Rousseau, Nietzsche, Marx: on Aryanism, Judaism and "equalism" Peter Myers, October 19, 2001; update April 2, 2004.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at

Rousseau inspired the American Revolution of 1776, and the French of 1789.

Nietzsche had the same view about the Christian takeover of Rome, as Rousseau; but Marx took the opposite view.

Rousseau looked to Sparta and Rome as models; Marx had no such praise for Sparta, and chose as his hero Spartacus, a slave who rebelled against Rome.

Rousseau wrote,

"... pagans ... always regarded the Christians as true rebels who, under the cloak of hypocritical submission, only awaited the moment to make themselves independent and supreme, and cunningly to usurp that authority which they made a show of respecting while they were weak. Such was the cause of the persecutions. What the pagans feared did indeed happen; then everything altered its countenance; the humble Christians changed their tune and soon the so-called kingdom of the other world was seen to become, under a visible ruler, the most violent despotism of this world. ... in Christian states, ... men have never known whether they ought to obey the civil ruler or the priest. Many peoples, even in Europe or nearby, have tried to preserve or re-establish the ancient system, but without success: the spirit of Christianity has won completely." (The Social Contract, Book 4, ch. 8; tr. Maurice Cranston, Penguin, pp. 178-9).

Nietzsche wrote,

'Whatever else has been done to damage the powerful and great of this earth seems trivial compared with what the Jews have done, that priestly people who succeeded in avenging themselves on their enemies and oppressors by radically inverting all their values, that is, by an act of the most spiritual vengeance. This was a strategy entirely appropriate to a priestly people in whom vindictiveness had gone most deeply underground. It was the Jew who, with frightening consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good/noble/powerful/beautiful/happy/favoured-of-the-gods and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that "only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be, to all eternity, the evil, the cruel, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned" ... it was the Jews who started the slave revolt in morals; a slave revolt with two millenia of history behind it, which we have lost sight of today simply because it has triumphed so completely.' (The Genealogy of Morals, first essay, section 7; tr. Francis Golffing, Doubleday Anchor edn., pp. 167-8).

For a Jewish view of this, see Karl Kautsky's book The Foundations of Christianity.

The Vikings brought Aryanism back to Christian Europe, but, being tribal, they needed the Church as the carrier of the remnants of Roman civilisation, and so it became the Second Estate: each compromised its values.

Nietzsche continues,

"during the Renaissance men witnessed a strange and splendid awakening of the classical ideal.. But presently Israel triumphed once again, thanks to the ... Reformation, together with ... the restoration of the Church. In an even more decisive sense did Israel triumph over the classical ideal through the French Revolution. ... And yet ... Napoleon appeared ... the embodiment of the noble ideal" (section 16 of the first essay, pp. 187-8).

Rousseau is widely regarded as the "father" of the French Revolution. The similarity of his and Nietzsche's views about classical Rome, becomes a divergence of views over the French Revolution. How so?

That Revolution overthrew both the First and Second Estates, the Aristocracy and the Church. Rousseau wanted the overthrow of both; Nietzsche wanted the overthow of the Church only, not the Aristocracy. Since the French Aristocracy was seen as Germanic, at least by some Frenchmen, that might also explain the divergence.

The French Revolution brought the Third Estate - the business and professional class - to power; many of its delegates were lawyers. The Fourth Estate - those at the bottom - always seem to miss out.

Marx is often regarded as the heir of Rousseau; yet he took an opposite view of a critical issue, the Christian takeover in the Roman Empire. Whereas Rousseau regarded it as a catastrophe, Marx applauded it but argued that it did not go far enough:

In a speech at the First International on Sept. 8, 1872, he said:

"Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose heaven on earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics"; from Qualifying Violent Revolution, in Karl Marx Library, McGraw-Hill, 1971, Vol. 1, p.64.

Engels explained the socialist heaven thus:

"The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor peope deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society." (from On the History of Early Christianity, in Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1975, Volume 27).

Marx' expression "lose heaven on earth" is elucidated by Engels a little further on, as follows:

'If, therefore, Professor Anton Menger wonders ... why ... "socialism did not follow the overthrow of the Roman Empire in the West", it is because he cannot see that this "socialism" did in fact, as far as it was possible at the time, exist and even became dominant - in Christianity. Only this Christianity ... did not want to accomplish the social transformation in this world, but beyond it, in heaven ..." '

Engels' article On the History of Early Christianity is at

Socialists fall into two camps, according to whether they admire or spurn ancient Rome.

All socialists reject the Church rule of medieval Europe, but Jewish socialism opposes ancient Rome, whereas non-Jewish socialism looks to ancient Rome as some sort of inspiration.

Rousseau, the chief philosopher of the French Revolution, looked to Sparta as a model, following Plato. His book The Social Contract is peppered with references to Sparta and Rome.

Babeuf, the leader of the Communist faction executed by the Directorate during the French Revolution, appealed to Lycurgus (lawgiver of Sparta), to Socrates and to Jesus during his trial. He said, "Gentelemen of the Jury, ... Socrates made war on bigotry - and drank the poisoned cup. Jesus of Galilee, who taught men to love equality, truth, and justice, and to hate the rich, was nailed live to the stake. Lycurgus fled his native land to escape death at the hands of those whom his deeds had made happy": toolkit2.html.

Nietzsche, like Rousseau and Babeuf, looked to ancient Rome as a model.

On the other hand, Weishaupt - founder of the Illuminati - and Marx, both Jewish, rejected Rome. Weishaupt adopted the name Spartacus, of the leader of as slave rebellion against Rome; and Marx wrote that Rome, far from a model of inspiration, represented nothing but Slavery.

In The Holy Family, Marx wrote, 'Robespierre then explicitly the Athenians and Spartans "peuples libres". He ... quotes its heroes as well as its corrupters - Lycurgus, ... Brutus, ... Caesar ... . In his report on Danton's arrest ... Saint-Just says explicitly: "The world has been empty since the Romans, and only their memory fills it and still prophesies liberty." ... Robespierre, Saint-Just, and their party fell because they confused the ancient ... commonwealth based on real slavery with the modern ... commonwealth based on emancipated slavery, bourgeios society' (Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Volume 4, Lawrence & Wishhart, London 1975, pp. 121-2).

This divergence between the Jewish and non-Jewish revolutionaries shows the uneasy coalition between them. Similarly, Stalin came to see some merit in pre-Revolutionary Russian culture, but Trotskyists see none. In Australian Universities, Humanities faculties were captured during the 1980s by academics who not only wished to recount Australia's sins and display its dirty washing, but who could see no merit at all in the Australia of earlier decades.

Does this iconoclasm, this attempt to obliterate the past, come from Plato, or from Judaism?

On the difference between Plato's utopia and the Jewish one, see Michael Hihher's book The Jewish Utopia: jewish-utopia.html.; more on this topic in the debate between Karl Popper and Arnold J. Toynbee at popper-vs-toynbee.html.

As theorised by Rousseau and Babeuf, the New Order is
nationalist: socialism in one country.

However, as theorised by Weishaupt and later Marx, it is internationalist: on a world-wide scale.

The divergence between the nationalist and internationalist forms of the New Order appears in the confrontation between the Stalinist and Trotskyist traditions, although that was complicated by the struggle between Slavs and Jews in Eastern Europe, the Jews having rallied to Trotsky, who described himself as a "non-Jewish Jew". Stalin's purges were in part a cover for the removal of the Jewish intelligensia which had rallied to the Red Army during the civil war and which dominated the administration for the first 20 years of the New Order.

Marx' support for Free Trade (Capitalism): classwar.html.

Nietzsche as an Aryanist: nietzsche2.html.

Write to me at contact.html.