• Home Page
• Search
• What's New
• About
• Fidelio
• Education
• Physical Economy
• Landbridge Maps
• New Bretton Woods
• Strategy
• LaRouche
• LaRouche Frameup
• Poetry
• Books
• Links
• Highlights
• Dialogue of Cultures
• Health
• Conferences
• Concerts
• Join
• Spanish Pages

This is the second and concluding part of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s definitive work on the Nazi roots of the ecology movement, written in 1982. The first part was in the April 13 issue of EIR. It has been translated from the German.

Although anyone who knows the proverbial “corridors of power,” knows that in political life hardly anything happens without unwritten deals over common purposes, plans, and methods, and although it is also understandable that certain persons have more influence than others, yet often a great scream arises as soon as you note that there is a “stringpuller” behind certain events. Just because the Nazis brought the racist bogeyman of a “Jewish conspiracy” onto the scene, doesn’t mean that it can be generally denied that there are conspiracies. Yes, you can go so far as to say that nothing significant happens—good as well as evil—without a conspiracy standing behind it—that is, a purposeful plan has been carried out.

For that, you don’t need to put forward any shaky hypotheses. The oligarchical elite is sometimes so arrogant that it itself describes this conspiracy. Thus the Jesuit Carroll Quigley wrote in his book Tragedy and Hope, in which he disclosed much amazingly accurate material about the ominous intent of monetarist oligarchical circles, that such publicity could hardly harm their goals, because this grouping has taken power so thoroughly that any resistance against it would be senseless. Marilyn Ferguson in The Aquarian Conspiracy expresses almost exactly the same thing, as does H.G. Wells, who speaks of an “open conspiracy.”

One of the most remarkable books in this respect is the already cited book by Armin Mohler, Conservative Revolution. Not only because he had the boldness to “reawaken” fascist thought as early as 1950, but also because it throws some light on the corporate policy of the Siemens Company. If you consider that Peter von Siemens belonged to the Anthroposophs, and Armin Mohler, as chairman of the Siemens Foundation, is a prophet of the “Conservative Revolution,” then there’s no reason to wonder at the dubious role the Siemens family is playing against technological progress, especially in the area of nuclear energy.

Mohler leaves no doubt in this book—a barely revised dissertation published by Karl Jaspers in 1949—of what he speaks: “Conservative revolution” is a synonym for what is commonly recognized as fascism.

The Conservative Revolution, according to Mohler, is comprised of small, intellectually active circles, highly disruptive sects, and, in the background, the remaining loose elite alliances. Mohler does not try to hide his disdain for the “masses.”

“The great party holds its masses together through organizational ties adapted to the average person and a narrow doctrine of catchwords, and only offers space for superior minds to the extent that they concern themselves with the restraint of the masses, and keep their mental capabilities in reserve, for the esoteric realm. But the majority of the above-average intelligences gather in small circles, which oscillate in constant mental stress, believe themselves to be the only ones with the true knowledge, and accuse the mass party of Realpolitik, betrayal of the “idea.”

If you break through the Babylonian verbal confusion in today’s political life, if you take into account the confession of the numerous members of the “Conservative Revolution,” there is really no difference between “right” and “left,” as the ostensibly politically diverse people like Mohler, Möller van der Bruck, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, and Oscar Negt admit. For them, the contrast between “Socialism and National Socialism” as well as “right” and “left” has been lifted.

So you should not let yourself be deluded into thinking that some “Conservative Revolutionaries” have either distanced themselves from the Third Reich, or even were disdained or persecuted by it. Even though, according to Mohler, at the end of the 20th Century, it became evident to them that a successful National Socialism “would falsify their goals as much as a successful communism,” they remain the spiritual mentors of fascism, then, as today.

The title “Conservative Revolution” certainly goes back to Hugo von Hofmannsthal for its first formulation, and then back to Möller van der Bruck, but it is in no way a specifically German thing. Mohler names the following names in this connection: Hans Grimm, Oswald Spengler, Ernst Jünger, C.F. Jünger, Albrecht and Karl Haushofer, Schultze-Boysen, Möller van der Bruck, Hugo von Hoffmannthal, Nietzsche, Richard Wagner, Stefan George, and other in Germany. But, for example: Dostoevsky and the two Aksokovs for Russia; Sorel and Barres for France; Unamuno for Spain; Pareto and Ebola for Italy; Lothrop Stodart, Madison Grant, and James Burnham for the United States. These “thinkers,” who did not actually come from oligarchical families themselves, are like their modern followers: Peccei, Forrester, Meadows, Jungk, Cruhl, Gvishiani, Frolov, King, etc., to a certain degree the court ideologues of these families. Today, they work predominantly with think-tanks and foundations, or as controllers of “movements” and terrorists. They carry out what Mohler calls “restraint of the masses.”

The indulgence, and with it the corruption, which many older people today show toward the “Greens,” goes together with minimization of the significance of their own early membership in an old youth movement. Now, surely, not every Wandervogel [wandering bird, the “green” youth movement of the 1920s and ’30s] later became fascist, just as all Greens are not unsalvageable, but the old youth movements were the transmission belt for the later fascist leadership. They were, just like today, a “revolt against the world of the father,” against the “world of appearance,” and of the “artificiality” of the cities and factories, which threaten to suffocate everything.

In addition, the different phases, unions, splits, and new formations point to strong parallels with today. Mohler speaks of a first wave, the “Wandervogel,” which was shapeless and anarchic, and a second phase, of the Free German Youth. Both had taken effect in the Weimar Republic in almost all the conservative-revolutionary groupings, when their leaders were transformed, for the most part, into paramilitary forms of the youth movement.

After the First World War there arose out of a mixture of the Freikorps, youth groups, and then “dropouts,” a “new revolutionary type,” which was “nihilistic,” totally in the Nietzschean sense. Mohler points insightfully to the fact that these “revolutionaries” would have increased their dangerousness and clout, but for their non-involvement, which is also true for today’s dropouts.

Because today there is the well-founded suspicion that these right or left extremist movements may indeed tend toward violent acts themselves, but are only providing a cover for the professional political murder of the champions of technological progress.

The forerunner of the Murder, Inc. “Permindex,” which was responsible for the assassination of [John] Kennedy and the attempts against de Gaulle, or, in recent times, the attempts on Reagan and the Pope [John Paul II], was, in the early 1920s, the secret organization OC (Organization Consul), which was responsible for a series of assassinations, among them, German Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau.

The OC was controlled by the Thule Society. Around the Thule Society there was an elite secret organization, to which belonged Prof. Karl Haushofer, Princess Maria von Thurn und Taxis, Countess Westarp, Baron von Seydlitz, von Sebottendorf, Scheubner-Richter, Rudolf Hess, and Alfred Rosenberg. This organization had available extensive financial resources and the best connections to the leading noble families and intelligence services. The Thule Society functioned as the “mother organization” of a plethora of parties, societies, paramilitary units, and terrorist organizations. The most momentous creations of the Thule Society are those of the NSDAP [Nazi Party], which it founded, and Adolf Hitler.

If an ordinary person gets involved with the cult-ideas of different currents in the fascist environment, he is generally surprised about the depth of pathological hell which opens up before him. Although it is not pleasant to study these outpourings, an investigation of the history of this illness is surely necessary.

Supporters of the Conservative Revolution have different views on certain topics, and it would actually raise suspicion about them if they all agreed with one another. So it is with the “criticism” of the Conservative Revolution by Romano Guardini, to whom Mohler significantly concedes a “flair for distant thrill.” Guardini, former collaborator of the Action Circle, founder of the Quickborn Movement, and of the foundation named after himself, has brought himself under suspicion with his writings, of being one of the “Christians who are not Christians.”

Christian heretics like [Hans] Küng, the Jesuits, but also the likes of Guardini, to begin with, want to soften the ontological, universal truth of Christianity, when they describe it as a religious mode of interpretation like many others. In short, they deny that there is one truth and along with it, error, and they deny the provability of this truth in the physical universe.

You can unquestionably recognize those who want to destroy the “Christian view of the world,” because they want to change Christian doctrine on the decisive point whose absence would rob it of its life’s breath. That is the Filioque, the idea that Christ is simultaneously God and Man, and thus divert from the fact that every human being participates in the Divine through the redemption of Christ. As Mumford correctly noted, this human participation in the Divine is the moral barrier to genocide.

In considering the enormous political consequences of this, the role which Christianity has played over the last 2,000 years must be underscored yet again. And in this connection, the recent encyclical, Laborem Exercens, by John Paul II, as well as his pastoral letter “Familiaris Consortio,” have primary strategic significance.

In these documents the Pope stressed unmistakably the character of man in the “image of God,” and that the mission of man to subdue the Earth, obtains for all time. The encyclical is, from an epistemological standpoint, the most comprehensive, because it proceeds from the coherence of the lawfulness of the universe, of man, and of mind, and thus accepts the process of continuous perfection. The process of creation continues through man on Earth, and with the help of technology, which explicitly is called the ally of man. Yes, the Pope explicitly demands political and legal reforms so that the world’s political order is adjusted and corrected to cohere with this lawfulness. Concretely, that means massive transfer of technology to the Third World, and with it, the comprehensive breakout which the Conservative Revolution fears the most.

In a chapter with the not-mathematical, but mystical title, “Lines and Spheres,” Mohler expresses his fear: The idea of ceaseless progress at a certain point devalues the present in favor of a better future. Therefore, it would make no real difference whether it means a step forward toward the Christian Kingdom of God, or a classless society or some other goal.

Because Mohler constantly uses the term “linear” in connection with this (constant) progress, you must certainly acknowledge that he does not know his enemies as well as he thinks. Neither the Platonic idea of constant perfecting, nor the Christian or scientific ideas of progress is meant linearly, but strives for higher orders, and are thus negentropic, and of growing complexity. So much for Mohler’s understanding.

“In any case, Christendom has become fatefully decisive for the Occident. Together with its secularization, progress in every area, it has created the ‘modern world,’ against which the conservative-revolutionary revolt has taken aim.”

And then he again cites Guardini with a passage which exposes the current danger to the Pope:

“Nothing is more false than the idea that the modern mastery over the world in knowledge and technology must have been achieved in opposition to Christianity, which would keep man in indolent servility. The opposite is true: The enormous adventure of modern science and technology, whose scope we experience in the most recent inventions with deep uneasiness, was only made possible because of the personal independence which Christ has given to man.”

At this point, it is appropriate to once again point out that the members of the Conservative Revolution are at least right on one point: that the “right” and the “left” ultimately become the same, when “nationalism” and “socialism” collapse into one; that right and left are rather useless, if it matters, to describe political opposites. The fundamental opposition lies between Christianity and the idea of progress on the one side, and the Conservative Revolution on the other.

And so Mohler broods already in 1949, when every normal person in Germany is concerned about building up the country again from the rubble:

“Our time offers a strange spectacle. On the one side, the linear world of progress, by harnessing nuclear power, is speeding toward its high point, and seeks to cover the last free spot on Earth with its network of chimneys, railroads, and cables. But on the other side stand spokesmen who are witness to a world of midday-like stillness.”

In 1927 Hermann Hesse wrote in his Steppenwolf:

“Human life is reduced to real suffering, to hell, only when two ages, two cultures and religions overlap.... A nature such as Nietzsche’s had to suffer our present ills more than a generation in advance. What he had to go through, alone and misunderstood, thousands suffer today.”

Unfortunately, the members of the Conservative Revolution are not satisfied with tolerating this dual power situation, but they want to win (even if the world should perish as a result).

Thus Ernst Jünger already remarked:

“We stand at the turning point between two ages, as with the change between the Stone and Bronze Age.”

Therefore, a kind of interregnum, for which otherwise the “great” Nietzsche has represented allegedly the absolute turning point.

Whoever currently would argue that this has nothing to do with the Greens, now can grasp the proof that there is at least a great similarity. Marilyn Ferguson’s book The Age of Aquarius, which was only the popular, expanded version of a study by the Stanford Research Institute in Palo Alto, California, should be referenced once again.

This institute must be considered one of the most important planning centers of the Conservative Revolution. Out of there came not only various experiments with drugs, but also all conceivable “alternative life-styles” were developed. What Ferguson describes in her book, is the undermining of society, above all the youth, through the “Aquarian Conspiracy.” The age of Christianity and scientific rationality—characterized by her as the Age of Pisces—will now be cut off by the Age of Aquarius. Here it is feeling, not reason, that matters, and all the conspirators would participate in a common cosmic consciousness, would recognize one another, and would advance in all realms of life, including the military itself. Ferguson in other respects proceeds to praise conservation and all forms of alternative life-styles.

In Steppenwolf it says:

“I have also lived austerely for years, and also fasted for long times, but at the time I stood again under the sign of Aquarius, a dark and moist sign.”

Mohler, in describing the change desired by the Conservative Revolution, writes in 1949:

“In others, this idea even condenses into the image of a succession of one age to a new one.... Knut von Ermsen, for example, sees this change in connection with cosmic changes: We stand at the edge of the change from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius. That, for him, is National Socialism, whose temporary dominance he, in his 1932 book Adolf Hitler and the Coming Age, had stated as fact, only one of the first fever blisters, which announce such changes. That the fish is a symbol of Christ, served him well in this connection.”

The Age of Aquarius, could also be translated as the dominion of Dionysus. For Nietzsche it is the Christian God that is dead, not the “god” of reappearance, whether it is named Dionysus, Mithra, or something else.

When it becomes clear to anyone that the American high-interest-rate policy is bringing not only the American economy itself, but also the rest of the world, into depression, the normal reaction would undoubtedly have been a lowering of interest and building up of production through cheap credits. A frequently heard argument was: “But it is not in American interests to ruin their own economy!” Arguments like that disregard the fact that there are certainly people who not only reject reason, but even desire chaos. Ernst Jünger writes thus, quoted by Mohler:

“We march towards a magical point zero, which we will only overcome, when we have other, invisible sources of power at our disposal.”

“Thus, with this magical point zero,” Mohler writes, with evident fascination, “we enter the inner circle of German nihilism.” It is the belief in absolute destruction, that turns into absolute creation. For, ‘decay’ does not occur in the essential core.... Our hope is attached to what remains,” he quotes Jünger again.

The reader of this article is, perchance, acquainted with the fact that people today who look to the “Conservative Revolution,” and who are responsible for the current crisis, seriously believe, that in the event of a nuclear war, they could go to Argentina—and have already set up residences and bank accounts there.

How criminal and close to today’s terrorism this way of thinking is, is plainly laid out in another Jünger quotation, in which the state of mind of “heroic realists” is expressed by him, as, “He, who with pleasure can blow himself up, and who, in this act still sees a confirmation of order.” What else should motivate terrorists today?

In Hesse’s Steppenwolf, the union between green terrorism, and an “inner joy” over genocide, was already present:

“The inscription, ‘Off to the Merry Hunt! The Great Automobile Hunt!’ appealed to me.... I grasped at once that it was the long-prepared, long-awaited, long-feared war between man and machine, now finally broken out. On all sides, lie bodies dead and torn to pieces.... On every wall, wild and stirring posters, demanding, in gigantic letters, that flamed like torches, to finally mobilize man against the machine; at last, to strike dead the oily, beautifully clad, perfumed idle rich, who, with the help of the machine, have squeezed the fat from the bodies of others, by means of their great, coughing, terrible, snarling, devilish, confining automobile. At last, to set the factories afire, and depopulate the soiled Earth a little bit! With that, grass can grow again; out of the dusty, cement world, something like woods, meadows, heath, brook, and moor may grow again.

“It was war, which was not concerned with a Kaiser, a republic, national borders, flags, or colors, but where anybody, for whom the air had become too close, and for whom the land no longer tasted right, gave hard-hitting expression to his anger, and tried to initiate the general destruction of this metallic, civilized world. I saw how the lust to kill, to destroy, smiled in everyone’s eyes, and to my own self, these wild, red flowers also bloomed on high.”

And finally,

“Yes, there are indeed too many people in the world today. Before, one did not notice it. But now, where everyone does not have pure air to breathe, but instead, each wants an automobile—now one notices it. Of course, what we are doing is nonsense, not rational, as the war was also massive nonsense. In time, mankind will have to learn to check its increase by rational means. Meanwhile, we respond to an unbearable situation rather irrationally—however, we basically do what’s right—we reduce.”

For a normal person, this is difficult to comprehend, but this camp does not claim to be rational in the least. Mohler concedes that there are many contradictions in cyclical thinking. The Conservative Revolution in fact would distrust any system that makes sense. Logic, for them, is only a tool for processing insights attained by other means.

“The Conservative Revolution believes, that ideas that ‘add up,’ occur in a space devoid of reality: Only thus, in unopposed emptiness could better elements be joined together in a continuous construction.” Here lies the probable reason, why the members of the Club of Rome do not themselves believe their prognoses.

For what Mohler writes here, certainly applies to the manipulative pseudo-knowledge of global systems analysis, but not to reality. But that already gives these people too much credit. Another “conservative revolutionary” by the name of Quabbe acknowledges: “For the conservative, reflection on the bases of his own worldview is a kind of profanity ... the reduction of an irrational value to a rational standard, a secularization of the Divine for which the attraction of the inexplicable is taken....”

Mohler rushes to dispel any possible awkward misunderstandings, and acknowledges that in the name “Conservative Revolution,” the word “conservative” was an unfortunate choice. “Preserving” and “maintaining” would indeed involve the idea of influencing events as a whole, which would be the position of the party adverse to progress.

That there are additional points of contact between the conservative revolution and the Greens, is revealed in their common worship of wilderness. Nature, which is often ennobled much more beautifully through man, is not enough for them: there must be wilderness. “It is above all the wilderness, which becomes an image of poetry for the followers of Nietzsche—wilderness not seen from the ‘linear’ world as destruction, but as a wound-healing sleep,” says Mohler.

Yet Mohler expresses himself even more plainly:

“In the wilderness, the laws of economics do not apply. The wilderness is the background before which the global emotion unfolds, which we want to describe here: whence it goes out, it always returns.”

In case someone still requires proof that the Greens march in fascist footsteps, then one should refer to the modern identity of the argumentation of Friedrich Georg Jünger in The Perfection of Technology, written in 1939, and Robert Jungk’s The Atom State.

What Jünger says in the book itself, is certainly clinically interesting. He warns of the dangerous illusions that are associated with technological progress. In almost the same manner, all the Greens after him spoke out, including [Aurelio] Peccei, who recently proclaimed that science cannot “magically” solve all problems. Not magically—but rationally.

Jünger is not even original, when he argues that science has nothing to do with the creation of wealth; he simply repeats the well-worn arguments of the Physiocrats, who belatedly provided the East India Company with justification for the exploitative methods of British colonialism. From a scientific standpoint, Jünger’s views are really outrageous. He thus maintains that all industrial operations are entropic:

“Thus, the smallest technical operation requires more energy than it generates. How then should a surplus be created through the sum of these procedures?”

We now propose, that people who think this way, be consistent, and eat grass with the aid of clods of ore, instead of still hypocritically making use of the results of technology. Or even better, stop eating altogether, since, according to their “theory,” energy can be saved in this way.

All the others have copied from Jünger—directly or indirectly—Jungk or Gruhl (in Gruhl’s A Planet Is Plundered, whole passages on the depletion of nature are shamelessly copied). Jünger wrote “Global 2000” 40 years before [Social Democratic Party leader] Erhard Eppler and Jimmy Carter:

“[Technology] fills the air with smoke, pollutes the water, destroys forests and animals. This leads to a condition, in which Nature ‘must be protected from rational thought.’ ”

The direction this wind is blowing, becomes clear in the next passage:

“[The technician] ruins factory owners through inventions which are not anticipated. The wealth and ruin of the capitalists is as indifferent to him as that of the proletariat. For him, there is neither debt and interest, nor the sustenance of life....”

That is a deeply anti-capitalist, monetary mindset, which is characteristic of fascism. And the magic word—the sacred cow of the oligarchy—is stated: Technological progress ruins interest!

In all respects, this book teems with mere monetary truisms, which, as all arguments of the oligarchy, are nothing but cheap, deliberate lies; as, for example, that progressive technology is responsible for inflation! The International Monetary Fund dishes out the same garbage, solely for the purpose of keeping developing nations, which want to proceed with their industrialization, under the yoke of colonialism.

On the one hand, Jünger is obliged to concede, that “technological thinking is rational,” but then, on the other hand, he speaks of “demonic trends in technology.” Thus, evidently, rationality is, for him, somewhat horrible. He goes to the extent of arguing, that industrial accidents with progressive technology have turned out to be so numerous, that they equal the frequency of military casualties. But, there are many more people killed during bear-hunting than working in the laboratory.

The theses proposed at the beginning, that the members of the Conservative Revolution are the most elite, most evil species, is confirmed by Jünger in the following way:

“We must recognize that technological progress and the education of the masses go hand in hand.... Technological progress is most powerful in that realm, where education of the masses is the most advanced [emphasis added].... They [the masses] are the most useful, most pliant material for the engineer, whose work plans could not be implemented at all without them....” And, “We associate with the conception of the masses, notions of ponderousness, weight, and dependency. Vulgarization.”

For the oligarchy, educated masses—numerous educated people—-is a horrible idea, because they would end their privileged, elitist position as oligarchs, who are happy to rule over uneducated masses.

The idea of republican nation-states, based on technological progress, is horrible for the Conservative Revolution on exactly the same ground. Friedrich Hielscher, a “Conservative Revolutionary” from the Jünger circle, thus demanded the breakup of nation-states into “tribes” and “rural areas.” Another subdivision of the Conservative Revolution, the Pan-European Union of Otto von Habsburg, also consistently demands the creation of a “Europe of the Regions.” It ought, in turn, no longer be astonishing, if now left-Socialists demand the strict decentralization of nation-states and militantly precipitate attempts at autonomy by all conceivable minorities. Even less surprising is the fact, that from this narrow angle, the developed national languages are criticized, in favor of slang and regional dialects. In contrast to this, the pathological hatred which the Club of Rome bears toward the idea of the nation-state is really significant and dangerous. Typical is Aurelio Peccei’s speech before the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), in Spring 1981, in which he declared the nation-state bankrupt, and called it the main obstacle to a global technical correction culminating in a “new world order.”

The Siemens Problem

That Peter Siemens, as the director of a company which controls almost the entire nuclear energy area of the Federal Republic, and which has been characterized as a “state within the state,” is an anthroposoph, would in itself be alarming enough.

Citizens must immediately be enlightened, as to what is hidden behind the allegedly harmless façade of health food stores and Waldorf schools: the writings of Rudolf Steiner, a fanatical cultist. Steiner believed not only in the reincarnation of man; he promoted the worship of Lucifer! That alone would indeed be revealing, but might seem to be the private affair of Mr. Siemens. Unfortunately, that is not so.

Armin Mohler did not write his thesis on the Conservative Revolution, for example, in youthful levity, but rather still today, he thinks essentially the same way, while being the director of the Siemens Foundation. This becomes clear from a Mohler brochure, which has now been mailed out by the Association of German Electrical Engineering Technicians (Regional Association of North Bavaria) as “talking points.”

In the brochure, “The Dream of the Natural Paradise,” Mohler speaks somewhat pathetically about the “ecological woe” which has already stormed the bastion of public opinion. He poses it simply there, indeed even says that a world outlook, which has achieved such a position—is hardly challenged any more “from the outside,” but rather only “from within.” If Siemens were really a company that wanted to promote technological progress, what should prevent Mohler from assailing the ecological movement “from the outside”?

Thus, in 1981, Mohler “criticizes” the green movement “from within,” and then also reiterates in essence his earlier theses, that the rise of the “ecological woe” is associated with the de-Christianization of the modern world. It is extremely noteworthy, that Mohler’s conception of Christianity is presented here very much “from the outside.” He apparently does not know the neo-Platonic, Augustinian tradition.

For a person who knows of Mohler’s Conservative Revolution of 1949, it is extremely informative, that he calls the ecological ideology a “salvation doctrine,” thus equating it with his earlier observations of cults. He even sketches the path “from Rousseau to the current ecological woe,” via the intermediary of Romanticism. “Thus, according to the example of the archetypal plant, ‘nature’ turns into a kind of personal entelechy, against which one can sin as against a lady.” At the same time, the comparison throws an interesting light on the fantasy life of Mr. Mohler.

After this brief introduction, the actual criticism “from within” now takes place. Mohler lets the cat out of the bag: The new youth movement has a forgotten “demanding taskmaster”—“founding father” Friedrich Georg Jünger. He has gone far ahead of the youth movement, so that that which was formulated by him could become a casually wielded, anonymous commodity. Jünger, however, had already formulated everything better and more tightly.

The “criticism” which Mohler makes of the Greens, is limited to the fact that they have constructed an incomplete thought-model, in which creation only took place once, right at the beginning—and since then only destruction. In contrast, Mohler places the Conditia humana (human condition), being fixed between birth and death, between new creation, which always reoccurs, and destruction, which likewise recurs. And although Mohler expresses himself here cautiously, we are already once again at the yo-yo principle of the “eternal return of the same.”

If an organization which deals with advanced technology, offers its members nothing better than such “talking points,” then that is disconcerting. What Mohler does here, is typical of the modus operandi of the Club of Rome: An illusory debate is set up, as to who is now the better “Green,” the “right-wing” Jünger, or the “left-wing” ecologist. That both, “from outside” reason, are quacks, had to have been said and proven. But, as Mohler says in the epilogue of the new edition of his Conservative Revolution of 1971, the new youth movement is quite close to the Conservative Revolution, and this does not surprise him, but rather only confirms the “inevitability” of such processes. The yo-yo principle also here.

But whence does it arise, that someone, who, as the director of the foundation of a company which is predominantly engaged with technology, would have to have access to modern scientific expertise, either does not have this or does not use it? Is it then not known to the Siemens Foundation, that in the meantime, the empirical proof has also been produced in many scientific areas, that the universe is organized in a non-entropic manner and not according to the yo-yo process (this is proven for plasma physics, biology, astrophysics and the pre-human evolutionary process), and that therefore, and for many other reasons, ever higher energy densities and organizational states are necessary in the production process, if a drastic lowering of the sustainable population—genocide—is not to be the consequence?

Why is Mr. Mohler of the view, that it is only possible to argue “from within”?

It is worthwhile to return once again to Mohler’s Conservative Revolution, in which he cites the book penned by a certain Schauwecker, Germany Alone, of 1931. Schauwecker writes there, that the world of progress could only be attacked with its own weapons:

“For this period is only worth being destroyed. But in order to destroy it, one must first know it accurately. Otherwise one succumbs to it. One had to completely subdue the technology, while one developed it fully. Then it was no longer a problem, but rather a foregone conclusion, about which one was no longer astonished. The admiration for machines, that was the danger. They deserved no admiration at all, they only had to be used, nothing more.”

And Mohler added without pausing:

“The words of Schauwecker show, that the national revolutionaries do the same as the adherent of progress, and yet mean it completely differently.”

Now, why has Siemens created a situation in many areas under the utilization of the patent law, where real technological progress, for example in the postal system, is blocked, because no one can get around Siemens? Or, why, for example, is Siemens now against the construction of the high-temperature reactor? Or what is the cause of the obvious failure of the Siemens firm in the area of advanced computer systems?

The Arrogance of the Oligarchy

Every time the oligarchs are certain that they have already won, they openly acknowledge, that they are the real leaders of this movement. Thus, the president of the Italian World Wildlife Fund, Fulco Protesi, proposed in November 1981, in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Mondo, that either the chairman of the Club of Rome, Peccei, or Bussati Troverso, the president of the European Society of Culture, should become the chairman of a new oligarchical mass party in Italy. The choice between Peccei and Troverso, that would be the choice between NATO/intelligence and the “Global 2000” faction of the U.S. Administration, or of an extremely influential “intellectual” elite combination of the old Venetian oligarchy. Both merely represent different nodal points of the same network.

Such a nodal point earlier in history was the circle around the magazine Die Tat.

Under the concept of an “action circle,” that group of influential German intellectuals, “Conservative Revolutionaries,” which, from 1908, gathered around the publisher Diedrich, and set up the monthly Die Tat as the organ of anti-Christian, geopolitical, mystical-Arian and later, openly fascistic movements. Diedrich himself was the publisher of the Zeitschrift für Geopolitics (Magazine for Geopolitics), founded by Karl Haushofer, which helped prepare intellectually for the later Drang nach Osten (Push Towards the East), and which included as a collaborator Friedrich Wilhelm von Oertzen, the father of today’s Hanover SPD Chairman Peter von Oertzen.

In the development of Die Tat, perhaps three phases are to be identified: From the founding of the magazine in the year 1908 by Ernst and August Horneffer, both employees of the national Nietzsche Archives in Weimar, until approximately 1914, articles were mostly about the “neo-Christian” movement in the framework of the “youth movement” massively promoted by Diedrich. The Horneffer brothers promoted a new “Christendom in Action,” which, in essence, constituted a turning away from Christian humanism, and a turning towards mysticism and the theosophy of the anthroposoph Rudolf Steiner.

After the end of World War I, this policy was resumed by Die Tat and also introduced into the Catholic Church via the above-mentioned anti-technology philosopher Romano Guardini.

From 1928, Die Tat experienced a radical about-turn in the direction of the fascist mass movement, when Hans Zehrer, Giselher Wirsing, and Ferndinand Fried purchased the magazine. By 1932, Die Tat became the most-read monthly of the Weimar period, with a strong pro-fascist, geopolitical orientation—its circulation exceeded that of the Weltbühne (World Stage).

It is also important, that the Horneffer brothers were connected to the notorious Thule Society. Karl Jaspers also belonged to the group around Die Tat. He was the doctoral advisor to the current Lower Saxony Governor Ernst Albrecht, who helped another member of the Club of Rome, Eduard Pestel, obtain a ministerial position. One should not forget, that it was Albrecht, who prohibited the nuclear reprocessing facility at Gorleben; no one but he was the reason for the “political unenforceability” of this project. Finally, Karl Jaspers was the mentor of Armin Mohler, after Mohler had briefly—as a Swiss citizen (!)—requested membership in the SS, before he became the secretary of Ernst Jünger.

If one adheres to the self-definition provided by the Conservative Revolution, many connections become clear. Then one is not amazed that such an ostensibly “left,” radical “green” politician as Mencke-Glückert, the FDP Ministerial Director in the Interior Ministry, maintains contact, on the one side, with a—mildly expressed—extreme “conservative” institute such as the European Cultural Foundation, and on the other side, with—also mildly expressed—such extreme “left” circles as the Pressedienst Demokratische Initiative (Democratic Initiative News Service, PDI). In turn, besides Robert Jungk (“The Atom State”), also such friends of the Berlin-squatter-scene as Ingeborg Drewitz, who not accidentally is regarded as an expert on the Romantic movement of the 19th Century, works in the PDI.

Robert Jungk in turn collaborates with Mencke-Glückert via the Futures Group, one of the most evil think-tanks in the U.S.A., which has specialized in teaching the so-called “Delphic Method” to management and politicians. By this is meant the capability, according to the Greek Oracle of Delphi, of generating, with the help of the media and through ostensibly “contrary” positions, an illusory debate for the public, which is supposed to forget that reality looks entirely different.

Another specialty of the Futures Group is intellectual and psychological conditioning by means of computer-simulation. The target groups in such “courses of instruction,” in addition to the economic and political executives, are, above all, the representatives of the nations of the Third World. Computer simulations, which are based on the systems-analysis model of the Club of Rome or “Global 2000,” are put in front of the participants in the courses of instruction. Accordingly, it is only a matter of the unbridgeable contrast between overpopulation and limited resources. Now the participants in the courses of instruction are permitted to change the variables—within the pre-determined program of course. In doing so, one shows greater appreciation of “ethnic concerns” respecting the reduction of the population. The game, of course, ends with the fact that every “positive change” of the variables only aggravates the overpopulation/limited resources problem and completely demoralizes the participants in the course of instruction.

The ‘Movements’ Today

To return to the initial thesis: The disaster can only be averted if it is worked through, in Germany and in other parts of the world, from a conceptual standpoint of the history of where the roots of fascism lie, and of what its subsequent history is.

In other locations, we have developed in detail, what the theoretical economic foundations of fascism are, and as well, we have thoroughly documented the danger that leading financiers would react today to the world economic crisis with fascist economic policies. We only footnote here, that without a new world financial system for the financing of broad technology transfers for the industrialization of the Third World, as a war-avoidance strategy, no actual solution could be found.

As far as the subjective side is concerned, the danger of fascist mass movements, a conceptually historical consideration is also indispensable, because only in this way can the emergence of a new, differently colored species of sheep in the same pasture be prevented.

If one applies the conceptual apparatus which we have undertaken to develop here, to the present, it becomes clear where the fascist potential lies. The characteristics are—and this is no “German” problem—the cult of irrationalism, the assault on scientific thought, which Nietzsche termed the “Socratic dialogue.” Further characteristics are, that irrationalism takes organized forms, and that its adherents try to force their irrational will by violence, on those who think differently.

From this standpoint, it can be said that terrorism is generally fascist, as indeed was demonstrated by the “P-2” scandal in Italy: The fascist international controls both “right” and “left” terrorism, through the logistical support of the mafia.

Fascists, irrespective of the nationality or era to which they belong, deny the perfectibility of man. They have often termed this the “dictatorship of reason.” What they want, is the Dionysian, existentialist living-out of feelings, the undisturbed fulfillment of “needs,” at the expense of everyone else.

If this spiritual attitude is viewed from a Neoplatonic or a Christian standpoint, therefore, from the threefold division of the human consciousness into sensual desire, understanding, and reason, then this lowest condition corresponds to sin, in the Christian view, or seen from the humanistic standpoint, to extreme infantilism, which manifests itself, in its organized form, as fascism.

If a two-year-old wants to live out his sensual desires, this is normal, and requires only compassionate education by his parents. However, if ostensible adults express the same mental condition, then they are spiritually underdeveloped. So it is no coincidence, that these infantile adults, if they come into contact with a complex reality which upsets their infantile fantasies, react in a paranoid fashion.

Paranoia, the wild fear about the inadequacy of one’s own self, is a very important marker of fascism—paranoia over an inner emptiness, mixed with the “green discharge of nausea,” which must be overcome in a Dionysian frenzy. Paranoia is the completely normal consequence, if reason goes into decline.

It is highly revealing, that in the London Tavistock Institute for psychological warfare, studies of the phenomenon of “U.S. Cowboys” as a psychological type were undertaken, and the not-surprising fact was discovered, that the chief characteristic of the “cowboy” is his paranoia. Normal cooperation or collaboration is impossible, and the “cowboy” must either be “on top,” or somebody is “on top of him.”

This paranoid form, which unfortunately has often decided American foreign policy, can, in an unfavorable strategic constellation, lead to war, because the reality principle is rejected, and everything is only viewed by this standard of “who is on top?”

The idea that fascism is not possible in the U.S.A., is, there, very widespread indeed, but unfortunately, is completely false. Once rejecting a certain open genocide-promoting part of the last administration—look at “Global 2000”—America is already, to a startling degree, a “programmed society.” The average television consumption of five hours per day, per capita, is more conducive than anything else to banishing every sense of reality, and engendering a basic paranoid mood in the population. Goebbels’ propaganda machine and its popular reception is pushed far into the shadows by today’s U.S. television.

If the emergence of “freaks” in America represents a new version of the Weimar counterculture and youth movement, the current emergence of a country-and-western cult promoted by the entertainment industry is a new version of the “people’s movement.” The country-and-western-cowboy cult is not only a banalization of human sensibility to an extremely low level; it also has all the cultish elements of every “blood-and-soil” cult, opening the floodgates.

Since the entertainment mafia, which moreover is closely interwoven with the drug mafia, has in recent years led frustrated mainstream America—in a reaction against the wave of rock-music programming—unconsciously toward “truly American culture,” namely, cowboy and western schmaltz, and has now introduced a new phase. Now that America’s youth is vastly corrupted through rock, disco, and drugs, the rest of the population now has to be pulled away from their belief in the “American Way of Life,” that being the belief in the unbounded possibility of solving the world’s problems through technological progress. Slowly, the cowboy cult will fuse with the “green” movement, and to this end, the New York Times recently brought out a stirring history of the virgin American West, which must be shielded from the evils of industry.

As part of the psychological affliction of fascism, and as part of the fundamental outlook of cultural pessimism, are also the sensations of anxiety, grief, and woe, and Kirkegaard saw the world as meaningless and shattered, and expressed the opinion that anxiety and doubt must be the necessary consequence of that. The “grief” of Heidegger, which is so often and so deeply felt by the Greens, is nothing other than the paranoid reaction to problems which are only susceptible to being solved with rational methods. And finally, the “ecological woe” is plainly a lie. Whoever actually strives for improved environmental protection, doesn’t lament, but becomes an engineer or a scientist, in order to overcome obsolescence of old technology with better, new technologies.

The 1981 Christmas message from Pope John Paul II is, against this background, an extraordinarily political intervention. In it, he presents the idea that hedonistic forces have undermined the morality of the so-called “developed sector” to a level of moral senility. This moral decay, this cultural pessimism, has made necessary an intervention by the Church for the benefit of the intangible, of the value of human life—for which the Pope nearly had to pay with his life. The tracking of the assassins behind this attempt on his life would lead Sadat and Reagan back to the forces behind destabilization.

If we would prevent the danger of a new fascism, this time worldwide, and of a new world war, then the track of those who targetted the Pope must be investigated, and the guilty must be called to account.

Therefore, if the question is posed, how it could happen, that Hitler came to power in Germany, although the majority of citizens were against him, then something becomes clear about today’s situation. The majority of Germans were not fascists, but “small people,” who said, “Oh, what could I do about it?” or, “Actually, things aren’t so bad, and everything will get better.”

Today, if one looks at how the [Willy] Brandt sections of the SPD, the FDP, and the CDU-CSU are getting in bed with the Greens, on grounds of election tactics, then he would have to be afraid that these politicians haven’t learned anything from history. What price did all the democratic politicians pay, who tolerated the Nazis, with their “tactical” alliances, citing “reasons of advantage”?

Then, as now, no cooperation with fascists ought to be tolerated. If a Hasselmann and a Biedenkopf, and others, propose collaboration with the “black” Greens, the CDU ought to consider very seriously whether they should even tolerate these people. The same goes for party functionaries in the SPD, concerning Eppler and the defenders of Brandt.

Perhaps there is still time to overcome the cult of irrationalism. One of the most important prerequisites for doing that it to reform the “reform,” which is to a large degree responsible for the current “youth movement”: the so-called “school reforms” of the 1970s.

A humanistic education in the spirit of the Classics and of Socratic dialogue, which the reactionaries so fear, is the best antidote against the forces of irrationalism. Throughout the history of human society, the very concepts we need today are those which Christianity and humanism have advanced, without which there would not have been progress. We should employ them, with that optimism which so annoyed Nietzsche’s “Steppenwolf.”

End of Part I

Go to Part II