Limonov)

Deling
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 01:28 PM
"Commies, Reds, slavs are something to hate and supress and if possible Liquidate so I do not see how you can connect commies and nazis in such a fashion."

Well, well...let's kill all the Poles, Balts, Rus, Byelorus, Czechs and so on, you say? It's because of people like you that NS can't advance. You're a trojan horse of Europe.

"The last thing Russia or Europe needs at this stage is a Nazi/commie Hybrid"

No, what Russians need is liquidation, right..?

"Best of luck to you comrade. But sadly I think you're fighting a non-winnable battle. National Bolshevism is largely a Continental European style philosophy system, wheras America is an Atlanticist society built on Anglo-Saxon values.

And I highly doubt any Russian system would work in America either or gain acceptance. The Cold War Russophobia is still very much alive."

For once Pushkin and me agree. Russian NB in America is a paradox: Russian NB doesn't suit anything beyond the former Soviet union. With its idea of Russia as the geopolitical Heartland; the world center, it would indeed be strange to promote this Russocentric ideas in America of all places. Adapt NB to the American situation, or be a Limonov/NBP supporter group, like the German Bund for NSDAP; that's the only solution.

Taras Bulba
Thursday, April 29th, 2004, 05:31 PM
I dont know, I reckon the whole idea of National Socialism as decreed by A.H. etc is that Commies, Reds, slavs are something to hate and supress and if possible Liquidate

Yes, let's just see you try and suppress and liquidate us Slavs. :eyes

"Go home and tell all in foreign lands that Russia lives. Let them come to us as guests without fear. But if anyone comes to us with the sword, he shall perish by the sword. On this land Russia stands and will forever stand."
--Prince Alexander Nevsky

"To those who despise Russia; you threaten us with words, just try us by deeds."
--Alexander Pushkin [i]To the Slanderers of Russia

Not only that, Adolf was not anti-Slavic. Indeed in the USSR alone one million Slavs fought in ther Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. Yeah real anti-Slavic pal!



Any Russian attempt to glorify their degenerate Bolshivism, or whatever you call it, is a pathethic attempt to retain some National pride in wake of the soviet collapse.

Yes, how DARE we Slavs demand our national pride in the wake of the Soviet collaspe. :eyes

ogenoct
Sunday, May 2nd, 2004, 12:02 PM
NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM OR NOTHINGNESS

Alexander Dugin



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, Tieriard) 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.

Translated by Henry Zalkin

ogenoct
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 06:35 AM
http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/russian_nb.php

Fraxinus Excelsior
Saturday, June 26th, 2004, 05:15 AM
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=11332[/url]


I hope magilla does not take this as a thorough rebuke; his work is valuable, but I ask him to channel his anti-Bolshevism into the Fascism/National Socialist subforum.
Well then, please, don't move this thread to the "National Bolshevism & Socialism" subforum, since I intend to project my "anti-Bolshevism into the Fascism/National Socialist subforum." ;)

Anyway, I was looking around on some national-bolshevik sites ([url="http://www.bolsheviks.org/"]www.bolsheviks.org (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=115359&postcount=13) and www.nbp-info.org (http://www.nbp-info.org/)) and I thought, "wow, a lot of the National Bolshevik propaganda posters look strikingly 'similar' to National Socialist propaganda posters."

"Similar" as in having been HIJACKED by the "nazbols". Obviously, I'm not the first individual to notice these "similarities"; I find their choice in pilfered propaganda to be a "little" contradictory to their statements about National Socialism and its racial policies.


ARE YOU NATIONAL SOCIALISTS OR FASCISTS? Of course not. A National Socialist bases his whole emphasis on the question about his nation's race purity/race characteristics, which we National-Bolsheviks doesn't give a damn about.

Some Examples:



http://img67.photobucket.com/albums/v203/Freakin_Bad_Mofo/nancy_boys.jpg :scratch http://img67.photobucket.com/albums/v203/Freakin_Bad_Mofo/sa.jpg

http://img67.photobucket.com/albums/v203/Freakin_Bad_Mofo/nordmenn.jpg:pukehttp://img67.photobucket.com/albums/v203/Freakin_Bad_Mofo/posers.jpg

Deling
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 04:11 PM
"ARE YOU NATIONAL SOCIALISTS OR FASCISTS? Of course not. A National Socialist bases his whole emphasis on the question about his nation's race purity/race characteristics, which we National-Bolsheviks doesn't give a damn about."

This is my text, and nothing that reflects National-Bolsheviks as a whole. All its written with an anti-stance, and could be viewed literally or the opposite. This is my text, projected to Swedish left-wingers in a former, and in some ways successful, attempt of 'entryism'.

But it is true that N-Bs doesn't care much about (biological and cultural) race PURITY, which's a relativist question. National-Bolshevism is post-modern 'Fascism'. And if some people think it isn't correct according to National-Socialist dogmas, I just it positive that National-Bolshevism isn't a sterile dogmatic ideology, but a virile political stream.

Moody
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 04:15 PM
Some would argue I suppose that N-S and N-B have a common origin and also have cross-over points [see my recent thread on Ernst Rohm and the 'SA Approach'].
They might even say that N-S borrowed NB features in the past.

Another possibility is that N-B is paying a TRIBUTE to N-S.

This could be a sort of common cause on anti-Semitism - perhaps some see the chance of a synthesis of N-S and N-B!?!

Deling
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Do you mean a common theoretical origin or a common origin regarding the persons affiliating to these two straits?

I don't believe that N-S has borrowed anything, I believe N-B essentially is more true to the Fascist spirit, in according to the second millenia, than today's theoretical Fascism is.

The synthesis between N-S and N-B can only exist on a theoretical level, in reality the synthesis is only possible if the interests of N-B profiles and organisations correspond with those of N-S profiles and organisations.

Don't forget that N-B isn't an ideology. Ideologies tend to theoretize the world, forging an ideal society without regards to the realities. This kind of idealism are no better than bourgeousie party politics and its rationalist heritage. National-Bolshevism is something not here yet. It's a word for the red-brown alliance, the negation of ideologies, a glimpse of the post-democratic future.

Also, I don't view National Socialism as an ideology, nor a religion. Many tend to debate over and over whether who is Aryan and Hitler saying this or that, but weren't Hitler a pragmatical person, rather than an ideological? When Japan attacked America, the Japanese became 'the Aryan brothers of the east'. The same with the Moslem volunteers from Balkan, and the Arabs. Race relations were pragmatical, and adapted different in aspect to the world-political realities. Hitler and his companions were National Socialism, and Hitler was the ideology. This is what sums up the anti-Rationalist (pre-Enlightenment) romanticism and obsession with Nietzschean aristocrats and Machiavellian strong-men.

In this respect, National Bolshevism is more true to the Fascist heritage than the post-WW2 NS ideologies and dogmas that have surfaced will ever be. N-S and N-B could very well 'cooperate', in which issues are irrelevant. The primary concern is, however: do National-Socialists and National-Bolsheviks maintain the same interests?

The world is becoming democratized, will the end of History occur? If not; what could be the future, and how could we place ourselves in its center? This is the primacy of all ideologies; power, and if the interests of different N-B and N-S groups tend to junction, it's natural for co-existance and cooperation.





Some would argue I suppose that N-S and N-B have a common origin and also have cross-over points [see my recent thread on Ernst Rohm and the 'SA Approach'].
They might even say that N-S borrowed NB features in the past.

Another possibility is that N-B is paying a TRIBUTE to N-S.

This could be a sort of common cause on anti-Semitism - perhaps some see the chance of a synthesis of N-S and N-B!?!

Moody
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 05:38 PM
As N-S is a synthesis, then it admits of the Hegelian process of thesis/antithesis=synthesis.

So left and right wing elements were in a kind of nuclear fission at the beginning of the 20th century.

Out of that flowed fascism, N-S and N-B.

There is a possibility that such elements could re-arrange themselves in the 21st century.

The key experience for all these things was World War One.
All these men, Hitler included, emerged from the trenches of that War - this was the 'trenchocracy'.

But who living has experienced that?
Who has really experienced war?

A different Spirit is needed.

N-B may be more appropriate than N-S to certain racial temperaments.

Some races may not share Blood; but they do share temperaments. Actually, the connections between Imperial Japan and Germany go back to the Bismarckian era of the 19th century.
The Japanese admired the Prussian spirit just as the latter admired the Samurai.
Nietzsche had compared Aryan Blond Beasts with the Japanese warriors and the Arab slave-holders.
Therefore there was no culture-shock when Hitler announced a German/Italian/Japan Axis.
A sharing of temperaments.

If those differences were recognised, then perhaps a N-S Europe and a N-B Russia could co-operate on the shared understanding of anti-Semitism.

Deling
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 06:35 PM
Yes, and I agree with you. It's just that I take into consideration the practical issue of ideology and philosophy; the Machiavellian/Nietzschean and Spenglerian concept. Which is literally ideology as politics to achieve aims as glory, honour and power.

The issues you mentions are psychological and cultural: race (Spenglerian definition). But it's an outdated race. Your 'trenchocracy', which I believed help formulate Fascism and its 'steel bath' empirical ethos, is gone and dead. The 'people' are being, or has been, compromised into an anorganic Fourth 'stĺnd' (I don't know the English term for it. The first being the priests, the second the aristocracy, and the third the urban bourgeousie). Its mentality is different, society is different, politics is totally different in the wake of Democracy's (and money as political means) apparent victory.

We've entered the postmodern era, and I think you understand basically what I've been writing when you state that "a different Spirit is needed.". But I disagree in your notion of a NB Russia and NS Europe. A Communist or NS who turns away from theory and dogma, to real politics and pragmatism, becomes a de facto National-Bolshevik. And that's what's a National-Bolshevik really is, not a membership card in the NBP, but a feeling reacting to the apparent 'End of History'; the hegelian notion described by Francis Fukuyama. It's the fascism defence syndrome in a post-modern context, and is basically Fascism Evolved: Post-Fascism.

National-Bolshevism appears Russian, just as National Socialism appears German, and original Fascism Italian. But the only reason National-Bolshevism, this Red-Brown reaction alliance, are strongest in the east is because Russia is the last outpost of the Western world Liberal Democracy hasn't conquered. It's a reaction to the global menace spreading, just as original Fascism was, and in National-Bolshevism exist everything hostile to Liberal Democracy. National-Bolshevism is just a strait, in these moments, but it will evolve, perhaps with help of global events such as the global Exodus and the American provocations or the EU project, into a political stream that will exist in pace with time. National-Bolshevism simply is the project name of the next phase of Fascism, and a glimpse into the political future.


BTW: I liked your Pan-European Political Race posts. They were very inspiring.

ogenoct
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 09:42 PM
And that's what's a National-Bolshevik really is, not a membership card in the NBP, but a feeling reacting to the apparent 'End of History'; the hegelian notion described by Francis Fukuyama. It's the fascism defence syndrome in a post-modern context, and is basically Fascism Evolved: Post-Fascism.

I agree. National Bolshevism is flexible Fascism. It is necessarily so since the time for change on the plane of reality has not yet arrived. People might argue that NB is unconcerned with the issue of race, but this is not true. Many comrades affiliated with NB care deeply about their Indo-European heritage, culturally AND ethnically. When one comes across a statement by a member of the NBP that states that race is not important, it is simply an expression of ONE individual and NOT the NBP as a whole. As I said, the NBP is still an evolving organism and thereby open to any kind of influx from both the Left and the Right. This is what the Red-Brown Alliance is all about. It is a rampart composed of seemingly opposed ideologies - as a bulwark against the encroaching tide of globalizing liberalism. Read my essays on Race and National Bolshevism (A RACIAL POINT OF VIEW ON NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM) here:

http://bolsheviks.org/DOCUMENTS/DOCUMENTS.htm

Constantin

Deling
Monday, June 28th, 2004, 10:07 PM
Unfortunately, the ideas of National-Bolshevism is immature. Alexander Dugin's metaphysics aren't enough, and especially not Jean Thiriart's geopolitics. The books written by Limonov serves as a blueprint for a new order across Europe, but is mainly focused on Russia. What's needed is a universal 'National-Bolshevism', not a rationalist ideological model, but a reaction against some event; collapse of world economy, the undermining of Democratic institutions by oligarchial structures and meritocracy, a 'second spirituality'... who knows? The only thing certain is that immature world-views are hatched out of real-world events and shifts among the populace (the fourth estate).

It's a pity that alot of people tend to implement on the world ideal models of how it should be, not taking into regard how it is. This is a reason why White Nationalism's race war/white revolution is a dream. Just as Marxists' and Democratic idealists' utopias'.

Well, I went off topic.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Tuesday, June 29th, 2004, 06:20 AM
This is my text, and nothing that reflects National-Bolsheviks as a whole. All its written with an anti-stance, and could be viewed literally or the opposite. This is my text, projected to Swedish left-wingers in a former, and in some ways successful, attempt of 'entryism'.

But it is true that N-Bs doesn't care much about (biological and cultural) race PURITY, which's a relativist question. National-Bolshevism is post-modern 'Fascism'. And if some people think it isn't correct according to National-Socialist dogmas, I just it positive that National-Bolshevism isn't a sterile dogmatic ideology, but a virile political stream.
Thank you for responding, Deling, especially since you wrote the original text.

Anyway, I tend to form my opinions of individual political movements "primarily" on their respective proposed system of economics.

Fascism=economically, a reaction to the apparent failure of laissez-faire economics and fear of international Bolshevism. Add corporatism. It's class collaboration vs. class war. Sounds o.k. to me.

National Socialism= similar to Fascism. Concentrated mostly on the elimination of unemployment and hyperinflation; Also, an increase in the production of consumer goods to improve middle and lower-class living standards.

National Bolsevism=??? I haven't found anything that would adequately "turn me on" to National Bolshevism in any aspect.

But, this is going off topic. Maybe we should tackle this in "Economics" or "National Bolshevism & Socialism"?

Deling
Tuesday, June 29th, 2004, 12:04 PM
"Thank you for responding, Deling, especially since you wrote the original text."

And the text no longer exists on bolsheviks.org, since it served its purpose long ago.

Anyway, I tend to form my opinions of individual political movements "primarily" on their respective proposed system of economics.

Fascism=economically, a reaction to the apparent failure of laissez-faire economics and fear of international Bolshevism. Add corporatism. It's class collaboration vs. class war. Sounds o.k. to me.

Well, you COULD define Fascism this way, but it has nothing to do with todays' realities, rather the realities of yesterday. There are no longer any Proletariat, nor distinct classes (which in Marxist tongue is the same as the estates). The atomization of a people/volk has created a Mass, which doesn't feel connected to any class or purpose. Therefore I must claim that your economical definition of Fascism is 1920'eth-stylish. Except that your definition sounds pretty much like our Liberal Democracy.

National Socialism= similar to Fascism. Concentrated mostly on the elimination of unemployment and hyperinflation; Also, an increase in the production of consumer goods to improve middle and lower-class living standards.

No. There's impossible to define a movement through its economics, because economic issues can never be followed by a dogma. Finance politics are totally pragmatic.

National Bolsevism=??? I haven't found anything that would adequately "turn me on" to National Bolshevism in any aspect.

Eduard Limonov has written about NB economics in his book (Russian economics). He, and neither do I, care about setting up economic plans long before one could control it, and the situation may be different then. But a principle of NB he put forward: "Still in 1993, balloting in the Tver region for the 172nd electoral district, I answered the questions of the electorate: am I for private property or against it? I did not answer by a short "yes" or "no", but answered that I'm for the effective form of property. It is important that the plant, the factory make profits, so that the workers have a good pay and the government receives its taxes, and who the owner of the plant is, whether it is one man or a workers' collective or auctioneers is indifferent."

Read the chapter of Limonov's book, which is interesting: http://www.limonka.net/limonka/001/eng/14.html

But, this is going off topic. Maybe we should tackle this in "Economics" or "National Bolshevism & Socialism"?

Nah, it's only an internet forum anyway.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Wednesday, June 30th, 2004, 06:36 AM
I do believe it is possible to evaluate a movement by its economic policies; every political movement is centered around economics.

It's impossible for a movement to not be centered around economics; money makes the world go 'round.


Read the chapter of Limonov's book, which is interesting: http://www.limonka.net/limonka/001/eng/14.html
Interesting article. Have you read anything by Ludwig von Mises (http://www.mises.org/)?

(the posters should be back up in a little while; photobucket's having trouble)

Deling
Wednesday, June 30th, 2004, 08:56 AM
"I do believe it is possible to evaluate a movement by its economic policies; every political movement is centered around economics.

It's impossible for a movement to not be centered around economics; money makes the world go 'round."

That's right in the sense that all political parties and organisations nowadays don't got a strong foundation among the grass-root people, but are self-centered specialist organisations.

And even though I concur with you in some ways, and that our cultural climate makes populism and economics the only viable options in politics, I still would find it a little Marxist to do so. Or rather marxist philosophy with Fascist demagogy. At least that's the logical consequence.
But I may have misinterpreted you. What's your economical ethos?

Fraxinus Excelsior
Thursday, July 1st, 2004, 06:19 AM
That's right in the sense that all political parties and organisations nowadays don't got a strong foundation among the grass-root people, but are self-centered specialist organisations.
That's exactly true.


And even though I concur with you in some ways, and that our cultural climate makes populism and economics the only viable options in politics, I still would find it a little Marxist to do so. Or rather marxist philosophy with Fascist demagogy. At least that's the logical consequence.
But I may have misinterpreted you. What's your economical ethos?
It would hardly be easy to define my personal views on economics.

"An Economic Policy Based On Racial Principals" from the National Alliance (http://www.natallco.com/whatis3.html) is considerably similar to what I believe (in general; not specifics):

There are two fundamental criteria which must be used for judging each and every governmental intervention in economic matters. They are, first, the long-range welfare and progress of the race; and second, human nature. Which is to say that in evaluating any economic policy we must ask ourselves two questions: Will this policy ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to the quality of our race? And is it in accord with human nature?
We look first at the racial effects of a policy and insist that they must be positive - or at least not negative - and then we insist that the policy be based on a clear and realistic understanding of human nature, so that it is workable.

We can understand better the significance of these two principles if we consider briefly two quite different economic systems, Marxism and laissez-faire capitalism.

Marxist economics has human happiness rather than racial progress as its ostensible aim, and it is based on assumptions that are at odds with reality and with human nature. It aims at providing material comfort for everyone, more or less equally. It cannot even admit the possibility of racial progress, because that implies that some types of men are inherently superior to others and that some directions of development are more desirable than other directions.

Whether one prefers the Marxist goal of the greatest happiness for the greatest number or the National Alliance goal of stronger, wiser, and more beautiful men and women is a matter of one's values. It was not on its choice of values that Marxism foundered. however, but on its refusal to recognize the fact of human inequality and the nature of human motivation. When people are not permitted to work for their own profit and advancement, they do not work well; and when a society's leaders do not attain their positions through their own merit, that society is likely to be ill led.

In contrast to the Marxist system, we recognize the need to permit people to compete, to reap the fruits of their labor, and to exercise leadership according to their demonstrated ability. They will work harder and more efficiently and will order themselves in a hierarchy of ability. The result will be a stronger, better led, and more prosperous society. There will of course, be those individuals who will not work or whose natural abilities are such that they cannot compete effectively. Rather than following the Marxist path of robbing the successful in order to reward the unsuccessful, we must take measures to ensure that society's lowest elements do not multiply and become more numerous in later generations.

The laissez faire capitalist system provides another illustrative contrast. Under such a system the society as a whole has no goals: there are only the goals of individual men and women. The capitalist system, like ours, provides strong incentives for individuals: the strong, aggressive, and clever rise and prosper, and the weak, indecisive, and stupid remain at the bottom. Leaders tend to be capable - at least, in the capitalist economic environment, with its special conditions.

Without a unifying principle, however, a capitalist society easily can fall prey to certain inherent weaknesses. One of these weaknesses is the instability which leads the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer, not solely because of differences in ability but because the possession of capital gives the possessor an enormous advantage in the competition for more capital. When personal gain is the only motivation in a society, those who already are rich can arrange things to favor themselves: they can buy the legislation they want, and they can block threats to their power in ways which may be destructive to the welfare of the society as a whole. They can hold down the price of labor, limit healthy competition within the society, and exploit the environment without regard for the long-range consequences.

The overly rigid social stratification resulting from unrestricted capitalism can lead to endemic class hostility and even to class warfare. It can slow racial progress by making the ability to acquire and hold capital the supreme survival trait.

We need an economic system which, in contrast to Marxism, allows individuals to succeed in proportion to their capability and energy, but which, in contrast to capitalism, does not allow them to engage in socially or racially harmful activity, such as stifling competition or importing non-White labor. We need to structure our economic system so that it cannot fall prey to the instability of capitalism. We need to maintain social flexibility, so that capable and energetic individuals always have the possibility of rising. We need to ensure that capital does not have the possibility of changing society's rules to suit itself. The way to achieve and maintain an economic system which meets these criteria is to design and govern the system subject to the supreme principle: the ultimate aim of all economic policy is racial progress.

Deling
Thursday, July 1st, 2004, 12:25 PM
Well, then. It's too bad that you don't write your thoughts on the matter with your own words. But however, I have another question:

COULD there ever be economic policies which benefit a biological (and ill-fully defined) race, except in the unreal world of theories? In todays Western world, the economic elite is more than 90% European, still our economic systems are severely critized by Nationalists+Racialists.

And would a economic system which is centered around a distinct group of people, judged by their cultural heritage, be able to withstand the profiteer ethos of capitalism, which consequently will not regard race? Who'll do the dirty work, the low payed? Or is government to control economic policies and the practical usage into most details?

ogenoct
Thursday, July 1st, 2004, 10:51 PM
Another thought:

While Bolshevism celebrated the value of Labor (Creation), it negated the value of Blood (Race). National Socialism, on the other hand, celebrated both the value of Labor AND Blood.

Hence, the Bolshevik flag is merely red with the yellow emblem of the Hammer and Sickle. Both the color red and the yellow emblem signify Labor. The National Socialist flag, on the other hand, is red with the black emblem of the Swastika. Therefore, the National Socialist flag both represents Labor (through the color red) AND Blood (through the pan-Aryan symbol of the Swastika).

I believe the Waffen-SS was a good step in the right direction. It encouraged a pan-European view as opposed to the ethnocentric one of Hitler and company.

Constantin

nazbol1917
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 03:58 AM
I agree with your view regarding the Waffen SS, though the belifs of its leader were different from the more pan-European outlook the organization began to advocate toward the end of the war. Himmler's hatred of the Slavs and his agreement with Hitler that they should be used as slaves for the benefit of the Reich would lead one to believe that his soldiers were fighting against the common interest of Europe and for the glory of a "master race". In fact, as National Socialist Germany began to become more desperate for soldiers, it lowered the qualifications for joining the SS and relatively large numbers of recruits from the countries Germany had defeated joined. Ironically enough, some of the last defenders of Berlin were French SS troops!

What the SS BECAME is something to be emulated and praised; what Himmler WANTED it to be is not. In combining labor with race, we must reject Himmler's obcession with getting the wealthy to join the SS for their " good blood" and his granting of SS titles to those who donated generously to the organization. This isn't Marxism, this is recognising the importance of combing class and race together, and the establishing the truth that the upper class's dominance of the economy is not in the best interest of the Nation. This doesn't discredit the mystical nature of the SS, or its focus on pagan rituals. These elements of the SS, which Himmler promoted despite Hitler's occasional calls for them to be toned down, combined with its later day Pan-Europeanism are all elements I believe should be incorporated into National Bolshevism.

Alric Tarrant
NBP-USA
Idealogical Section

Fraxinus Excelsior
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 05:07 AM
Well, then. It's too bad that you don't write your thoughts on the matter with your own words. But however, I have another question:
Well, there is nothing that I could say, in regards to the field of economics, that hasn't already been said by someone else. Be it Keynes, Marx or von Mises.


COULD there ever be economic policies which benefit a biological (and ill-fully defined) race, except in the unreal world of theories? In todays Western world, the economic elite is more than 90% European, still our economic systems are severely critized by Nationalists+Racialists.

And would a economic system which is centered around a distinct group of people, judged by their cultural heritage, be able to withstand the profiteer ethos of capitalism, which consequently will not regard race?
Although your question is probably intended as rhetorical; yes, I do believe that there could "be economic policies which benefit a biological (and ill-fully defined) race".


Who'll do the dirty work, the low payed?
Well, yes; debtors, and other needy individuals (less-than-average intelligence [morons; other individuals of minimal mental capabilities]; ex-cons who have served their debt to society; repeat criminal offenders deemed effectively rehabilitated; etc.) would have to do the "dirty-work".


Or is government to control economic policies and the practical usage into most details?
I believe that "the Austrian School (http://www.mises.org/about.asp)", although too libertarian for myself, could possibly be the proper economics policy for such a situation: No Freedom, No Peace (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=93&sortorder=articledate).

Fraxinus Excelsior
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 05:11 AM
I believe the Waffen-SS was a good step in the right direction. It encouraged a pan-European view as opposed to the ethnocentric one of Hitler and company.
"A journey of a thousand miles..." or, years.:D

Deling
Monday, July 12th, 2004, 12:02 PM
Well, there is nothing that I could say, in regards to the field of economics, that hasn't already been said by someone else. Be it Keynes, Marx or von Mises.

But Keynes, Marx and von Mises' economic philosophies differ a great deal from eachother.

Although your question is probably intended as rhetorical; yes, I do believe that there could "be economic policies which benefit a biological (and ill-fully defined) race".

You're right and I'm wrong, in this sense. The word 'benefit' tells it all. It's hard to judge in what way an (ill-fully defined) race will 'benefit' and in what sense.

Well, yes; debtors, and other needy individuals (less-than-average intelligence [morons; other individuals of minimal mental capabilities]; ex-cons who have served their debt to society; repeat criminal offenders deemed effectively rehabilitated; etc.) would have to do the "dirty-work".

My economical views are somewhat pragmatic, and rather 'Green'. Somewhat liberal, and anti-industrial. With this I don't mean that there shouldn't be industries, but rather that different assignments be taken by different folk. I say the Merchantilist-Protectionist national industry policies of yesterday are dangerous for culture and environment, and therefore I can be considered a globalist; at least economically. But of course not a laizze faire fanatic.

However, I'm not opposed to immigration with this in mind. Asylum for work. Israel got some good immigration policies in this matter. What's the need for every nation to have industries polluting and urbanizing society, when one could import people to do the work?

I believe that "the Austrian School", although too libertarian for myself, could possibly be the proper economics policy for such a situation: No Freedom, No Peace.

I'm not to fond of economic dogmas (thought systems). They tend to create zealous fanaticism. Economics are and should be pragmatic, and regardless of whatever philosophy claims, there are no economical laws. That's just Western dogmatism.

Fraxinus Excelsior
Tuesday, July 13th, 2004, 06:35 AM
But Keynes, Marx and von Mises' economic philosophies differ a great deal from eachother.
Just as differing as National Bolshevism and National Socialism, right?


My economical views are somewhat pragmatic, and rather 'Green'. Somewhat liberal, and anti-industrial. With this I don't mean that there shouldn't be industries, but rather that different assignments be taken by different folk. I say the Merchantilist-Protectionist national industry policies of yesterday are dangerous for culture and environment, and therefore I can be considered a globalist; at least economically. But of course not a laizze faire fanatic.

I'm also a little "Green" in regards to the environment. You're right, mercantilist-protectionism policies are very detrimental; not only to the people and the economy, but also to the environment.


However, I'm not opposed to immigration with this in mind. Asylum for work. Israel got some good immigration policies in this matter. What's the need for every nation to have industries polluting and urbanizing society, when one could import people to do the work?
"Asylum for work" is only viable for those nations which have no concern for preserving their respective national identities, i.e., the USA and the UK.


I'm not to fond of economic dogmas (thought systems). They tend to create zealous fanaticism. Economics are and should be pragmatic, and regardless of whatever philosophy claims, there are no economical laws. That's just Western dogmatism.
Any dogma is capable of hampering all original thought; to clarify, I like certain aspects of the Austrian School, but I don't consider myself an adherent to the Austrian School.

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 09:22 PM
This NBP has got some nerve to call themselves "elite", well pretty much. They bash individual European cultures and pretty much say "Get that pot and let me get some water ready to boil." NONSENSE !!! I GIVE THEM :hitler :hitler :hitler :hitler :hitler'S DOWN for utter senseless idealology.:D

SS Charlemagne
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 10:37 PM
In Fact the national-Bolchevik are in contradiction.

how they can be nationalist and Communist in the same time ???:sway
Nationalism and communism aer 2 contradictary ideologies.
A communist can be a nationalist and the same for the contrary.

For me there are stupid and dumb. They are just nostalgic of the USSR and Stalin period.
Stalin was not anti-jew, he have a lot of jew in his party ,i renember that i have read an article who had say that he had been also a jewess wife.
I had read their article, i have see all things of their site and i can say that
THe guy of NPB just want make a new USSR in euope and create an europe under russian control.
No thanks http://www.skadi.net/~szacsi/forum/images/smiles/icon_exclaim.gif
By the way their leader " LImonov" is gay http://www.skadi.net/~szacsi/forum/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif

Look their flag and their propagnada : http://www.bolsheviks.org/PROPAGANDA/P1/P1.htm (http://www.bolsheviks.org/PROPAGANDA/P1/P1.htm)
Their flag and their propaganda are the same as III Reich.
They had just replaced the svastika by the sickle and the hammer.
Some exemples of comparaison between NS propagnada and their propaganda.
This guys don't have any imagination , they stole the propaganda of the III reich for create thier own propaganda :
http://www.bolsheviks.org/PROPAGANDA/P7/BUILDNB.jpghttp://volkermord.com/gallery/albums/userpics/WW2/Posters/normal_kauft.jpg


http://www.bolsheviks.org/PROPAGANDA/P7/HEROE.jpghttp://volkermord.com/gallery/albums/userpics/WW2/Posters/prop-dk-2.jpg

http://www.bolsheviks.org/PROPAGANDA/P24/NBWARRIORS.jpghttp://volkermord.com/gallery/albums/userpics/WW2/Posters/prop-no-3.jpg

:pukeNational-Bolchevism

National-Socialism and National-Bochevism together :sway never !!!

Communist are your ennemy , i don't understand why there is a National Bolchevik sub forum ?

SMASH the Bolchevism http://volkermord.com/gallery/albums/userpics/WW2/Posters/prop-var-26.jpghttp://membres.lycos.fr/histoiredefrance/images/Afficheanti-communisme.jpg

Fraxinus Excelsior
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 04:19 AM
My point exactly, SS Charlemagne.

:highfive

Moody
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 05:35 PM
i don't understand why there is a National Bolchevik sub forum ?

I support a N-B sub-forum because it gives added scope to what would otherwise be a preaching to the converted.

All of us should challenge our own ideas as well as the ideas of others, and should avoid the sterile practice of just regurgitating our own preferences.

I thought your post was a good one; that is reason enough to have such a sub-forum - to provoke responses like your own.

The Dagda
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 07:13 PM
In Fact the national-Bolchevik are in contradiction.

how they can be nationalist and Communist in the same time ???:sway
Nationalism and communism aer 2 contradictary ideologies.
I disagree, Nationalism is their social policy and Communism (Socialism) is their economic policy.
Former eastern block countries have heard for years that Fascism is a bad thing and Communism is a good thing, I think NB is ideal for these countries, they identify with Communism and they are racially aware, so I say good luck
to them.

Moody
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 05:29 PM
I disagree, Nationalism is their social policy and Communism (Socialism) is their economic policy.
Former eastern block countries have heard for years that Fascism is a bad thing and Communism is a good thing, I think NB is ideal for these countries, they identify with Communism and they are racially aware, so I say good luck
to them.

Yes one could argue that Nationalism and Socialism are also contradictory.
But then the social policy of N-S was socialist, while its economic policy was Nationalist.

Still a contradiction?

But then contradiction is often the motor of all ideology.

See the following thread;

Contradiction's Quest
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=7047

The question is, what of Nationalism as both a social AND as an economic policy?

The Dagda
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 05:56 PM
Yes one could argue that Nationalism and Socialism are also contradictory.
But then the social policy of N-S was socialist, while its economic policy was Nationalist.
The Social policy of NS was both Nationalist and Socialist, and the economic
policy was also both Nationalist and Socialist. That's why the term "right wing"
does not really describe NS, and it's where we get the term "Third Way."

ogenoct
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 09:48 PM
Yes one could argue that Nationalism and Socialism are also contradictory.
But then the social policy of N-S was socialist, while its economic policy was Nationalist.
That is absolutely NOT true! NS was socialist in every respect. However, as opposed to internationalist (Marxist) CLASS-Socialism, NS was a nationalist FOLK-Socialism. The main difference between these two forms of Socialism is that the former was concerned with abolishing nations in order to foster a global brotherhood of workers (in opposition to all other classes). NS, on the other hand, was concerned with the nation and its people as a whole. NS wanted to get rid of class divisions by creating the necessary SOCIALIST conditions within the nation, so that the different classes would not be exploiting one another, but would function in harmony. Other examples of FOLK-Socialist societies are North Korea, Cuba, Baathist Iraq and the Republic of Salo (under Mussolini).

Constantin

Marius
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 03:12 PM
National-communism really exists. It was applied in Romania during Ceausescu and in some measure, more hidden, it is even now applied.

It consists in the denaturation of the senses of Nationalism and their perversion using communist ideas. It affects everything on which a society is based, from traditions to mentality.

Deling
Friday, August 6th, 2004, 10:32 AM
"how they can be nationalist and Communist in the same time ???
Nationalism and communism aer 2 contradictary ideologies.
A communist can be a nationalist and the same for the contrary.

For me there are stupid and dumb. They are just nostalgic of the USSR and Stalin period."

1: However you want to interpret it or believe it, NB isn't a Communist offspring.
2: Russian National-Bolsheviks using Soviet nostalgia in propaganda and actions isn't based on Communist sympaties, as little as Russian WN groups celebrating Victory Day or hailing Stalin is.

Most postmodern nationalist parties in Europe today are National-Democrat, which is the red-brown spectrum where national-bolshevism/Strasserism a.s.o resides.

Playing with words won't make NB a Communist ideology.

Imperator X
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 09:32 AM
I certainly hope that this thread is not dead yet. I do not know what I think about this National Bolshevism. I agree that a state should use aesthetic beauty to appeal to people because it expresses Beauty and Strength in the highest. It must create Order, Nobility, Strength, Beauty and Cultural Splendour as this is an expression of nature itself. From the blackest soil rises the most beautiful of organisms.

But it does not make clear it's vision of spirituality. I personally would be behind a movement that stresses cultural preservation as well as a revival of European Heathenism, because paganism expresses purity free from influence from cultural enemies and allows us to truly know ourselves better and not live a lie like Christianity which mocks Nature, Humanity, and man's primal instinct and the fascinating hidden realms of the psyche. (Hail Aldous Huxley) :fvenus:

Taras Bulba
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 04:24 PM
This changed under Stalin since he was an ardent follower of the doctrine of Eurasianism.

No he wasn't. The Eurasianists supported Stalin but Stalin never adhered to the ideology.


As with NS, I admire the aesthetics of the Stalinist regime - the monumental buildings, alleys and sculptures. They perfectly exemplify the Faustian spirit of Aryan man.

Funny considering 1: Russia was/is not part of Faustian(Western) civilization; in fact much of Russian civilization has been based on opposition to it and its ethics. The Slavophiles made this quite clear in their writings.

2: Although many Stalinist monuments are beautiful, nevertheless much of it came at the cost of the destruction of priceless aesthetic treasures of our Slavic heritage. One only needs to point to Stalin's destruction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior(over the opposition of many Communists I might add). Many sections of old Moscow were destroyed to make way for the stale modernist archietecture of the Soviet system.



After all, Mars must be our race's next destination!
Why is that?

Taras Bulba
Friday, August 20th, 2004, 04:49 PM
As a former National Bolshevik/Neo-Stalinist myself, I have to say there are good traits to it. And Im on good terms with many NBs. Ogenoct is actually one of my favorites here.

But overall I prefer traditional nationalism. I have to say now Im more of a "Conservative Revolutionary" than a National Bolshevik today.

Deling
Saturday, August 21st, 2004, 02:08 PM
"I am not a big fan of the early days of Communism as it was jewish-controlled and led to nothing but famine and disaster for the average Russian."

Personally I admire Lenin much more than Stalin, and whatever that the early Bolshevik Party was full of Jews I feel attached to the pioneer spirit during the birth of the Union of Councils; representing a revolt against modern world, an outcry of sublime feelings evoked by the old order and its doings, the compassionate radicalism which paved way for the first holistic welfare state which didn't exist solely for the purpose of a distinct social group ('class'). Not to mention the messianic idealism of Lenin and his follow comrades, which deteriorated after his death. Stalin is for me just a grunt, even if it's a clever one who arised from the bottom of the Georgian tribal countryside to General secretary and Generalismus of the Council Union. Admirable, but none of his actions were original; he just carried out the prospects of Lenin!

"This changed under Stalin since he was an ardent follower of the doctrine of Eurasianism."

Well, this may be questioned, but he was a 'de facto' Eurasianist, just as Lenin (who stated that the revolution would only be successful if the Soviets covered all of Europe, and not only Russia). The Soviet civilisation was a Eurasian one, and the try to forge a sort of 'Soviet Man' (Trotskij did even write about a 'higher socio-biological being' in his work about revolution and literature) was likewise a de facto attempt to form a distinct Eurasian man. However, the Sovietism wasn't in pace with the Russian mindset,

"Stalin relentlessly purged the party and thereby Aryanized it. As with NS, I admire the aesthetics of the Stalinist regime - the monumental buildings, alleys and sculptures."

The aesthetics of Soviet Communism is the ascetic proletarian fighter of the Third Internationale, the Red Army marches in central Moskva on May 1st, the Social-Realist art and extremely good and classic films like Aleksandr Nevskij, Potemkin, Oktiabr (which I think is rather boring, BTW).

The large complex of enormous concrete buildings which form most of the Moskva suburbs aren't impressive, and certainly not monumental: just asbest and decaying. I don't think the Russian mentality has high thoughts regarding things monumental. Being in pace with the Russian is being simple and Spartan. The most influental ideologies in Russia is the Conservative Revolutionary ones, which essentially is environmentalist, orthodox/neo-pagan, and dreams of a life without metropolis'. Pol Pot is on the mood again, and even Limonov writes of evacuating the cesspools that is Moskva and Piter.

ogenoct
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 01:51 AM
http://bolsheviks.org/DOCUMENTS/Russian%20National-Bolshevism%20By%20Christian%20Bouchet.ht m

http://bolsheviks.org/BANNER.jpg

Russian National-Bolshevism

By Christian Bouchet
(translated from the French by Thomas Smitherman)



"The cause of the people is the cause of the nation, and the cause of the nation shall be the cause of the people" - Lenin

If there are available now in France a number of satisfying works of reference which allow us to understand German national-bolshevism well, this is absolutely not the case for Russian national-bolshevism, the existence of which we are just now discovering. Thus the work of Mikhail Agursky, though hostile, is a source of great first importance of information and reasons to meditate, even to hope.

The thesis of the author, inspired by the reflections of Ortega y Gasset in The Revolt of the Masses, is that the marxist and socialist components of Russian bolshevism are only "historical camouflages" for a really geopolitically and historically more profound process. For Agursky, Lenin practised a double language, orthodox marxist in his writings, which should only be considered as works of "public relations", he placed himself in fact in the line of Alexandr Herzen who rejected the West and who promoted an invasion of Western Europe by the Slavs. Since the beginning of the century, Lenin and the bolsheviks would have assigned the goal to themselves of giving the leadership of the world revolution to Russia and the Russians. In this view, national-bolshevism would be the Russian nationalist ideology that would make the Soviet political system legitimate from the nationalist point of view and not from the Marxist point of view. National bolshevism would thus make an attempt for world domination of a Russian Empire cemented by communist ideology.

Examining a period which extends from 1870 to November 1927 (date of the triumph of Stalin in the 15th congress of the Communist Party), Agursky's book covers successively different facets of Russian national bolshevism:the contribution to it by non-Marxist revolutionary parties, its relations with the proto-fascists of the Union of the Russian People, the ultra-bolshevik faction "Forward 1", the futurist influence, the importance of Jewish intellectuals in national-bolshevism, and Smenovexism. The Non-Marxist Heritage of the National-Bolsheviks



Agusky sees in Russian national-bolshevism the result of a certain number of non-Marxist influences.

This of Aleksandr Herzen which figures that Russian socialism would benefit from pan-Slavism and that Russia was a young nation, in better health than the West, whose future was to create an Empire "which would contain the Rhine, would go to the Bosphore and on the other side would extend up to the Pacific".This of Mikhail Bakunin, anarchist with a nationalist basis who made himself the supporter of Nikolai Muraviev-Amursky, governor of Siberia who conquered a part of the territories of the Far East with the agreement of the government, and who figured that the Slavs should have a national interest in revolution. This of the Prussian, Ferdinand Lassalle, whose socialism mixed with a very strong nationalism and a statism no less strong. This of the populists, principally after the revolution when numerous members of the Revolutionary Socialist Party join the bolsheviks, as the SR were traditionally opposed to the capitalist West and, messianists, believed that the Russian people would create its own form of socialism which would be the avant-garde of all humanity. Red Flags and Black Hundreds



The Union of the Russian People, known also under the names of Black Hundreds, represents a form of Russian proto-fascism. A pro-German, anti-English, and anti-Yankee movement fearing the expansion of the yellow peoples, it condemned with force capitalism, parliamentarism, and liberalism, and envisaged a violent anti-Romanov revolution. Its militant base was formed in the most part by industrial workers. Contrary to current opinion, this group was not in violent opposition with the Russian communists but in concurrence and a certain admiration existed on its part for them, driving them to timely alliances and creating passages of militants from one camp to the other.

Plexanov estimated that the URP's (SRN po-russki) ranks were 80% made up of proletarians and that they "would become ardent participants of the revolutionary movement", Peter Struve affirmed that the URP was a revolutionary socialist party, at the congress of the Social Democratic Party of 1907, Pokrovsky that one will find in the extremist Bolshevik fraction "Forward 1" insisted on the positive sides of the URP. Lenin was firstly reticent on these positions, and then was convinced of their good foundation by Maksim Gorky who had been in correspondence with the Black Hundreds since 1905.

On the side of the URP, this led to numerous changes in strategy for the future communists in order to bring the downfall of the liberals. For one of the leaders of the Black Hundreds, Apollon Maikov, they "pursued the same objectives as the revolutionaries, that is to say the betterment of the conditions of life, a goal which coincides in a certain way with the teaching of the social anarchists . . . The consitutionalists call the armed revolutionaries 'left-wing revolutionaries', and the Black Hundreds 'right-wing revolutionaries'. From their point of view this definition has a certain legitimacy . .. Because we all think that the consititutional form of government brings the total domination of capital, and in such conditions when power will be exclusively in the hands of the capitalists, who will only hold it for their own advantage in order to oppress and exploit the population." Another leader of the URP, Viktor Sokolov accused the ruling bureaucracy of wishing to incite its members "to struggle against the revolutionary elements, and thus to weaken the two parties by this struggle".

Starting in march 1917, most of the 3,000 members of the URP (at the same time the bolsheviks were only 10,000), started either to join the Bolshevik Party or to work for it after the Revolution. Thus one sees the journals of the Black Hundreds calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the head of the URP students in Kiev, Yuri Piatakov, becoming one of the heads of the Bolshevik extreme-left, some less known militants becoming responsible for Soviets or working in the Cheka (later-KGB), while numerous others became important membres of the Orthodox Church loyal to the regime (the head of the URP of Tiflis became also the Metropolitan Varfolomei and died of natural causes, at 90 years of age, in 1956). The Faction "Forward!"



An internal and then external faction of the Bolshvik Party, finally reintegrated within it, "Forward!" grouped together the semi-totality of Bolsheivk intellectuals (Maksim Gorky was one of its warmest partisans) and exercised an astounding influence on Soviet society under Lenin and after his death.

Most of the leaders of "Forward!" prospered under Stalin and not one of them had to suffer from the purges. One can consider them as the theoreticians of the national and totalitarian turn of Bolshevism. If a lot of their ideas are very interesting in themselves and would merit long developments (the Faustian concept of life, belief in the creation of an over-humanity, totalitarian democracy valuing the group and negating individuality) they concern us principally because they have contributed largely to the development of Russian national-bolshevism firstly by the deification of the Russian people which gave birth to a semi-religious movmement "The Constructors of Gods", followed by an absolute rejection of the West. On this point they affirm that Russia was (after the revolution) a colony of the West, that their revolutionary tradition was purely Russian, and that the Revolution of 1917 had a national element. Finally it was the members of "Forward!" who were at the origin of the Proletcult (proletarian culture) affirming that the people is the only creator of the culture and that deviant individualities must be eliminated. The Nationalism of the Futurists



The Russian futurists range in their totality in the camp of Soviet intellectuals to which they brought a solid nationalism developed since their appearance well before the war. Insisting on the purity of the language, they proposed the exclusion of terms of foreign origin from the Russian vocabulary. Favoured intellectuals, they travel therefore "to the West" from which they mostly left reactions citing its decadence and its weakness opposed to the youth and force of the Russian East, affirming that "The light of the East is not only a liberation for the workers. The light of the East is a new attitude for man, woman, and things", or writing, "I moo like a bull, being lucky that my motherland - my mother - is the Russian land, the Russian land, the Russian land! I am ready to live my life anew, by only knowing the words 'Russian land'. I do not know a more profound bliss than to be Russian. I do not know sensations deeper than being Russian, a true Russian." A Jewish National-Bolshevism



One of the most surprising points of Russian national-bolshevism of the 20s is the importance in its ranks of intellectuals of Jewish origin having for the most part crossed a mystical phase. For these ones, revolution meant at the time a messianism and permitted them to affirm their love of the Russian fatherland without being rejected by anti-semitism in Russian society.

These Jewish intellectuals organised either in emigration in which they participated in the Smenovexist current, or in Russia itself, where, despite their heterodoxy, certain ones of them occupied important positions. If Ilya Ehrenburg, known throughout for his articles and ultranationalist radio broadcasts after 1941, did not have extraordinary conceptional originality, one cannot say the same for two of the principal Jewish theorists of national-bolshevism: Isai Lezhnev and Vladimir Tan-Bogoraz.

The first, even though opposed to the communists during the Revolution of 1917, was one of the favourites of Stalin, responsible for the literary pages of Pravda and one of the principal literary critics of the Soviet Union. Influenced by Nietzsche, Shestov, and Hegel, he rejected traditional values, law, and ideology, and only recognised as criteria "the spirit of the Russian people", believing that this carried an imperial dimension: "Russian imperialism (from ocean to ocean), Russian messianism, Russian Bolshevism (at the global level) are all going in the same direction".

Vladimir Tan-Bogoraz, coming from the most radical wing of the populist movement, became the director of the Institute of Religions. Violently anti-Christian, he showed a certain preference for Islam, seeing in the God of the Old Testament a populist-terrorist and his writings resent the influence of the cabal. Affirming himself proud of being accused of national-bolshevism, he saw in the reign of Peter the Great an example for the new regime and demonstrated a very strong anti-Westernism. Smenovexism, A National-Bolshevism in Emigration



But the purest and most interesting national-bolshevism was born in the ranks of the White emigration. In October 1920, Nikolai Ustrialov made reference to the German national-bolshevism and confided in his friends his decision to preach a Russian version of it.

Teaching at the University of Moscow, Ustrialov became known in 1916 for collaborating with the periodical <<Problemy velikoi Rossii>> ("Problems of Great Russia") and by defending in it Russian expansionism and a strong State. The same year he gave conferences on the slavophiles, where he affirmed that Russia had a global mission. An active member of the Kadet Party, he witnessed with satisfaction the fall of Tsarism and collaborated in the daily <<Utro Rossii>> ("Morning of Russia") where he affirmed that the Bolshevik Revolution was really authentically Russian, just as he criticised the orientation of the exterior politics of the Bolsheviks. In the summer of 1918, he had to flee from Moscow and joined the zone held by the armed Whites. A refugee sometimes in Omsk, he ended up emigrating to China in Harbin, whence he criticised the counter-revolutionary forces linked too closely for him to foreign interests . . . In November 1920, Ustrialov, with three exiled poets who will later become celebrated Soviet writers, founded the magazine <<Okno>> ("Window"). His influence was immediately very great in the emigration, some national-bolshevik conferences were held in Paris, a Smena Vex bulletin appeared in Prague, a daily "Nakanun" ("On the eve of") was published in Berlin and an important militant group appeared in Bulgaria (its head was later assassinated by the Whites). In Russia even, smenovexism did not pass unnoticed, Lenin envisioned a triumphal return of Ustrialov to Moscow (in fact that did not happen but most of his partisans returned to Russia), had some Smena Vex articles published in Pravda, financed Nakanun secretly, and evoked favourably the existence of this current during the 11th Congress of the Communist Party in March 1922. After the death of Lenin, the Smenovexists who sustained the attacks of Kamenev, Buxarin, and Trotsky, were defended by Stalin personally as one said that he appreciated them a lot. It is said that during his expulsion from the USSR, Trotsky cried out, "It's the victory of Ustrialov!" From a theoretical point of view, Ustrialov who thought in terms of the measure of power, affirmed that "Only a State physically powerful can possess a great culture. The small powers can, by nature, prove their elegance, honour, even heroism, but they are organically incapable of grandeur; that requires a grand style, a protection in the great unity of thought and action". He considered also that:



The Soviet government will force by all its means the reunification of the peripheral territories with the Centre, in the name of the World Revolution. The Russian patriots will struggle in order to attain the same objective in the name of an indivisible Great Russia. Despite all the ideological differences, they all follow practically the same path.


While one of his disciples, the poet Vladimir Xolodkovsky, cried, "The USSR is not only a state of the development of Russia as an ethno-geographic entity, it is a turning point in the evolution of nationality in humanity. If the Moscow of Kalita was able to bring together the Russian land into a great empire by glory and oppression, Soviet Moscow has started to bring together the land into an Empire of the workers and of liberty". Russian National-Bolshevism Since 1927



Despite its 500 pages, the work of Agursky leaves us in a certain sense of lacking. It fails to provide us with an analysis of triumphant stalinism, of the "Great Patriotic War", even of the evolution of the opinion of the emigration.

At the same time, the current or contemporary situation remains to be explored.

Which ideological genealogy can one trace to the national-bolshevik dissidents at the beginning of the 1970s? Whether these be the members of the Fetisov group (in the name of A.A. Fetisov who quit the CP in order to protest against destalinisation) affirmant that "leninism has incomparably more in common with Russian Orthodoxy and Slavophilism than with Marxism and Catholicism" and that "only a union of Orthodox Russia with Leninism can produce this view of the ideal world for the Russian people which will create a synthesis of the entire experience of the people through the centuries". Or whether it be a question of the "ultras" of Gennadiy Shimanov, paritsans of the Third Rome who figured that the Soviet regime was the only political organisation which was able to oppose "the Western democratic rot" and to mobilise the people towards a new historical goal: Empire. Whether it be also, finally the national-bolshevik affiliation of the leaders of the current All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the Russian Communist Party, or the Communist Party of the Russian Workers and some political groups and journals classed in the "red-brown" circle.

ogenoct
Thursday, September 2nd, 2004, 09:45 PM
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n2/bolnatq.htm

Bolshevism and the National Question

Vijay Singh

The Bolshevik solution to the national question in the Soviet Union has been a favourite target for critics. Such critics have gained strength from some of Lenin's views expressed at the close of his life. This rejoinder examines the views of Prof. Paresh Chattopadyay which echo the standard anti-Soviet criticism. The opening up of the archives in the former USSR have meant that a more complex picture emerges of Lenin's last letters. Lenin, as noted below, held Stalin and Dzerzhinsky politically responsible for the Caucasian incident. The minutes of the 12th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (bolshevik) of 1923 give what seems to be Stalin's oblique reply to Lenin's critique: "Now to continue, I'll move to the question which I can't avoid. Here they've been saying that I'm an expert on the national questions. Comrades, I must say that I never claimed to be such. I twice refused to give a report on the national question, and both times I was unanimously ordered to make the report. I don't say that I'm uninformed in these matters, I have a certain knowledge of the question, but I'm sick to death of it. Why is it that Stalin has to do the report? Where is it written? Why does he have to take the rap for mistakes which are made locally. This isn't written down anywhere." ('Political Archives of Russia', Volume 2, No. 4, 1991, p. 268, emphasis added).

The views expressed by Paresh Chattopadyay are open to question on grounds of logic and facts. ('Back to War', Frontier, 1st April 1995). Stalin on the authority of Lenin is painted in the blackest of colours on the national question. Yet in February, 1913 in a letter to Gorky, Lenin referred to Stalin as a 'marvelous Georgian' for his work on the national question. (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, Moscow, 1966, p. 84). In December of the same year Lenin commended Stalin's work entitled 'Marxism and the National Question' stating that it occupied a prominent place in the treatment of the national problem (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, Moscow, 1963, p. 539). It was Lenin who appointed Stalin to the important post of People's Commissar of Nationalities after the October revolution. As late as March, 1922 at the 11th Congress of the RCP(b) Lenin defended Stalin from the criticism of Preobrazhensky who considered it incorrect that Stalin held concurrently two Commissariats viz. Nationalities and State Control. Lenin argued that for settling the Turkestan and Caucasian questions, 'we need a man to whom the representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their difficulties in all detail. Where can we find such a man? I don't think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better candidate than Comrade Stalin' (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, Moscow, 1966, p. 315).

On the question of 'autonomisation' Lenin opposed the view of Stalin that the various republics including Georgia should enter the projected union of Soviet socialist republics as autonomous republics, considering that safeguards were required against the Russian apparatus. Molotov indicated that Stalin in this instance continued an earlier line of Lenin: 'Lenin had opposed the federal principle, federalism, because he favoured centralism. All the reins, everything must be held in the hands of the working class so as to strengthen the state. Just read his article on the national question. Autonomy within a unitary state, yes. But Lenin dropped this unitary principle for a federal solution: "Let us create the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!" But Stalin did not know this at the outset'. (ed. A. Resis, 'Molotov Remembers', Chicago, 1993, p. 196). Lenin's objections were met when the USSR was formed as the sovereignty of the unified republics was guaranteed.

Lenin intervened in 1922 in the dispute between the Transcaucasian Committee of the RCP(b) headed by G.K. Orjonikidze and the group of Georgian communists headed by Polikarp Mdivani. The Mdivani group desired that Georgia enter the USSR directly and not through the Transcaucasian Federation. They sought to preserve the interests of Georgia at the expense of Armenia and Azerbaijan and impeded the economic and political ties of the Transcaucasian republic. Lenin did not support the views of Mdivani. Then as now the Caucasus was a hotbed of national strife and it was Lenin's suggestion that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia should be united as a Federation '... a federation of the Transcaucasian republics is absolutely correct in principle, and should he implemented without fail' (V.I. Lenin op. cit., p. 127). Lenin was justifiably outraged when Orjonikidze on being insulted resorted to physical violence with a member of the Mdivani group. After this incident Lenin advised profound caution and a readiness to compromise with the Georgians. Lenin wanted exemplary punishment to be inflicted on Orjonikidze. He held Stalin and Dzerzhinsky to be politically responsible for what he termed 'this truly Great-Russian national campaign' (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works. Vol. 36, Moscow, 1971, p. 610).

Paresh Chattopadyay is factually incorrect when he argues that Lenin "condemned Stalin, who as one 'Russified, coming from other nationalities... overdid 'Great Russian chauvinism', this Russian frame of mind". The actual quotation shows that Lenin here was criticising the Polish communist Dzerzhinsky and not Stalin:

'I also fear that comrade Dzerzhinsky, who went to the Caucasus to investigate the "crime" of those "nationalist-socialists", distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind (it is common knowledge that people of other nationalities who have became Russified overdo this Russian frame of mind)..." (op. cit., p. 606).

Nor is it at all clear that Lenin called Stalin 'a Great-Russian bully' as Paresh Chattopadyay charges. It is more likely that Lenin in the following passage was referring to the Georgian G.K. Orjonikidze who had manhandled a member of the Mdivani group:

"The Georgian who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of 'nationalist-socialism' (whereas he himself is a real and true 'nationalist-socialist', and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity..." (op. cit., p. 608).

The view expressed on the question of the transfer of some nationalities from their traditional homelands during the Second World War are also questionable. It is denied, for instance, that a number of nationalities collaborated with the Nazism on the ground that they merely supplied food to the Germans under duress. Yet a recent analysis convincingly shows that a number of Turkic nationalities were guilty of mass treachery to the side of Nazi Germany. (W.B. Bland, 'The Enforced Settlements', London, 1993). The Nazi army was met with jubilation and welcomed as 'liberators' by practically the entire population of the Crimea and the Turkish areas of the northern Caucasus. The German army secured the support of the Crimean Tatars and various Caucasian peoples to form 'self-defence battalions' which took up the task of hunting down the partisan forces who were engaged in the struggle against the Nazi occupation. This is further corroborated by Molotov who argued as follows: 'The fact is that during that war we received reports about mass treason. Battalions of Caucasians opposed us at the fronts and attacked us from the rear. It was a matter of life and death; there was no time to investigate the details. Of course innocents suffered. But I hold that given the circumstances, we acted correctly." (op. cit. p. 195). The dissolution of the Volga German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and the transfer of its population also took place for reasons of state security. The resettled nations were allotted land and given state assistance to establish their economic life.

It is incorrect, moreover. to argue that Stalin at the close of the war "greeted the Russians, and not the whole Soviet people". In his speech of 24th May, 1945, Stalin actually stated:

"I would like to propose that we drink to the health of the Soviet people, and primarily of the Russian people" (J. Stalin, 'On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union', Moscow, 1954, p. 24). Stalin then gave his reasons for stating that the Russians were the most outstanding of all the nations that constituted the Soviet Union. He argued that during the war the Russian people had earned universal recognition as the guiding force of the Soviet Union among all the people of the country. (loc. cit.)

An over-all assessment of Stalin's contribution to the solution of the national question in the Soviet Union has to take into account a number of facts. It was Stalin who discovered entire nations, drew up the new national ethnic boundaries and guided the formation of the Central Asian Republics. Under Soviet power forty-eight nationalities acquired a written alphabet for the first time. Before 1917 the majority of the population had been illiterate, by 1939 illiteracy had been largely overcome. The Stalin period saw the economic upliftment of the national republics. While industrial growth expanded at a high speed in the USSR as a whole, the industrial growth of the national republics grew with particular rapidity. In the USSR as a whole, gross output of large-scale industry had increased by 1940 12-fold compared with 1913. In the Kazakh SSR it increased 20- fold, in Georgia 27-fold, in the Kirghiz SSR 153-fold and the Tajik SSR by 308-fold. Similarly, the Central Asian Republics benefited tremendously in the realm of education. The number of pupils in elementary and secondary schools increased in 1940 as compared with 1914-15 as follows: Azerbaijan SSR 9-fold, Armenian SSR 9.4-fold, Kazakh SSR 10.9-fold, Turkmenian SSR 35-fold, Kirghiz SSR 47-fold, Uzbek SSR 73-fold and the Tajik SSR 822-fold. (Politicheskaya Ekonomiya, Uchebnik, Moscow, 1954, p. 372). It is ironical that Stalin's contribution is today belong re-assessed in a positive fashion in the former Soviet Union but elsewhere there are many still in the Khrushchevite time-warp.

Oskorei
Friday, September 3rd, 2004, 09:46 AM
It is incorrect, moreover. to argue that Stalin at the close of the war "greeted the Russians, and not the whole Soviet people". In his speech of 24th May, 1945, Stalin actually stated:

"I would like to propose that we drink to the health of the Soviet people, and primarily of the Russian people" (J. Stalin, 'On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union', Moscow, 1954, p. 24). Stalin then gave his reasons for stating that the Russians were the most outstanding of all the nations that constituted the Soviet Union. He argued that during the war the Russian people had earned universal recognition as the guiding force of the Soviet Union among all the people of the country. (loc. cit.).
That quote sums up a whole attitude, and it makes one understand why so many (all?) non-Russians cooperated with the Third Reich as soon as they had the chance....


The Stalin period saw the economic upliftment of the national republics. While industrial growth expanded at a high speed in the USSR as a whole, the industrial growth of the national republics grew with particular rapidity. In the USSR as a whole, gross output of large-scale industry had increased by 1940 12-fold compared with 1913. In the Kazakh SSR it increased 20- fold, in Georgia 27-fold, in the Kirghiz SSR 153-fold and the Tajik SSR by 308-fold. Similarly, the Central Asian Republics benefited tremendously in the realm of education. The number of pupils in elementary and secondary schools increased in 1940 as compared with 1914-15 as follows: Azerbaijan SSR 9-fold, Armenian SSR 9.4-fold, Kazakh SSR 10.9-fold, Turkmenian SSR 35-fold, Kirghiz SSR 47-fold, Uzbek SSR 73-fold and the Tajik SSR 822-fold. (Politicheskaya Ekonomiya, Uchebnik, Moscow, 1954, p. 372). It is ironical that Stalin's contribution is today belong re-assessed in a positive fashion in the former Soviet Union but elsewhere there are many still in the Khrushchevite time-warp.
With statistics one can prove many things, and it is not hard to get an impressive growth in % when you start from a low point.

green nationalist
Friday, September 3rd, 2004, 04:24 PM
So in essence, if you take away the privatisation ethos of National Socialism and put it in a slavic context, National Bolsevism and National Socialism are one and the same?

Forgive me but I cant see much difference in the two.

ogenoct
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 02:22 PM
Forgive me but I cant see much difference in the two.
That is because the two systems are one and the same! In a future Aryan Empire, a colossal monument must be erected that depicts Adolf and Joseph shaking hands (like brothers).

HEIL Hitler!

HAIL Stalin!

Constantin

green nationalist
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 04:06 PM
That is because the two systems are one and the same! In a future Aryan Empire, a colossal monument must be erected that depicts Adolf and Joseph shaking hands (like brothers).

HEIL Hitler!

HAIL Stalin!

Constantin
The two men hated each other, Hitler wanted a war of annihalation against Stalin, c'mon you cannot be serious about this?

Darius
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 09:24 PM
But..hitler wanted to drive eastwards to form a Eurasian block, so were Stalin's aims, but moving West. That should mean they met each other with the same goal, albeit having been Rivals.

Oskorei
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 09:37 PM
The two men hated each other, Hitler wanted a war of annihalation against Stalin, c'mon you cannot be serious about this?
Sometimes it is those with the most similar ideals that are the most bitter enemies.

National-Socialism and Stalinism were very similar, and given time would probably have become even more so.

ogenoct
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 10:42 PM
The two men hated each other, Hitler wanted a war of annihalation against Stalin, c'mon you cannot be serious about this?
Of course, I am serious about this. Read one of my essays on this topic:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=16140

C.

folkandfaith
Friday, November 26th, 2004, 08:19 PM
I am in favor of a Nietzschean aristocracy. However, it should not be based on class, but rather on spirit. This is why I think a true meritocracy would work best (in the original spirit of National Socialism). I believe that an Aryan elite (Aryan = "noble" in Sanskrit) should govern the populace. Side-note: Every true anti-semite must take a socialist stance since since jews are those who most actively promote capitalism, monetarism and liberalism (especially in Russia).

ConstantinHow does one define this aristocracy based on spirit? How would this even work? How does one tell if they have "more spirit" then the next guy and this should be in charge of governing others? (If I understand what you are daying correctly that is) Also, why is it that we NEED to be governed by anyone? Why do you not feel that you are capable of governing yourself? Why do you feel that you need a big brother baby sitter with "more spirit" to govern you?

folkandfaith
Friday, November 26th, 2004, 08:27 PM
No he wasn't. The Eurasianists supported Stalin but Stalin never adhered to the ideology.



Funny considering 1: Russia was/is not part of Faustian(Western) civilization; in fact much of Russian civilization has been based on opposition to it and its ethics. The Slavophiles made this quite clear in their writings.

2: Although many Stalinist monuments are beautiful, nevertheless much of it came at the cost of the destruction of priceless aesthetic treasures of our Slavic heritage. One only needs to point to Stalin's destruction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior(over the opposition of many Communists I might add). Many sections of old Moscow were destroyed to make way for the stale modernist archietecture of the Soviet system.



Why is that?
Good points on both the Stalinist obsession and the mars station bits. This obsession with mars is simply beyond my understanding. Why do we have to go anywhere? What ought to be done is the fixing of societies in this planet rather then some sci-fi want to abandon hope and go ruin another planet. And when that one becomes nearly unliveable, the same mentality will be advocating we abandon Mars and move to the Moon...

folkandfaith
Friday, November 26th, 2004, 08:33 PM
From the interview with Phalanx - Polish National Radicals (www.folkandfaith.com/articles/phalanx.shtml (http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/phalanx.shtml) )




...Q- Being of Polish Nationality, what if anything is your views on the National Bolshevik movement taking place against Putin in Russia by the likes of Alexandar Dugin and others? Poland and Russia have certainly had their moments in history before, are you worried or excited about this at all? Do you view it as healthy Russian nationalist spirit taking place, or neo-Bolshevik imperialism which the people of Poland, particularly, ought to be weary of?


A- In the past Dugin was declaring in his interviews for Polish newspapers directly, that NB anticipates liquidation of independent Poland and other countries in Central Europe. NB is an imperialist Russian way. Russia has always been trying to built its own strength irrespective of the suffering of other nations. It is total absurd, that members and followers of NB movement are treated by some ignorants from the so called, „West” as people who fight for freedom. NB is a pure product of Russian imperialism, it's a way to enslave nations; it's globalisation, totalitarism and slavery. Of course it differs from the New World Order, but it is not better in any way! NB is that kind of alternative for the USA as in the past was Hitler for Stalin... Don't be ignorant and naive!


The conflict between Putin and NB movement is totally unimportant. Putin has the same aims as NB, but he wants to reach them using more quiet method, without NB's boorishness. Putin loudly speaks about his aims to put his potential victims on their guard. That's why Putin wants to make them quiet. I hate any form of chauvinism!


Q- What do you make of the Eurasian movement?


A- Let Europe remain Europe! The idea of Euroasia is promoted by Russians, who have complexes. They are conscious of their Asiatic backgrounds, they are real Euro-Asians, a civilisation hybrid. They want the rest Europe to become Euroasiatic, too. It can be compared to somebody suffering from incurable illness - he wants other people to suffer with him together. „"Euroasians" don't understand Europe and its heritage. Before you say "yes to Euroasia", move to Russian estate in NYC. After week I will ask you again what you think about Euroasia...


For many centuries European countries have been fighting with enemies flowing from Asia, such as Arabs, Mongols, Turks, Bolsheviks...


This fight built our civilisation. Euroasians (as for instance NB) tend to forget about it and create multicultural hybrid. Besides NB's Eurasianism there are also other variants of this ideology, which are created and supported by pro-Russian ignorants from the West. I cannot treat them seriously....

folkandfaith
Saturday, November 27th, 2004, 12:14 AM
The following article is one man's interpretation of what has became known as 'National Bolshevism' or the 'Red and Brown Axis.' It does not purport to be an official version of Edward Limonov or the National Bolshevik Party's views any more than it is FolkandFaith.com's views. As with any and all articles on the site, feedback and intelligent dissent is fully welcomed. Offer an intelligent rebuttal and it may get put up on the site as well. As with all other political theories given space on this site, please recall that this is just an alternative view to the mainstream political view.




Nationalist Socialism, Nationalist Communism and National Bolshevism


by Andrew Webb


I've written this essay on the demand of the owner of this ( www.folkandfaith.com (http://www.folkandfaith.com) ) site, in order to make clear some vital distinctions between three ideologies: national socialism, national communism and National Bolshevism. (A note: when I refer to 'the movement' in this essay, I am referring to the large number of anti-'Semitic' and racialist groupings traditionally associated with the Far Right, in North America, Europe and European colonies such as South Africa and New Zealand).




NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM

http://www.folkandfaith.com/images/natbolsh1.jpgFlag of Edward Limonov's National Bolshevik PartyRussian National Socialist Flag

What is National Bolshevism?

To answer this, we must look at the development of the socialist idea.

It was generally agreed, in the patriotic and anti-Semitic circles in Europe at the time, that the Russian Revolution of 1917 (and the aborted revolutions in Hungary in 1919 and Germany in 1918) were Jewish affairs. Jews had been fomenting subversion against the absolute monarchist regimés of Europe since the days of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and had appropriated the socialist idea for use as a means of gaining power. This subversion culminated in the Russian Revolution.

The Slavic racial element played a role, of course. Contemporaries of the revolution such as Hitler, Spengler and Lothrop Stoddard noted that Russia, since Peter the Great, had been divided into two: on one side, the Westernised Petrine aristocracy, mostly of German stock; on the other, the Asiatic residue possessed of a deep, primitive religiousness and a hostility to anything Western. The Revolution saw an uprising among the Asiatic racial element against the Westernised aristocracy.

What the Jews did was harness the Asiatic maelstrom and used it as a stepping-stone to power. Jewish Bolshevists exterminated the Petrine ruling class, and killed and starved millions of Russian supporters of the old regimé, in particular the peasants (who, as a class, have always been despised by Jews everywhere).

When does the 'national' in National Bolshevism enter the picture?

With Stalin's ascent to power to in 1924, Trotsky's exile in 1928, and the purges of the communist party rank and file (which, as we know, mostly consisted of Jews) in the 1930s, some anti-Semites claimed at the time that this saw the end of Jewish influence in the Soviet Union. Therefore, Hitler and other fascists were mistaken in detecting a Jewish component in Stalinism. This doctrine is one version of National Bolshevism.

As well as this, Stalin was condemned by the (Jewish) Trotskyists, for restricting socialism to 'one country', for not fomenting subversion elsewhere. Stalin had made socialism too nationalistic - a 'national socialism', in fact -when socialism, at bottom, is incompatible with nationalism. Stalinist 'national socialism' of this kind is often called National Bolshevism as well.

(Wartime Russian propaganda never referred to the Nazis as 'national socialists': that was the term used by the Stalinists to describe their own communism. The communists testifying at the International Military Tribunal always referred to the Nazis and the Wehrmacht as 'Hitlerians' or 'fascists').

In Weimar Germany, some communists, such as the Jew Karl Radek, advocated an alliance between Germany and Communist Russia, as early as 1919. It was felt that were Germany to take such a course, it would be resisting the West, which had imposed the Versailles Treaty upon it. In other words, Germany would turn Bolshevist out of nationalist and geopolitical reasons. That idea survived into the 1930s and could be found in the left-currents of German National Socialism, as represented by Goebbels, the Strasser Brothers, and Ernst Röhm and his communist Brownshirt faction.

So far, we have identified three National Bolshevisms: one, anti-Semitic, pre-war Stalinism; two, nationalist communism (or what I call national communism); and three, the advocacy of an alliance between Germany and a Bolshevism which may or may not be Jewish.



THE MYTH OF PRE-WAR ANTI-SEMITIC STALINISM






Did an anti-Semitic Stalinism of the 1930s exist?

In my opinion, no: the notion that Jews had been purged by Stalin in the 1930s is a falsehood. This is proved by the Holocaust Revisionist Walter N. Sanning's The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry (1983), a study of Jewish demography in Europe and the Soviet Union before and after the "Holocaust".

Sanning's figures showed that from 1926 to 1939, the Jewish population in the Soviet Union increased from 2.6 million to 3 million - a jump of over 12%. Furthermore, the Jewish population of Leningrad increased from 84,000 in 1926 to 200,000 in 1940 and the Jewish population of Moscow increased from 131,000 to 400,000 in the same years.




As for the war, 200,000 Jews died as servicemen in the Red Army and 130,000 Jewish civilians died in the Nazi-occupied areas of the Soviet Union. An unknown but high percentage of the latter were killed as partisans, or in retaliation for partisan atrocities; others were killed by the Soviet natives for their role in the slaughter and deportation of tens of thousands of Slavs.

Added to this, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence concerning Jewish commissars, Jewish partisans, Jewish collaborators with Soviet occupiers, and so on. Jewish communists, and Jews in general, supported the Soviet Union's war against fascism, and certainly the very Jewish Roosevelt administration did.

THE DEJUDAISATION OF BOLSHEVISM?

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union stopped, at some point, being Jewish. Historians of international relations would agree that the Soviet Union had become an enemy of America (and hence Jewry) sometime around 1948. Stalin, of course, armed Israel in its "war of independence" against the Arabs in 1948, funnelling arms through Czechoslovakia, and the USSR was one of the first States to recognise Israel diplomatically. But 1948 also saw the breakdown of amicable relations between America and the USSR. And by 1953, the year of the 'doctor's plot' and Stalin's aborted plan to exterminate Soviet Jewry, the love affair between the Jews and Soviet communism was over.

The question is: why did the Jews fall out with Stalin? The answer, I think, is to be found in Sanning's statistics.

The USSR incorporated 2 million Jews in 1940 (with the annexation of Eastern Poland, the Baltic States and North-Eastern Romania), raising its Jewish population from 3 to 5 million. But it lost 1 million Jews in the war, many of those in senior positions in the communist hierarchy. The majority of those fatalities - 700,000 - had died in labour camps in the Siberia and the Urals alongside millions of other Soviet citizens.

Stalin had been prepared years in advance for a European assault on the USSR. Before and during the Nazi attack, he deported millions of Soviet citizens (Sanning gives the figure of 25 to 30 million) away from the front line and to Siberia and the Urals. There they were put to work manufacturing arms and electricity.

The production of arms and electricity required skilled personnel. Jews occupied the leading administrative positions in the Soviet Union and formed the most educated class, standing at the top of the social pyramid in the Soviet Union, just as they do in America now. Stalin deported them for this reason. (A large number of women and their children were deported because many women were employed in Soviet industry, thanks to feminist reforms).

Sanning estimates that of the 3.6 million Soviet Jews living in areas which later came under Nazi control, 80%, or 2.9 million, were evacuated. Five million people alone from the Ukraine were deported, a high proportion of whom were Jews or ethnic Russians (both of whom occupied the leading professional and administrative positions in Ukraine, to the detriment of Ukrainians).

Because of the losses in the labour camps, and in combat with European armies, the élite Soviet Jewish class was gutted. Although a large number of Jews remained in the Soviet Union - over 4 million - the power of the Jews there had been broken.

(For more on the implications of Sanning's work, see Yggdrasil's essay Princeton Tries to Explain a Drop in Jewish Enrollment; or "What is Communism?" (http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-32.htm)

This is why neo-fascists who were more sensitive to geopolitical developments, such as Francis Parker Yockey and Jean-Francois Thiriart, proposed an alliance between post-war fascism and Soviet communism. They believed that were the Russians to win the Cold War and overrun Europe, Europe would be dejudaised as well. Therefore, an opening could exist to mobilise the Continent for a war against America (and Israel).



NATIONAL COMMUNISM



After the war, and the breakup of the European empire, a new phenomenon emerged: national communism, or more accurately, national liberation communism.

Yockey held that ever since the First World War, the 'Outer World' (the non-European colonial world) had been agitating against the colonial powers Europe and America. He called the desire of the coloured races to overthrow the white man 'Bolshevism' (although of course, the anti-colonialist tendencies were not restricted to the communism of the USSR).

It was Europe's defeat at the hands of America in WWII, Yockey argued, that saw the downfall of the European colonial empire - the largest in history. 'Bolshevism' stood triumphant. Although America, by winning the war against Europe, inherited Europe's empire, it showed no interest in maintaining it, giving the most valuable possessions away (China and India in particular).

Many of the 'Outer World' countries did not win their independence at once, having to overthrow colonial rulers like Britain and France by force. The national revolutionaries adopted communism as an anti-colonialist ideology, as communism is uniquely suited to that purpose. But they gave it a different slant from orthodox Soviet Marxist-Leninism, a more 'national' flavour. Hence Maoism, Castroism, Ho Chi Minhism and the rest.

This independence from Soviet communism, however, was only ideological. After achieving independence, a country like Vietnam or Cuba would have no option but to join forces with one of the two communist superpowers, China and Russia.



NATIONAL SOCIALISM



By 'National Socialism', I am not referring to the German variety, of course, but a post-war variant of national communism. More or less, other anti-colonialist tendencies in the 'Outer World' did not want to go the whole route towards communism, opting instead for 'socialism', which would see the retention of some private property.

In addition, they differed from the national communists in that they followed the policy of non-alignment. This refers to the practice of neutrality in the Cold War: non-aligned countries went with neither the East nor West, choosing instead a 'Third Position'.



The most famous exponents of the 'Third Way' were Juan Peron (Argentina), Nassar (Egypt), Sukarno (Indonesia), and a host of other Third World demagogues. Yockey writes, in his essay The World in Flames (1961): No estimate would be complete which leaves two great political developments out of account, both of recent years. The first is the Arab Revolt, led by a great and vigorous man, Gamal Abdul Nasser. The second is the formation of nationalist, neutralist regimes by such brilliant statesmen as Marshal Jozef Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Nehru of India, Field Marshal Ayub Khan of Pakistan, General Ibrahim Abboud of the Sudan, Sekou Toure of Guinea, Sukarno of Indonesia, Nkruniah of Ghana, and others. These personalities embody an Idea, none are out for money or publicity. They live simply, work for and live for their ideas. One such man, in a position of leadership, is a world-historical force. All lead weak political units, and cannot by themselves fight either of the great world-powers. But all want independence for their people; Nasser, for example, for some 300,000,000 Moslems. Each is a symbol to great human masses. Their significance, in each case, in this Estimate, is that they diminish the Jewish-American power without augmenting the Russian-Chinese power. By their Palestine policy, the Zionists may even succeed in driving the Arab world to fight for Russia. Eventually responsible leadership for a restive mass of some 180,000,000 Latin Americans will evolve. Already the seeds of revolt against Jewish-American economic domination have been sown. Witness Cuba.

Nowadays, the surviving national socialist regimes include Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Burma. The Burmese junta are the authors of a manifesto called 'The Burmese Path to Socialism;' Iraq and Syria both subscribe to the Arab nationalist and socialist ideology of Ba'athism.

The national socialist regimés mentioned by Yockey have either crossed over into the American sphere of influence or have become irrelevant. Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Egypt now serve as vassals to the West; the African nations have become insignificant - which is another way of saying that they are so strife-torn that no superpower can be bothered gaining a foothold there. (I am speaking of the black African states, of course, not the Arab ones in North Africa: Libya, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, because of their proximity to Israel, occupy important places on the geopolitical chessboard). For the most part, the West has regained control over all its errant colonies - except that the Jews of Washington and Tel Aviv, and not Europeans and Americans, now rule 'the West'.



JEWISH ANTI-COMMUNISM



Up to 1948, we could say that all Jews were united in support of two causes: 'Bolshevism', as defined by Yockey, and the destruction of fascism and monarchism in Europe. Jews, in America and elsewhere, were Stalinist communists or liberal supporters of communism.

Then, after 1948, Jewish-controlled America became the biggest enemy of communism. All at once, we saw: former Jewish communists, such as Sydney Hook and Irving Kristol, leading an ideological assault on communism and founding the neoconservative movement; the Red Scare; the coming to American consciousness of the extent of Stalin's cruelty; accusations that the USSR was 'anti-Semitic'; and so on. Why?

Yockey's answer was as follows: in 1917, the Jews gained control of the Soviet Union; in 1933, the Jews gained control of America upon the election of Roosevelt; in 1945, the Jews, through the USA, controlled Europe and the entire colonial world; but by 1948 or thereabouts, the Jews had lost control of the Soviet Union, for the reasons described above.

At the end of the war, the Jews, possessed a vast European colonial empire; but, with the onset of the Cold War, they had to fight the colonial subjects who wanted 'Third Positionism' or an alliance with the Soviet Union.

But Jews are inherent Bolshevists, motivated by one desire: to destroy European-Western civilisation. Their quarrel is not with the peoples of the coloured races, but Westerners. They do not hate Russia with the same intensity that they hate the Germans.



As Yockey writes, in The World-: Most of the cinema in North America treats Russia and Russians as interesting and admirable, human and good. The cinema's purpose in the general scheme of propaganda is to control the emotional attitudes of the population. Control of the intellectual attitudes is the work of the press, and here Russia is treated negatively. Why this duality? Every ruling regime gives perforce in its propaganda a picture of itself, and the Washington Zionist regime itself suffers from this quality. Russia is not a total enemy, but a rival. The Korean war, 1950-1953 expressed the limited hostility of the Washington regime toward Russia and its official war-aim was not "victory" or "unconditional surrender" [as per against Nazi Germany], but "a just truce". When the Germans in Russia make some new technical advance, Eisenhower congratulates the Moscow regime. Roosevelt never congratulated Hitler on such occasions. The Russian flag is flown in the United States on all festive, "international" occasions. Never did the German flag appear, nor does it today. The fundamental ineradicable Jewish hatred of Germany appears in the fact that even the Germany they control directly is not permitted to sit among the United Nations, on a par with the other puppets. The spate of anti-German films in the theatres and on television continues unabated. The anti-Russian films are few indeed. One conclusion emerges, of military-political significance: in the Third World War, the Washington regime will list Germany among its enemies. Already the radio propagandists say "Russia and Red Germany." The intention here is, not only that the German rifle battalions be slaughtered by the Russian advance, but that the way be opened for the bombardment of Germany again, this time with more destructive bombs.

To a certain extent, Jewry considered communist Russia and China to be friendly rivals, not deadly enemies, like Nazi Germany, which had to be destroyed at all costs. And, certainly, Jewry sympathised with the Bolshevist aims of the Russians and Chinese- eg, the goal of the liberation of the Third World from European and white domination.



THE FACTIONAL SPLIT IN JEWRY



One of the most common objections to anti-Semitism is that anti-Semites lump all Jews together, making them out to be a monolithic conspiracy, when clearly Jews disagree on a good many questions - Israel for instance.

Most rational non-Jews, who are not completely deluded by philo-Semitic and Zionist propaganda, will agree that Israel and its supporters in Diaspora Jewry are a vicious bunch. But, say the incorrigible philo-Semites, 'Not all Jews support Israel. Why, my friend Greenburg hates Israel, and he's a Jew'.

The fact that Bush Jr (like every American president before him) is a slave of Israel, and that his foreign policy is written for him by hard-right Zionist Jews like Richard Perle, is an open secret. But we all know, too, that Jews such as Noam Chomsky, Israel Shamir, Israel Shahak, Norman Finklestein and even mainstream Jewish reporters such as Suzanne Goldenberg (of the British newspaper The Guardian) and Orla Guerin (of the BBC) number among the biggest boosters of the Palestinian cause.

The dichotomy is explained by the fact that Jewry now is in the possession of the mightiest military and political power in history - the United States - and all the vassal states which the US has conquered through force or diplomacy. As the ruling élite of the Jewish-American State, it is under an obligation to maintain the empire if it does not wish to surrender it. At the same time, it feels sympathy for the 'Third World', even for the Palestinians in their national liberation struggle against Israel.

Jewry is divided into two factions: on the left, we find the liberal Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews who feel that the Arabs are their natural allies in the struggle against European civilisation; on the right, the neoconservative hawks - a tendency represented now by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz - who want to use goyim armies to annihilate the enemies of Israel.



Yockey, describing the factional split in Jewry, writes in The World- that: It is a psychological riddle, decipherable only thus: the Zionists have two minds, which function independently. As Zionists, they are committed to the destruction of the Western Civilization, and in this they sympathize with Russia, with China, with Japan, with the Arabs, and as such they anathematize Germany, which is the mind and heart of the Western Civilization. As custodians of the United States, they must half-heartedly remain at least the technical and political domination of that Civilization even while destroying its soul and its meaning. In a word, they are working simultaneously for and against the Western Civilization. Quite obviously they are thus doing more damage than conferring benefit! If a commander of a fortress sympathizes with the enemy, but yet insists in defending the fortress rather than surrendering it, he has surely found the highest formula of destruction.



GOOD JEW, BAD JEW



William Pierce, in a radio talk, once spoke of the factional divisions in the (2002) coalition government in Israel: on one side, Shimon Peres, the leader of the Labour Party, the "dove"; on the other, Ariel Sharon, the leader of the Likud, the "hawk". Peres and Sharon, Pierce said, were 'good cop and bad cop', or at least hoped to present themselves as so to the goyim of the West.

Clearly one could not find two Jews more dissimilar than, for instance, radical leftist Noam Chomsky and extreme Likudnik Richard Perle - but are they that dissimilar?

Both the Zionists and anti-Zionists only differ in the field of foreign policy. The Zionist Right in America generally agrees with the social program of the anti-Zionist Left. That is, both favour: more forced immigration of non-whites; more multiculturalism; more MTV; more pornography; more cultural nihilism; more permissiveness towards Negro and Hispanic crime; more attacks on the cultural heritage of Europeans and Americans; and so on. Certainly neither Jewish faction can abide any Nazism, fascism, anti-Semitism or "racism" of any sort (although the neoconservative Right is sympathetic to anti-Muslim "racism"). Holocaust Revisionism is definitely out.

The truth of the matter Jewish-American "liberals" and "conservatives" are working towards the same Jewish-Bolshevist goals: they only disagree on how these are to be implemented.

The neoconservatives believe that 'democracy' and 'free markets' will do the trick and should be imposed upon recalcitrant Muslim nations, by force if necessary. The radical Jewish-American left, on the other hand, focuses on domestic policy: it wants to eliminate 'capitalism'.

That 'capitalism' is not, of course, Jewish capitalism (Jews are the wealthiest economic group in America), but the capitalism of the Rockefellers and Fords and other Yankee, WASP, East Coast plutocrats - the kind who ruled America before the ascent to power of Roosevelt and his gang of Jewish liberals and crypto-communists.

The America before 1933, as Pierce wrote, was, for all its faults, healthy and white, and for this reason the American Jews of both the Right and Left hate it and want to extirpate it. The neoconservatives may not be as obsessed with destroying European culture and civilisation from within as the liberal and anti-Zionist Jews are, but this is because they give the political destruction of enemies of Israel more priority than anything else.

Even so, the neoconservatives are not completely indifferent to domestic politics. They will use the opportunity of a civil state of emergency, like the present one that exists in America, to crack down on white nationalists, anti-Semites, Holocaust Deniers, and so on.



OPPORTUNITIES & STRATEGIES



The Bush administration, since 9-11, has been a godsend for anti-Semites: America, as a power, has become completely Israelised; it emanates the obnoxiousness, the self-centredness, the solipsism and the bullying arrogance of the Jew. As a result, it has alienated the Muslim world and not a few independent-thinking Europeans, of all political persuasions, as well. (At this rate, we can only hope that Bush and his neoconservative coterie win re-election in 2004).

It is possible that Jewry will win its war against the Muslim enemies of Israel: after all, it won the war against Nazi Germany, and against post-Stalinist Russia - both of whom were tougher opponents than the Arabs. But the world has become tired of Jews. One can say that Jewry has long been the chairman of the board of the 'Bolshevist' corporation, but now the shareholders - the coloured peoples of the Third World countries the USA rules or seeks to rule - are becoming disgruntled. Perhaps the coloured peoples will look for, and find, a new leader in the person of Russia or China.

What of the peoples of European descent? Should they join forces, like the National Bolshevists of old, with the Third World enemies of Jewry - ie, China, Russia and the 'rogue states'?

Obviously, the National Bolshevism of Yockey, Thiriart, Otto Remer ended in failure: by the 1980s, it was apparent to all that any alliance between European nationalists and the USSR would fail to deliver the goods. The world economy had been torn apart in the 1970s, and the USSR's brand of socialism - unlike China's - was incapable of weathering the storm. The USSR, then, was placed in a position of extreme weakness, with the results we all know. We in the movement sided with a loser; it is possible that, by siding with the Arabs, we are siding with another loser, and that the Arabs will be defeated just as the Russians were.

One of the problems with Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism is that neither of them possesses a true antagonism towards the Jews and Israel. The truth is that Judaism is part and parcel of the Arabic-Middle Eastern culture, history and civilisation. At bottom, the quarrel between the Arabs and the Jews is nothing more than a brother's quarrel - like, for instance, a quarrel between French and Germans. The Muslims really only make two demands on America and Israel: that Israel withdraw from the Occupied Territories, evacuate the settlements, and allow the formation of a Palestinian State; and that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights. Were Israel to do so, it would guarantee peace with the Palestinians and with Syria, and the entire Muslim world, and we in the West would lose an ally in the Arabs.

On the other hand, we in the West who are aware of the Jews' true character have grievances against the Jew too numerous to mention. At bottom is our visceral disgust for the Jew: we do not see him as a wayward brother, as the Muslims do, but a total enemy who is completely foreign to us and who is responsible for the most terrible crimes in history. We will not be satisfied by a mere Israeli withdrawal from the Territories and the Golan - what good would that do us?

Eventually, we in the West will need to wage war against the Jew - a total, no-holds barred, war. The Arabs and the rest of the coloured world will have no stomach for that: their opposition to the Jew is merely political, not racial, cultural, spiritual.

Furthermore, the Arabs and the rest of the Third World will oppose the revival of an America and a Europe under a white, as opposed to Jewish, leadership. The three superpowers today are China, Russia and Israel-America. The coloured races have no real objection to this arrangement: they much prefer that America and Europe be ruled by Jews than by whites, for Jews are fellow members of the 'Bolshevist' club, and victims, like them, of Western "racism" and oppression.

Suppose that the Negroes of America were given a choice between the present Jewish-controlled politicians - who at least can be counted upon to give them plenty of welfare - and a government of white separatists: who would they choose? The question answers itself.

FNF NOTE: At this point I must object. Why should they have to choose between either? Why not give them a government and a community/land of their own which they and they alone are responsible for its success or failure?

It is true that Westerners who want to overthrow Jewish rule are in a vulnerable position, that we need all the help we can get - and that means help from the Russians, Chinese and the Arabs. American nationalists should not even spurn offers of assistance from disaffected Negroes and Hispanics.



THE VERDICT ON NATIONAL SOCIALISM



Whether or not one adopts a National Bolshevist stance - and by that I mean a stance of anti-Semitic socialism - depends on one's economic views. Some in the movement see capitalism as a degrading, exploitative, unstable economic system which must be replaced with socialism at all costs; others have no problem with it. Clearly, socialism, at the present, is further away from realisation in the Western world more than ever. Despite the recurring financial and economic crises which have occurred since 1970, capitalism still endures. I would venture to say that, at this point in time, socialism - or even corporatism, which has been championed by many distinguished theorists of post-war fascism - is an unrealistic option.

At any rate, we in the movement should strive for product differentiation: that is, offering prospective recruits something they will not find in, for instance, the ideologies of anarchism/Marxism, environmentalism, conservatism, and so on. Our strength lies in our willingness to address racial politics, and, above all, our willingness to name the Jew.

Certainly anti-Semitism is compatible with a wide variety of ideologies: there is no reason why the Green parties around the world should not stand on anti-Semitic, anti-Israel platforms and espouse Holocaust denial. Likewise, there is no reason why a 'pink' liberal cannot be racialist: after all, the Democrat Party in America was the bastion of Southern racialism for many years.

But it just so happens that only our movement is left to take up cudgels on the race question and the Jew question. The Jews and their vassals have seized control of all the disparate political factions of the West - on both the Left and Right - and succeeded in removing any "racist" and anti-Semitic ideological elements. The movement, on the other hand, has been left alone. Part of this is because our movement, in the post-war years, has been too small and unimportant for the Jews to infiltrate and take over; but mostly it is because we have deliberately fostered an environment in which no Jew could ever feel welcome.

As a result, we in the movement have the monopoly on racialism and anti-Semitism, and, in these present times, when the Jewish domination of American and European policy is becoming clear to even the most imperceptive individuals, we should be exploiting that monopoly as much as possible. That means, then, putting our doctrines on economics and social policy on the back burner for the time being. The movement, at the present, is incapable of steering the Western world towards socialism: but it can foment anti-Semitism, which will do more to destabilise the Jewish (and Masonic?) political and financial power structure more than any socialist polemics.



Russian National Unity and National Bolshevik Flags provided courtesy of FOTW. For further information on the flags of the rising 'Red and Brown Axis,' visit:NAT. BOLSH. FLAGS (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru}naz.html) FNF NOTE: The author's conclusion that for now, we must place all other Social Justice issues and environmental concerns aside are entirely disagreed with. Our greatest strength is that we are not just simple minded racists like the majority of the "movement" he speaks of. Our strengths are given to us by the fact that we are concerned with a plethora of issues, folkish autonomy is but one of the many issues we are taking heed to. Those that only concentrate one the one issue, we believe, are doomed to failure. The so-called "movement" that is referred to throughout the article has only that one cause. It is for that reason that their "movement" is stagnant and hasn't moved anywhere for decades. The very thought of giving space on one of their websites to causes like National Bolshevism, National Anarchism, and Third Position movements would send most of these pathetic right-wing reactionaries into anaphylactic shock! Instead, we must move forward, not left or right, and continue in the fight for National Freedom, as well as Social Justice!


To discuss this Article and other issues please visit the Folk And Faith Discussion Board. (http://www.folkandfaith.com/invisionboard)

ogenoct
Saturday, November 27th, 2004, 01:55 PM
we abandon Mars and move to the Moon...
Wrong. First the moon, then Mars!

Constantin

Japetos
Friday, December 10th, 2004, 09:27 PM
http://www.limonka.net/nbp/images/flag.jpg



ESSENCE OF NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM
1. Essence of National-bolshevism is the incinerating hatred to antihuman SYSTEM of the trinity: liberalism / democracy / capitalism. The man of uprising, national-bolshevik sees his mission in destruction of SYSTEM up to the basis. On ideals spiritual courage, social and national justice the traditionalistic, hierarchical community will be constructed.

ENEMIES
2. Foreign enemies of National-bolshevism: the large Satan - USA and mondialists of Europe, incorporated in NATO and UN. Internal enemies: a class of "jackets" - boyars - bureaucrats, marauders - "new Russian", cosmopolitan intelligentsia.


THE PURPOSE
3. Global purpose of National-bolshevism is the creation of Empire from Vladivostok up to Gibraltar on the basis of Russian civilization. The purpose will be achieved in four stages: a ) Transformation of Russian Federation into the national state Russia by Russian Revolution, b) Joining of the territories of former republics of the Soviet Union, inhabit by Russians c) Rallying around of Russians Eurasian nations of the former USSR. d) Creation of huge continental Empire.

THE STATE
4. Having come to power, NBP will make revolutionary on the scales of transformation in Russia, will construct the TOTAL STATE, the human rights will concede a place to the rights of a nation. Inside the country the iron Russian order, climate of discipline, bellicose and diligence will be established.
5. The parliament of Russia will consist of two Houses: House of the deputies (450 places) will be legislative and elective; the second House becomes House of the representatives (900 places), consultative and not elective. In the second House the representatives of the nation under the people offers will be put forward: the trades, ages, authorities public and religious will be submitted. The head of government will lean on House of the representatives, receiving recommendations from it.
6. Russia will be divided into strategic districts, governed from the center; the national republics and lands will be abolished, and their "presidents" are dispersed.

GEOPOLICY
7. Denounce Belovejsk conspiracy, and as a consequence, the borders of Russia will be reconsidered. Let's unite all Russian in one state. The territories of "republics," which have broken away from us, where Russian population makes more than 50 %, will be joined to Russia by realization local referendums and their support by Russia (The Crimea, Northern Kazakhstan, Narva region, etc.) Aspiration of national minorities to separatism will be ruthlessly suppressed.
8. In foreign policy we shall turn back to USA, turn by the person to Asia. On continent the friendship with Germany, Iran, India, Japan is possible.
9. We shall dissolve all of the contracts with West. First of all we shall say Fuck off to International Currency Fund. Let's refuse to give back the credits and we shall arrest all foreign investments in Russia. We shall chuck dollar out from us under back by a leg. To stop aggressive invasion of the imported goods and their low-standard mass-culture, lower iron curtain on our borders. The entry into global world market economy has killed economy of Russia. It is harmful to us. There is everything in Russia.

ECONOMY
10. Russian Socialism, economic system focused for the boon of the majority of the population will be created. The economy will be based on a principle of progressive nationalization. 5 men work at the enterprise - it can be private (individual), 55 - should be collective, 555 - is in the property regional, 5555 - belongs to the state. In the transition period NBP establish economic dictatorship.
11. Military men, budget men, pensioners, all low paid layers of the population will be completely released from the taxes. The habitation will be gratuitously transferred to usage living in it. Empty standing apartments will be turned over to the veterans of wars in Chechnya and Afghanistan, many-children and young families. We shall establish a wage level not below living minimum, room and payment for municipal services, will be frozen. Let's enter strong, fixed prices for the basic products of a feed: bread, potatoes, oil, cereals, milk, beef.
12. The soil will belong only to state, i.e. all of us. The incomes from rent of it will act in budget of the state. The state will encourage large specialized farms as on the basis of collective farms and state farms, and any facilities of a new type bringing profit to nation.
13. The export and sale outside of Russia of raw material, electric power, precious metals, gas, petroleum and weapon, and also gold will make the extremely state. It (he) will posess a defensive industry.
14. The purpose of economic reforms of NBP will be creation complete economic self-sufficiency of Russia.

CULTURE. SCIENCE. FREEDOM
15. NBP is firmly sure, that the culture should grow as a wild tree. To cut it we are not going. Complete freedom. "Do that you want" will be your unique law.
16. All vital for a nation the fundamental sciences will be financed priority from the budget of the state. By the scientist and inventors we shall create paradise conditions.
17. Freedom of a nation from aggression of mondialism is a pledge of freedom of an individual. NBP - for modernity, for modernization, avant-garde, but we are the extreme opponents of violent imposing to us of western values and foreign-made "misters teachers".

PUNISHMENTS
18. We shall judge and we shall punish guilty for a state crime accomplished by the supreme officials of the state since January 1, 1986.
19. We shall confiscate all incomes and savings of the persons, who caused to Russia economic damage deceived and gathered citizens since January 1, 1986.
20. In State Security will be generated special department for returning the Russian capitals which have flowed away abroad. The thieves will be seized there, and will be forced to give back stolen. The chiefs of swindle of funds, banks and campaigns will be given up on tearing to pieces of the depositors.
21. We shall smash criminal world. Its best representatives will go on a service of a nation and state. Others will be destroyed by military methods.
22. To the former officials of CPSU (KPSS) down to a level of the secretaries of the factory committees we shall forbid to be engaged both political, and commercial activity. The prohibition will not be distributed to the ordinary members of CPSU (KPSS).

PERSONNEL
23. NBP is not left and not right, but national party of Russians. Russian is defined not on blood and not on creed. THE ONE WHO CONSIDERS RUSSIAN LANGUARGE AND RUSSIAN CULTURE - HIS OWN, HISTORY of RUSSIA - HIS OWN HISTORY, WHO HAS SPILLED AND IS READY TO SPILL THE OWN AND ANOTHER'S BLOOD IN A NAME OF RUSSIA AND ONLY FOR IT, ANY OTHER NATIVE LAND AND NATION DOES NOT THINK, IS RUSSIAN.
24. NBP leans in it activity extremely on active minority. First of all, on socially unsatisfied youth: provincials, "businessmen", workers, military, students, marginals, militiamen. Who was nothing, that becomes Dzerjinsky, Hebbels, Molotov, Voroshilov, Chiano, Hering, Jukov. Russia all will belong to us.
25. With the purposes of prevention of degeneration of a ruling clique, as it happened with KPSS, NBP will carry out permanent revolution and purges in, and not only in it, rows.

THE SLOGAN. A GREETING. A BANNER
26. The slogan of NBP: "Russia is everything, rest is nothing!" A Greeting: thrown out forward and in the party a hand with the compressed fist, and exclamation: "Yes, Death!" Banner: red, with a white circle in the middle, in a circle a black sickle and hammer. A party symbol: the image grenade "Limonka".


1994 year.


http://www.limonka.net/nbp/eng/programme.html

friedrich braun
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 03:56 PM
I find myself in agreement with many points of national bolshevism; especially, in its violent hatred of the decadent West.

Russian National-Bolshevism
By Christian Bouchet

(translated from the French by Thomas Smitherman)
"The cause of the people is the cause of the nation, and the cause of the nation shall be the cause of the people" - Lenin

If there are available now in France a number of satisfying works of reference which allow us to understand German national-bolshevism well, this is absolutely not the case for Russian national-bolshevism, the existence of which we are just now discovering. Thus the work of Mikhail Agursky, though hostile, is a source of great first importance of information and reasons to meditate, even to hope.

The thesis of the author, inspired by the reflections of Ortega y Gasset in The Revolt of the Masses, is that the marxist and socialist components of Russian bolshevism are only "historical camouflages" for a really geopolitically and historically more profound process. For Agursky, Lenin practised a double language, orthodox marxist in his writings, which should only be considered as works of "public relations", he placed himself in fact in the line of Alexandr Herzen who rejected the West and who promoted an invasion of Western Europe by the Slavs. Since the beginning of the century, Lenin and the bolsheviks would have assigned the goal to themselves of giving the leadership of the world revolution to Russia and the Russians. In this view, national-bolshevism would be the Russian nationalist ideology that would make the Soviet political system legitimate from the nationalist point of view and not from the Marxist point of view. National bolshevism would thus make an attempt for world domination of a Russian Empire cemented by communist ideology.

Examining a period which extends from 1870 to November 1927 (date of the triumph of Stalin in the 15th congress of the Communist Party), Agursky's book covers successively different facets of Russian national bolshevism:the contribution to it by non-Marxist revolutionary parties, its relations with the proto-fascists of the Union of the Russian People, the ultra-bolshevik faction "Forward 1", the futurist influence, the importance of Jewish intellectuals in national-bolshevism, and Smenovexism.

The Non-Marxist Heritage of the National-Bolsheviks
Agusky sees in Russian national-bolshevism the result of a certain number of non-Marxist influences.

This of Aleksandr Herzen which figures that Russian socialism would benefit from pan-Slavism and that Russia was a young nation, in better health than the West, whose future was to create an Empire "which would contain the Rhine, would go to the Bosphore and on the other side would extend up to the Pacific".This of Mikhail Bakunin, anarchist with a nationalist basis who made himself the supporter of Nikolai Muraviev-Amursky, governor of Siberia who conquered a part of the territories of the Far East with the agreement of the government, and who figured that the Slavs should have a national interest in revolution. This of the Prussian, Ferdinand Lassalle, whose socialism mixed with a very strong nationalism and a statism no less strong. This of the populists, principally after the revolution when numerous members of the Revolutionary Socialist Party join the bolsheviks, as the SR were traditionally opposed to the capitalist West and, messianists, believed that the Russian people would create its own form of socialism which would be the avant-garde of all humanity.

Red Flags and Black Hundreds
The Union of the Russian People, known also under the names of Black Hundreds, represents a form of Russian proto-fascism. A pro-German, anti-English, and anti-Yankee movement fearing the expansion of the yellow peoples, it condemned with force capitalism, parliamentarism, and liberalism, and envisaged a violent anti-Romanov revolution. Its militant base was formed in the most part by industrial workers. Contrary to current opinion, this group was not in violent opposition with the Russian communists but in concurrence and a certain admiration existed on its part for them, driving them to timely alliances and creating passages of militants from one camp to the other.

Plexanov estimated that the URP's (SRN po-russki) ranks were 80% made up of proletarians and that they "would become ardent participants of the revolutionary movement", Peter Struve affirmed that the URP was a revolutionary socialist party, at the congress of the Social Democratic Party of 1907, Pokrovsky that one will find in the extremist Bolshevik fraction "Forward 1" insisted on the positive sides of the URP. Lenin was firstly reticent on these positions, and then was convinced of their good foundation by Maksim Gorky who had been in correspondence with the Black Hundreds since 1905.

On the side of the URP, this led to numerous changes in strategy for the future communists in order to bring the downfall of the liberals. For one of the leaders of the Black Hundreds, Apollon Maikov, they "pursued the same objectives as the revolutionaries, that is to say the betterment of the conditions of life, a goal which coincides in a certain way with the teaching of the social anarchists . . . The consitutionalists call the armed revolutionaries 'left-wing revolutionaries', and the Black Hundreds 'right-wing revolutionaries'. From their point of view this definition has a certain legitimacy . .. Because we all think that the consititutional form of government brings the total domination of capital, and in such conditions when power will be exclusively in the hands of the capitalists, who will only hold it for their own advantage in order to oppress and exploit the population." Another leader of the URP, Viktor Sokolov accused the ruling bureaucracy of wishing to incite its members "to struggle against the revolutionary elements, and thus to weaken the two parties by this struggle".

Starting in march 1917, most of the 3,000 members of the URP (at the same time the bolsheviks were only 10,000), started either to join the Bolshevik Party or to work for it after the Revolution. Thus one sees the journals of the Black Hundreds calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the head of the URP students in Kiev, Yuri Piatakov, becoming one of the heads of the Bolshevik extreme-left, some less known militants becoming responsible for Soviets or working in the Cheka (later-KGB), while numerous others became important membres of the Orthodox Church loyal to the regime (the head of the URP of Tiflis became also the Metropolitan Varfolomei and died of natural causes, at 90 years of age, in 1956).

The Faction "Forward!"
An internal and then external faction of the Bolshvik Party, finally reintegrated within it, "Forward!" grouped together the semi-totality of Bolsheivk intellectuals (Maksim Gorky was one of its warmest partisans) and exercised an astounding influence on Soviet society under Lenin and after his death.

Most of the leaders of "Forward!" prospered under Stalin and not one of them had to suffer from the purges. One can consider them as the theoreticians of the national and totalitarian turn of Bolshevism. If a lot of their ideas are very interesting in themselves and would merit long developments (the Faustian concept of life, belief in the creation of an over-humanity, totalitarian democracy valuing the group and negating individuality) they concern us principally because they have contributed largely to the development of Russian national-bolshevism firstly by the deification of the Russian people which gave birth to a semi-religious movmement "The Constructors of Gods", followed by an absolute rejection of the West. On this point they affirm that Russia was (after the revolution) a colony of the West, that their revolutionary tradition was purely Russian, and that the Revolution of 1917 had a national element. Finally it was the members of "Forward!" who were at the origin of the Proletcult (proletarian culture) affirming that the people is the only creator of the culture and that deviant individualities must be eliminated.

The Nationalism of the Futurists
The Russian futurists range in their totality in the camp of Soviet intellectuals to which they brought a solid nationalism developed since their appearance well before the war. Insisting on the purity of the language, they proposed the exclusion of terms of foreign origin from the Russian vocabulary. Favoured intellectuals, they travel therefore "to the West" from which they mostly left reactions citing its decadence and its weakness opposed to the youth and force of the Russian East, affirming that "The light of the East is not only a liberation for the workers. The light of the East is a new attitude for man, woman, and things", or writing, "I moo like a bull, being lucky that my motherland - my mother - is the Russian land, the Russian land, the Russian land! I am ready to live my life anew, by only knowing the words 'Russian land'. I do not know a more profound bliss than to be Russian. I do not know sensations deeper than being Russian, a true Russian."

A Jewish National-Bolshevism
One of the most surprising points of Russian national-bolshevism of the 20s is the importance in its ranks of intellectuals of Jewish origin having for the most part crossed a mystical phase. For these ones, revolution meant at the time a messianism and permitted them to affirm their love of the Russian fatherland without being rejected by anti-semitism in Russian society.

These Jewish intellectuals organised either in emigration in which they participated in the Smenovexist current, or in Russia itself, where, despite their heterodoxy, certain ones of them occupied important positions. If Ilya Ehrenburg, known throughout for his articles and ultranationalist radio broadcasts after 1941, did not have extraordinary conceptional originality, one cannot say the same for two of the principal Jewish theorists of national-bolshevism: Isai Lezhnev and Vladimir Tan-Bogoraz.

The first, even though opposed to the communists during the Revolution of 1917, was one of the favourites of Stalin, responsible for the literary pages of Pravda and one of the principal literary critics of the Soviet Union. Influenced by Nietzsche, Shestov, and Hegel, he rejected traditional values, law, and ideology, and only recognised as criteria "the spirit of the Russian people", believing that this carried an imperial dimension: "Russian imperialism (from ocean to ocean), Russian messianism, Russian Bolshevism (at the global level) are all going in the same direction".

Vladimir Tan-Bogoraz, coming from the most radical wing of the populist movement, became the director of the Institute of Religions. Violently anti-Christian, he showed a certain preference for Islam, seeing in the God of the Old Testament a populist-terrorist and his writings resent the influence of the cabal. Affirming himself proud of being accused of national-bolshevism, he saw in the reign of Peter the Great an example for the new regime and demonstrated a very strong anti-Westernism.

Smenovexism, A National-Bolshevism in Emigration
But the purest and most interesting national-bolshevism was born in the ranks of the White emigration. In October 1920, Nikolai Ustrialov made reference to the German national-bolshevism and confided in his friends his decision to preach a Russian version of it.

Teaching at the University of Moscow, Ustrialov became known in 1916 for collaborating with the periodical <<Problemy velikoi Rossii>> ("Problems of Great Russia") and by defending in it Russian expansionism and a strong State. The same year he gave conferences on the slavophiles, where he affirmed that Russia had a global mission. An active member of the Kadet Party, he witnessed with satisfaction the fall of Tsarism and collaborated in the daily <<Utro Rossii>> ("Morning of Russia") where he affirmed that the Bolshevik Revolution was really authentically Russian, just as he criticised the orientation of the exterior politics of the Bolsheviks. In the summer of 1918, he had to flee from Moscow and joined the zone held by the armed Whites. A refugee sometimes in Omsk, he ended up emigrating to China in Harbin, whence he criticised the counter-revolutionary forces linked too closely for him to foreign interests . . . In November 1920, Ustrialov, with three exiled poets who will later become celebrated Soviet writers, founded the magazine <<Okno>> ("Window"). His influence was immediately very great in the emigration, some national-bolshevik conferences were held in Paris, a Smena Vex bulletin appeared in Prague, a daily "Nakanun" ("On the eve of") was published in Berlin and an important militant group appeared in Bulgaria (its head was later assassinated by the Whites). In Russia even, smenovexism did not pass unnoticed, Lenin envisioned a triumphal return of Ustrialov to Moscow (in fact that did not happen but most of his partisans returned to Russia), had some Smena Vex articles published in Pravda, financed Nakanun secretly, and evoked favourably the existence of this current during the 11th Congress of the Communist Party in March 1922. After the death of Lenin, the Smenovexists who sustained the attacks of Kamenev, Buxarin, and Trotsky, were defended by Stalin personally as one said that he appreciated them a lot. It is said that during his expulsion from the USSR, Trotsky cried out, "It's the victory of Ustrialov!"

From a theoretical point of view, Ustrialov who thought in terms of the measure of power, affirmed that "Only a State physically powerful can possess a great culture. The small powers can, by nature, prove their elegance, honour, even heroism, but they are organically incapable of grandeur; that requires a grand style, a protection in the great unity of thought and action". He considered also that:

The Soviet government will force by all its means the reunification of the peripheral territories with the Centre, in the name of the World Revolution. The Russian patriots will struggle in order to attain the same objective in the name of an indivisible Great Russia. Despite all the ideological differences, they all follow practically the same path.
While one of his disciples, the poet Vladimir Xolodkovsky, cried, "The USSR is not only a state of the development of Russia as an ethno-geographic entity, it is a turning point in the evolution of nationality in humanity. If the Moscow of Kalita was able to bring together the Russian land into a great empire by glory and oppression, Soviet Moscow has started to bring together the land into an Empire of the workers and of liberty".

Russian National-Bolshevism Since 1927
Despite its 500 pages, the work of Agursky leaves us in a certain sense of lacking. It fails to provide us with an analysis of triumphant stalinism, of the "Great Patriotic War", even of the evolution of the opinion of the emigration.

At the same time, the current or contemporary situation remains to be explored.

Which ideological genealogy can one trace to the national-bolshevik dissidents at the beginning of the 1970s? Whether these be the members of the Fetisov group (in the name of A.A. Fetisov who quit the CP in order to protest against destalinisation) affirmant that "leninism has incomparably more in common with Russian Orthodoxy and Slavophilism than with Marxism and Catholicism" and that "only a union of Orthodox Russia with Leninism can produce this view of the ideal world for the Russian people which will create a synthesis of the entire experience of the people through the centuries". Or whether it be a question of the "ultras" of Gennadiy Shimanov, paritsans of the Third Rome who figured that the Soviet regime was the only political organisation which was able to oppose "the Western democratic rot" and to mobilise the people towards a new historical goal: Empire.

Whether it be also, finally the national-bolshevik affiliation of the leaders of the current All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the Russian Communist Party, or the Communist Party of the Russian Workers and some political groups and journals classed in the "red-brown" circle.
http://www.bolsheviks.org/DOCUMENTS/Russian%20National-Bolshevism%20By%20Christian%20Bouchet.ht m

Stig NHF
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 07:24 PM
Bolshevism and radical nationalism/racialism are contradicting terms, it is just a joke.

norcalnative1971
Monday, January 24th, 2005, 08:26 PM
Bolshevism is the manifestation of Judaism which has killed tens of millions of our people.

"National Bolshevism" is an oxymoron.

Skildur
Monday, February 7th, 2005, 05:14 AM
National bolshevism is already dead, actually it never was taken too seriously - just another opposition to the goverment, just another political joke. Forget about it.

Konstas
Saturday, June 25th, 2005, 02:01 PM
I don't disagree that this movement special in Russia and in other countries is hopeful and auspicious from a way of view.
It is interesting as a historic and a politico-ideological... effect.
Mr. Alexander Dugin is a serius and a person of quality, and he has a neuralgic "job" in modern russian reality and some of his articles are really interesting special those with geopolitical subjectsand those with "eurasian consern".
But don't you think that Mr. Limonof isn't a man with seriuw tasks and he cares mostly for his fun sort and long dated and he has not an objective aims.
Lesbian girls, childy posters and mix-multi racism.....
I put forward some pictures, to understand exactly what I mean, from Limonof's website.

Deling
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 03:58 PM
I don't understand your point. What is your remarks? Of course there are potentially hundreds, but I don't understand yours, unfortunately.

Thanks,
T.S

Waarnemer
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 04:07 PM
Could someone explain to me the principals of national-bolshevism and also the eurasian vision from what i understand is also a part of NB.

Deling
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 04:27 PM
NB is a rather complex world-view, which I will explain shallowly with this text I wrote yesterday: It relates NB to other ideologies, Hitlerism, Marxism and liberalism. It differs between METHOD and IDEOLOGY. All ideologies are dualistic.

NB is essentially:
1. Against the Modern World (the Western civilisation).
2. National-Revolutionary (i.o.w: liberation of nations, not independence of nation-states) instead of Class-Revolutionary (Revolutionary nations, not classes).
3. Accepts the ideas of civilisations and their core-nations.

....all this can continue. NB is a method, and world-view, but have different meanings to different people.

KAMPIDEOLOGI: TELEOLOGY OF ETERNAL STRUGGLE,
by Thomas Sutter

THE DUALISTIC RATIONALE

Ideas inspire, but doesn't change history alone. Yet whole
civilisations could be possessed by an idea, even though it's not a
result of divine wisdom, but the social and material existence of
those who inhabit it.
Ideas, in tune with time and place, affect people. Inspire them
to great deeds and zealousness, whether it be Scholasticism, Sufism,
Socialism etc. The totalism of ideas are ideologies; scientific
world-views that explains all aspects of life on a metaphysical and
physical basis. Ideologies are Western only and a result of
the 'Enlightenment' era of our civilisation.
What differs ideologies of the West from the world-views of the
Rest is the unconditional foundation that exist beyond all its
theoretical applications: the teleology of eternal struggle.

An ideology is often differentiated from 'political methods' (such
as Nationalism, Fascism and Anarchism) because of the rigid
structure of thought required to comprehend and 'use' it. In this
aspect ideology is nothing more than religion is secular clothing,
and vice versa. Furthermore, ideologies are universalist and
manichean: there are two forces that hold the world and the struggle
between these has formed world history, and one of these has to be
defeated in an absolute age. This is the metaideological and
teleological assumptions of all ideologies: secular/rational
Gnosticism.

As example, Hitler's weltanschauung were an ideological Gnosticism,
just as Marxist historicism. To them the world and history is a
struggle between two entities: the morally just Aryan/Proletarian
(innovative, creative) and the decadent Semite/Bourgeouise
(Parasitic, destructive). In the epic trench war between the Good
and the Evil everything else in the world are just pawns; Classes,
Ideas, Art, people, races, Nations, Cultures, environment a.s.o is
solely cannon fodder to one of the sides in the eternal world war.
Thus Hitler claimed that Soviet Communism was Jewish, because it
objectively pushed forward the positions of the Semites. To the
Marxists however, Hitlerism was just a Bourgeousie reaction to
Proletarian revolution, and thus an objectively contra-revolutionary
force.

NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM AS THE ULTIMATE GNOSTICISM

To National-Bolshevism, these dualisms are the reason for its
existence; Liberal-Democrats view history as the struggle between
Open Society and its enemies, between freedom and tyranny. To
Marxists' the split between the Proletarian branch and the
Bourgeousie branch began during early agriculture societies, to
eventually reach the historical climax: the final battle between the
Master and the Slave. To Hitlerists the different races parted
during the same time, with the result that the two most antagonistic
tribes came to battle eachother with the rest of the world as
weapons and tools.

Ideologies are meant to provoke struggle, thus history must be
explained as a struggle, which the right side will inevitably and
according to objective laws, win. National-Bolshevism is the
ultimate incarnation of struggle ideologies, because its
intellectual existence owes everything to other ideologies'
dualisms: to NB even the ideologies themselves are tools in a even
greater historical struggle, the one between civilisations and its
core-nations. National-Bolshevism thus even identifies itself in
relation to Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilisation", despite it
being a 'enemy' (Atlanticist) book. Francis Fukuyama's "End of
History" thus produced the Duginist "End of Time". National-Bolshevism is
the immune defence of the planet and its life-forms; it reacts to
assault against the body, and is the mirror-image of its opponents.

Konstas
Wednesday, July 13th, 2005, 10:56 PM
Eurasianism is the future. But it isn't "exclusiveness" of NB ideology. That's my opinion anyway...
Neither the idea of a struggle against the Modern World. Was Evola a...bolshevic?
The point that I can not understand is what they have to do two lesbian girls in a political website?
Just that.
To attract the notice of the "sexual" minorities?
Or it is a kind of "modern art".
Dugin is a serius person and he has a serius "profile" too, but I think that Limonof doesn't care very much... about the image of his party.
From the other hand I think that maybe he is working for the secret intelligence service of Russia and if he does, then his political "divorcement" with Dugin is false...
And I still can't understand why the n.bolshevics have annexes to countries with no geopolitical interesting like he country of this poor mix guy...
And at last do they care for the white race or just for Russia?
Explane to me please.
Thanks.

Deling
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 02:53 PM
"Eurasianism is the future. But it isn't "exclusiveness" of NB ideology. That's my opinion anyway...
Neither the idea of a struggle against the Modern World. Was Evola a...bolshevic?"

Eurasianism is, de facto, exclusively National-Bolshevik. That was its original meaning in early NB (German), and nationalist Bolsheviks under Stalin. Being against the modern world isn't exclusively NB, but (according to Dugin) NB is the incarnation of ALL anti-modern forces. That's b-s though.

"The point that I can not understand is what they have to do two lesbian girls in a political website?
Just that."

They aren't necessarily lesbian. It's not politics, it's art. I don't understand all the moralisms of some European racialists; more or less Puritan and Taliban. European burkha for women?

"To attract the notice of the "sexual" minorities?"

Russia has no sexual minorities that we're used too, atleast not in any large degree.

"Dugin is a serius person and he has a serius "profile" too, but I think that Limonof doesn't care very much... about the image of his party.
From the other hand I think that maybe he is working for the secret intelligence service of Russia and if he does, then his political "divorcement" with Dugin is false..."

Well, in fact it's Dugin's party that was financed by security services, and Dugin eats from the Kreml hand. Limonov and NBP has always been persecuted, I might add.

"And I still can't understand why the n.bolshevics have annexes to countries with no geopolitical interesting like he country of this poor mix guy...
And at last do they care for the white race or just for Russia?"

You meant that negro? He's no NBP anymore, I heard long time ago. Anyway, he lived in Riga or something, so he was part of Latvian NBP, I guess.
One can't care for either the white race or Eurasia. It's the Russians that will save our races, destroy the west: that's the essence of Eurasianism today.

Waarnemer
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 04:37 PM
@ Deling. Could you give me some websites? Or books i can read, i have no idea if there are but nevertheless

Deling
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 04:53 PM
Well,
www.bolsheviks.org - always good, don't forget the link page and article page.
www.nbp-info.org - English site of the banned National-Bolshevik Party.

Regarding books it may get a little problematic. Drugaja Rossija does only exist in Russian, and books like National Bolshevism (Harvard, David "Jew" Brandenberg) is expensive, the German NB books from the 20'ties often isn't translated. Check/search Oswald Spengler, F.P Yockey, Jean Thiriart, Eduard Limonov (on eXile), Alexandr Dugin, neo-Eurasianism a.s.o on the net to find the philosophical-political foundation of NB.

On this site there are many of Dugin's 1990'ties texts, before he sold out: http://www.arctogaia.com/public/engl1.htm

Taras Bulba
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 06:00 PM
Being against the modern world isn't exclusively NB, but (according to Dugin) NB is the incarnation of ALL anti-modern forces. That's b-s though.

Indeed. I just got done explaining the flaws on this style of thinking over at Milesian's board. By trying to unite all anti-modern forces, you're creating a loose coalition of many groups that have absolutely nothing in common except they hate the modern world. It's extremely naive to believe that Traditionalist Catholics could ever cooperate with say New Age hippies for example.

And history has shown that such loose alliances never last and are highly prone to schism. A perfect example of this was the First International, which united all leftists from Marxists to Anarchists to Trade Unionists, etc. Yet each group had its own agenda. The Marxists and Anarchists never liked each other, and their rivalry eventually caused the International's downfall.

Taras Bulba
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 06:03 PM
I used to be interested in National Bolshevism, and I'll concede it's better than traditional Marxism and definately Trotskyism. But quite frankly, I prefer more traditionalist based nationalism.

Deling
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 06:24 PM
"Indeed. I just got done explaining the flaws on this style of thinking over at Milesian's board. By trying to unite all anti-modern forces, you're creating a loose coalition of many groups that have absolutely nothing in common except they hate the modern world. It's extremely naive to believe that Traditionalist Catholics could ever cooperate with say New Age hippies for example."

But Dugin's Eurasia movement was created by all sorts of anti-modernists; rabbis, muftis a.s.o. Uniting a front based on idealistical religious feelings, pointing to Zoroastrian roots, is illusions that doesn't take realities, but dogmas, into consideration.
"Peoples' Fronts", uniting many nations into an alliance against a common threat is one thing, uniting religious cults into such an alliance against the West is bizarre and anachronic; Religions divides, nations doesn't need too. Most contradictionary is that Duginists are pro-Putin, and Putin is Russia's greatest Westernizer (Sure, Peter I, but he westernized the over-class and its institutions, not the people) and Yankee friend ever.
Dugin sure is the mirror-image of Samuel Huntington, in all respects; a realpolitican without political power, filling up the gap with idealistic nonsense.

I like some of his writings though.

Taras Bulba
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 06:50 PM
By Dugin's own admission, Eurasianism(or his varient of it) consists of these elements:


http://www.arctogaia.com/public/eng2.htm

Here are the ways of resistance to modern world:

* Orthodoxy (revolutionary + esotheric and hesyhasmic)

* Islam (Iranian, shiite, revolutionary one + sufism)

* Traditionalism

* Conservative Revolution

* National-bolshevism

* The Third Way

* Eurasianism ( + Neoeurasianism)

* Russia

* Socialism

* Islamic Socialism

* Nationalism

* Nonconformity

* Anarchism from the right (and left wing)

* Social Revolution

* Extremism

* Alternative Geopolitics

* Cultural Radicalism

* Hard-mysticism

* Subversive Counter-culture

* Hard-occultism

* Continentalism (in Geopolitics)

* Apocaliptic Terror

* Tantrism

* Dsog-chen

* Eschatologism

* New Right ("Nouvelle Droite" not in anglo-saxon but in a french and italian sence)

* New Left

* Anticapitalism

* Revolutionary Syndicalism

* Last Empire

* New Aeon

* Judgement Day

Quite a list, and one which proves my point. How on earth you can get everyone of these to cooperate is beyond me.

Taras Bulba
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 06:54 PM
Eurasianism is, de facto, exclusively National-Bolshevik.

Not really. There are non-NB forms of Eurasianism. I know many Ukrainian nationalists like UNA-UNSO adhere to a form of it, and they're not NB. The original Eurasists of the 1920's were pro-Bolshevik but they were not Communists or NB per se, in fact they even had ties with many emigre Whites. It'd be more accurate(though not entirely) to say that Neo-Eurasianism(which Dugin is considered the founder of) is NB.

Deling
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 07:14 PM
"Not really. There are non-NB forms of Eurasianism. I know many Ukrainian nationalists like UNA-UNSO adhere to a form of it, and they're not NB. The original Eurasists of the 1920's were pro-Bolshevik but they were not Communists or NB per se, in fact they even had ties with many emigre Whites. It'd be more accurate(though not entirely) to say that Neo-Eurasianism(which Dugin is considered the founder of) is NB."

You're right, Eurasianism emerged in emigrant circles in Prag a.s.o. What I meant is that National-Bolsheviks are the only who consistently follow the Eurasian world-view; -Anti-West, -Anti-Modernity, -Anti-Yankee, -Anti-Cap....

"By Dugin's own admission, Eurasianism(or his varient of it) consists of these elements:"

New Aeon...Last Empire... damn, what's that really? Lots of words, nothing else. I would like the see the New Left and New Right unite against the common satanic-hedonistic-capitalist-conformist-zionist West though in the name of some eschatological metapolitical 'End of Times' scheme only a few people claim to understand... :D

If Dugin really believed in what he writes, he would be the most dangerous terrorist in world history, because in his writings he really calls for martyr attacks, blood baths and terror against "conformists".
...but he's a conformist.
Bourgeousie intellectual masturbation!

Taras Bulba
Thursday, July 14th, 2005, 07:24 PM
New Aeon...Last Empire... damn, what's that really?

I have no fucking clue!


I would like the see the New Left and New Right unite against the common satanic-hedonistic-capitalist-conformist-zionist West though in the name of some eschatological metapolitical 'End of Times' scheme only a few people claim to understand... :D

Yeah except the New Left would probably be too busy smoking crack in their communes, singing "Get Together", and doing other grooovy things to accomplish anything. :P

Saint Adolphus
Monday, November 14th, 2005, 04:25 AM
I'm not attempting a troll here. I honestly don't understand.

How can you have a "National Bolshevik" ideology? That seems to me to be as impossible as an "Interracial National Socialist" ideology. Everything that Bolsheviks stood for, philo-Semitism, interracial "brotherhood," etc., etc., is inherently incompatible with "Goyish" nationalism.

Perhaps the aim is actually a non-Hitlerian "national socialism" of sorts, customized for Russia and allied groups? That would make sense.

Although my preference is always to honor the One Before the Last.

Siegmund
Monday, November 14th, 2005, 12:31 PM
I'm not attempting a troll here. I honestly don't understand.

How can you have a "National Bolshevik" ideology? That seems to me to be as impossible as an "Interracial National Socialist" ideology. Everything that Bolsheviks stood for, philo-Semitism, interracial "brotherhood," etc., etc., is inherently incompatible with "Goyish" nationalism.

Perhaps the aim is actually a non-Hitlerian "national socialism" of sorts, customized for Russia and allied groups?
Quite a lot of information is readily available on this interesting question. Here are two excerpts from an article I found especially useful. Unfortunately, whoever translated it from Russian did not have an outstanding command of English, so it is a bit difficult to read.


The term “national-bolshevism” can mean several quite different things. It emerged practically simultaneously in Russia and Germany to signify some political thinkers` guess about a national character of bolshevik revolution of 1917, hidden in orthodox Marxism internationalist phraseology. In Russian context “national-bolsheviks” was a usual name for those communists, who tried to secure the integrity of state and (either consciously or not) continued the Great Russian historical mission geo-political policy. Those Russian national-bolsheviks were both among “whites” (Ustrialov, smenovekhovtsy, left Eurasians) and among “reds” (Lenin, Stalin, Radek, Lezhnev etc.) (1). In Germany the analogous phenomenon was associated with extremely left forms of nationalism of 20s-30s, in which the ideas of non-orthodox socialism, the national idea and positive attitude to Soviet Russia were combined. Among German national-bolsheviks Ernst Niekiesch was undoubtedly the most consistent and radical, though some conservative revolutionaries may also be referred to this movement, such as Ernst Juenger, Ernst von Salamon, August Winnig, Karl Petel, Harro Schultzen-Beysen, Hans Zehrera, communists Laufenberg and Wolffheim, and even some extremely left National-socialists, such as Strasser and, within a certain period, Josef Goebbels.

The most felicitous and full definition of national-bolshevism will be as follows: “National-bolshevism is a superideology, common for all open society enemies”. Not just one of the hostile to such society ideologies, but it is exactly its full conscious, total and natural antithesis. The national-bolshevism is a kind of an ideology, which is built on the full and radical denial of the individual and his central role; also, the Absolute, in which name the individual is denied, has the most extended and common sense. It could be dared to say that the national-bolshevism is for any version of the Absolute, for any “open society” rejection justification. In the national-bolshevism there is an obvious trend to universalize the Absolute at any cost, to advance such kind of an ideology and such kind of a philosophical program, which would be the embodiment of all the intellectual forms, hostile to the “open society”, brought to a common denominator and integrated into the indivisible conceptual and political bloc.
[more (http://www.arctogaia.com/public/eng-teor.htm)]

Deling
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006, 02:58 PM
I only list Russian political theorists and philosophers. The Western "NBs", F.P Yockey, Ernst Niekisch/Junger, Jean Thiriart a.s.o are well-known, and their articles are found everywhere. It's only in Russia that speculative philosophy and "grand narratives" is still being formed, and the knowledge of these philosophies is limited, often due to the fact that it stays Russian.

---

ALEXANDER DUGIN: Russian Geopolitician, inventor of the realist doctrine of Neo-Eurasianism. Main focus on the relationship of states and their projection of power, not social/historical dynamics. Neo-Eurasianism is a dualist concept of international theory, describing a clandestine war between the HEARTLAND (Eurasia) and the OCEAN (Anglo-Atlantic) worlds. Mirror-version of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilisations". Known for his grand work "Geopolitical fundamentals". NOTE: Not National-Bolshevik anymore.

-Foundations of Geopolitics (summary) http://arctogaia.com/public/geopeng.htm

-The Metaphysics of National-Bolshevism
http://arctogaia.com/public/eng-teor.htm

-Article: Just Bolshevism
http://arctogaia.com/public/eng-bol.htm

-Man-runes from the Amur river basin
http://arctogaia.com/public/eng/runes.html

-Subject without confines
http://arctogaia.com/public/eng-subj.htm

-Metaphysics: Knight Templars of the Proletariat
http://arctogaia.com/public/templ.htm

-THESIS ON NBP, POST-NBP, NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM, NEW ARCTOGAIA STRATEGY, INVASION, NEW UNIVERSITY
http://arctogaia.com/public/engl-thesis.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARD LIMONOV: Poet, writer, Soviet dissident, Russian red-nationalist. Writes books and articles from the perspective of the observer, the journalist. Nationalist with anarchist leanings, founder of the National-Bolshevik Front (later NBP), and still is leader. Has written countless books and essays, many in English. Political manifesto is drugaja Rossija, "Another Russia".

-Limonov's article archive (eXile)
http://www.exile.ru/archive/by_author/edward_limonov.html

-ДРУГАЯ РОССИЯ, (Another Russia), whole book
http://nbp-info.ru/new/lib/lim_anotherrus/01.html

-МОЯ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ БИОГРАФИЯ, (Political Biography), whole book
http://nbp-info.ru/new/lib/lim_biography/bio.htm

-ИСЧЕЗНОВЕНИЕ ВАРВАРОВ, (End of Barbarians), whole book
http://nbp-info.ru/new/lib/lim_iv/index.html

-АНАТОМИЯ ГЕРОЯ, (Hero's Anatomy), whole book
http://nbp-info.ru/new/lib/lim_anatomy/01.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEV GUMILEV: NOT a National-Bolshevik in the traditional sense, but an ethnologist and nationalist whose historical philosophy have made an impact in the east (a sort of Spenglerian historical-materialism). Only book in English is Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere (available at Amazon.com).

-Introduction to Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere, Part I
http://www.national-anarchist.org/eurasia/lev1.html

-Introduction to Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere, Part II
http://www.national-anarchist.org/eurasia/lev2.html

-Introduction to Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere, Part III
http://www.national-anarchist.org/eurasia/lev3.html

Prince Eugen
Sunday, April 2nd, 2006, 08:20 PM
What N.Bolshevics thinking about N.Socialism and N.Socialists?
What they are thinking about Racial preservation?
I'm curious!

Cole Nidray
Sunday, July 23rd, 2006, 03:14 AM
The current English language version of the site: http://eng.nbp-info.ru/

Nazbol
Friday, August 11th, 2006, 11:10 PM
Dear comrades, I want to tell you about our Nazbol websites opposing Limonovist Party.

http://www.schwarz-front.ru
http://www.nb-info.ru
http://www.nazbol.org
http://www.nbp-info.org

Our purpose is to re-found National-Bolshevik Party putting paid to anti-nationalism, pro-zionism and revisionism performed by Limonov and Yid Linderman.


http://img288.imageshack.us/img288/7310/p22ub.jpg

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5949/nazbolsa6sw.jpg

ogenoct
Sunday, November 26th, 2006, 03:01 PM
RACIAL BOLSHEVISM

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


"Behind the Doric columns of the 'Pyatlyetki,' the Five Year Plans, behind the rows of figures of the 'Gosplan,' there stretches not Asia, but another Europe: 'the' other Europe (in the sense in which America too is another Europe). The steel cupola of Marxism + Leninism + Stalinism (the gigantic dynamo of the U.S.S.R. according to Lenin's formula: Soviet + electrification = Bolshevism) is not the mausoleum of Genghis Khan but - in the very sense that bourgeois folk find so distasteful - the 'other' Parthenon of Europe. 'The Volga,' says Pilnyak, 'flows into the Caspian Sea.' Yes, but it does not rise in Asia: it rises in Europe. It is a European river. The Thames, the Seine, the Potomac are its tributaries."
-- Curzio Malaparte, THE VOLGA RISES IN EUROPE

Julius Evola is not a role model for people that are serious about preserving the White race. If one wants to save the White race, one needs to adopt a staunch materialist outlook. Only through the thorough application of materialist principles can Europe be saved. Materialism dictates that spirituality stems from matter. Both Evola's and Francis Parker Yockey's notion of a "spiritual race" is therefore a contradiction in itself since race is matter and not spirit. A race may possess a higher or lower degree of spirituality but this does not change its physical make-up. Spirituality is a direct result of the workings of the brain which in its turn is a part of an organism that varies according to the race it belongs to. What good does it do if various non-Europeans possess "Aryan attributes" (whatever that might be) but are incapable of passing these on through procreation without diluting the European gene pool? The notion of a "spiritual race" is an abstract and meaningless, if not downright hostile to European preservation efforts, concept. Therefore, Dr. HT Hansen (who wrote the introduction to Evola's MEN AMONG THE RUINS) is right when he argues that Evola espouses a peculiar brand of anti-racism through his peculiar "racial" theories. Actually, Evola seems not interested in any kind of racist theories per se but more in formulating an unnecessarily obfuscating concept of aristocracy that uses race as a pretext but is really more concerned with essentially universalist matters of hierarchy. Evola is a universal humanist because his theories postulate that a "spiritual race" is open to all members of "humanity." Lest we forget that this supposedly global community has already been discredited (because of its non-existence) by serious racist thinkers.

Finnish National Bolshevik (or maybe Racial Bolshevik would be more accurate) Kai Murros says, "One must understand the nation as a product of material forces in history - this is the cornerstone of the progressive nationalism and progressive socialism." Murros is right when he argues that "progressive nationalism" (or racism) must be strictly materialist in its outlook. Only in this manner can any kind of historical success be achieved. After all, one has to remember that history itself is driven by the constant flux of dialectical materialism. Murros also argues that "[f]or practical reasons, metaphysics must always be subordinated to physics." In a rude manner of speaking, mental masturbation should be secondary to real sex. One can theorize all one wants about the importance of "racial spirituality," if the race does not produce children, then the race is doomed to die. Right now, fucking is more important than thinking. The luxury of metaphysics can only be afforded in a society that is content with itself and secure in its continuing existence.

Nature has no will. Man has will. Aryan man has the Faustian will. Paganism is a dead-end street. Being is the key, not believing and/or worshipping. The gods die when the race (that created them) dies. The gods are not eternal. Paganism was a temporary manifestation of the Race's mood at a particular time. The Race willed Paganism into existence. It did not exist before it and is already dead while the Race still lives. The Race can be without ascribing its being to forces beyond itself. The solace of the Race today is science and not religion. Rockets will propel us to the place where the gods once lived. The gods will be replaced by us. Thor is dead, long live the Astronaut! While Thor once hurled lightning FROM the sky, we will propel like lightning INTO the sky.


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l130/fritzmaster18/lubitvas.jpg

ogenoct
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 05:55 PM
THE NATIONAL BOLSHEVIK FRONT: A Declaration

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


Here is a link to a declaration of the youth organization of the MOVEMENT EURASIA about the founding of the NATIONAL BOLSHEVIK FRONT (NBF):

http://russia3.ru/zayavlenie_nbf?PHPSESSID=32be4bc8998dc79 49d31c8dd2c02e72c

The declaration states that the NATIONAL BOLSHEVIK FRONT is a legitimate organization in the tradition of Russian and European National Bolshevik theory (imperial, socialist, anti-Fascist). The declaration welcomes the decision to dissolve the degenerate NATIONAL BOLSHEVIK PARTY (NBP) of Edward Limonov and to sack this traitor as leader of the party. The NATIONAL BOLSHEVIK PARTY under Limonov betrays national interests, is in bed with oligarchs and liberalist. The NBF accepts the Eurasian program of the the MOVEMENT EURASIA. Because of Limonov, National Bolshevism in Russia is associated with anti-state anarchism that supports the interests of the US, oligarchs and "anti-Russian pigs." The NBF, on the other hand, demands a return to the true ideals of National Bolshevism (in the spirit of Ernst Niekisch and the Russian thinkers of Eurasianism). 30 regional units of the NBP have decided to dissolve the NBP and to found the NBF. Limonov is supported by the oligarch Soros and works together with Kasparov. Limonov follows a pro-American atlantist line with the goal to trigger an Orange Revolution in Russia. This kind of treason cannot be tolerated.Therefore, ideological National Bolsheviks cannot be members of the NBP anymore. Together with the youth organization of the MOVEMENT EURASIA, the NBF has as its goal the establishment of "Russia 3" and the foundation of the Eurasian Empire which reaches from Dublin to Vladivostok.

Japetos
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006, 07:25 PM
True ( National ) Bolsheviks,let's dont support anymore Limonov's atlantist political line!

You are right,Constantine!:thumbup

ogenoct
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 07:54 PM
LIMONOV THE VAMPIRE

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


In a recent interview (titled "The NBP [National Bolshevik Party] has no Right to exist - Its Leader is a Vampire") for www.kreml.org, Alexander Dugin accused Edward Limonov of being a vampire. Like Countess Bathory used to bathe in the blood of virgins to stay eternally young, Limonov sacrifices young people by letting them being sent to jail because of silly actions that he instigates and they commit. Limonov exposes his followers to the risk of going to jail to enhance his reputation as a literary radical.

as an antidote, he takes poison

Limonov is not interested in politics but merely in writing his biography, a sleazy account of his own eccentric life. The members of the NPB are therefore nothing more than extras in Limonov's great egomaniacal scheme. Dugin claimed that Limonov seems so young because he metaphorically hides his leathery facade behind a lotion that is composed of the energy of the young people he attracts and exploits. Limonov eats his young followers like an old vampire drinks the blood of babies.

When I personally talked to Dugin, he told me that Limonov does not have the slightest clue as to the essence of National Bolshevik ideology. While Dugin originally founded the NBP and recruited Limonov as a figurehead that would be able to attract young people because of his popularity as a writer, Dugin eventually left the Party because he became disgusted by the fact that it had degenerated into a personality cult.

In the interview for www.kreml.org, Dugin accused the NBP of actively operating on sadistic principles by risking the freedom of young people through making them engage in senseless and reckless activities. What makes the operations of the high cadres of the NBP even more reprehensible is the fact that they are fully aware that most of the young people they recruit are not experienced enough yet to contemplate the results that the actions they engage in might trigger. Dugin claimed that these children are stooges, their main purpose of existence consisting of enhancing the literary career of a tragically aging (both intellectually and physically) writer.

Stalin Folk arise!
against the wall the traitor!

Dugin also said that a "certain glossy magazine" (I suspect that it is the Russian version of the American smutrag MAXIM since I recently saw an article about the NBP in one of its issues) justified the existence of the NBP with "neoliberal arguments." It is interesting to note that Dugin himself has a column in the Russian edition of the American smutrag ROLLING STONE (not exactly known for its antiliberal stance)!

hear the music?
it's the ratcatcher playing his fleshy flute, baby!

"Our Truth - For Us!
NBP without Limonov"


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l130/fritzmaster18/NB_poster_001.gif

synarc
Sunday, February 18th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Dear All NazBols across Europe,

The National Bolshevik League of Europe[Groupe De Thiriart] will be holding a Dinner/Meeting in London to formulate a United Front. We wish to invite the Rep. of all NazBol in European Countries: Sweden,Finland,France,Spain,Italy,Greece and Russia to come along. The Aim is toward a Single Agenda and Leader for the NazBols of Europe under the Red and Black Eagle Flag.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.


Regards

Synarc

ogenoct
Monday, March 26th, 2007, 04:12 PM
Ave!

My essay RACIAL BOLSHEVISM (the title changed to RACIAL MATERIALISM because of political correctness) is now posted on the ATENEY website:

in English: http://ateney.ru/indexeng.htm

in Russian: http://ateney.ru/indexrus.htm (with a picture of me in front of Mother Russia)

Kind Regards,
Constantin

Tribal-Socialist
Sunday, August 12th, 2007, 08:22 PM
RACIAL BOLSHEVISM
by Constantin von Hoffmeister




"Behind the Doric columns of the 'Pyatlyetki,' the Five Year Plans, behind the rows of figures of the 'Gosplan,' there stretches not Asia, but another Europe: 'the' other Europe (in the sense in which America too is another Europe). The steel cupola of Marxism + Leninism + Stalinism (the gigantic dynamo of the U.S.S.R. according to Lenin's formula: Soviet + electrification = Bolshevism) is not the mausoleum of Genghis Khan but - in the very sense that bourgeois folk find so distasteful - the 'other' Parthenon of Europe. 'The Volga,' says Pilnyak, 'flows into the Caspian Sea.' Yes, but it does not rise in Asia: it rises in Europe. It is a European river. The Thames, the Seine, the Potomac are its tributaries."
-- Curzio Malaparte, THE VOLGA RISES IN EUROPE

Julius Evola is not a role model for people that are serious about preserving the White race. If one wants to save the White race, one needs to adopt a staunch materialist outlook. Only through the thorough application of materialist principles can Europe be saved. Materialism dictates that spirituality stems from matter. Both Evola's and Francis Parker Yockey's notion of a "spiritual race" is therefore a contradiction in itself since race is matter and not spirit. A race may possess a higher or lower degree of spirituality but this does not change its physical make-up. Spirituality is a direct result of the workings of the brain which in its turn is a part of an organism that varies according to the race it belongs to. What good does it do if various non-Europeans possess "Aryan attributes" (whatever that might be) but are incapable of passing these on through procreation without diluting the European gene pool? The notion of a "spiritual race" is an abstract and meaningless, if not downright hostile to European preservation efforts, concept. Therefore, Dr. HT Hansen (who wrote the introduction to Evola's MEN AMONG THE RUINS) is right when he argues that Evola espouses a peculiar brand of anti-racism through his peculiar "racial" theories. Actually, Evola seems not interested in any kind of racist theories per se but more in formulating an unnecessarily obfuscating concept of aristocracy that uses race as a pretext but is really more concerned with essentially universalist matters of hierarchy. Evola is a universal humanist because his theories postulate that a "spiritual race" is open to all members of "humanity." Lest we forget that this supposedly global community has already been discredited (because of its non-existence) by serious racist thinkers.


Finnish National Bolshevik (or maybe Racial Bolshevik would be more accurate) Kai Murros says, "One must understand the nation as a product of material forces in history - this is the cornerstone of the progressive nationalism and progressive socialism." Murros is right when he argues that "progressive nationalism" (or racism) must be strictly materialist in its outlook. Only in this manner can any kind of historical success be achieved. After all, one has to remember that history itself is driven by the constant flux of dialectical materialism. Murros also argues that "[f]or practical reasons, metaphysics must always be subordinated to physics." In a rude manner of speaking, mental masturbation should be secondary to real sex. One can theorize all one wants about the importance of "racial spirituality," if the race does not produce children, then the race is doomed to die. Right now, fucking is more important than thinking. The luxury of metaphysics can only be afforded in a society that is content with itself and secure in its continuing existence.

Nature has no will. Man has will. Aryan man has the Faustian will. Paganism is a dead-end street. Being is the key, not believing and/or worshipping. The gods die when the race (that created them) dies. The gods are not eternal. Paganism was a temporary manifestation of the Race's mood at a particular time. The Race willed Paganism into existence. It did not exist before it and is already dead while the Race still lives. The Race can be without ascribing its being to forces beyond itself. The solace of the Race today is science and not religion. Rockets will propel us to the place where the gods once lived. The gods will be replaced by us. Thor is dead, long live the Astronaut! While Thor once hurled lightning FROM the sky, we will propel like lightning INTO the sky.


http://nationalfuturism.org/Images/lubitvas.jpg




- Constantin von Hoffmeister (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=mailto%3Afreikorps_vi nland%40hotmail.com)



Is anyone familiar with the NazBols? What are your opinions on them, their ideology and their tactics?

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, November 30th, 2007, 02:19 PM
Please give your opinion on modern national-bolschevism. For classic National-Bolschevism, I'd like to refer to this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=27424#post27424).

According to Wikipedia :



http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/_borders/qna27.jpg

National Bolshevism is a political movement that claims to combine elements of nationalism and Bolshevism.

It is fiercely anti-capitalist in tone, and is sympathetic towards certain nationalist forms of communism and socialism. National Bolsheviks defend both Stalinism and Strasserism. Economically, the National Bolsheviks support a mix of the New Economic Policy of Vladimir Lenin and fascist corporatism.

The ideology claims a direct link to Hegel, whom it presents as the father of idealism. The ideology is highly traditionalist in the mold of Julius Evola. Amongst other influences claimed by the movement are Georges Sorel, Otto Strasser and Jos&#233; Ortega y Gasset (although this last influence is largely because of his rejection of left and right labels, which is also a feature of National Bolshevism).

Today, Russia is considered to be the center of National Bolshevism, and almost all of the National Bolshevik parties and organizations in the world are connected to it. Amongst the leading practitioners and theorists of National Bolshevism are Aleksandr Dugin and Eduard Limonov, who leads the unregistered and banned National Bolshevik Party in Russia. National Bolsheviks participated in demonstrations against the G8 in St Petersberg. Influenced heavily by the idea of geopolitics, current Russian National Bolshevism movements propose a merger between Russia and the rest of Europe in a union to be known as Eurasia. Lately there rose an opposition to the efforts of Limonov to find allies even if they are pro-western capitalists; some even left the National Bolshevik Party and formed the National Bolshevik Front.

There are National Bolshevik groups in Israel and in parts of the former Soviet Union, which are tied to the Russian National Bolshevik Party. Other groups, such as the Franco-Belgian Parti Communautaire National-Europ&#233;en also share National Bolshevism's desire for the creation of a united Europe (as well as many of its economic ideas), and French political figure Christian Bouchet has also been influenced by the idea.

Germany

National Bolshevism is said to have roots in World War I Germany, where nationalist writers such as Ernst Niekisch and Ernst J&#252;nger were prepared to tolerate the spread of communism as long as it took on the clothes of nationalism and abandoned its internationalist mission.

There was a current in the German Communist Party based around Heinrich Laufenberg and Friedrich Wolfheim of Hamburg that, in 1919, argued for collaboration between workers' organisations and the bosses to drive the French army from occupying the Ruhr. They visited Karl Radek in the Moabit prison in 1920. A Russian Bolshevik, Radek disagreed with Lenin's support for the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Versailles. This current gravitated to the KPD(O) (Communist Party of Germany (Opposition)) despite their call for workers to give up their arms. At the August congress of the Communist Workers Party of Germany (KAPD), the first topic of debate was nation and class.

Arthur Goldstein rejected the notion of a "revolutionary people's war" with the German proletariat and the bourgeoisie uniting against the Entente bourgeoisie. He argued that any such war should be fought not for national victory but to overthrow the Entente Cordiale bourgeoisie and carry communism into the Entente countries as well. He further discussed how during the war, the National Bolsheviks had described the Spartakusbund's policy of inviting soldiers to leave the front as a "stab in the back". Goldstein stated, "In the text Communism against Spartacism, it is openly admitted that in Hamburg the nation is elevated to the starting point of politics, that therefore the concept of the nation is considered the most important, that it should be the measure for the politics of the German and international proletariat."[citation needed]

Radek wanted some of the right-wing nationalists he had met in prison to unite with the Bolsheviks in the name of National Bolshevism. He saw in National Bolshevism a way to "remove the capitalist isolation" of the Soviet Union.

Paul Eltzbacher and Karl Haushofer theorized about an alliance between nationalist forces in Germany and the Soviet Union, although they did not use the term National Bolshevism.

Russia

In Russia, as the civil war dragged on, a number of prominent "Whites" switched to the Bolshevik side because they saw it as the only hope for restoring greatness to Russia. Amongst these was Professor Nikolai Ustrialov, initially an anti-communist, who came to believe that Bolshevism could be modified to serve nationalistic purposes. His followers, the Smenovekhovtsi (named after a series of articles he published in 1921 Smena vekh (Russian: volte-face), came to regard themselves as National Bolsheviks, borrowing the term from Niekisch. Similar ideas were expressed by the Evraziitsi party and the pro-Monarchist Mladorossi. Stalin's idea of "socialism in one country" was interpreted as a victory by the National Bolsheviks. Vladimir Lenin, who did not use the term 'National Bolshevism', identified the Smenovekhovtsi as a tendency of the old Constitutional Democratic Party who saw Russian communism as just an evolution in the process of Russian aggrandisement. He further added that they were a 'class enemy' and warned against communist believing them to be allies.

In Western parlance, the term "National Bolshevism" has, on occasion, been applied to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his brand of anti-communism. However Solzhenitsyn cannot be labeled a National Bolshevik since he was thoroughly anti-Marxist and anti-Stalinist, and he wished a revival of Russian culture that would see a greater role for the Russian Orthodox Church and a withdrawal of Russia from its role overseas into a state of international isolationism. Solzhenitsyn and the vozrozhdentsy (or "revivalists" as his followers became known) thus differed from the National Bolsheviks who were not religious in tone (although not completely hostile either) and who felt that involvement overseas was important for the prestige and power of Russia. In fact there is open hostility between Solzhenitsyn and Eduard Limonov, the head of Russia's unregistered National Bolshevik Party. Solzhenitsyn has described Limonov as "a little insect who writes pornography", while Limonov described Solzhenitsyn as a traitor to his homeland who contributed to the downfall of the USSR, see Eduard Limonov#Writing. Indeed, in The Oak and the Calf Solzhenitsyn openly attacked the notions that the Russians were 'the noblest in the world' and that 'tsarism and Bolshevism ... [were] equally irreproachable', defining this as the core of the National Bolshevism to which he was opposed.

frippardthree
Saturday, November 14th, 2009, 07:36 AM
This is really good article from the "Folk & Faith" web-site. My thanks to the author, Andrew Webb. However, I must stress that I suspect that there are many historical inaccuracies, in this article.



The following article is one man's interpretation of what has became known as 'National Bolshevism' or the 'Red and Brown Axis.' It does not purport to be an official version of Edward Limonov or the National Bolshevik Party's views any more than it is Flagstaff.Com's views. As with any and all articles on the site, feedback and intelligent dissent is fully welcomed. Offer an intelligent rebuttal and it may get put up on the site as well. As with all other political theories given space on this site, please recall that this is just an alternative view to the mainstream political view.

Nationalist Socialism, Nationalist Communism and National Bolshevism

by Andrew Webb

I've written this essay on the demand of the owner of this site, in order to make clear some vital distinctions between three ideologies: national socialism, national communism and National Bolshevism. (A note: when I refer to 'the movement' in this essay, I am referring to the large number of anti-'Semitic' and racialist groupings traditionally associated with the Far Right, in North America, Europe and European colonies such as South Africa and New Zealand).

NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM

What is National Bolshevism?

To answer this, we must look at the development of the socialist idea.

It was generally agreed, in the patriotic and anti-Semitic circles in Europe at the time, that the Russian Revolution of 1917 (and the aborted revolutions in Hungary in 1919 and Germany in 1918) were Jewish affairs. Jews had been fomenting subversion against the absolute monarchist regimes of Europe since the days of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and had appropriated the socialist idea for use as a means of gaining power. This subversion culminated in the Russian Revolution.

The Slavic racial element played a role, of course. Contemporaries of the revolution such as Hitler, Spengler and Lothrop Stoddard noted that Russia, since Peter the Great, had been divided into two: on one side, the Westernized Petrine aristocracy, mostly of German stock; on the other, the Asiatic residue possessed of a deep, primitive religiousness and a hostility to anything Western. The Revolution saw an uprising among the Asiatic racial element against the Westernized aristocracy.

What the Jews did was harness the Asiatic maelstrom and used it as a stepping-stone to power. Jewish Bolshevists exterminated the Petrine ruling class, and killed and starved millions of Russian supporters of the old regime, in particular the peasants (who, as a class, have always been despised by Jews everywhere).

When does the 'national' in National Bolshevism enter the picture?

With Stalin's ascent to power to in 1924, Trotsky's exile in 1928, and the purges of the communist party rank and file (which, as we know, mostly consisted of Jews) in the 1930s, some anti-Semites claimed at the time that this saw the end of Jewish influence in the Soviet Union. Therefore, Hitler and other fascists were mistaken in detecting a Jewish component in Stalinism. This doctrine is one version of National Bolshevism.

As well as this, Stalin was condemned by the (Jewish) Trotskyists, for restricting socialism to 'one country', for not fomenting subversion elsewhere. Stalin had made socialism too nationalistic - a 'national socialism', in fact -when socialism, at bottom, is incompatible with nationalism. Stalinist 'national socialism' of this kind is often called National Bolshevism as well.

(Wartime Russian propaganda never referred to the Nazis as 'national socialists': that was the term used by the Stalinists to describe their own communism. The communists testifying at the International Military Tribunal always referred to the Nazis and the Wehrmacht as 'Hitlerians' or 'fascists').

In Weimar Germany, some communists, such as the Jew Karl Radek, advocated an alliance between Germany and Communist Russia, as early as 1919. It was felt that were Germany to take such a course, it would be resisting the West, which had imposed the Versailles Treaty upon it. In other words, Germany would turn Bolshevist out of nationalist and geopolitical reasons. That idea survived into the 1930s and could be found in the left-currents of German National Socialism, as represented by Goebbels, the Strasser Brothers, and Ernst Röhm and his communist Brownshirt faction.

So far, we have identified three National Bolshevisms: one, anti-Semitic, pre-war Stalinism; two, nationalist communism (or what I call national communism); and three, the advocacy of an alliance between Germany and a Bolshevism which may or may not be Jewish.


THE MYTH OF PRE-WAR ANTI-SEMITIC STALINISM

Did an anti-Semitic Stalinism of the 1930s exist?

In my opinion, no: the notion that Jews had been purged by Stalin in the 1930s is a falsehood. This is proved by the Holocaust Revisionist Walter N. Sanning's The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry (1983), a study of Jewish demography in Europe and the Soviet Union before and after the "Holocaust".

Sanning's figures showed that from 1926 to 1939, the Jewish population in the Soviet Union increased from 2.6 million to 3 million - a jump of over 12%. Furthermore, the Jewish population of Leningrad increased from 84,000 in 1926 to 200,000 in 1940 and the Jewish population of Moscow increased from 131,000 to 400,000 in the same years.

As for the war, 200,000 Jews died as servicemen in the Red Army and 130,000 Jewish civilians died in the Nazi-occupied areas of the Soviet Union. An unknown but high percentage of the latter were killed as partisans, or in retaliation for partisan atrocities; others were killed by the Soviet natives for their role in the slaughter and deportation of tens of thousands of Slavs.

Added to this, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence concerning Jewish commissars, Jewish partisans, Jewish collaborators with Soviet occupiers, and so on. Jewish communists, and Jews in general, supported the Soviet Union's war against fascism, and certainly the very Jewish Roosevelt administration did.

THE DEJUDAISATION OF BOLSHEVISM?

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union stopped, at some point, being Jewish. Historians of international relations would agree that the Soviet Union had become an enemy of America (and hence Jewry) sometime around 1948. Stalin, of course, armed Israel in its "war of independence" against the Arabs in 1948, funnelling arms through Czechoslovakia, and the USSR was one of the first States to recognise Israel diplomatically. But 1948 also saw the breakdown of amicable relations between America and the USSR. And by 1953, the year of the 'doctor's plot' and Stalin's aborted plan to exterminate Soviet Jewry, the love affair between the Jews and Soviet communism was over.

The question is: why did the Jews fall out with Stalin? The answer, I think, is to be found in Sanning's statistics.

The USSR incorporated 2 million Jews in 1940 (with the annexation of Eastern Poland, the Baltic States and North-Eastern Romania), raising its Jewish population from 3 to 5 million. But it lost 1 million Jews in the war, many of those in senior positions in the communist hierarchy. The majority of those fatalities - 700,000 - had died in labour camps in the Siberia and the Urals alongside millions of other Soviet citizens.

Stalin had been prepared years in advance for a European assault on the USSR. Before and during the Nazi attack, he deported millions of Soviet citizens (Sanning gives the figure of 25 to 30 million) away from the front line and to Siberia and the Urals. There they were put to work manufacturing arms and electricity.

The production of arms and electricity required skilled personnel. Jews occupied the leading administrative positions in the Soviet Union and formed the most educated class, standing at the top of the social pyramid in the Soviet Union, just as they do in America now. Stalin deported them for this reason. (A large number of women and their children were deported because many women were employed in Soviet industry, thanks to feminist reforms).

Sanning estimates that of the 3.6 million Soviet Jews living in areas which later came under Nazi control, 80%, or 2.9 million, were evacuated. Five million people alone from the Ukraine were deported, a high proportion of whom were Jews or ethnic Russians (both of whom occupied the leading professional and administrative positions in Ukraine, to the detriment of Ukrainians).

Complete Article:

http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/nationalbolshevism.shtml

Caledonian
Saturday, January 1st, 2011, 10:02 PM
I've always thought that all of the Bolshevik movement in Russia was inherently communist of course after browsing over the subject I have read articles stating that it was not where actually it was quite contrarian to communism in Russia as a whole where it infact criticized the communist movement in that country.

I found that to be interesting being a recent avid reader of global politics in history.

What else does anybody here know about this subject?

Is this the precursor of modern Russian nationalism?

From what I have read I hear that it is.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (June 2007)
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007)

National Bolshevism is a political movement that claims to combine elements of nationalism and Bolshevism.[1] It is often anti-capitalist in tone, and sympathetic towards certain nationalist forms of communism and socialism. Nevertheless, National Bolshevism is separate and distinct from National Communism.

Today, Russia is considered to be the center of National Bolshevism, and almost all of the National Bolshevik parties and organizations in the world are connected to it. Amongst the leading practitioners and theorists of National Bolshevism are Aleksandr Dugin and Eduard Limonov, who leads the unregistered and banned National Bolshevik Party (NBP) in Russia.[2] Influenced heavily by the idea of geopolitics, current Russian National Bolshevik movements propose a merger between Russia, Europe and parts of Asia, in a union to be known as Eurasia.

The Franco-Belgian Parti Communautaire National-Européen shares National Bolshevism's desire for the creation of a united Europe, as well as many of the NBP's economic ideas. French political figure Christian Bouchet has also been influenced by the idea.[3]

Contents [hide]
1 Influences and origins
2 Russia
2.1 Russian Civil War (1917–1923)
2.2 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn vs Eduard Limonov
2.3 National Bolshevik Party
3 See also
4 Footnotes
5 External links

[edit] Influences and originsNational Bolshevism is said to have roots in World War I Germany, where nationalist writers such as Ernst Niekisch and Ernst Jünger were prepared to tolerate the spread of communism as long as it took on the clothes of nationalism and abandoned its internationalist mission.[4]

Karl Radek wanted some of the right-wing nationalists he had met in prison to unite with the Bolsheviks in the name of National Bolshevism. He saw in National Bolshevism a way to "remove the capitalist isolation" of the Soviet Union.[1]

[edit] Russia[edit] Russian Civil War (1917–1923)In Russia, as the civil war dragged on, a number of prominent "Whites" switched to the Bolshevik side because they saw it as the only hope for restoring greatness to Russia. Amongst these was Professor Nikolai Ustrialov, initially an anti-communist, who came to believe that Bolshevism could be modified to serve nationalistic purposes. His followers, the Smenovekhovtsi (named after a series of articles he published in 1921) Smena vekh (Russian: volte-face), came to regard themselves as National Bolsheviks, borrowing the term from Niekisch.

Similar ideas were expressed by the Evraziitsi party and the pro-Monarchist Mladorossi. Joseph Stalin's idea of "socialism in one country" was interpreted as a victory by the National Bolsheviks.[5] Vladimir Lenin, who did not use the term 'National Bolshevism', identified the Smenovekhovtsi as a tendency of the old Constitutional Democratic Party who saw Russian communism as just an evolution in the process of Russian aggrandisement. He further added that they were a 'class enemy' and warned against communist believing them to be allies.[6]

[edit] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn vs Eduard LimonovThe term National Bolshevism has sometimes been applied to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and his brand of anti-communism.[7] However, Solzhenitsyn cannot be labeled a National Bolshevik since he was thoroughly anti-Marxist and anti-Stalinist, and he wished a revival of Russian culture that would see a greater role for the Russian Orthodox Church, a withdrawal of Russia from its role overseas, and a state of international isolationism.[8] Solzhenitsyn and his followers, known as vozrozhdentsy (revivalists) differed from the National Bolsheviks, who were not religious in tone (although not completely hostile to religion), and who felt that involvement overseas was important for the prestige and power of Russia.[9]

There was open hostility between Solzhenitsyn and Eduard Limonov, the head of Russia's unregistered National Bolshevik Party. Solzhenitsyn had described Limonov as "a little insect who writes pornography", and Limonov described Solzhenitsyn as a traitor to his homeland who contributed to the downfall of the USSR. In The Oak and the Calf, Solzhenitsyn openly attacked the notions that the Russians were 'the noblest in the world' and that 'tsarism and Bolshevism ... [were] equally irreproachable', defining this as the core of the National Bolshevism to which he was opposed.[10]

[edit] National Bolshevik PartyMain article: National Bolshevik Party
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2010)

Flag of the National Bolshevik Party.The National Bolshevik Party was founded in 1992 as the National Bolshevik Front, an amalgamation of six minor groups.[11] The party has always been led by Eduard Limonov. The group's early policies and actions show some alignment and sympathy with radical nationalist groups, but a split occurred in the 2000s which changed this to an extent. Opposed to the Vladimir Putin regime in Russia, Limonov has somewhat liberalized the NBP, and joined forces with leftist and liberal groups in Kasparov's United Civil Front to fight Putin. Some National Bolsheviks are opposed to Limonov's attempts to find allies even if they are pro-Western politicians; some have left the NBP and formed the National Bolshevik Front.[12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism


What is more interesting is what some prominent national socialists of Germany had to say on the issue when it concerns the third reich:

"Whoever cries out against Jewish capitalists is already a class warrior, even when he does not know it. . . . Kick down the Jewish capitalists, hang them from the lampposts, and stamp upon them!"
Burleigh, Michael. The Third Reich: A New History, p. 55.



"We look to Russia because Russia is our natural ally against the fiendish contamination and corruption from the west. . . Because we can see the commencement of our own national and socialist survival in an alliance with a truly national and socialist Russia."
Irving, David. Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, p. 71.



"In the final analysis, it would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism."
Read, Anthony. The Devil's Disciples: Hitler's Inner Circle, p. 142.

Although when you hear about their whole plan for a Pan European Eurasia all of that just sounds silly and obviously ridiculous.

RoyBatty
Saturday, January 1st, 2011, 10:14 PM
I assume you're referring to Eduard Limonov and his NB movement? Yes I know a bit about the topic.

First of all, to get more perspective on the National Bolsheviks I'll refer you to the writings of gonzo journalists like Mark Ames, Matt Taibbi & co from eXile.ru
They used to keep Limonov around as a contributor to their general brand of (amusing) mayhem reporting. I'm not sure if Limonov is still writing for them but once you've read a copy or two of "eXile" you'll also have a better idea of what Limonov is all about. :D

Limonov himself is quite an interesting adventurer. I believe that he spent a number of years living in the US.

A Russian friend of mine once explained to me that one of Limonov's personal motivators in life has always been to be a "somebody", ie, a big man. His words were that "Limonov always wanted to have a gang and be a strong man in the gang". A kind of family, if you will.

NB supporters are usually kids / young students. Joining the NB for a year or two is like a rites of passage for many kids. It's a time when one can enjoy one's self by living on the edge, causing mayhem, smashing things, taunting the police, getting into fights, being raided etc. After a short stint in the National Bolsheviks they tend to move on to other things in life. It's not a long-term career or lifestyle choice for most.

The National Bolsheviks are not a serious political movement. It's more of a lunatic fringe outfit. ;)

The NB's are definitely not any kind of precursor to future Russian Nationalism. You'll notice if you do more reading that they have at times been loosely aligned to Gary Kasparov's "opposition". Gary himself is a US / Rothschild sponsored Jew from Azerbaijan.... so.... errrr.... "Russian Nationalists", for rather obvious reasons, have absolutely no interest in this crazy gang.

There are Nationalist type movements for example Nashe, although I haven't kept up with their activities as of late.

Caledonian
Saturday, January 1st, 2011, 10:22 PM
I assume you're referring to Eduard Limonov and his NB movement? Yes I know a bit about the topic.

First of all, to get more perspective on the National Bolsheviks I'll refer you to the writings of gonzo journalists like Mark Ames, Matt Taibbi & co from eXile.ru
They used to keep Limonov around as a contributor to their general brand of (amusing) mayhem reporting. I'm not sure if Limonov is still writing for them but once you've read a copy or two of "eXile" you'll also have a better idea of what Limonov is all about. :D

Limonov himself is quite an interesting adventurer. I believe that he spent a number of years living in the US.

A Russian friend of mine once explained to me that one of Limonov's personal motivators in life has always been to be a "somebody", ie, a big man. His words were that "Limonov always wanted to have a gang and be a strong man in the gang". A kind of family, if you will.

NB supporters are usually kids / young students. Joining the NB for a year or two is like a rites of passage for many kids. It's a time when one can enjoy one's self by living on the edge, causing mayhem, smashing things, taunting the police, getting into fights, being raided etc. After a short stint in the National Bolsheviks they tend to move on to other things in life. It's not a long-term career or lifestyle choice for most.

The National Bolsheviks are not a serious political movement. It's more of a lunatic fringe outfit. ;)

The NB's are definitely not any kind of precursor to future Russian Nationalism. You'll notice if you do more reading that they have at times been loosely aligned to Gary Kasparov's "opposition". Gary himself is a US / Rothschild sponsored Jew from Azerbaijan.... so.... errrr.... "Russian Nationalists", for rather obvious reasons, have absolutely no interest in this crazy gang.

There are Nationalist type movements for example Nashe, although I haven't kept up with their activities as of late.

Interesting. ;)

I've heard there are modern movements like the NAZBOL,NBP, or NBF.

At any rate I don't know much about the subject myself as I just recently became aware of it.

Of course in your opinion, you don't think it's a very serious political organization at all?

I just thought it was puzzling because when I think of Bolsheviks I think of traditional Russian communists and not the contrary.

RoyBatty
Saturday, January 1st, 2011, 10:52 PM
Haha, I'm sure there are all kinds of crazy variations. I have a National Bolshevik coffee cup at home. (A present from another Russian friend, he insisted on buying it for me as a joke).

The "National Bolsheviks" have nothing to do with the Russian Communist Party. If anything, a lot of Russian Nationalists and Patriots (ethnic Russians) still support the Communist Party. Keep in mind that the Russian Communist Party is not a "Pinko / Lefty" type organisation as one would usually find in the West. It's more of a patriotic / Love the Motherland group. It's not particularly fashionable today but the older people like them.
Western "Lefty" and "Marxist" types are a completely different breed to those from countries like Russia, China, Vietnam etc.

The Russian Communists are definitely not Trotsky'ist. In other words, they are not Rothschild / ZOG friendly. Imo the Russian CP of today are in some ways a Russian version of German National Socialism.

Keep in mind that the original Revolution in Russia was a Jewish Bolshevik affair, sponsored by Wall Street and London. The idea was to get rid of the Czar, replace him with Bolshevik Leaders who'd act on behalf of Rothschild & Co. Whilst the Revolution eventually succeeded and a number of other cultures / nations were soon integrated into the USSR, the Bolshevists hold on power slipped away. Not least due to Comrade Stalin's highly efficient methods of dispatching with them.

Communism in the USSR thus developed in ways not originally intended by those who sponsored and bankrolled it. Instead of having Eurasia handed to ZOG on a plate as they had hoped, their monster turned on them to some extent. Rothschild point man Leon Trotsky was even icepicked in Mexico in 1940.


Here's an old Limonov article from Exile
http://exiledonline.com/limonov-files-i-have-one-year-left/

Berrocscir
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 04:37 PM
The NBF are an anti-Limonov breakaway faction. I think it was for several reasons, but mainly as Limonov signed the NBP up to the Other Russia movement alongside pro-western, pro-globalisation groups.

Without wishing to cause offence, I view the NBP as 'useful idiots'. They remind me a bit of the anarchist Class War group. Being deliberately shocking and indulging in 'spectaculars', garish demos and ultimately futile occupations and 'stuntism' to attract press attention. This activity appeals to the imaginations of rebellious youth. In this sense the NBP acts as a gateway into nationalism for young people who might not otherwise become involved in 'dull' politics.

odinberg
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 04:49 PM
There are Nationalist type movements for example Nashe, although I haven't kept up with their activities as of late.

"Nashe" this is Prokremlin movement created at Kremlin businessmen`s money. I think in Russia there is no united nationalist movement now.
To my mind, nationalism in Russia is not ideology and political movement, but an occasion for poor classes to express the protest. Nationalist youth groups it basically hooligans and fans to arrange disorders.

odinberg
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 04:57 PM
One of nationalist movements is DPNI. I can't tell with confidence who is sponsor . This movement against illegal emigration of workers from Asia.

http://dpni.org/

RoyBatty
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 05:00 PM
Nashe this is Prokremlin movement created on Kremlin businessmen`s money. I think in Russia there is no uniform nationalist movement now.

Yes they are a Kremlin friendly and sponsored outfit afaik. The old CP can be regarded as fairly nationalist but their appeal is mostly to the older generations.

The current government isn't really anti-Nationalist although imo Medvedev appears to be rather liberal which will not do his "popularity" (he isn't popular anyway) much good amongst the Russian population. Particularly since Political Correctness there is almost non-existent.

The recent ethnic football riots in Moscow have shown Medvedev's eagerness for blaming ethnic Russians whilst excusing the Caucasus troublemakers, exactly the same way liberals operate in Western countries.



One of nationalist movements is DPNI. I can't tell with confidence who is sponsor . This movement against illegal emigration of workers from Asia.

http://dpni.org/

Yes I've never really investigated them in detail but there's something strange about them... perhaps I'm mistaken and being too sceptical... who knows....

odinberg
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 06:09 PM
Yes they are a Kremlin friendly and sponsored outfit afaik. The old CP can be regarded as fairly nationalist but their appeal is mostly to the older generations.

The current government isn't really anti-Nationalist although imo Medvedev appears to be rather liberal which will not do his "popularity" (he isn't popular anyway) much good amongst the Russian population. Particularly since Political Correctness there is almost non-existent.

The recent ethnic football riots in Moscow have shown Medvedev's eagerness for blaming ethnic Russians whilst excusing the Caucasus troublemakers, exactly the same way liberals operate in Western countries.




Yes I've never really investigated them in detail but there's something strange about them... perhaps I'm mistaken and being too sceptical... who knows....

It is necessary to understand that the Kremlin uses internal contradictions of ethnic groups. The nationalism is one of forms for intensity creation to direct the protest out from the real policy. In Russia very difficult economic situation. Huge unemployment, there are no qualified workers places. The youth doesn't see prospects for itself . All economy is trade in natural resources. The main thing for Kremlin to keep Status Quo.
But it is very risky game.

NatRev
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 08:18 PM
The National Bolsheviks are not a serious political movement. It's more of a lunatic fringe outfit.

Yeah I have a friend that's Russian and interested in nationalist ideals and she says exactly the same thing. I've had a look at their websites and I had the feeling they were pretty 'Mickey Mouse' fascistas. Nothing tangible about them or their ideals just some kooky Nazi-Soviet imagery doctored in Photoshop.

Limonov seems a bit of a player and he was an author of kindda avant-garde pseduo punk books before he got a whiff of politics. Most people think he's a loon to be honest but he managed to surf on the zeitgeist wave of post Communist nationalism.


It's more of a patriotic / Love the Motherland group. It's not particularly fashionable today but the older people like them.

Bang on! I had another Russian friend and she told me about her time in the Komsomol, the League of Young Communists, and she seemed to have had a wonderful time, going camping, helping out on farms, visiting other parts of Russia and generally gaining a sense of both self-worth and cultural pride.

Yeah I know people can say 'aah that was all brain washing and part of the cult of Communism' which is a fair argument but I've always thought that if we had something like that here, we'd cut all 'youth crime' over night.

http://tildology.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/1193658208_komsomol_19.jpg

I'm not some wishy washy liberal but I think our youth need structure and something to aspire to instead of the arse anti-culture that is general chavdom.

Think about it, Russia used to be the 'Evil Empire' (cue Death Star music), a big nasty dog with big balls, now their economy is riddled with corruption and they come over more like country bumpkins, it's hardly surprising that a lot of people are pining for 'the good old days' of authoritarianism and wearing sharply pressed uniforms.

I did have an idea of drafting a 'Venn Diagram' of policies that I think the original NSDAP had and with Stalinist Communism, I think they would've had more in common than not.

odinberg
Sunday, January 2nd, 2011, 09:40 PM
I did have an idea of drafting a 'Venn Diagram' of policies that I think the original NSDAP had and with Stalinist Communism, I think they would've had more in common than not.

One of the main difference between Third Reich and USSR was that Hitler used as slaves other nations for Great Germany, Stalin used as slaves soviet people for victory in world war and Global Bolshevist revolution.

Werwolfthron
Monday, January 3rd, 2011, 09:05 PM
What worries me most about NB is that it seems more like a vehicle for pan-Slavicism and Russian imperialism. I have no objection to honest Russian nationalism, but many areas under Polish and Russian rule are rightfully Germanic territory. Send the slavs to Ukraine, and the mongrelized ones to Siberia.

NatRev
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 12:01 AM
I'd rather have Pan Slavists as allies than enemies... as long as they were looking East instead of West.

White Russians invading and colonising China would be an interesting plot indeed.
:thumbup

But I don't think Pan Slavism could work, Catholic Czechs and Poles would probably have more in common with other Catholic westerners than with Orthodox Russians and Serbs. And the idea of them teaming up with big old scary (and corrupt) Russia isn't that credible. Remember these countries were occupied by the Russians and they weren't too happy about that.

Also 'Slav' is purely a cultural-linguistic term and doesn't reflect 'race' as such.

RoyBatty
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 07:20 AM
What worries me most about NB is that it seems more like a vehicle for pan-Slavicism and Russian imperialism. I have no objection to honest Russian nationalism, but many areas under Polish and Russian rule are rightfully Germanic territory. Send the slavs to Ukraine, and the mongrelized ones to Siberia.

There's nothing to worry about. The NB's are a novelty group, a joke, led by an adventurer.

Despite the way the press here tends to portray them (poor idiots who patronizingly need to be told what to do by the all knowing West) the Russians aren't stupid or uninformed people. The NB's have about as much chance of achieving mainstream success as Vladimir Putin has of being praised and admired by ZOG boy Edward Lucas in The Economist, the rag of choice for Free Traders, Bankster admirers and Imperialists.

The concept of Pan-Slavism doesn't exist apart from in textbook definitions.

Before one can run one should learn to walk first. That means forgetting about the Slavs and kicking the Americans and British Occupation Armies out of Germany first followed by the Turks & other "guests" whilst also addressing a number of US / German Puppet Government "freedom" issues which have been imposed across German society.

odinberg
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011, 09:37 AM
Today in Russia NBP is forbidden by the law. On last antiputin meeting on 31st December, Lemonov has been arrested when he left his house.
But it hasn't caused the mass protest of his supporters.NBP has not so many supporters now. I think it is the page of history already.
In any case, I don't believe that Russians are capable of the organized national movement.
If in Russia will be changes, it will be result of disintegration of the corrupted power or a consequence of falling of the prices for oil and gas but not political movement. The political opposition in Russia is weak and out of the law, as in Iraq at Saddam`s time .

fullmarx
Sunday, August 21st, 2011, 11:54 PM
For a radical new perspective on the philosophy and contemporary relevance of National Bolshevism and Eurasianism go to www.nationalbolshevism.org – part of the site of the National People’s Party in the U.K (www.nationalpeoplesparty.org.uk)

The platform of the National People’s Party aims to provide a new political-economic and spiritual-philosophical framework by which to renew and redefine ’Third Positionism’ and 'National Bolshevism' - as National Marxist and National Communist, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-Zionist – and above all directed against the international banking and monetary system, which makes all nations dependent on borrowing from private and international banks - rather than affirming their right to issue their own sovereign, debt- and interest-free money to serve the people.
The National Bolshevism of the NPP opposes both the pseudo-nationalist, racist ideologies of many ultra-right parties and the pseudo-Marxist ideologies of ‘international’ socialism propagated by ultra-left Trotskyist parties.
In contrast to white racist nationalism and socialist internationalism it recognises that since the fall of the Soviet Union and the global deregulation of banking, the class struggle has itself become an essentially national struggle of all peoples against the power of the banks and the global dominance of international finance capital and its puppet politicians in different countries.

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes … Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”
Napolean Bonaparte

“The supranational sovereignty of world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”Banker David Rockefeller

That is why corporate wage-slavery is now compounded and aggravated by international debt slavery - the surrender of national sovereignty through enforced ’sovereign debt’ to the feudalistic lords of international finance capital - the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements in Basel. All this is justified by politicians and the press through an almost religious deference to the ‘stability’ of what it vaguely called the ’financial markets’.

“The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.”

Lord Acton (1834-1902) English historian

At a time of total global financial crisis this is now THE central issue of the day - yet one still not fully recognised by political Right, Left or Centre. National Bolshevism is the only way to affirm and fight for the fundamental right of nations to issue their own sovereign, debt-free money for public and social spending - as Lincoln once sought to do with his Greenbacks, as Stalin did and as Hitler did too through issuing 'labour treasury certificates' instead of borrowing at interest from private banks.

As a result of his doing so: “"Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved and the country was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries were still out of work and living on welfare.”

Ellen Brown (www.webofdebt.com)

Restoring the power of nations to issue their own debt-free currency
however, cannot be achieved by anything else than a national ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ i.e. ‘national socialism’ or ‘national bolshevism’ in the literal, Marxist sense of these terms – shorn of the crude historical distortions of anti-semitism, racism and ethnicism – all of which only submit the peoples of all nations to the trick of ‘divide and rule’.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Monday, August 22nd, 2011, 12:46 AM
I don't know fullmarx, I mean Lincoln and Stalin's idea for greenback currency was a good idea for witharting inflation targeting practices and those making their living off of debt. But I don't know about alot of the other stuff on the platform. Private banking and retail can be good for an economy and Lincoln's idea to levy an income tax was never a good idea although a "national marxist"(if their is such a thing) might approve of this idea.

Don't get me wrong I try to boycott walstreet, but I know what works and what doesn't work having "been there and done that."

Oslaf
Monday, August 22nd, 2011, 01:03 AM
You guys should read some Niekisch and Jünger.

fullmarx
Saturday, December 17th, 2011, 08:10 PM
I don't know fullmarx, I mean Lincoln and Stalin's idea for greenback currency was a good idea for witharting inflation targeting practices and those making their living off of debt. But I don't know about alot of the other stuff on the platform. Private banking and retail can be good for an economy and Lincoln's idea to levy an income tax was never a good idea although a "national marxist"(if their is such a thing) might approve of this idea.

Don't get me wrong I try to boycott walstreet, but I know what works and what doesn't work having "been there and done that."

A few brief points in response:

1. There has been, since Marx's time a fundamental reversal in the relation between finance and industrial capitalism, with the former becoming totally parasitic on the latter. Marx himself would clearly have recognised this.
2. The international banks have a complete monopoly on the money supply of nations - since they are almost its own source. As a result they can blackmail nations like Greece with a loss of their money supply and demand bailouts from the people and privatisation and stripping of their national assets.
3. I am speaking of the sovereign right of nations to issue their own interest-free money: an experiment that up to now - whether though Hitler's Labour Treasure Certificates, Britain's Bradley Bills (used to finance the 1st World War) or Lincoln's Greenbacks - and many other experiments - were short-lived and soon stamped upon by the international bankers. The Rothschilds backed King George in his war against Lincoln just to stamp out the idea of public money creation. In return he got the Bank of England, underneath which were deliberately and symbolically bured the 'tally sticks' that monarchs had previously used as a form of self-created money to avoid dependence on the money lenders.
4. In reference to previous posts on National Bolshevism - this has its roots in GERMANY and not in RUSSIA - the ruinous debt reparations imposed after the 1st World War. The first 'National Bolshevik Manifesto. was pubished by Karl Otto Paetel on the very day Hitler became Chancellor.
5. The people's Greece, Spain, Portugal and other nations now are in the same situation as post-Versailles Germany. But there is clear National Bolshevik Alternative (http://www,nationalbolshevism.org) - my new site homepage.
6. Now is also a great opportunity for the German-speaking nations to re-unite through leaving the Euro and establishing a new Deutschmark.
7. My economic understanding of public money creation is a combination of both Marxism and Social Credit Theory.
8. It is also not just an 'economic' or 'Marxist' theory, but rooted in German cultural history.
9. Wagner's Ring Cycle - the greatest work of art of ever created - is all about wisdom - as represented by the Rheingold - being reduced to 'gold' as a mere source of wealth and power.Wotan gets entrapped in this process through the curse of the Ring forged from the Rheingold - leading to the 'twilight of the gods' and the fall of Valhalla - which Wotan/Odin resigns himself too with supreme dignity. Yet the last bars of Gotterdammerung - the final part of the Ring Cycle - offer a glimpse of hope for new dawn. Wagner's 'Meistersinger of Nuremberg' represented the wealth of German art and culture. It is based on a real life figure of 16th century poet, Guild song master and shoemaker Hans Sachs - who at the end of Wagner's Meistersinger warns of the threat to the German people as a diverse federal 'Kulturnation' - a nation of high culture.
10. And indeed, early in the 17th century (1614) the '30 years war' had started - a war in which up to 40% (roughly 6 million people) in the areas now known as Germany were wiped out by marauding, plundering and raping armies and mercenaries troops from Sweden, France, Austria, Ireland, Hungary etc. virtually every country of Europe.
11. I am absolutely no Holocaust denier or revisionist but the 30 year holocaust inflicted on Germany (in which Jews were of course victims too) should be remembered also.
10. I am not just a Marxist 'National Bolshevik' but a Wagnerian, Anarch and Conservative Revolutionary in the tradition of Martin Heidegger.
12. But let's get real and not just affirm the richness and greatness of Germanic art, religion, music, culture and philosophy - even though it is still the only spiritual and philosophical challenge of significance to dumbed-down global capitalist culture and 'science'.
13. Hence my emphasis on the relevance - right now and in the midst of the so-called Eurocrisis or 'global financial crisis' (the twilight of the capitalist god of money and its demi-god bankers) of the 'National Bolshevik Alternative' (http://www.nationalbolshevism.org)- the manifesto of my new site.
14. I will now however be returning to writing more on Heideggerian thinking and Indo-Germanic philosophy - in contrast to the gross superficiality and inadequacy of both Anglo-American and also purely Russian thinking on 'National Bolshevism' - both of which faill to address the deep spiritual and philosophical questions of our era in the way in which great German thinkers such as Junger and Heidegger did. I recommend reading their collected correspondence by the way - as well as re-reading my piece on 'National Bolshevism - its roots, essence and contemporary relevance' (http://nationalbolshevism.blogspot.com), which includes mention of Indo-Germanic thought and culture as a whole.

For the time being however I urge you and other readers of this thread to look at the at the writings on my new site (http://www.nationalbolshevism.org) - now being translated into Russian, Greek and Italian - and which will as soon as possible be extended to embrace broader and deeper religious and philosophical issues transcending politics and any '-isms'.