“Political Identity Theft”

One thing that has truly amazed me in studying the history of ideological battles and skirmishes throughout the course of time has been the repeated pattern of one side (usually the minority) co-opting the name of their opposition and savagely waging a war to achieve a dominant rank before the people, later rewriting the history to obscure these facts. A colleague has suggested this phenomena be described as “political identity theft.” One example LRC readers are especially aware of relates to the struggle over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution which carried over into the first decade of the Early National Period. This was the battle between the “Federalists” and the “Anti-Federalists,” later characterized during the Washington and Adams administrations as that between the “Federalists” and “Democratic-Republicans.”

The nationalist supporters of the Philadelphia 1787 coup d’état stole the name of “Federalists” from their opposition forces, and carried this label with them once they achieved power. “Federalists” George Washington, Robert Morris, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall believed in nationalism — a strong, consolidated national government, weak states, an elastic interpretation of the Constitution, a central bank with special privileges creating an elite “paper aristocracy,” and “internal improvements” (corporate welfare at the national level).

By contrast, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (a former nationalist), John Taylor of Caroline County, Virginia, John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia, etc. composed the Republicans. They believed in a constitutional Republic, not an Empire. The Republicans opposed Hamilton’s vicious system of public finance. The Republicans believed in true federalism (a delegation of explicit limited powers to the general government, the bulk of power residing with the states and local government), a strict interpretation of the Constitution limiting the power of the central government, no central bank created by the “Funding Fathers” benefiting a financial elite, no paper currency (gold was “the people’s money”), no special privileges, no corporate welfare.

Later we saw how nationalistic ideologues (both in the U. S. and abroad) appropriated and twisted the noble label of “liberal” and applied it to their nefarious ideology of welfare-warfare statism.

In 1904, years before the 1917 Russian Revolutions, Lenin’s small faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party gloamed onto the label “Bolshevik” (which means “the majority”) against their rival cadre who were actually the true and dominant force within the Marxist revolutionary movement. These rivals were forever after deemed “Menshevik” (the minority).

But the fascinating example of this phenomenon which I want to call attention to is from the time of the French Revolution and the internecine ideological war within the left-wing factions behind the Revolution. This compelling story is told in a fascinating revisionist historical account, Illuminati Manifesto of World Revolution 1792, by Nicholas Bonnevile (translated and introduced by Marco Di Luchetti, ESQ.).  Official or court history accounts says the struggle within the revolutionary forces was between two factions, the dominant Jacobins led by Maximilian Robespierre, and the minority Girondins.

Actually it was just the opposite.

Nicholas Bonneville had established the Cercle Social, a covert revolutionary think tank and publishing entity based upon the model of the Bavarian Illuminati. In the early years of the Revolution they were secretly subsidized and granted special publishing rights to distribute their books, pamphlets, etc. by the French government which they dominated. The Cercle Social put forth and emulated the ideological belief system of libertarian communism from the Illuminati. They were explicitly anti-statist and for radical decentralism. Besides Bonneville, prominent members of the Cercle Social were Tom Paine (who lived with Bonneville and his wife in a ménage à trois ), Brissot, Condorcet, Babeuf, Mercier, Leclerc, Fachet, etc. This faction dominated the Jacobins and the government.

Brissot was the dominant revolutionary leader, and Robespierre was the minority dissenter. Brissotians were appointed to all significant positions in the public ministries. Robespierre’s faction in the Jacobins were actually named the Montagnards (the Mountain) because they sat together in the highest benches of the Jacobin Club and the legislature. They never sat on the left, unlike the Brissotians who did indeed sit on the left, and monarchists on the right, thus helping designate the ideological political spectrum which still exists today.

Ultimately Robespierre was ridiculed at a Jacobian meeting and sought vicious revenge. He instituted the Reign of Terror of 1793–94 and had his major opponents arrested and imprisoned, many executed. Robespierre appropriated the name of Jacobins for his faction, and designated his opposition as the Girondins.

It was in 1828 when revolutionist Filippo Buonarroti, “Robespierre’s friend and ally in 1793,” wrote his influential History of the Conspiracy of Equals concerning the Babeuf conspiracy of 1796 that this historical distortion becomes entrenched. As Marco Di Luchetti summarizes: “In 1828, Buonarroti issued the equivalent of a manifesto that claimed communism can only be initially achieved and therefore maintained by means of a dictatorship and a socialized system of rigid state controls.”

The revolutionary movement which began in 1789 in the Cercle Social, which in the middle of its course had as its chief representatives Leclerc and Roux, and which finally with Babeuf’s conspiracy was temporarily defeated, gave rise to the communist idea which Babeuf’s friend Buonarroti re-introduced in France after the Revolution in 1830.  This idea, consistently developed, is the idea of the new world order.

This quote (found here in full context) is from The Holy Family, the first joint collaboration volume of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It was written several years before their more celebrated (and originally anonymous) 1848 work, The Communist Manifesto.

So from Marx and Engels — the founding fathers of modern communism — we have it boldly stated:  the communist idea = the new world order.

Therefore Robespierre the radical centralizer, initiator of class and religious genocide, and supporter of comprehensive state planning, was the true precursor of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and Lenin’s heirs Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ceaușescu, Pol Pot, etc.

As with the “Federalists,” modern “liberals,” and “Bolsheviks,” the sycophantic winners write the “official history” and the losers go down the Orwellian Memory Hole.

Share

10:49 pm on January 19, 2021

Political Theatre

LRC Blog

LRC Podcasts