The Left, The Right, and Social Revolt

KERRY BOLTON
The Left, the Right,

and Social Revolt –
Part 1
 3rd October 2018  0 Comments
Series: The Left, the Right, and Social Revolt
1.The Left, the Right, and Social Revolt – Part 1
2.The Left, the Right, and Social Revolt – Part 2
The revolutions of the past centuries

have brought social revolt in the name
of ‘the people’ — for the bene t of
oligarchy. Privacy - Terms
The philosopher-historian par excellence of Western Civilization, Oswald
Spengler, noted that there is no proletarian, nor even a communist,
movement that does not serve the interests of ‘money’ and ‘in the direction
indicated by money’. He pointed out that this is so because ‘socialism’ of the
class-struggle variety arises from the same Zeitgeist as capitalism.1 Julius
Evola said much the same, and even more stridently: ‘Nothing is more
evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The
materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of
their ideals are qualitatively identical.’2 Marx’s correspondence with Engels
and others shows how thoroughly bourgeois Marx yearned to be. The
distraction of the festering boils on his groin3 and his will to destruction
prevented him from attaining the good things in life – the typically bourgeois
things – for himself and his wife and daughters, other than what he could
bludge from Engels, or from his father or other relatives. Marx’s doctrine was
a projection of himself onto society as a failed bourgeois, his hatred of
ownership a reflection of his detestation of small tradesmen who expected to
be paid for their goods and services. His doctrine is a mirror reflection of
capitalism, and the failure of an educated man with expensive tastes to rise
beyond Soho squalor.4
Socialism does not Socialism does not aim to transcend
aim to transcend capitalism. Its aim is to appropriate
capitalism. Its aim capitalism for another class. Hence,
is to appropriate the proletariat becomes the owner,
capitalism for in theory, of capital, but capital
another class. retains its power; it is not

overthrown.5
From the French Revolution to Marxism there is an unbroken lineage via
Blanqui, Blanc, Babeuf and others. The Masonic lodges played a role in
maintaining this lineage from the Illuminati and Jacobin clubs to the
International Working Men’s Association. Hatred of Western Civilization,
which is to say Christendom as exemplified by the Catholic Church, is a
predominate theme for this line of revolutionists. It would not be surprising if
this revolutionary ferment that aimed to destroy Western (Catholic)
Civilization and hatched secret societies such as Freemasonry and Illuminism
had its origins in the Reformation. Is it no more than coincidence that the
personal crest of Martin Luther was the Rose-Cross, which became the name
of a secret society, the Fraternity of the Rosy-Cross, Rosicrucians, from
whence Masonry claims a lineage? What is known of the society is that it
issued various manifestos calling for a new order to replace Catholicism.
Masonry also claims lineage from the Knights Templar. Regardless of
whether charges of heresy against the Templars were justified, Templar and
Rosicrucian influences on secret societies would have provided an impetus
for the anti-Catholic sentiment that found radical expression with the
Illuminati, Grand Orient Masonry, Jacobinism and the rise of Leftism
culminating in Marxism. Even if it is not a conspiratorial lineage, it is a
world-view capable of proceeding with a life of its own.6
It is notable is that these revolts in the name of ‘the people’ have tended to
consolidate the position not of the amorphous mass, but of oligarchy. This is
done in the name of ‘democracy’ because traditional regimes based on a
symbiosis or a synthesis between faith and monarch get in the way of the Free
Market.
Right and Left

We might trace the Western malady back to the Reformation of Henry VIII.
In the name of ‘freedom from popery’, the English Reformation led to the
destruction of the Catholic social order that had ensured the social well-being
of the common folk; it dispossessed the Church of property for the benefit of
an emerging oligarchy, and perhaps more than any other upheaval set
England on the path of decay – and, considering England’s role in hatching
subsequent theories, set the West itself on the path of decay.7
The Right and the Left assumed Their democracy is

definitive form during the English really freedom for
Revolution: Cavaliers versus oligarchs to expand
Roundheads, Puritans, Levellers their power and
and sundry other factions. Again, in wealth without the
the name of ‘the people’ we see a encumbrances of a
victory of the oligarchy. The traditional social
Kingdom had been brought to near- order.
ruin by the expenditures of King
James and Queen Elizabeth.
Parliament refused to allow King Charles I to levy taxes. He enraged the
money merchants by grabbing their gold reserves stored at the Royal Mint
and he confiscated the pepper and spice inventory of the East India
Company, whose monopoly was challenged when he approved the rival
Courteen Association. With the backing of mercantile interests, Cromwell
usurped the authority of the Throne.8
Oligarchy Marches On
Something else called a ‘revolution’, and a ‘Glorious’ one no less, brought
William of Orange from the Netherlands, then the centre of the money-
merchants. It was from here that Rabbi Menasseh ben Israel, leader of the
Amsterdam Jewish community, had petitioned Oliver Cromwell in 1655 to
allow the Jews re-admittance to England on account of the international
commercial relations they could provide (the precursor of ‘globalization’), on
the grounds that the ‘world prefers’ the ‘profit motive’ ‘before all other
things’.9 This outlook of materialism and profit justified by religion was the
basis of Puritanism and its revolts, and hence of the capitalist revolution
against tradition,10 in which can be included the American Revolution and
the present-day neo-Puritan ‘prosperity gospel’ of the American
televangelists, who have assumed a significant political role in the USA and as
allies of the Israeli lobby. This revolution, or invasion, in England was yet
another revolt against Catholicism, and a coup for the Whig (Liberal) party.
William’s extravagant expenditure led to an act of lasting significance, the
establishment of the Bank of England in 1694. The world financial centre
gravitated from The Netherlands to England, and further undermined the
authority of the Crown in favour of Parliament. Another ‘revolution’ in the
name of resisting ‘popery’, extended the power of a Whig oligarchy. Party
politics became fixed and the nexus between monarch and God, which is to
say the foundation of traditional societies, was rent.11
It is a symptom of ideological befuddlement, promoted especially by the

abysmal ignorance of journalists and political scientists, that today Whiggery,
also called ‘Classical Liberalism’, is confused with the ‘Right’. The historical
legacies of Whiggery and the Right are not only different but antithetical, as
different as a fight between a Cavalier and a Roundhead.
When Henry VIII, Oliver Cromwell, William of Orange, Duc d’Orleans, Jacob
Schiff, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill, Mandela, Bush (X 2),
Clinton (X 2), Obama, et al. – the immense gaggle of liberal-leftists whoring
themselves for George Soros’ money, and the neo-Trotskyists of the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), shout ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, and ‘human
rights’, like their ideological forefathers shouted ‘down with popery’, and
‘liberty, equality, fraternity’. Their democracy is really freedom for oligarchs
to expand their power and wealth without the encumbrances of a traditional
social order.12 Hence the jubilation of American banking interests when the
March 1917 revolution,13 prepared since 1905 by hack journalist George
Kennan, with funding from Jacob Schiff of Kuhn Loeb & Co., brought down
Czarism.14
The dozens of long-planned and well-funded ‘spontaneous’ ‘colour

revolutions’ throughout Central and Eastern European and North Africa are
of the same order, as is the combination of social revolt and NATO bombs
that gave ‘freedom’ to globalize and privatize the immense mineral wealth of
Kosovo, once the mines had been ‘liberated’ from the Serbian state. When the
Allies sent their go-to man, Trotsky, from New York to Russia in 1917, and the
Germans sent theirs, Lenin, it was a replay of William of Orange being sent
from Holland to England. When the Bolsheviks set up Ruskombank under
the direction of Olof Aschberg of Nye Banken, Stockholm, it was a replay of
William establishing the Bank of England.
How far back this dialectic goes – social revolt in the name of ‘the people’ for
the benefit of oligarchy – is indicated by Spengler’s reference to the revolt of
Tiberius Gracchus, serving as a lackey for the Equites, a former military caste
that had become an oligarchy.15 When the Duc d’Orleans paid the dregs of
Marseilles to act as a revolutionary mob, expecting he would become First
Citizen of the Republic, he was acting as a precursor of Jacob Schiff and
George Soros. What the mob overthrew in the name of ‘liberty’ and for the
benefit of the bourgeoisie and later oligarchs was the final vestige of the
traditional – organic – social order of Western Civilization that had been
inherited from Rome and fine-tuned by the Church into a uniquely Western
‘Gothic’ form. This was ‘class struggle’, but not precisely in the order and
direction assume by Marx. Rather than a lineal ‘progression’ (the ‘dialectics of
history’, according to Marx16) of serfdom – capitalism/liberalism – socialism
– communism, the dialectic has been of serfdom – liberalism/socialism –
capitalism – oligarchy. Spengler and Brooks Adams17 were much better
historians in explaining cycles of rise and fall and the role played by money.
Conversely, while Francis Fukuyama and other apologists for liberalism have
argued that it is capitalism that is the epitome of history, beyond which there
is nothing better, Spengler, Evola and other philosopher-historians of the
actual Right, contend that capitalism is the final symptom of a civilization in
its death-throes, the triumph of money; while Plato in The Republic long
previously saw oligarchy and then democracy as the symptoms of decay.
Continue to Part 2.
Footnotes
1 Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (London: Allen and Unwin, 1972, Vol. II), p. 402.
2 Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins ([1972] Inner Traditions, 2002), p. 166.
3 ‘Hidradenitis suppurativa’.
4 On Marx see: Bolton, The Psychotic Left (London: Black House Publishing, 2013), pp. 70-100.
5 Oswald Spengler, op. cit.
6 Bolton, The Occult and Subversive Movements (London: Black House Publishing, 2017), passim.
7 William Cobbett, The History of the Reformation in England and Ireland, (1824-1827).
8 Some background on this is provided in John F. Riddick, The History of British India: A Chronology, (Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006), p. 4.
9 Menasseh ben Israel to Oliver Cromwell. This lengthy letter, entitled ‘How Profitable the Nation of the Jews are’,
reads like The Protocols of Zion, but its authenticity is not disputed. The letter was published in Paul R. Mendes-
Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz (eds.), The Jews in the Modern World: A Documentary History (Oxford University
Press, 1980), pp. 9-12.
10 See the famous book by the German sociologist Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
(1905).
11 E. Vallance, The Glorious Revolution: 1688 and Britain’s Fight for Liberty, (Little, Brown and Co, 2006).
12 K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media Ltd.), passim.

13 John B. Young, National City Bank, ‘Is a people’s revolution’, New York Times, 16 March, 1917.
14 New York Times, 18 March 1917; and 24 March 1917, pp. 1-2. On the nexus between revolution in Russia and
oligarchic interests see: Bolton, Revolution from Above. For the best scholarly documentation on the history of the
Russian Revolution and its oligarchic sponsors see Dr. Richard B. Spence, Wall Street and the Russian Revolution
1905–1925 (Trine Day, 2017). Spence is a senior historian at Idaho State University, who has previously examined
the enigma of Trotsky’s travel arrangements between New York and Russia.
15 Spengler, Decline, op. cit., 402, 404 n1.
16 Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848).
17 Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilisation and Decay ([1896] London: Black House Publishing). Anyone who has
Spengler’s Decline of The West, should have Adams’ book beside it. (Do not be confused by comments on Amazon
by reviewers about another ‘poor quality’ edition; the BHP edition is of fine quality.)
KERRY BOLTON
Kerry Bolton
economics guilds organic state
Share This
 Tweet  Share  Pin It  Share
This Post Has 0 Comments
Leave a Reply
The comment section of Arktos Journal will be regulated by standards consonant to the principles of the
project itself. Our general rules are as follows:
I. Comments will not be moderated on the basis of the opinions expressed (controversy is welcome),
but rather on their quality.
II. Contributors are requested to obey the rules of civility, without which all discourse is null, and to
avoid crude personal attacks. Wit is welcome, but argument, and not insult, will be the expected
means of refutation.
III. Obscenities, vulgarity and slurs will not be tolerated.
IV. Contributors are invited to check their contributions for general grammatical correctness
(allowances will obviously be made for second-language speakers) and logical cohesiveness.
As a general guideline, all contributors should imagine that they are speaking their minds aloud in a
public space, unhindered by political correctness but bound to the older standards of honour and
decency in speech.
All decisions of the moderators are nal.
Name * Email *
Website
Comment
Post Comment
Related Posts
Dialectics for the Right – Part 2

Some examples of the value of dialectic analysis of historical
phenomena.
Dialectics for the Right – Part 1
The Right is lacking a deeper understanding of history, one capable of concluding other
attempts to understand it.
Occasional Thoughts in a Crisis

Stray re ections on the state of the world under the shadow of
Coronavirus.
The Left, the Right, and Social Revolt – Part 2 

The Left, The Right, and Social Revolt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Left, The Right, and Social Revolt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Left, The Right, and Social Revolt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KERRY BOLTON

The Left, the Right,

The revolutions of the past centuries

Socialism does not Socialism does not aim to transcend

aim to transcend capitalism. Its aim is to appropriate

capitalism. Its aim capitalism for another class. Hence,

is to appropriate the proletariat becomes the owner,

capitalism for in theory, of capital, but capital

another class. retains its power; it is not

Right and Left

The Right and the Left assumed Their democracy is

It is a symptom of ideological befuddlement, promoted especially by the

The dozens of long-planned and well-funded ‘spontaneous’ ‘colour

5 Oswald Spengler, op. cit.

12 K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media Ltd.), passim.

15 Spengler, Decline, op. cit., 402, 404 n1.

16 Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848).

economics guilds organic state

 Tweet  Share  Pin It  Share

This Post Has 0 Comments

III. Obscenities, vulgarity and slurs will not be tolerated.

All decisions of the moderators are nal.

Dialectics for the Right – Part 2

Occasional Thoughts in a Crisis

The Left, the Right, and Social Revolt – Part 2 

You might also like