i expect you’re all thoroughly bored with my opinions by now, but i shall make one more effort to explain why i think everything has gone wrong on this unfortunate planet

In my view, what really destroyed the USSR was Lenin’s philosophical failure to move beyond the naive 19th-century materialism of Engels (Marx himself was not so simple). I believe that the communist revolution should not have taken place in Russia before it had taken place in Germany, so in that sense, the whole question of Leninism is academic. If the revolution had occurred in Germany first, then Russia and the rest of eastern Europe would have fallen as a matter of course. But no: whether he was a hired wrecker or not, Lenin certainly managed to wreck the sequence of events which Marx himself would have proposed: Germany first, then Russia. That would have been Rosa Luxemburg’s policy, but Lenin, his Russian-Jewish supporters, and the publicity pressure created by their funders, whoever they were, made a lot more noise than she did. At the same time, she was equally Jewish herself, so this is not a matter of all Jews being shitheads, merely most of them.

But to return to my actual point: given that Lenin in fact did manage to hijack the whole thing from the frail hands of Rosa Luxemburg, what I was aiming at was the inadequacy of his philosophical framework. I have encountered few books more arrogant, boring and lacking in thought content, than his “Materialism & Empirio-Criticism.” This latter thing, empirio-criticism, was the co-invention (with an otherwise unheard-of philosopher, R Avenarius) of the mathematical physicist, Ernst Mach. It so happened that Lenin’s rival, Bogdanov, was a supporter of this philosophy, which eventually developed into the form of systems theory including the observer, that we possess now. It is based on the fact that the observer cannot cancel himself out in the way required by brute materialism. The observer cannot reduce himself to the purely objective level of a machine. In fact, if he tries, he develops a number of rather serious psychological malfunctions, as no doubt Lenin did, and I mean ‘no doubt’: this is not prejudice but simple psychology.

However, Lenin dismissed all this with what he thought was materialist dialectic, but was really just circularly-reasoned dogma. And that was that, until the Soviet Union fell under the pressure of skillfully organised and funded religious pressure groups, Russian Orthodox, East European Uniates and Catholics, Jewish crypto-agents of every description, and Sunni Muslim hordes with guns, bombs, tanks and artillery, unanswerable to any government but paid for by the CIA. Therefore, the question becomes, what is the relationship between philosophy, ‘religion’ and right-wing ideology, and this we shall now examine.

The philosophical problem is entirely the product of the historical fact that modern Western philosophy began its life as the handmaid of the Christian churches, and had the greatest trouble in extricating itself, for simple financial reasons. Rulers, whether monarchic or republican, tend to support religious leaders, because a well-funded religion can be relied upon to discipline the populace. ‘Free-thinking’ philosophy must therefore be decried as ‘atheist’, as the enemy of the Church, and extirpated if at all possible, torn up by the roots and so forth. Modernity begins where this tearing-up ceases to be possible. And the hatred of the Church remains. Actually, modern Western philosophy wishes to have nothing to do with the Church whatever. But money talks louder than words. University chairs are endowed, official honours are awarded to philosophers of a certain stamp, and so forth.

Ironically, though, modern Western philosophy is not in fact ‘atheist’ either. The explicitly ‘atheist’ aspect of modern Western philosophy was the product of party funding by the early Whigs (and behind them, certain Jewish financial interests), who were trying to attack the fusion of power between the Monarchy and the Church which at that time still existed. The new philosophy was not the product of disinterested contemplation, which is in any case extremely difficult to achieve. If you seek real disinterested contemplation, then I recommend Buddhist philosophy, but with reservations.

In my opinion, the Buddhist claim that there is no substantial existent of any sort, either subjective or objective, is intentionally absurd and meaningless. I think it was the device that Buddhism used to distance itself at its inception from its environment (generically and wrongly called ‘Hindu’). ‘Hindu’ philosophies ranged towards but never attained the doctrine of non-existence, because it was universally regarded by them as blasphemous. So by espousing it, Buddhism forced its followers (who were themselves motivated by rather simpler considerations, like hunger and low-caste powerlessness) to distinguish themselves permanently and dogmatically from their ‘Hindu’ surroundings.

If this sounds like an unlikely piece of ‘planning’, just compare it to circumcision in the more brutal religions of the west (including Islam, though the Jews perform the ritual most brutally of all). What is this, if not a device for separating the flock from its surroundings? And why, if we allow ourselves to think on our own behalf (something religion explicitly forbids), can we not avoid such disgusting expedients as circumcision, and distinguish ourselves in some more pertinent and constructive way? We are no longer religionists, but we are certainly not brute materialists either. Maybe the future capitals of West and East will be Jerusalem and Lhasa. Now, let’s have a pause for catcalls from the audience, right here.