Plato’s Dialectic v. Hegel and Marx: An Evaluation of Five Revolutions
David L. Hoggan
- Paper Presented to the Sixth International Revisionist Conference.
The main source of Plato’s dialectic was of course the legendary Socrates, who, because he left no literary written legacy, has become a largely legendary figure like Jesus. For a record of Socrates the popular soldier one reads Xenophon. An insight into Socrates the sophist, who believed in the old Sumerian pedagogical adage that a teacher is good in proportion to the extent that he can make his students cantankerous, perpetually argumentative, and incurably neurotic, one reads in Aristophanes. And for Socrates the serious philosopher, which of course is the aspect of his reputation that made him justifiably famous, one reads Plato, the most famous disciple of Socrates who later on was also the principal teacher of the great Aristotle, who, like Socrates, was hounded to a disgraceful death. Socrates was punished for corrupting the aristocratic youth of Athens, and Aristotle was punished for developing the brains and leverage of Alexander the Great, and hence he was hunted down and died less than one year after the death of his illustrious and still very youthful Macedonian pupil. Just as William Joyce was condemned to death in England in 1945 for treason despite the fact that he was a U.S.A. citizen and an Irish nationalist, the Athenians pursuing Aristotle seemed unmindful of the fact that, like Alexander, he too was of Macedonian origin. Plato, on the other hand, had gone to Socrates as one of the aristocratic and golden blond Athenian youths through and through, and, beloved by his democratic polis regardless of the fact that he always hated democracy as an insane leveling system and always fought against it, he died a very pleasant death during his sleep one night in Athens at the ripe age of eighty.
Unlike the writings of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Aristophanes, and Euripedes, with part of their extant works destroyed due to their concentration in the main Hellenistic University at Alexandria/Egypt when the Jews in one of their nihilistic and bloodthirsty perennial revolutions burned what was the largest library the world was ever to see until the emergence of modern printing in 15th-century Germany, the many dialogues of the fortunate golden Athenian Plato have been preserved for posterity, including Plato’s famous allegory of the cave in his most famous and portentous dialogue, The Republic. Except for a few of the Sumerian classics, this allegory alone explains to modern mankind what the nature and the purpose of civilization have become.
According to Plato in his allegory of the cave, barbarian peoples, whether Viking-like marauders from the Atlantis region of the North Sea described by Plato who tried to loot and destroy Egyptian civilization around 1200 B.C., the same time that the paleolithic barbarian Hebrew people tried to occupy South Palestine as nomad invaders from the Arabian desert, or the Semitic Amorite invaders who only became semi-civilized and developed Babylon after genociding the nineteen republics of the magnificent Sumerians, with the latter, so far as we know today, being the originators of all existing civilization due to their three magnificent innovations of written records, urbanization, and free enterprise, these barbarian peoples being by stipulative definition unfree because of their slavish subjection in the Spenglerian sense to totem and taboo, just as the pre-Greek Mycenaean barbarians were the unfree slaves of superstition as described by Homer in the Iliad and the Odyssey, were in Plato’s magnificent allegory like prisoners in a dark cave staring at shadowy reflections on the walls that were only dimly related to the real world that they reflected, until Socrates came and freed them all and led them upward from darkness into the light. Especially from Plato onward the Greek academy, or university, saw in Greek paideia, or education, an obligation, whenever possible, to follow the original Sumerian tradition, and we now have transliterated enough hundreds of thousands of clay tablets in Sumerian cuneiform to comprehend the incredible vitality and eloquence of those original Sumerian schools, and to lead all peoples upward into the light. That is why Plato’s pupil Aristotle made a special effort to civilize the wild barbarian youth Alexander, an effort which failed, as witness Alexander’s drunken murder of his best friend, Black Cleitus, who had saved his life in the Battle of the Granicus, of his murder of Aristotle’s own nephew, who was the official historian of Alexander’s marauding expedition against Persia, and, above all, his insanely barbarian kill-or-be-killed vendetta against Darius III, the brave but urbane Iranian benevolent despot. By the same token the able and brilliant Polybius, a hostage in Rome from the Hellenic Achaean League, flattered the Romans by giving them more credit than justly was their due in the realm of politics, but he could neither civilize them nor prevent their incredibly brutal genociding of the great Carthaginian mercantile civilization. It was not until Lucretius and the spread of Greek Epicureanism that Rome became civilized.
Now Plato’s dialectical method, as everyone knows, begins in its basic form with the deductive reasoning of the classical Hellenic syllogism, where one formulates an adequate major premise, confronts it with a contrary and qualifying minor premise, and from this artificially induced confrontation derives a synthesis or conclusion. This play of 1) thesis, 2) antithesis, and 3) synthesis is at the root of all twenty of Plato’s dialogues, and, knowing as we do that the greatest Greek historian Thucydides was merely paraphrasing when he offered to his readers the verbatim speeches of contemporary rival Dorian and lonian politicians and military leaders in his epic narrative of the monumental Peloponnesian War, we would be naive indeed if we believed that we could accept literally the facts that Plato offers us about Socrates. Take the case of the magnificent Republic with which we are concerned in this context. The discussion takes place against the background of events that existed when Plato was only seven years old. Now although it is a fact that Plato in the bosom of his own family already had met Socrates by the time that Plato himself was only aged seven, surely nobody would believe seriously that in the Republic Plato wrote at the age of sixty he was recording accurately philosophical discussions that he had perhaps listened to fifty-three years earlier, particularly when those talks were the most subtle and sophisticated ones that the world had ever known down to that time, and certainly, cela va sans dire, no U.S.A. university graduate seminar in philosophy could equal them today.
Nobody could have been more of a revisionist than Plato. Just as we know today that England wantonly unleashed both World War I in 1914 and World War II in 1939 against a Germany that on each occasion was trying its best to be friendly with her, so Plato, born during the Peloponnesian War which resulted, as Oswald Spengler correctly pointed out in his epochal The Decline of the West, in the permanent divorce in the Ancient World between the source of political power and the source of culture, a development always fatal in any civilization if it is not corrected, so Plato knew that Athens, not the Dorian Spartans, caused that horrible internecine war which buried the freedom of Greece, firstly, because democratic Athenian demagogues wantonly destroyed the traditional alliance between Athens and Sparta in 462 B.C., and secondly, because the worst of those demagogues, the depraved and arrogant Pericles, seized on an issue at distant Corfu in Western Greece to unleash that fatal and unnecessary war.
The Peloponnesian War that began in 431 B.C. buried classical Greece historically speaking, although it is only fair to add that contemporaries could not have understood that in the same final sense that we do. Plato came closer than anybody to suspecting right at the time that the late 5th century B.C. blow struck against Greece by the Greeks themselves was in fact mortal. That explains the pessimism that pervades the writings of this otherwise exuberant blond Athenian. One has the feeling reading Plato that was cogently expressed by Prussian Foreign Minister Radowitz on the eve of the 1850 humiliation inflicted on Hohenzollern Prussia, namely, the unilateral Prussian repudiation of the Erfurt German Unity Plan, by Habsburg Austria and Romanov Russia: Radowitz complained that he was experiencing exactly the same feeling of the soldier entering a globally decisive battle with the absolute certainty that he would be defeated. But there is the same devotion to duty in Plato that there was later in Radowitz and still later in the NSDAP as expressed by the Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe in his magnificently sensitive book, Verdammte Pflicht und Schuldigkeit (Damned Duty and Responsibility.) He symbolizes it by quoting from a popular SA song about a small cadre of SA men marching into a large town at sundown and restoring order. To Schaumburg-Lippe the sundown theme expresses the heroic last ditch effort that in the long run could very possibly fail. I can only speak for myself, but I hope to God the day will never come when I allow the threat of failure to compromise my idealism. Bob LaFollette in his 1911 autobiography put it another way: “In politics it is always better to take no loaf than half a loaf.” Or as Henrik Ibsen put it in his Alpine epic Brand: “The Devil is compromise!” For instance, I consider that Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Hitler were extremely great men in both the affective and cognitive domains. All three were kind and considerate, and all three were brilliant leaders of the German people against all odds. The fact that Bismarck made a success whereas the Kaiser and Hitler did not has nothing to do with my attitude because I am not a superficial pragmatist in the tradition of Peirce, James, and Dewey, and because I do not worship what William Tames called the “bitch-goddess success.” If I believe that those three great leaders were correct and that their goals were valid, which is in fact my definitive and mature opinion, I will continue to proclaim that truth regardless of the money and power brought against me by any deluded so-called “chosen people.”
Plato’s revisionism was by no means limited to war origins. He believed that the downward turn in Athenian politics began with the so-called democratic reform of Cleisthenes in 508 B.C. Indeed, such disastrous wars as the Peloponnesian War, the Thirty Years War, World War I or World War II are in and of themselves no more than the symptoms of the disease. For instance, no nation has exercised a more dire influence on 20th-century global forces than the U.S.A., although certainly no sane person would argue that the same thing was true of the U.S.A. in the 18th or 19th centuries. What is the source of this remarkable malaise? The B'nai B'rith (Brothers of the Faith) were founded at Philadelphia in 1843 with the express purpose of seizing control of the U.S.A. public media, a goal which they had largely achieved fifty years later by 1893. Thus in pluralistic America one small minority seized a commanding position, and even the great Henry Ford, Sr., was challenged when he attempted to challenge the Jewish U.S.A. power monopoly during the 1920's. Meanwhile, B'nai B'rith established a main European headquarters at Berlin/Germany in 1880. The purpose of that move, of course, was the destruction of Tsarist Christian Russia, the homeland at that time of a majority of all the Jews on earth, just as today, one century later, the U.S.A. enjoys that same dubious distinction. France had been the main target of Jewish subversion down to the failure of the largely Jewish Paris Commune of 1871; for instance, Napoleon I, after vainly appealing for patriotism instead of selfishness to the Paris Sanhedrin (Great Jewish Council) in 1807 (the Jews for the first time had received full French citizenship in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, which Napoleon never revoked), exclaimed: “These Jewish locusts are devouring my beloved France!” As everyone knows, the Jewish destruction of Russia in 1917 was successful, with supreme power over the wretched Russian masses going to Lenin’s first Politburo (the Soviet Executive Committee) of whose original eighteen members no less than thirteen were Jews. Now the traditionally free enterprise U.S.A., albeit with Jewish monopoly control over the public media for the past ninety years, is locked, due to FDR’s initial action, into a permanent global alliance with the USSR behind the phoney camouflage screen of the Cold War declared by Harry Truman on March 12, 1947, in a public speech to the U.S.A. Congress at the behest of the English imperialists, who hoped to replace U.S.A. in the middle of the global diplomatic teeter-totter. However, English crimes had rendered them too feeble to do that effectively.
It is clear that of the six supremely great rational philosophers of classical Hellas, namely, Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno (the latter founder of Stoicism was originally an Arab resident of Cyprus who was Hellenized there and who became great as a philosopher only after moving to Athens, where Plato’s Academy, or university, functioned continuously until it was closed by the last Latin-speaking Byzantine Emperor Justinian, and, above all, by the real power behind the throne, Empress Theodora, who, until her death, from cancer, had become the supreme commercial prostitute of Byzantium, a career described for us eloquently by the great Byzantine historian Procopius), that of all these great Hellenic philosophers, only Plato was a thoroughgoing revisionist in the modern sense understood by us, namely, the capacity of civilized man for independent thought. Despite the sterling objectivity of the great Athenian historian Thucydides, who, despite his own historical role as a patriotic Athenian combat general, was willing and able to prove that it was the Athenian democratic demagogues, not the proud militaristic Spartans, who alone caused the ruinous Peloponnesian War, it cannot be contended in any meaningful sense that Thucydides was a revisionist in the same modern sense that is applicable to Plato. As everyone knows, the traditional concept of “court history,” namely, historians bribed to tell eloquent lies about their country like Livy, originates only with the scoundrel Emperor Augustus, who, along with his great-uncle Julius Caesar, was one of the two main perpetrators of the assassination of the original aristocratic Roman Republic described for us by Polybius. Indeed, his minister Maecenas made a regular policy of bribing poets like Vergil as well as historians like Livy. Although the great Tacitus was an independent Roman historian who refused to be bought by the Roman court, and, indeed, Tacitus is in fact the supreme Latin-language historian of all time in exactly the same way that Thucydides is the number one Greek-language historian of all time, Tacitus simply ignored the Roman court historians rather than presuming to attack them, and of course Thucydides, in Athens the one and only supreme chronicler of the great Peloponnesian War, had no court historians to attack. Beyond all that, Plato had developed a complete Weltbild in a way that Thucydides never did, and in a way that Tacitus never understood. Would anyone deny that the three German great ones, namely, Bismarck, Kaiser Bill II, and Hitler, each had such a complete individual Weltbild? Certainly not. Would any competent person claim that any of the three main opponents of Hitler in World War II, namely, the drunken plagiarist Churchill, the pornographic mama’s boy FDR, or the lover of crime and murder for its own sake, Stalin, had an individually independent Weltbild? Again the answer would have to be: certainly not. That the three German great ones were millions of light years in intellectual quality beyond the standards of leadership traditionally acceptable and even admired in England, U.S.A., and USSR simply goes without saying, and this is particularly true when we recall that in Plato’s allegory of the cave it was precisely the possession of this individual and independent Weltbild that gave Socrates the powerful leverage to lead mankind out of the dark and shadowy realm of merely shadows into the bright and golden civilized light of true manliness and substance. If one had to identify succinctly the intellectual power of Sumer to create and to sustain a first universal civilization, thus cutting short by millions of years the wallowing of mankind in superstitious and mindless barbarism, would not one have to concede that it was in fact this ability of many, many individual Sumerians to develop independent Weltbilder in the context of a literate, free-enterprise, and extremely sophisticated society that gave them the Archimedean point of leverage to establish the glory of a permanent civilization on this glorious and beautiful globe of ours? For instance, the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, although composed several millennia before the Hebrew Old Testament, is incomparably more humane, urbane, literary, and sensible than the latter with its hideous nonsense about Jehovah creating the sun on the so-called fourth day. How in the hell could those first three days have transpired without a sun? As a matter of fact, it was precisely the achievement of Socrates and Plato to restore civilization back to the high standards that had prevailed thirteen hundred years earlier before the savage Semitic Amorites of Hammurabi genocided all of Sumer at a moment of military advantage in the same way that FDR, who had three separate plans of sterilization, atomic destruction, and starvation, very nearly genocided Germany during the years from 1941 to 1945. Fortunately for all mankind, the supremely Satanic FDR died in the arms of one of his many whores on April 12, 1945, and, albeit ten percent of Germans due to FDR had died by that time, the other 90% were spread in several small and truncated territories.
It should be seen in retrospect that the Athenian imperialistic warmonger, Pericles, who, unlike FDR with less than five years of college and a low “C” average, was something of an intellectual, was almost angelic compared to FDR, the greatest war criminal of all time and the American Antichrist. What a horrifying commentary it is on the unspeakably abysmal standards of U.S.A. public life after more than ninety years of the tyrannical Jewish monopoly of the public media that only the epigoni of FDR are considered eligible by that same media to hold presidential office, and that all U.S.A. presidents since the death of FDR the tyrant in 1945 have in fact been his epigoni. With the exception of Ronald Reagan, who simply adores FDR and has never made any secret of that fact, all of the other successors, including Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter either disliked or utterly detested FDR personally, much like the epigoni of the scoundrel Augustus and his court historians in Rome, but the fact remains that all of them have found it necessary to praise FDR to the skies in their public messages. One is reminded of the official memoirs of Augustus, the Res Gestae (Things Accomplished), and his last recorded words as he lay dying at Nola in 14 A.D.: “Have I not been a good actor?” The worst crimes of Augustus, including the murder of the great Cicero in 43 B.C. when the latter was at the peak of his productive power, and the senseless dispossession and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people on alleged grounds of mere suspicion, took place during the fifteen years after sixty Roman senators successfully conspired to assassinate the tyrant Julius Caesar with his hypocritical and phoney dementia, yet the Augustus official memoirs, in typical court historical fashion, only commence after the passage of those fifteen bloody years. The same is true when FDR’s epigoni present him as a goody-goody two-shoes humanitarian while ignoring his bloody effort to genocide eighty million Germans along with his myriad other crimes. Although Pericles was not as bad as Augustus, and not nearly so bad as FDR, Plato makes it unmistakably clear in his dialogues that Socrates was the indispensable advisor of the counter-revolutionaries who sought at Athens by both suasion and force to overturn the Cleisthenes-Periclean system which had failed politically, ethically, and socially, and which was in the process of destroying Greece. Can any imperialistic crime be more brutal than the slaughter of the good Dorians of Melos merely because they aspired to preserve their benevolent neutrality toward all combatant parties? Does that not remind one of the role of FDR and his OSS chief Wild Bill Donovan in cooperation with the English secret service and the Soviet NKVD in overthrowing the legitimate government of Yugoslavia merely because that unfortunate country wished to preserve its benevolent neutrality in the latest Anglo-German War, with the English, as usual, being both the initial aggressors and the ones who hoped to perpetuate a senseless and horrible war indefinitely? Did not the fact that the U.S.A. was still officially and legally neutral in April 1941 add to the horrid crime of FDR a special ingredient of iniquity? All sources agree that it was FDR’s ploy that converted Yugoslav Air Force Minister Simovic, the chief of the revolutionaries, to the putsch plan and especially since FDR, supposedly neutral, threatened to treat the Yugoslavs as a permanent enemy of the U.S.A. unless they complied. Have any FDR epigoni ever expressed regret that as a result of the dastardly Simovic-Nincic coup more than two million civilian Roman Catholic Croats and Pravoslaven Greek Orthodox Serbs perished in senseless internecine slaughter, and that out of this chaos the Stalin agent and bloody butcher Josip Broz, known to history as Tito (Stalin always called him by his World War I Bolshevist alias Walther), climbed to power and built fifty concentration camps in which hundreds of thousands of Christian Serbs and Croats, Islamic Bosniaks, minority Albanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, and Germans perished? There was a time when the official Beograd Tito newspaper Borba took special pride in the efficiency of these camps, where on certain days children witnessed the public execution of their parents and on other days parents witnessed the public execution of their children. Can anyone deny that from 1941 onward the U.S.A.-Jewish public media have given Tito a favorable press, whereas the brilliant book, Tito: Moscow’s Trojan Horse, by Slobdan Drashkovich, one of the sons of the anti-Communist Yugoslav Prime Minister Drashkovich, who was murdered from ambush by the Communists, has sold less than three thousand copies albeit in print for several decades?
The reason that Plato’s revisionism extended from immediate war causes to the entire host of iniquities in the prevailing system was because Plato knew that the war in question was merely the symptom of the disease. Important as it is to analyze carefully the crime of unleashing deliberately the unnecessary war, it is equally important, like Plato in The Republic, to endeavor to reform the rotten society that produced the crime. For instance, if the U.S.A. Progressive movement, under Fighting Bob LaFollette during the era of its heyday from 1900 to 1925, had ever succeeded in bringing honest and responsible government at the national level to the U.S.A. for the first time, the imperialistic crimes of Bill McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt could have been speedily and neatly undone, and the unspeakable and gargantuan crimes of Woody Wilson could have been prevented. Without the precedent of Wilson, the crime program of FDR could never have taken off and a deadly and serious effort to annihilate the entire German people could never have been made. It is because Plato saw this, namely, that without the corruption of the Athenian system by Cleisthenes a criminal career like that of Pericles would have been impossible, that the main thrust of The Republic is to reform society in precisely the same way that modern revisionists confront that same problem. The details of Plato’s reforms need not concern us here beyond the general assertion that they were a giant step in the right direction. Furthermore, Plato’s dialectic described earlier made it possible to present instrumental objectives and ultimate goals in a fair, lucid, and rational manner.
How different the situation is when we turn to Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831) and Karl Marx (1818-1883). These two rascals, superficially opposite numbers with Hegel advocating idealism and Marx advocating materialism, were in reality like twin peas in a pod with both addicted to a barbarian worship of power for its own sake. Both were supreme cynics and hypocrites, adept at disguising their wolf plans in sheep’s clothing. Hegel, even more than Marx, was also a supreme weather-vane without any ordinary integrity who claimed that it was all right to change fashions in opinions like fashions in clothes, with consistency becoming the virtue of small minds. Hegel as a young man was a fanatical advocate for Frederician Prussia, but no sooner had the guns cooled on the battlefields of Jena and Auerstedt in 1806 than he became a Bonapartist and proclaimed Napoleon I to be the so-called Zeitgeist. After the Congress of Vienna concluded its labors in 1815, Hegel suddenly discovered in the feeble and utterly corrupt Metternichean stooge Prussian monarch Frederick William III the perfect guardian of German liberties, although that same monarch had proclaimed publicly that he would rather roast in Hell than accept any of the sane and moderate political reform plans of Arndt, Hardenberg, and Stein.
Unfortunately, even more than Arndt, Fichte, and Kant, this same Hegel was a genius in formulating magnificent abstract conceptions and in clothing them in almost irresistibly seductive language. It was due partly to Hegel that the Machiavellian cynicism of the end justifying the means, whereas Plato had understood clearly enough that the end is determined by the means, became a temporarily dominant force in Central European ideology and political theory down through the 1830’s until a new Prussian monarch, Frederick William IV, who also happened to be an intellectual, revived the supremacy of philosophical idealism after he came to the throne in 1840, and of course it was during the 1830’s that the impressionable Marx entered the German university system as a freshman student. Essentially, Hegel was a materialistic utilitarian like Jeremy Bentham in England, and his lip service to the idealism of freedom, like that of Marx to
the so-called eventual withering away of the state, was just a pose. Influenced as he was by the great 17th-century Italian historian, Giambattista Vico, and by the great 18th-century German historian Johann Gottfried Herder, Hegel imagined human history moving in spirals toward an explicit goal of perfection, and to Hegel that goal was the perfect omniscient and omnipotent state, which he camouflaged in the quaint notion that perfect human freedom could only then be attained when every libertarian individual identified his own will with that of the state. Like Marx Hegel in reality was eager to move as far and as fast as he could away from any real liberty. Karl Marx, of course, was the typical Jew copycat in politics that wealthy Felix Mendelssohn with his unlimited appetite for plagiarism was in music, and it is safe to say that the Karl Marx-Vladimir Lenin ideology of supreme totalitarian Communism could never have emerged in the world as the monstrosity that it is without the Hegelian adaptation of Plato’s dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Hegel himself was the indispensable deus ex machina, and although the primitive Lenin complained in letters in 1916 from his room next to the sausage factory in Zuerich/Switzerland that after six months of diligent effort he was simply intellectually incapable of understanding Hegel, that did not matter because young Marx had understood Hegel clearly enough and Lenin was capable of understanding the more crude and simplistic philosophy of Karl Marx. In their worship of absolutism, Hegel, Marx, and Lenin were unmistakable disciples of Voltaire just as Bismarck, Kaiser Bill II, and Hitler were the disciples of Rousseau who put his faith in people.
We can move now to the five so-called modern revolutions in England (1688), U.S.A. (1776), France (1789), Russia (1917), and Germany (1933). It is my thesis, and I have no doubt that Plato would have agreed with me, that the most promising of these five revolutions was the German one, with the French one following in second place. It is possible to proceed succinctly because we have established a context with a specific standard for evaluating revolutions, and, for that matter, any other political developments, based squarely as that standard is on the norms of a successful civilization as invented and demonstrated by Sumer and as revived and restored in Hellas by Socrates and Plato.
Now it goes without saying that in terms of historical prestige in society at large the Great French Revolution of 1789 continues to be the modern revolution number one. Consider that when professional historians divide the 5500 years of recorded civilization like Caesar’s ancient Gaul into three parts, with Ancient History 4,000 years from the origins in Sumer to the fall of Classical Rome, with Medieval History from that point to the Age of Global Discovery in 1500 A.D., a span of one thousand years, and with Modern History the 500 years since the Age of Discovery, there is only one generally recognized sub-division employing a precise date, namely, the dividing line between Early Modern History and Recent Modern History based upon the advent of the Great French Revolution in 1789. Although the Han Chinese have written more history than the historians of all the other nations of the world combined, the revolution in world history about which the most had been written by historians is still the Great French Revolution, and certainly in my opinion that great theme deserves the full extent of its historical treatment down to the present time.
The so-called English Glorious Revolution of 1688 presents a very different picture, and although in American textbook ballyhoo its importance is blown out of all proportion because of the 1689 adoption of the so-called English Bill of Rights, it was actually a charter of privilege for the less than 3% of adult males who received the suffrage under the settlement terms of that revolution. The coalition of Whig landowners and merchants who carried through that putsch under their anti-French puppet, William of Orange, were actually the victorious leaders of a counter-revolution which purged the libertarian English political parties of Levelers and Diggers with their aspirations for universal human rights, and permanently disenfranchised the Catholics, who had still been the English majority one century earlier, plus the Methodists, Quakers, Jews, and, except for Scotland under the 1707 settlement, Presbyterians. At the same time, everyone was liable for taxes to the Church of England alone, the so-called hybrid Anglican Church, although at no time in subsequent English history did it come close to becoming the church and faith of the English majority. At the same time, the tolerant policy in Ireland of the legitimate Stuart sovereign James II came speedily to an end, and after the Stuart cause met with defeat on the River Boyne in 1690, an era of fierce persecution followed which culminated in the deliberate attempt to genocide the Irish by applying the so-called Corn Laws against them throughout the entire duration of the potato.famine of 184649. Consider what the late Herbert Hoover would have called a powerful statistic. In 1800, the population of Ireland we as eight million and the population of England was eleven million. In 1900, the population of Ireland was four million and the population of England was forty million. It is true that Puritan Dictator Cromwell had deliberately genocided 1.5 million Irish during the Irish national uprising of the 1640’s in retaliation for the Irish assassination of a score of English landlords, but statistically the deliberate Whig genociding of the Irish during the mid-19th century was even more impressive.
The suffrage was kept under 3% in England throughout the entire six generations from 1688 to 1832. Then, in response to the July 1830 Louis Philipe revolution in France which expanded the French suffrage by 1,000% although it by no means restored the universal suffrage of the Jacobin Constitution of 1793, Lord Russell and the English Whigs put through the so-called Victorian Compromise, which led to an English suffrage expanded from less than 3% to less than 5% for the subsequent 1½ generations down to 1867, the year that Bismarck established universal suffrage in the North German Federation. John Locke, who, unlike Rousseau, was interested in money and titles rather than people, whitewashed the 1688 coup, although he had been a devoted disciple of Thomas Hobbes and his absolutism down to the death of the latter in 1677. The Doublespeak language of the Whigs in calling their reactionary plot a glorious revolution should deceive nobody, because it was like the earlier Vikings calling their largest frozen island Greenland to attract unwary settlers.
The U.S.A. Revolution of 1776 is a classic example of a revolution that might have become a truly great one, but that instead became a petty and debased one because it went wrong in its concluding phase. When one considers the impudence of U.S.A. savants during the 1980’s in teaching young minds in what the all-time greatest U.S.A. educational philosopher, Porter Edward Sargent (1874-1951), called “the continuing struggle for the control over the minds of American youth” (a concept that would have been especially dear to Plato, author of 'the Republic), namely, that merely because the 1776 U.S.A. Revolution preceded the 1789 French Revolution chronologically by a few years, ergo ipso facto: the U.S.A. Revolution was the principal cause of the French Revolution, we are surely encountering the all-time leading example of the tail attempting to wag the dog. Hegel once remarked jokingly that shredding learned books and mixing them with the food of your dog will not increase the intelligence of your dog just even one iota, and by the same token the German Spiessbuerger (complacent bourgeois) Biedermeierzeit after 1815, which Hegel experienced late in life and which can be compared only to the post-1919 U.S.A. atmosphere described by Sinclair Lewis in Main Street, and which in both cases included the smug habit of exhibiting in den bookcases popular learned books never really read but exhibited only for show (like Harry Truman telling Richard Current, the historian who authored Henry Stimson, at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri: “Oh, yes, I have read your latest book on that bookshelf behind my desk, a truly excellent book!,” which was scarcely conceivable in view of the fact that Current in that same book described Truman, the political gangster of Kansas City, Missouri, as the worst president that the U.S.A. had ever had although he had been FDR’s voluntary choice from among all of the available candidates); in short, Hegel was correct in his assertion that the learned book displayed in the den does not educate the Booboisie (favorite H.L. Mencken term for the U.S.A. bourgeoisie) any more than mixing books with your dog’s diet will educate your dog. By the same token, when U.S.A. court historians assert repeatedly that the U.S.A. Revolution was the main factor in bringing on the French Revolution, this stupid propaganda lie can in no way guarantee that such actually was the case. In reality, it was the other way around, namely, the ideas of the great French Enlightenment thinkers-after all, 90% of the Enlightenment was in fact French, just as 90% of the Reformation according to the great second-generation French religious reformer Jean Calvin was in fact German-these great 18thcentury French ideas of geniuses like Quesny and Rousseau were what sparked the American revolutionary movement against England when the English mercantilist-imperialists began to put the economic screws on their colonies after the elimination of French imperial competition at the Peace of Paris in 1763, and on the specious and utterly dishonest pretext that the Americans had to be punished for their illicit smuggling trade with the French West Indies during the French and Indian War of 1754 to 1763. In reality, illicit English smuggling trade with France across the English Channel during that same war was one hundred times greater than similar American trade while at the same time the average American carried a much greater burden in combat during that war than did the average Englishman. There was no serious shortage of gold and silver in England during the 18th century of English mercantilism in which the state steered the economy rather than allowing genuine free enterprise, but there was indeed a catastrophic shortage of gold and silver in the American colonies during that same period. Also, the official English attitude toward the Americans was that of the outstanding English Enlightenment figure, Dr. Samuel Johnson: “Sir, hanging is too good for them!”
There were some excellent American grassroots revolutionary leaders during the early phase of the movement after 1763 such as Sam Adams in Massachusetts and Patrick Henry in Virginia, patriots, incidentally, who are almost always debunked by contemporary U.S.A. court historians, but with the propaganda success of Tom Paine’s Common Sense early in 1776 and the joining of the cause by wealthy or ambitious men who were essentially Tories such as George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton, the American counter-revolution against the original revolutionary ideals was already in full swing and the triumph of this same counter-revolution made hash of the initial revolutionary movement by concluding the shameful separate peace with England early in 1783, although in the freely negotiated Franco-American alliance of 1778 the U.S.A. had promised that they would not do this, and, above all, after the 1787 secret and illegal convention presided over by George Washington at Philadelphia, in the creation in 1789, despite a majority of votes to the contrary, of the plutocratic and anti-democratic reactionary regime that has continued without fundamental changes down to the present day.
The English plutocratic oligarchs and imperialists who in 1789 were continuing to profit from the so-called Glorious Revolution of one century earlier were delighted with the 1783 separate peace and, above all, with the pro-English Tory regime that came into power under the aegis of George Washington in 1789. During 48 of the first 60 years under the new system, and that is 80% of the time, U.S.A. presidents were human slaveowners personally using the leather slave whip on their recalcitrant slaves. The cruel English landlord in Ireland, Edmund Burke, was delighted with U.S.A. developments after 1776 because politically he was a Whig, not a Tory, and he favored the pristine 1688 oligarch system over the Lord Bolingbroke and general Tory attempt to restore some actual power to a patriot king, but he had nothing but horror as early as 1790 to express in condemning events in France in his Reflections on the Revolution in France because that movement, instead of being led by reactionary Voltaire disciples like Washington, Franklin, and Hamilton, was led by the disciples of Rousseau, who cared more for people than for money and titles, like Max Robespierre. Does not the fact that the English oligarchy with their cynical and unbridled contempt for humanity, were complacent and even satisfied with the results of the U.S.A. revolution show that, at least temporarily, the U.S.A. revolution had failed, and does not their horror and dread of the French revolution suggest that the latter held real promise in challenging their own corrupt imperialistic system?
That the Great French Revolution of 1789 ended temporarily in a fiasco was first and foremost the result of the typical aggressive policies and war crimes of the English imperialists, a policy fully supported by the reactionary U.S.A. Federalist leaders during the Federalist Era which covered the decisive twelve years from 1789 to 1801. Had it not been for such ceaseless English aggression, there is a more than fair chance that a modern free enterprise regime based upon capitalism and political universal manhood suffrage along the lines provided in the Jacobin Constitution of 1793 could have been firmly established and could have co-existed successfully as a kind of showcase to such monarchical mercantilistic regimes as those of 18th-century England, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. That no such development resulted attests to the spoiling success of the English imperialists and of their reactionary American stooges. However, for France the ultimate importance of 1789 was the push toward a more modern society.
The worst of the five revolutions discussed in this context was clearly the Russian Soviet Revolution of November 1917, a development in civilization so horribly regressive that its full implications still are not grasped down to the present day by ordinary people. A California expert on the evils of Communism, when told by a friend that he was tired of hearing the same old record, asked that friend to compute the additive sum total of two plus two, and when the response was the correct “four!” the expert on Communism commented wearily: “Same old record!”
Karl Marx, like Hegel, was a blind worshipper of power for its own sake, and although Marx lacked the original conceptual brilliance of Hegel, he more than made up for that in his unprecedented mendacity. Richard Wagner’s friend from the Dresden revolutionary barricades of the May 1849 Saxon defense of the Frankfurt Parliament and the concept of a united German Reich, the Russian philosophical anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin, succeeded by his brilliance, eloquence, and indefatigable hostility in destroying the infamous Karl Marx First Revolutionary International after the failure of the 1871 Commune. Marx, although at that time only fifty-four, drifted away into mindless alcoholism, becoming what the Londoners call a “pub-crawler.” August Bebel, who succeeded Wilhelm Liebknecht as the leader of the Marxist German Social Democracy after the death in a duel in 1863 of Ferdinand Lassalle, the conservative Jewish leader of the first German Socialist Party and the nationalist supporter of Bismarck’s program for a united German Reich, visited Marx in London a few years before the death in voluntary exile of the latter and inquired from Marx in eager anticipation when the unfinished torso of Das Kapital, with all of its glaring inconsistencies and economic fallacies, would be completed, only to have Marx scream at him in helpless alcoholic irritation: “Nobody could possibly want that more than I do!” Of course, in addition to the permanent shock of Bakunin’s “operation demolition,” Marx had never really recovered from an event a few years earlier, namely, that terrible occasion when his illiterate Hessian maid servant gave birth to his illegitimate son on the same day that his highborn Prussian wife, Jenny von Westphalen-Marx, gave birth to his legitimate daughter. The illegitimate son, incidentally, became a revisionist Marxist and was active in the English trade union movement until the time of his death in 1929.
The revolutionary party led by Marx until his death in 1883 was hopelessly nihilistic and terroristic, but cooler counsel among his disciples prevailed during the decades that followed, so that what had finally emerged, before the outbreak of World War I in 1914, namely, Marxist revisionism, was actually a safe and sane evolutionary approach to socialist ultimate goals along the same lines as the Fabian socialist movement of George Bernard Shaw and of Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Marxist revisionism was also the slogan of the Russian Social Democratic Party formally called into existence by Georgi Plekhanov in 1892, although Marx himself, who as a Jew had always hated the Russian anti-Jewish tradition and who had said that Russia was the last country on earth where Marxist ideas would prevail, had always discouraged the idea of organizing a Russian Marxist party down to the time of his death in 1883. There was, however, a reincarnation of Marx-the-beast in Vladimir Ulyanov Lenin (1870-1924), and he turned out to be the ultimate spoiler of the later civilized trend in what had been a doctrine of ultimate barbarism in the pristine program of Karl Marx himself. Incidentally, the fact that Marx, not Friedrich Engels, was the real Satan of Marxism is indicated clearly enough by the fact that the elderly Engels during the 1890's, in the absence of Marx himself, had no difficulty coming to terms with Marxist revisionism, something that Marx himself always had refused to consider. Marx and Lenin detested the idea of a Marxist victory through the coming ascendancy of a Marxist majority or coalition-governing plurality in equal measure; they both loved the idea of totalitarian dictatorial power based on bullets, and not some benevolent utopian socialist regime based upon ballots. Although Lenin’s evil faction of professionally criminal terrorists remained a tiny minority within the Russian Marxist movement down to his own return from voluntary exile to Finland Station in Petrograd in April 1917, he had already, because of his dialectical skill, managed as early as 1903 to win a majority vote against Plekhanov in a central committee meeting, and from that year on seized for his faction the propaganda term Bolshevism and at the same time managed to stick successfully his opponents with the propaganda label Menshevism, with the former term meaning majority and the latter term minority. The following year in 1904 Lenin published his definitive program, Shto Dyeiat? (What Is To Be Done?). Like his master Marx, Lenin was a hopeless plagiarist and he borrowed his program title from the brilliant best-selling novel of the Russian disciple of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Richard Wagner, Nikolai Chernyshevsky, one of the five greatest Russian novelists of all time along with Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Gogol, and Turgenyev. The message in Lenin’s program was clear enough and it would have been as much of a delight to Marx as it would have been an abomination to Plato: to hell with voting and majorities, what we mean to create is a small and compact revolutionary elite who understand how to use modern military technology along with unlimited terror to impose their will over the stupid Christian masses of Russia. Now since the Jews of the Kresy (areas of Poland annexed by Russia after 1772 where most Jews, except for a few wealthy ones, were compelled during the era of the late Romanov rulers to reside) had formally launched their Kramola (hellish terror) campaign for the destruction of Tsarist Russia in 1879, the year before the U.S.A. B'nai B'rith established its elite anti-Russian revolutionary branch in Berlin, it went without saying that not less than 80% of Lenin’s recruits for the new Untermensch elite were either Jewish professional criminals or Jewish revolutionaries. This bothered young Stalin (1879-1953), the former anti-Jewish Georgian nationalist who as late as 1912 was complaining to Lenin that we have “too many Abramoviches” in the Bolshevist faction, but it did not bother Lenin, who had a maternal Jewish grandmother and on top of that was one-half Mongolian-Tartar descent. Both Lenin and Stalin hated Russians, but Lenin did not share Stalin’s proverbial hatred of Jews. When Stalin’s first wife, a lovely Georgian, died (Stalin’s otherwise rugged father had died from alcoholism at the age of 40), Stalin declared proudly and without tears that he never again would have to face the wasteful luxury and obligation of loving another human being. And so it turned out to be. Although the family of Stalin’s second wife, a lovely Russian girl from Saint Petersburg, was more than generous in sending packages to Stalin in the Arctic region of Siberia after the election of the Fourth Duma (Russian Parliament according to the 1905 Constitution), Stalin, after he destroyed her, also destroyed all of her numerous relatives one by one as a cat plays with mice, and Stalin later explained that he only married his Jewish third wife, the sister of Commissar and Politburo member Lazar Kaganovich, who supervised the genociding of millions of so-called recalcitrant Ukrainian peasants during the so-called Stalin First Five Year Plan of 1928-1933, because he liked to have some woman around his Kremlin private apartment to torture during his idle spare moments.
After this same Stalin violated his voluntary 1939 agreement with Hitler in every possible way following Hitler’s surprising May 1940 victory over France, including the seizure of Rumanian territory beyond the agreed-upon demarcation line between NSDAP and CPSU spheres of influence in Eastern Europe, the promotion of a violent anti-German putsch in Yugoslavia which was far to the west of that same line, and the promotion throughout German-occupied Europe of espionage, sabotage and anti-Hitler revolutionary propaganda, while at the same time refusing to discuss or negotiate on Hitler’s moderate November 1940 terms for a new agreement, had finally goaded Hitler into the preventive war of June 22, 1941, which even Bismarck, had he been alive, and although he was the proverbial public opponent of all preventive wars, would have supported because it was Hitler’s only alternative to unconditional submission to the Churchill-FDR Leviathan pressure from the West and the Soviet pressure from the East, the drunken English dictator Churchill, with traditional habeas corpus suspended for the duration in England since 1940, described Stalin publicly in the House of Commons as “so wise a man and so great a ruler!” The same Churchill had frequently described the same Stalin a few years earlier as “the Bloody Baboon of Bolshevism!,” and as recently as four years earlier Churchill had refused at a public reception to shake hands with Plato v. Hegel and Marx 85
the Ambassador of the Spanish Republic, proclaiming in a loud voice for all attending dignitaries to hear that the man’s hands were covered with blood because he was nothing more nor less than Stalin’s stooge.
The drunken Churchill imagined that he had succeeded in flattering Stalin in his Commons speech, so he followed that up with a fawning personal letter that Stalin never bothered to answer. In reply to the official query of the English Ambassador in Moscow, Stalin commented succinctly and rudely that nothing in Churchill’s letter deserved a reply, and the same Stalin at the Russian Compound in Teheran in 1943 jumped all over FDR when the dying U.S.A. chief-executive foolishly suggested to Stalin that Hitler was insane. Stalin roared at FDR: “You idiot, could an insane man have come within a hare’s breath of destroying once and for all a great leader like me? At one point I was even contemplating, because I knew Hitler liked me well enough personally, to volunteer to become Hitler’s NSDAP Gauleiter in ministering to the needs of the Russian masses who had suffered horribly from the many purges I had inflicted upon them!” Concerning Churchill, Stalin had never forgiven his responsibility for the massacre of unarmed Georgian and Azerbaijani civilians at Baku, the chief Russian oil center, in 1920, just as Mahatma Gandhi down to his own death in 1948 never forgave Churchill his public defense in Commons of the senseless slaughter of hordes of peaceful Hindu demonstrators at Amritsar in 1919.
How different the brutal fiends Churchill, FDR, and Stalin were from Hitler. When Hitler’s Minister for Propaganda Josef Goebbels showed up at Hitler’s headquarters at Rastenburg, East Prussia in August 1941 and told Hitler that he was planning a German-language edition of the FDR sterilization plan for Germany published in the pre-Pearl Harbor book in New Jersey of the New York City Jew Theodore Kaufman, Germany Must Perish!,-a book, incidentally, which was enthusiastically reviewed across U.S.A. from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York City PM-Hitler vetoed the Goebbels plan at once and he explained that he was intensely proud of his German servicemen who were not only fighting with courage but who also were fighting like professional gentlemen without hatred. Hitler knew the ultimate truth of Plato’s adage that the end is determined by the means, and he explained to Goebbels that the final victory of Germany would make no sense if meanwhile Germans had descended to the gangster barbarian level of hate-crazed U.S.A. or English servicemen, or to the Mongolian-style barbarian robots of Stalin. Hitler, who had asked his Company Commander Captain Fritz Wiedemann not to take him out of the line at the Somme in 1916 although he had been severely wounded six times that same day, also explained to Goebbels, the proverbial civilian feather merchant, that cool professional soldiers fighting according to honorable codes are more efficient than hate-crazed maniacs who are not soldiers in the true sense merely because they have been thrust into uniform. Indeed, does any military expert doubt today that, had it not been for the ten thousand anti-Hitler elite traitors in German Intelligence, the German Reichsbank, the German General Staff, and the German Foreign Office, the sane professional German soldiers, with or without the Italians, Croats, Hungarians, Finns, and Japanese, could have defeated soundly the combined force of the crazed maniacs, driven crazy by billions of dollars spent on Jewish directed propaganda, of the U.S.A., UK, and USSR? The civilian Goebbels once asked his assistant Wilfred von Oven, the veteran of three years of combat in Spain and three years of combat after 1939 in other parts of Europe, what was so difficult about being killed instantly in combat? Oven dryly responded to Goebbels that the soldier taking a fatal hit required on the average one hour to die to the accompaniment of terrible suffering. This struck home because Goebbels dreaded even an ordinary dental appointment.
The long and the short of the 1917 Soviet Russian Revolution is that it was an unprecedented disaster for all mankind. Had it not been for the pro-Bolshevik policies of Woody Wilson, FDR, and the epigoni of FDR, the disaster would long since have been eliminated. Lenin could not have succeeded in the first place had not Wilson, over the indignant protests of U.S.A. Ambassador to Russia Mr. Francis of Chicago, shipped tens of thousands of pro-Bolshevik New York City Jews to Russia during the Kerensky Provisional Government after March 1917, although ordinary Americans were not allowed to travel during wartime, and by all odds FDR, who jumped from U.S.A. non-recognition to a de facto secret alliance with Stalin in the one year 1933, a fact confirmed for me personally with overwhelming evidence by the late William C. Bullitt, author of the anti-FDR 1943 book The Great Globe Itself, but FDR’s first U.S.A. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1933 to 1936, this same FDR was by all odds the greatest salesman of Bolshevism that the world has ever seen, including Marx himself, Lenin, and Stalin, and no rational and informed person can deny that the U.S.A. Jewish public media during the nearly forty years since FDR’s death have allowed only servile supporters of FDR’s policies to become U.S.A. presidents, with far and away the worst one being the current White House incumbent, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Only the final elimination of the U.S.A. global empire founded by Bill McKinley and Teddy; Roosevelt in the years from 1898 to 1901 can save the contemporary world from the threat of the permanent global triumph of Bolshevism. Without perpetual U.S.A. support behind the screen of Truman’s phoney Cold War, the threat of global Bolshevism would fade away rapidly from the real historical world, albeit its atrocities which, thanks to U.S.A., have already produced in the neighborhood of 150 million violent deaths, neither could nor should ever be forgotten. Although Robert Jackson, the U S.A. Supreme Court justice, aspiring to be Chief Justice, who both prosecuted and persecuted the heroic Hermann Göring and the other Nuremberg defendants at the Main Nuremberg Trial of 1945-46, declared in a public pro-FDR speech at Jamestown, New York in 1934 that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia of 1917 constituted a giant step forward for mankind, that same revolution was in reality supremely evil.
This brings us to the best of the five revolutions in particular, namely, the German national revolution of 1933, and in general to a few of the magnificent contributions to world civilization rendered by Germany since the birth of Bismarck on April 1, 1815.
Does any informed person doubt any longer today that Bolshevism by 1937 would have spread from the Siberian Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast of Portugal had it not been for the heading off of the Bolshevist threat in Germany and the amazing triumph of Hitler by legal and constitutional means on January 30, 1933? In his speech to the German nation on July 20, 1944, after evil reactionary German assassins had failed that same day to eliminate him, Hitler, the lifelong friend of private initiative, anti-inflationary policies, and economic free enterprise, reminded all of his listeners that the 1919 Weimar Constitution written by the German-Jewish patriot Dr. Hugo Preuss was still in effect as Germany’s fundamental law, since Hitler had always stood for the policy of calling a German constitutional convention only after the German national crisis created by Woody Wilson in 1918 had been surpassed, and, thanks to Wilson’s chief disciple, FDR, to whom Wilson had always been attracted physically, describing FDR as that “most handsome Greek god” at the Democrat Baltimore convention of 1912, when FDR, still free of polio, had just turned thirty, Hitler, despite valiant efforts, had by 1944 and eleven years in power still not been able to eliminate the U.S.A.-induced German national crisis, and, indeed, with the successful Anglo-American second front in France and the successful June 22, 1944, Bolshevik Vitebsk-sector offensive, the skies were once again growing as uncomfortably dark over Germany as they had been on November 9, 1918, the day at German Supreme Military Headquarters at Spa, Belgium, when an ungrateful Hindenburg kidnapped his startled sovereign, Bill II, and shoved him by force over the border into Holland instead of letting him return to Germany. When the Kaiser asked Hindenburg about the oath that he had sworn as a young cadet in 1866 before the decisive battle for control over Germany against Austria at Koeniggraetz, Bohemia, Field Marshal Hindenburg replied insolently, in a style that would have been typical of any English or U.S.A. politician, that it was no longer convenient for him to be mindful of any such oath. Hitler faced the same U.S.A.-style unlimited moral relativism in the German treason elite secret opposition of 1944, and that is why he appealed to his loyal German people over their heads and he reminded them also that he was still their legal and constitutional representative, an argument which was accepted by the overwhelming majority according to secret reports.
The long and the short of it is that one superb German l9th century patriot alone, Bismarck, a disciple of the ideals of romanticism and of the romantic nationalism of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Ernst Moritz Arndt, had that childlike and naive faith (Nietzsche once remarked cogently that maturity is to reacquire the seriousness of a child at play) that made it possible for him in practical and limited secret alliance with the great Jewish banking house of Rothschild at Frankfurt, Main, to consolidate Frederick-Barbarossa-style once again the traditional national unity of Germany despite the recent heroic failure of the parliamentary German nationalists to do so during the mighty revolution and upheaval of 1848-1851 (the latter being the date of the Dresden Conference presided over by the Austrian reactionary Schwarzenberg who had restored the reactionary, particularistic post-1815 system of Clemens von Metternich with the diplomatic and military aid of Palmerston in England and Tsar Nicholas I in Russia.) Bismarck achieved the laudable earlier goal of the forty-eighters in 1871 by an adroit combination of secret diplomacy, defiance of Prussian parliamentary public opinion, and strictly limited and effective military campaigns. The story of the three wars of German reunification between 1864 and 1871 has been told well so often that there is no point in repeating that story here.
More important is the fundamental question that would have intrigued Plato, namely, what were truly Bismarck’s instrumental objectives and his ultimate goals? Firstly, Bismarck believed in a united Germany under the rule of law with a federal political system like U.S.A. rather than a unitary state system like England, France, or Italy, and with universal manhood suffrage for German citizens, including those of Danish or Polish extraction. Secondly, Bismarck, who admired the ideals of Italy’s Mazzini, as well as Germany’s Arndt and France’s Rousseau, was a good European in the sense developed by Herder and best articulated by Nietzsche, namely, a European who was non-prejudicial in his judgment of the ethnic components in a pluralistic Europe picturesquely described by Herder as a beautiful garden with many distinctly beautiful varieties of flowers. Had Marx been a gardener, he would simply have planted the whole place with marigolds, whereas the more civilized Herder with a maturely developed aesthetic sense would have planted several score varieties of shrubs and flowers. Thirdly, Bismarck was a Francophile who made heroic efforts to appease France after the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt, Main which terminated the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War, and he was within an ace in 1885 of consolidating a new friendship with the France of Premier Jules Ferry when unexpectedly heavy losses inflicted on the French military forces by the North Vietnamese who were backed up by China forced Ferry from power and played into the hands of Paul Deroulede, head of the viciously chauvinistic French military lobby, The League of Patriots. Although Bismarck did not quite succeed in consolidating Europe in the league of preponderant states dreamed about by both Fenelon of France and Kant of Germany in the 18th century, his very nearly successful effort deserves at the least our respect.
Although Bismarck got along well with none of the five Hohenzollern Prussian sovereigns who ruled during his lifetime, namely, Frederick William III (reigned 1797-1840J, Frederick William IV (1840-1861), William I (1861-1888), Frederick III (1888), and William II (1888-1918), and albeit the 29-year-old William II had no choice in March 1890 other than to sack Bismarck in order to prevent the increasingly irascible elderly man of seventy-five from scuttling the constitution he had created and attacking the moderate revisionist Marxists, the Kaiser and Bismarck did become generally reconciled five years later in 1895 after the Berlin City Council and even the Imperial German Reichstag refused by majority votes to congratulate Bismarck officially on his 80th birthday because there were aspects of his domestic policies after 1871 with which some of the parties, such as the Progressives, Center Party, and Social Democratic Party, had disagreed. So far as the Kaiser is concerned, I agree with Harvard University’s Sidney Bradshaw Fay who knew him well personally during the years that he was an outstanding graduate student in the pre-1914 era at the University of Berlin, namely, that he was personally charming, a hard worker, highly intelligent, very charismatic, and, above all, an honest and sincere German Christian patriot.
The great German nationalist, Hans Grimm, author of the outstanding and excellent epic German novel, Volk ohne Raum, although he never joined Hitler’s NSDAP and actually voted against Hitler in 1934 on the issue of combining the offices of Reich Chancellor and President (why have a twin-executive?) following the death of President Hindenburg, observed in his justly famous 1954 book on Hitler, Warum, Woher, aber auch wohin? (Why, for What, in What Direction?) that Hitler was a better leader than even the German people or any other people had ever observed. I also fully accept that verdict.
|Title:||Plato’s Dialectic v. Hegel and Marx: An Evaluation of Five Revolutions|
|Source:||The Journal for Historical Review|
|Issue:||Volume 6 number 1|
|Attribution:||“Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, USA.”|
|Please send a copy of all reprints to the Editor.|