Revolution From Above

254 Pages·2011·1.49 MB·English

by  Kerry Bolton

Revolution from Above
REVOLUTION FROM ABOVE
Manufacturing ‘Dissent’
in the New World Order
Kerry Bolton
ARKTOS
First edition published in 2011 by Arktos Media Ltd.
Copyright © 2011 by Arktos Media Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilised in any form or by any means
(whether electronic or mechanical), including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in the United Kingdom
ISBN 978-1-907166-50-1
BIC classification:
Revolutions, uprisings, rebellions (HBTV)
Revolutionary groups and movements (JPWQ)
Conspiracy theories (JFHC)
Proofreader: Matthew Peters
Cover Design: Andreas Nilsson
Layout: Daniel Friberg
ARKTOS MEDIA LTD
www.arktos.com
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Capitalist and Marxist Dialectics
2. Plato: Father of Collectivism
3. Abolishing the Family — Primary Obstacle to Tyranny
4. Socialism for the Super-Rich
5. Huxley’s Brave New World
6. Revolution from Above
7. Revolution by Stealth
8. Revolution by Degeneracy
9. New Left from Old
10. Scenarios for Crises and Control
11. The ‘Global Democratic Revolution’
12. ‘Total World Planning’
Conclusion
K. R. Bolton holds doctorates in Historical Theology and Theology; Ph.D. (Hist.
Th.), Th.D. as well as in other areas. He is a ‘contributing writer’ for The
Foreign Policy Journal, and a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political
Research, Greece. He assists with the editing of Ab Aeterno, a peer reviewed
journal.
His papers and articles have been widely published by both the scholarly and
popular media, including: International Journal of Social Economics; Journal of
Social, Political, and Economic Studies; Geopolitika, Sociology Dept., Moscow
State University; World Affairs; India Quarterly; The Initiate: Journal of
Traditional Studies; Irish Journal of Gothic and Horror Studies, Trinity College;
International Journal of Russian Studies; Veritas, St Clements University;
Antrocom Journal of Anthropology; Intertraditionale, Ukraine; Finis Mundi,
Portugal; The Occidental Quarterly; Novosti Foreign Service; Radio Free Asia;
Global Research; Istanbul Literary Review, New Dawn, Australia; EIN News
Service; Tibet Express; Economia Cubana; Sociologias; Red Star, Russian
Ministry of Defence; BBC Uzbekistan; Academy of Security for Open Society,
Russia; Writers’ Union of Russia; Burma Digest; The Palestine Telegraph,
Gaza; Alternative Right.
He is a regular contributor to the Thoughts & Perspectives series (London:
Black Front Press); and to Counter Currents, publisher of his forthcoming book
Artists of the Right. His work has been translated into Russian, Vietnamese,
Italian, Czech, Latvian, Turkish, Farsi and French.
Introduction
‘G
lobalisation’ and the ‘New World Order’ are two current phrases used to
describe a process that has been proceeding for generations.
International plutocracy has often pursued policies, used movements, and
promoted doctrines that most people would consider to be anti-capitalist. Yet
both capitalism and the Left arose during the same period of history, both have
the same historical outlook, and both view traditional culture, the family, and
nations as obstacles in the path towards a World State.[1]
Lenin is alleged to have described liberals as the ‘useful idiots of communism’
— serving as apologists for Bolshevik revolution by heralding it as a noble
experiment.[2] Our hypothesis, to the contrary, is that not only liberals but also
communists are the ‘useful idiots’ of global plutocrats who desire a World
Collectivist State. These interests are what Huxley in his prophetic novel Brave
New World called the ‘World Controllers’, what President Dwight Eisenhower
referred to as the ‘military-industrial complex’ in his ‘farewell speech’ to the
American people, what Harvard historian Carroll Quigley wrote of as an
‘international network’ of ‘international financiers’, and what is commonly
referred to as ‘Big Business’, which has become increasingly globalised.
The main objective of this book is to expose what might be called the ‘feel-
good’ and supposedly ‘progressive’ causes of a variety of types that fool often
well-meaning people into serving as dupes for aims of which they know nothing,
in the service of individuals and groups which they believe they are opposing; be
it in the name of ‘peace,’ ‘human rights,’ ‘democracy,’ ‘women’s rights,’ ‘global
warming,’ ‘world poverty,’ and so on. Not all such causes are unworthy.
However, often the causes that are embraced by the well-meaning have been
contrived by those who offer bogus solutions to serve their own agendas. All of
these are being pressed into the service of those who desire the creation of a
‘World State’ built upon the edifice of Mammon.
1. Capitalist and Marxist Dialectics
B
oth Big Business and Marxism view history as dialectical. This means that
history proceeds from the clash of opposites (thesis and antithesis) and from
this tension emerges something new (synthesis). In the instance of dialectical
capitalism, the synthesis that is supposed to emerge is a centralised world state
controlled not by commissars and a politburo but by plutocratic coteries and
their technocrats. A strategy of dialectics means backing movements in the short
term to achieve quite different, even opposite goals, in the long term. Hence the
rationale behind capitalists supporting socialist and even communist movements,
as will be shown.
In the case of communist dialectics, the Marxists believe that socialism cannot
emerge in a peasant or agricultural society and that a stage of capitalism and
industrialisation must first be reached. Of course the communist analysis is
wrong: the major communist revolutions have taken place in peasant societies
(China, Russia, and Cuba).
On the other hand, the dialectics of Big Business considers that plutocracy
cannot be achieved until a society has gone from its peasant stage into an
industrial phase. In order to achieve this sudden and forced industrialisation from
a peasant society, the plutocrats have used socialism. History has shown that the
plutocratic dialectic is proceeding successfully: the plutocrats backed communist
revolutions in Russia and China to overthrow the traditional peasant societies.
Once socialism had been used to achieve the industrialisation of those societies,
the next phase of the dialectic has been to introduce privatisation and
globalisation to the economies of the former Eastern bloc.[3]
Dr. Antony Sutton later in his career came to understand the key to seemingly
contradictory and even self-destructive policies on the part of globalist
businessmen when he realised that dialectics and the use of ‘managed conflict’
(Sutton) and controlled ‘opposition’ were part of a dialectical process learnt
directly from Hegelians in German universities by the sons of banking and
business dynasties during the 19th century.[4] Sutton was to succinctly write of
this dialectical strategy, which provides the key to understanding much that often
seems to be confusing and paradoxical in history and current events: In fact,
there is another largely unrecorded history and it tells a story quite different than
our sanitized textbooks. It tells a story of the deliberate creation of war, the
knowing finance of revolution to change governments, and the use of conflict to
create a New World Order.[5]
That global Big Business operates in a dialectical manner, similar in doctrine to
the Marxists, is evident from a statement by one of the leading functionaries of
the World Controllers. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as President Carter’s
National Security adviser, and is a foreign policy adviser to President Obama,
has been the North American director of the Rockefeller think tank the Trilateral
Commission,[6] is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations,[7] and a
participant at the international conferences of the Bilderberg Group,[8] wrote
Between Two Ages as a dialectical treatise on the process of internationalisation,
or globalisation as it is now called. While he sees Marxian dialectics as
simplistic, his own approach is nonetheless dialectical. Brzezinski considers —
approvingly — the technocratic age as progressively destroying the nation-state
and undermining traditional loyalties, out of which a ruling global elite would
emerge. He wrote:
Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites, but
now they are composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional
men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national
boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and
their interests are more functional than national. These global communities
are gaining in strength and as was true in the Middle Ages, it is likely that
before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be
highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook.[9]
This ‘transnational elite . . . composed of international businessmen, scholars,
professional men, and public officials,’ is precisely the network of World
Controllers we will be considering, and Brzezinski is an influential member of
this ‘elite.’ Brzezinski laments that most of humanity does not yet share the
globalist vision of this ‘elite,’ writing in 1970:
The new global consciousness, however, is only beginning to become an
influential force. It still lacks identity, cohesion, and focus. Much of
humanity — indeed, the majority of humanity — still neither shares nor is
prepared to support it.[10]
Over pages 31 to 33 of Between Two Ages Brzezinski considers the dialectical
progression of human consciousness towards internationalism, starting with the
spiritual universalism of the Church, through to the secularisation of this
universal outlook with the rise of (liberal) nationalism[11] and the French and
American Revolutions,[12] to Marxism which further internationalised and
desacralised man’s consciousness, to the present state of globalism that is being
propounded by the ‘international elite’ for which Brzezinski has worked his
entire career. Brzezinski explains the process: With nationalism, the distinction
between the inner contemplative man, concerned with his relationship to God,
and the external man, concerned with shaping his environment, became blurred.
Nationalism as an ideology was more activist; man’s relations to man were
objectivized externally by legal norms and were not dependent, as was man’s
relation to God, on personal conscience; yet at the same time the definition of
man as a ‘national’ was based largely on abstract, historically determined, and
highly emotional criteria. This outlook involved considerable vagueness and
even irrationality when used as a conceptual framework within which relations
between nations and developments within nations might be understood.
Nationalism only partially increased men’s self-awareness; it mobilized them
actively but failed to challenge their critical faculties; it was more a mass vehicle
for human passion and fantasizing than a conceptual framework that made it
possible to dissect and then deliberately reassemble our reality.
Ideological Universalism That is why Marxism represents a further vital
and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision. Marxism is
simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive
man and a victory of reason over belief: it stresses man’s capacity to shape
his material destiny — finite and defined as man’s only reality — and it
postulates the absolute capacity of man to truly understand his reality as a
point of departure for his active endeavors to shape it. To a greater extent
than any previous mode of political thinking, Marxism puts a premium on
the systematic and rigorous examination of material reality and on guides to
action derived from that examination.
Though it may be argued that this intellectually rigorous method was
eventually subverted by its strong component of dogmatic belief, Marxism
did expand popular self-awareness by awakening the masses to an intense
preoccupation with social equality and by providing them with both a
historical and a moral justification for insisting upon it. More than that,
Marxism represented in its time the most advanced and systematic method
for analyzing the dynamic of social development, for categorizing it, and for
extrapolating from it certain principles concerning social behavior.
. . . In this sense, Marxism has served as a mechanism of human
‘progress,’ even if its practice has often fallen short of its ideals.[13]
. . . Moreover, Marxism has decisively contributed to the political
institutionalization and systematization of the deliberate effort to define the
nature of our era and of man’s relationship to history at any given stage in