Friedrich Engels, Habsburg imperialist (1849)

In order to commemorate the historical achievement of Lyndon LaRouche Vox Day in finally illuminating the true unabashed meaning of the left-right political spectrum, I would like to point out just how correct he is on his judgment regarding the devious machinations of PLATONIST IMPERIALISM with its hypocritical pretense of a “civilizing mission.”

The fact is that Platonist imperialism’s refusal to hand over chunks of land to ethno-Jacobin mobs and the chattering classes behind them is, in the final analysis, a horrific affront to human rights.

This is why traditionalist and counterrevolutionary organizations such as the United Nations stress that “the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”

100% Aristotelian content on part of the UN, as the reader can clearly observe.

In contrast, we have Friedrich Engels, and his imperialist thoughts on democratic Pan-Slavism, straight from Plato’s Republic itself:

We repeat: apart from the Poles, the Russians, and at most the Turkish Slavs, no Slav people has a future, for the simple reason that all the other Slavs lack the primary historical, geographical, political and industrial conditions for independence and viability.

Peoples which have never had a history of their own, which from the time when they achieved the first, most elementary stage of civilization already came under foreign sway, or which were forced to attain the first stage of civilization only by means of a foreign yoke, are not viable and will never be able to achieve any kind of independence.

And that has been the fate of the Austrian Slavs. The Czechs, among whom we would include the Moravians and Slovaks, although they differ in respect of language and history, have never had a history of their own. Bohemia has been chained to Germany since the time of Charles the Great. The Czech nation freed itself momentarily and formed the Great-Moravian state, only immediately to come under subjugation again and for 500 years to be a bill thrown from one to another by Germany, Hungary and Poland. Following that, Bohemia and Moravia passed definitely to Germany and the Slovak regions remained with Hungary. And this historically absolutely non-existent “nation” puts forward claims to independence?

The same thing holds for the Southern Slavs proper. Where is the history of the Illyrian Slovenes, the Dalmatians, Croats and Shokazians? Since the 11th century they have lost the last semblance of political independence and have been partly under German, partly under Venetian, and partly under Magyar rule. And it is desired to put together a vigorous, independent, viable nation out of these tattered remnants?

More than that. If the Austrian Slavs were a compact mass like the Poles, the Magyars and the Italians, if they were in a position to come together to form a state of 12-20 million people, then their claims would surely be more serious. But the position is just the opposite. The Germans and Magyars have pushed themselves in between them like a broad wedge to the farthest extremities of the Carpathians, almost to the Black Sea, and have separated the Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks from the Southern Slavs by a broad band 60-80 miles [German mile equals 4.7 English miles] wide. To the north of this band are 5.5 million Slavs, to the south 5.5 million Slavs, separated by a compact mass of 10-11 million Germans and Magyars, made allies by history and necessity.


What then are the great, dreadful crimes committed by the Germans and Magyars against the Slav nationality? We are not speaking here of the partition of Poland, which is not at issue here, we are speaking of the “centuries of injustice” supposed to have been inflicted on the Slavs.

In the north, the Germans have reconquered from the Slavs the formerly German and subsequently Slav region from the Elbe to the Warthe; a conquest which as determined by the “geographical and strategical necessities” resulting from the partition of the Carolingian kingdom. These Slavs areas have been fully Germanized; the thing has been done and cannot be undone, unless the pan-Slavists were to resurrect the lost Sorbian, Wendish, and Obodritian languages and impose them on the inhabitants of Leipzig, Berlin and Stettin. But up to now it has never been disputed that this conquest was to the advantage of civilization.

In the south, the Germans found the Slav races already split up. That had been seen to by the non-Slav Avars, who occupied the region later inhabited by the Magyars. The Germans exacted tribute from these Slavs and waged many wars against them. They fought also against the Avars and Magyars, from whom they took the whole territory from the Ems to the Leitha. Whereas they carried out Germanization here by force, the Germanization of the Slav territories proceeded much more on a peaceful basis, by immigration and by the influence of the more developed nation on the undeveloped German industry, German trade, and German culture by themselves served to introduce the German language into the country. As far as “oppression” is concerned, the Slavs were not more oppressed by the Germans than the mass of the German population itself.

As regards the Magyars, there are certainly also a large number of Germans in Hungary, but the Magyars, although numbering “hardly four millions”, have never had the occasion to complain of the “damnable German policy”! And if during eight centuries the “eight million Slavs” have had to suffer the yoke imposed on them by the four million Magyars, that alone sufficiently proves which was the more viable and vigorous, the many Slavs or the few Magyars!

But, of course, the greatest “crime” of the Germans and Magyars is that they prevented these 12 million Slavs from becoming Turkish! What would have become of these scattered small nationalities, which have played such a pitiful role in history, if the Magyars and Germans had not kept them together and led them against the armies of Mohammed and Suleiman, and if their so-called oppressors had not decided the outcome of the battles which were fought for the defense of these weak nationalities! The fate of the “12 million Slavs, Wallachians, and Greeks” who have been “trampled underfoot by 700,000 Osmans” (p.8), right up to the present day, does not that speak eloquently enough?

And finally, what a “crime” it is, what a “damnable policy” that at a time when, in Europe in general, big monarchies had become a “historical necessity”, the Germans and Magyars untied all these small, stunted and impotent little nations into a single big state and thereby enabled them to take part in a historical development from which, left to themselves, they would have remained completely aloof! Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness, and if Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon had been capable of being moved by the same sort of appeal as that which pan-Slavism now makes on behalf of its ruined clients, what would have become of history! And are the Persians, Celts, and Christian Germans of less value than the Czechs, Ogulians, and Serezhans?

Now, however, as a result of the powerful progress of industry, trade and communications, political centralization has become a much more urgent need than it was then, in the 15th and 16th centuries. What still has to be centralized is being centralized. And now the pan-Slavists come forward and demand that we should “set free” these half-Germanized Slavs, and that we should abolish a centralization which is being forced on these Slavs by all their material interests!

In short, it turns out these “crimes” of the Germans and Magyars against the said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast in their history.

Absolutely despicable. Anti-familial. Platonist. Imperialist.

And, of course, Marxist. That much can’t be denied. Unfortunately this part must have been redacted from Capital and ultimately failed to get into the heads of Marx and Engels’ sycophants.

Cultural Marxism ain’t new. It’s as old as orthodox Marxism. And sometimes Marx or Engels accidentally said the right thing for reasons of their deranged political economy.


8 thoughts on “Friedrich Engels, Habsburg imperialist (1849)

  1. Pingback: Friedrich Engels, Habsburg imperialist (1849) | Reaction Times

  2. Phase I: Joseph II. expands bureaucracy and “invents” an official language. German, of course.
    Phase II: the Magyars oppose Vienna, some moment in the 1840s the Diet of Hungary disavows Latin and introduces Magyar (a language which, for instance, the members of the Croatian sub-Kingdom Diet did not speak; besides Latin, I am sure at least some of them they were fluent in German and French… but Magyar???; Croatian Diet would drop Latin in 1847 and introduce Croatian/Slavic/Illyrian.. whatever you call it).
    Phase III. Public and always more and more compulsory education. Should the Magyar language be compulsory in every school in the lands of the Holy Crown?
    The old Hungary of the Holy Crown was given a death pill in 1848 to become Magyarország.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. In 1848 Military Border colonel Jelačić (spelled Jellachich by Engels), a moderate liberal, became Croatian Viceroy (ban). Croatian protonationalists (in a pseudo-parliamentary meeting which included some members of the Diet) made a list of 30 demands to the Emperor/King (still Ferdinand I/V). The first one was to make Jelačić the Viceroy. Others demanded to abolish serfdom, unite Austrian Dalmatia and the Military Border to Croatia (the latter was done in 1881, the former in 1939 and again in 1945) religion tolerance, emancipation of Jews and (yes!) abolition of celibacy for (Roman Catholic) priests and introduction of the vernacular language “according to old right and custom” (in reality, there was a portion of littoral Croatia using old Church Slavonic in the Roman Rite since the time of St. Methodius’ successors, but this was a hieratic, non-changing idiom far from any vernacular).
    The sliest of the demands was No. 29: let only sons of the Kingdom hold state and ecclesiastical offices. This was a direct move against the Juraj Haulik, bishop of Zagreb, who was born and educated in Slovakia, but was a Croatian patriot in a positive sense and a good, conservative faithful bishop (he would soon become the first Archbishop of Zagreb, and eventually a cardinal). Moreover, as the first peer of the Kingdom, the bishop of Zagreb was ex officio the locum-tenens (acting) Viceroy, whenever there was a vacancy, such as 1840-1842 and 1845-1848 (including the moment of issuing the document, until Jelačić was appointed). While Haulik was to be ousted (he was not, eventually), any nobleman holding possessions in the eastern part of Croatia liberated from the Turks after 1683. would still be able to become Viceroy, without being able to speak a word of Croatian or any Slavic language. No, the liberals do no like orthodox, pious, celibate, non-masonic bishops.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Of course, the Vatican II levelers bulldozed this Church Slavonic idiom of the Tridentine Rite together with the Tridentine Rite itself.


  4. Jelačić himself was more a Habsburg soldier than Croatian nationalist.
    Both Vienna and Croatian nationalists demanded war against the Batthyány government (the transdanubian Serbs from eastern Military Borders would also rise against the Magyars) and in June 1848 the main market square in Zagreb (a small city at the time, which differed from several similar cities in Croatia only be being the centre of a diocese founded by Holy King Laszlo in the 11th century) was officially named Jelačić Square!
    Jelačić died in office in 1859 and a monument was erected in 1866 (the author was the same sculptor who made Eugene of Savoy and Archduke Charles on Vienna Heldenplatz)
    For being against the Course of History, Jelaćić, as the link above shows, was anathemized by Engels. Communists did not forget this, and the square was renamed after 1945. The monument was dismembered, but not melted. The reversal, both for the square name and the monument, happened in 1990, and, in addition, Jelačić was put on a banknote, together with “moderate” pan-Slavic “moderate” liberal poet-politician Mažuranić and nationalist-Jacobin anti-clerical politicians Starčević and Radić (yes, those three were held in esteem by the communists as well).


  5. The 19-century obsession with nationhood was quite embarassing. The (pan-)Germans at least did not hide their political goals while pan-Slavism seems to be a cover up for expansion of Russian Empire. Visiting Russia was a sobering experience for some nationalists/pan-Slavists and so they turned into Austro-Slavists.

    I guess pan-Germanism tranformed into EU ideology and pan-Slavism into Eurasianism of today.

    “Cultural Marxism ain’t new. It’s as old as orthodox Marxism.”

    I noticed some people (often from Catholic Traditionalist circles) focus on cultural Marxism as the true and ultimate enemy, supposedly spreading from communist Russia (the Russian errors of Our Lady of Fatima as they say). Almost as if things were ok before sexual revolution. This seems analogous to the Church was ok until Vatican 2 kicked in.


  6. Pingback: Cultural Marxism: an alternative history | Carlsbad 1819

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s