National Manifesto. On History of Political Teachings and Economic Practices. The Nation against Totalitarian Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy has always wished to obtain a lifetime right for the leading role in the state, attempting to become independent from the will of a monarch, aristocracy or people. It is this craving that has been pushing the bureaucracy to make use of flaws and deficiencies in the government structure for embedding their power. Every now and then, palace plots have been spilling over into the streets of capitals where agitated people were trying to find justice. The fruits have been inevitably snatched by the ruling clans, whereas the crowd was silenced by sops like temporary liberalization of the regime, insignificant reforms and attractive slogans. As a result, the bureaucracy has been growing in number and gaining strength, creating mechanisms for capturing the nation’s property and limitless enrichment. The bureaucratic control over the government, national property and state budget applied highly sophisticated ways to humiliate the populace.
Popular resistance could rest only on top aristocracy – the clergy and the military that make the support base for the state and the monarch striving to hand over a prosperous country to his heir. This is why bureaucracy becomes a secret ally for the revolutionary terrorist forces. Whereas the revolutionaries made a stake on assassinating the monarch and publicly discrediting the aristocracy, the bureaucracy was working covertly, trying to steal the populace from the aristocracy by weaving plots in the ruling circles, carrying the management complexities to an absurdity, misinforming everyone, driving reforms into a dead-end, etc. Political theories presenting this process as the class struggle only played into the bureaucracy’s hand. Their utopianism was enchanting the educated population groups and confusing the mind of masses, providing the bureaucracy with a prospect for omnipotence unchained from any tradition.
The revolutionary enthusiasm of liberalism was supported by the wish to remove the aristocracy with its ethics of serving its people and the Sovereign. Using the interests of the industrialists (or bourgeoisie, as it was called in the 20th century), the bureaucracy was rushing to power in order to restructure all relationships within the society, and to justify the morality of unrestrained profiteering and misappropriating the fruits of the industrial revolution. This drive was accompanied by institutionalizing political nations. Many bourgeois revolutions were of a national character, bringing liberation from other states. Actually, the commons failed to realize their mission of the national leader and were unable to combine the Tradition with Modernization. As a result, the power was seized by moneylenders and speculators. Part of them was trading in money; others were reselling finished goods and raw materials. And some found it appropriate to trade in human beings. At that, the humanistic values of the Enlightenment turned into a dogma, for which sake the impoverished groups and colonized territories were stifled by steel and blood.
Revolutions had been always opposed by certain defensive ideas, later either forgotten or used partially to fit the current political situation. Thanks to the traditionalist philosophers, liberal ideas did not become indisputable. Joseph de Maistre pointed out that universal society laws do not exist; in absence of canonized ancestors, the spirit of freedom brings chaos; and only the national intellect, which suppresses the individual dogmas, may bring the people happiness and wealth. Edmund Burke believed that an individual is born in the presence of the Tradition, state and the unfeasibility of adding private egotisms. Adam Muller and later Hegel insisted that the nation is the basis for any individual and any state. Fichte, Schelling and many other thinkers regarded the nation as an organic substance and the state – as a means for development of the nation. For conservative thinkers, monarchy is almost always the best form of government. Hegel wrote: “Personality of a state is real only in the form of a person – a monarch.” In the 20th century both German and Russian philosophies advanced the ideas of conservatism but did not find enough supporters to stop the wars and revolutions.
Liberals are trying to appropriate institutionalization of the Western industrial society by having invented the myth of the free market economy. In fact, as Max Weber has shown, the successful economic practice had religious roots, i.e. the Protestant ethics born in the peoples’ uprising against the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, at a later stage of the Reformation period the Western society discarded the Tradition, and the newborn bureaucracy imposed its will on the nations.
European states also attempted to disconnect from the bureaucracies and liberate the nations before World War II. However, the revolutionary and military adventurism, inspired by oligarchic agents, substituted the national idea with Nazism. The liberal or leftist bureaucracy was replaced not by national government institutions but by totalitarian bureaucracy or particracy that destroyed any kind of self-government and elementary liberties, although they make the only proper conditions for a nation to develop. The adventurism of Hitler and other leaders of aggressive regimes, as well as the ploys of global oligarchy, brought the world to the war that prevented the nations from overpowering the total bureaucratization. Oligarchs were interested in the fight between Germany and the Soviet Union, since they saw in these regimes something that hampered their global dominance. And they did not wish the sovereign states to independently overcome totalitarian trends. Western bureaucracy found an ally in the totalitarian bureaucracies, which were craving for a war to subjugate the populace. Charismatic leaders of the 20th century relied on bureaucracy and tried to override it. But the nature of a national leader is the opposite of the bureaucrat’s nature. With time, leader left the arena, whereas bureaucracy invariably restored and strengthened its positions.
The victory of liberal regimes and the riches obtained by the oligarchies during World War II and the postwar reconstruction have set mankind on the wrong track. Suppressing national self-consciousness where a drive to the sovereignty emerged, the oligarchy has equaled nationalism to Nazism. The liberal West and its bureaucracy began dictating conditions to the countries where national identity was just arising. The West gave up its civilizing mission in colonies and switched over to neocolonialism. As a result, the peoples with non-existent or vanished historical experience lost their guidelines, allowed the cruelest tyrannies to materialize and sank in bloody civil wars for many years. Nevertheless, places intact from the reach of liberal oligarchy witnessed emergence of civilizations bearing the Tradition.
Liberalism offers no privileges to the industrial capital, whose role in the society suggests domination over financial and trading capital. With the help of liberal dogmas power has come into the hands of transnational oligarchy juggling with fictitious values. The business circles, which lost the Tradition, have turned into the oligarchy’s henchmen and accomplices to a global swindle.