TheOccultWar

THEOCCULTWAR

THEJUDEO-MASONICPLAN

TOCONQUERTHEWORLDCOUNTLÉONDEPONCINS

&

EMMANUELMALYNSKI

THEOCCULTWAR:THEJUDEO-MASONICPLANTOCONQUERTHEWORLD

Originaleditions:LaGuerreocculte:JuifsetFrancs-Maçonsàlaconquêtedumonde(Paris:GabrielBeauchesneetsesFils,1936)andLaguerraocculta:armiefasidell’attaccoebraico-massonicoallatradizioneeuropea(Milan:Hoepli,

1939)

Authors:CountLéondePoncins,EmmanuelMalynski,&JuliusEvola

Translator:SK

Editor:JohnBMorgan

Copyright©2015LogikFörlag

Box22120,25023Helsingborg,Sweden

www.logik.se

ISBN:978-91-87339-34-9

ContentsEditor’sNote

Preface

Introduction

TheNineteenthCentury:TheRevolutionAwakens

TheHolyAlliance:Metternich,ChampionoftheCounter-Revolution

TheHolyAlliance:NationalismandUniversalism

1848:TheBeginningoftheWorldRevolution

NapoleonIII:AnAllyofWorldSubversion

TheFirstWarsforDemocracy:TheCrimeanWar

AfterBringingRussiaDown,theRevolutionDirectsItsEffortsagainstAustria

BismarckandtheTransformationofCentralEurope

TheCommuneandtheEternalHatred

1914-1918:TheGreatWar

1919:ThePeaceTreaties–TheDisruptionofEuropeandtheLeagueofNations

TheBirthPangsofBolshevism:TheRiseofCapitalisminRussia

Stolypin’sEconomicReform

Stolypin’sWork:CapitalismandProperty

StolypinandtheJewishQuestion

TheRevolutionofMarch1917

FromKerenskytoLenin

Lenin

TheCoupd’EtatofNovember1917:TheTriumphofBolshevism

EuropeStrikesBack

APPENDIXI:ConsiderationsOnTheOccultWar

APPENDIXII:ReviewofEmmanuelMalynskiandLéonDePoncins’bookTheOccultWar

Editor’sNoteThe original edition of La Guerre occulte: Juifs et Francs-Maçons à la conquête dumonde(TheOccultWar:TheJudeo-MasonicPlantoConquertheWorld)waspublishedinFrench by Gabriel Beauchesne et ses Fils in Paris in 1936. The Italian traditionalistphilosopherJuliusEvolatranslatedthebookintoItalian,andpublisheditwithHoepliinMilan in 1939 under the title of La guerra occulta: armi e fasi dell’attacco ebraico-massonico alla tradizione europea (The Occult War: The Weapons and Phases of theJewish-MasonicAttackontheEuropeanTradition),addinghisownIntroduction.Wehavebasedourtranslationonbotheditions,includingEvola’sIntroductionaswell.

Duringtheprocessoftranslatingthebook,wediscoveredthatEvolamadeanumberofinterestingalterationstothetext,occasionallyadding,removing,orrewritingsmallpartsof the French original.We have noted these changes in the footnotes, as they offer aninsightintothedifferentwaysinwhichdePoncinsandEvolaapproachedthesameissues.We have likewise added two appendices: Evola’s essay ‘Considerations on the OccultWar’,whichisa1938essayonthistopic;andareviewoftheFrencheditionofthebookthatwaspublishedbythefirsttraditionalistphilosopher,RenéGuénon,in1936.

Both versions of the text contained their own footnotes. Following each note, I haveaddedeither ‘Poncins’or ‘Evola’ to indicatewhosefootnote it is,and thosewhichwereaddedbymeforthepresenteditionaredenotedwithan‘—Ed.’.Wheresourcesinotherlanguages have been cited, I have attempted to replace them with existing English-languageeditions.

JohnBMorgan

PREFACEEmmanuelMalynski spent thirtyyearsofhis lifedirectlyobserving thedevelopmentofthe modern revolutionary movement around the world, devoting an almost visionaryintelligenceandclear-mindednesstothistask.

BorninRussianPolandinanageinwhichthesocialorganisationwasstilllargelyfeudal,hewitnessedthebirthandriseofindustrialcapitalism,pavingthewaytoBolshevism.Inpracticalterms,helivedthroughseveralcenturiesofhistory,sincethisdevelopmentfirstbegan in our lands during theRenaissance, only to reach its flowering after theFrenchRevolution.

He directly experienced the collapse of Tsarism and was a first-hand witness to thetriumph of Bolshevism. After becoming a Polish citizen with the re-establishment ofPoland, he witnessed the implementation of the agricultural reforms that followed theGreatWar.

A sportsman, renowned fencer, and one of the first pilots, he had perfect spoken andwritten command ofmany languages and possessed an extraordinary andwide-rangingculture.Therewashardlyacorneroftheworldhehadnotvisitedandstudied:fromIndiatoJapan,hetravelledthroughancientAsiabeforeithadbecomecompletelypervertedbycontact with theWest. In America he directly observed the triumph of capitalism andindustrialisationinitsvariousstages;hegottoknowthemainghettosofeasternEurope,alsosawtheminNewYork,andobservedZionismatworkinPalestine.

Hegazedat everythingwith theobjectivenessof a thinkerwho sees things subspecieAeternitatis,1andtheconclusionshereachedregardingthecrisisofthemodernworldarethemostprofoundeverformulated.

Years in advance, he foresaw and heraldedwhat is now occurring. Indeed, hewas soaheadofcontemporarythoughtthathewasmisunderstoodinhisownday.

Hewasoneofthefirst–evenaheadofMaxWeberandWernerSombart–tograsptheprofoundly Jewish essence of modern capitalism and to show its affinities withBolshevism.

Hewasoneofthefirsttorealisewhatsupportcertainexaggeratedformsofnationalismunwittinglylendthemselvestointernationalsubversion.

He was one of the first to fathom the metaphysical essence of the revolutionarymovement,showing thatwhat is takingplace isactuallya religiouswar,anage-oldandworldwideclashbetweentwoantagonisticworldviews.

***

In1935,anoldmanweakenedbyaseriousillness,heentrustedmewithcarryingonandcompleting his work that had been interrupted. For this purpose, he left me theobservations,notes,manuscripts,articles,andbookshehadcollectedthroughoutalifeoftravelandresearch,givingmeafreehandtousethemasIdeemedfit.Fromourmutual

collaboration this book has sprung, which explores the secret history of subversion, aterrifyinghistorythathasneverbeenwrittenbefore,butwhichisstartingtocometolight.

Icouldhavesupportedthiswork’sclaimsthroughdocumentaryevidence,butthiswouldonlyhaveweigheddownatextthatisalreadyrichenough.Thoseinterestedwillfindmostofthisevidenceinmyotherworks.2

***

BecauseofitsinnovativehistoricalinsightsandofMalynski’sbold,yetcarefullythought-outideas,thisbookhaselicitedbothheatedenthusiasmandviolentcriticism,aswitnessedbythemanylettersIhavereceivedfromreaders.Itwouldhavebeeninterestingtopublishsomeofthese,alongwithareply,butthiswouldhaverequiredconsiderableresearchandwouldhavefurtherlengthenedabookthatisalreadydenseenough.

I have limited myself to re-editing the text without changing anything, but with theintentionofcomplementing itwithanotherworkwhichwillnot–as in thiscase–beahistoryoftherevolutionaryprinciplesatworkinthemodernworld,butratherastudyofsuchprinciplesinthemselves.

Thus,loyaltothememoryofCountMalynski,Iwillendeavourtocompletehistaskandtocarryitonintothefuture.

August1938

LéondePoncins

1Latin:‘fromtheviewpointofeternity’.—Ed.

2 InSociété desNations, Super ÉtatMaçonnique, I have drawn from a passage ofLaGuerreOcculte that squaresperfectlywiththeMasonictextthatprovidesthefoundationsfortheotherwork.ThosereadersinterestedinthechapterabouttheParisPeaceConferencewillfindallthedocumentaryevidencetheyneedinS.D.N.,SuperEtatMaçonnique,whichwaspublishedbyBeauchesnein1936.

INTRODUCTIONThe fightwhich has broken out in various parts of theWest against the dark forces ofcontemporary subversion, against Communism, collectivism, Jewry, and Freemasonry,cannotbewaged to the fulluntilwe learn toviewhistory fromaverydifferentangle–recent history, as well as the most remote, which actually contains the causes of theformer.

For each movement of renewal, the domain of culture constitutes the last bastion ofresistanceonthepartofthatwhichmustbeovercome.Inthisdomain,mentalsuggestionsand deformations are given free rein in a way, since they are presented under thehypocriticalanddeceitfulguiseof’technicalities’.Thereactionaryforceswhich,duetoacombination of circumstances, tend to focus their fight on the political and materialsectors,believetheculturaldomainisessentiallyharmlessandhencetobetolerated,whenit actually contains the primary causes of that disorder and subversion which they aresimplyfightinginitsmosttangibleoutermanifestations.

Away of ’doing’ history exists and persists, therefore, which is less the product of amental limitationthanofacarefullyspreadsuggestion,whoseinfluenceitsveryvictimsarethefirsttoignore.Thisverdictmaybeappliedtothepositivistprejudice,themethodwhich is adopted by so-called ’serious’ people and authorised scholars who are ’novisionaries’: it followsone rule,which is thatofmakingpeoplebelieve that there isnosuchthingasathirddimensionofhistory;thathistoricaleventsareself-evident,whichisto say that they may be explained on the basis of purely social, cultural and politicalfactors;andthatthereisno’intention’behindthem,nogeneralplanpreordainedbyforcesoperating behind the scenes. The aim of this ’objective’ method is evident: it seeks topreventpeople’sgazefromfallingwhere itought to,so that therealforceswhichmakehistory may continue their underground work without raising any suspicions or beingdisturbed.

Yet inwriting history inmodern times, it is difficult for the alleged objectivity of thepositivist method not to go hand in hand with another prejudice, namely that of theevolutionist. This consists exclusively in presenting the accelerating race towards theabyssasanenthusiasticandfreerace towards’progress’andasequenceof increasinglygrandandgloriousachievementsonthepartofmankind.Wehadtofindourselvesalmostonthebrinkoftheabyssinordertowakeupfromthishypnosis,whichhadbeencreatedin the workshops of humanism and encyclopaedism. But make nomistakes: while thesocial and cultural forms of this myth, which are almost invariably connected to theMasonic,rationalist,scientistic,anddemocraticideology,maynowhavelostsomepointsin the stock exchangeof contemporaryvalues, they endure inmore subtle forms, againundertheprotectionof’technicality’.Andonceweleaveasidethemostrecenthistory–where theveryforceofevents,aswehavementioned,has led toanawakening,so thatanyinsistenceontheenemy’spartwouldbeunwise–andturntoconsidermoreancienthistory,whatwefindismoreorlessthestatuquoante:thishistoryisstillpresentedinthelightof’modern’thought, i.e. the’aware’,’critical’,and’scientific’ thoughtwhich,asis

wellknown,claimstohavethelastwordonhumancivilisationandstillhasitsfollowers.

This is whymost people are unaware of the history that has unfolded behind visiblehistory;andthisisalsowhythesecrethistoryofworldsubversionstillwaitstobewritten,nomatterhowdismayingorevendreadful the impressionitwillmakeuponunpreparedspirits.

Agroupofwritersacrossvariouscountrieshastodaysetthisasitstask.WebelieveitiscrucialforthenewFascistItalytotakedueaccountofthecontributionsthathavealreadybeenmadetoanactiontheimportanceofwhichcanhardlybeover-emphasised.

Inthisrespect,weourselveshavedoneandcontinuetodowhatwecan.RenéGuénon’smasterpieceTheCrisisoftheModernWorld,1whichwehaverecentlytranslated(Hoepli,Milan 1937), already contains the fundamental points of reference for a historical andculturalrevisionofthissortandbroadlyindicatesthechiefremotecausesofcontemporarycorruption.Anotherbook,whichcarriesournameandyetisnotsomuchapersonalworkas a timely collection of traditional data, isRevolt against theModernWorld2 (Hoepli,Milan, 1935). This book systematically sheds light on the civilisation which modernsubversionhasoverrun,whileatthesametimeindicatingthenature,rhythm,andphasesofthoseprocesseswhichhaveledfromtheworldofouroriginsandtheluminouscycleofthegreatAryanandHyperboreancivilisationstothemodernworldofanti-Traditionandthedemonofcollectivism.Now,aftercollaboratingwithGiovanniPreziosi3andRobertoFarinacci4 in theirfightagainst themostmodernformsofsubversion,whicharecloselylinked toJewry,wewish to introduce theItalianpublic toa thirdwork: thepresentTheOccultWar,aworkjointlywrittenbyCountEmmanuelMalinksyandViscountLéondePoncins, which readers may want to examine in close connection with the twoaforementionedbooks.

FewItaliansnowadayshavenotheardofthefamousProtocolsoftheEldersofZion,thelatest edition of which (Baldini e Castoldi, Milan 1938) includes an introduction weourselves have written in an attempt to clarify the meaning and significance of thisimportant document.5 The book we are now presenting may be seen as providingirrefutablehistoricalevidenceforthetruthfulnessoftheProtocols.Wehavepreferredittomany other, similarworks because of its radical character, accuracy, broad perspective,and capacity to really investigate the secret history of the world revolution withoutstoppingatitslatesteffects,butrathergoingbacktothosewhichinthemostrecentperiod–thecriticalphaseproper–haveservedastheirantecedentsandprerequisites.Itisnotamatter of isolated attacks or sweeping accusations: it is the central trunk of Westernhistoryitself,asithasbeenunfoldingeversincetheHolyAlliance,6whichisheremadetheobjectofmercilessscrutiny.

There is also one other reason why we have chosen this book: its aristocratic andCatholic radicalism. The anti-Jewish and counter-revolutionary approach does not findjustificationheremerelyincontingentreasons,suchasparticularnationalinterests,whichareprinciples betraying the same illness that is allegedlybeing fought, or compromisesduetonotorious’circumstancesbeyondone’scontrol’;rather, it isrootedinagenuinely

traditionalviewoftheworldandthestate.Oneofthegreatmeritsofthisworkisthatitemphasises themetaphysical essence of the revolutionary movement, by showing howthat which is being fought nowadays is not so much a political and social war as areligiousone–abattlebetweentwosupra-nationalfrontsmorethanonefortheinterestsof individual nations, races, or parties; that what we are witnessing today, then, is apossiblydecisivephaseintheclashbetweentwoantagonisticworldviews,withmorethansimplyhumanforcesatworkonbothsides.

Hence, this is notmerely a book of rebuke and anti-Semitic or anti-Masonic polemic:rather it directly or indirectly offers the reader many cues to develop a positive,constructive, or re-constructive orientation focused on the essential rather than theaccessory,anddevoidofanyattenuation.Everythingtheauthorssayregardingwhatoughttohavebeendonetocurbtheinitialprogressionofworldsubversion,andwasnot,appliesnotonlyto thepastbut thefutureaswell.ThegreatEuropeanandtraditional idealofabloc of hierarchically arranged nations closing ranks, with lances pointed against the’infidel’,whoisoneandthesame,whateverformshemaytaketoconcealhimself–thisreturntothegreatspiritoftheCrusadesandtheneedtoopposethesingleworldfrontofsubversion bymeans of an equally vast front which is as spiritual and imperial as theformerismaterialistic,international,andanti-national.Allthisrepresentsavaluenotonlyforthepast,butforthefutureaswell,and–wehavenohesitationsinsayingso–isthepreconditionforanygenuinevictoryandreconstruction.

Positive ideas, as a counterpart to the investigation of destructive and subversiveprocesses, are also to be found in the details of this book. If the authors linger, forinstance, on the work of Stolypin7 – an almost forgotten figure who may have savedRussia from theBolshevik infection– this is because they take theopportunity to shedlight on the essence of a normal and healthy economy, as opposed to the profoundlyJudaised economy of modern capitalism, while revealing the causal as well as tacticalconnections between the latter andMarxism and Bolshevism. The final section of thebooknotonlycontainsagrippingeyewitnessaccountoftheRussianeventsandwhatlaybehindthem,butalsoprovidesaparadigmfortheslipperyslopewhich’moderate’liberal,democratic,andsocialisticregimesareboundtotakesoonerorlater, therebyunmaskingtheforcestheseregimesserve,astheypavethewayforthefinalcollapse.Inotherwords,the authors remind us of a historical lesson which, regrettably, many compromisingEuropeanregimescontinuetoignore.Thefundamentalorindeed–touseamathematicalexpression – ’vectorial’ unity of the revolutionary phenomenon in all of its formsrepresentsthecentralthesisofthebook.Thisthesisgoeshandinhandwiththeideathatthe phenomenon in question is not spontaneous but induced, not casual but directedbyobscure, if nonetheless specific, forces. A ’demonic’ tradition of subversion forsubversion’ssake–Guénonwouldspeakof’counter-initiation’–runsthroughouthistory,inparallelandeternaloppositiontothatofgenuinespirituality;initliethedeepestrootsoftherevolutionaryphenomenon.

Wehaveadvisedthereader tocombinehisreadingofTheOccultWarwith thatof thetwo other books we have mentioned: should he also choose to leaf through theaforementionedintroductiontotheProtocols,hewouldeffortlesslygainanoverallview

thatwouldallowhim tonaturallyandeasily rectify theoccasionalone-sidednessof thetwoauthorsofthepresentvolume.Forinstance,thereaderwillsoonrecognisewhatcantruly and legitimately be ascribed to Jewry alone – amajor force of world subversionwhosemostrecentforms,however,haveonlybeenmadepossiblebypreviousinvolutionsofourowncivilisation.Secondly,while thereaderwillgrowawareof thepossibilityofrestingtheanti-Jewishandanti-MasoniccampaignonaChristianandCatholicbasis,hewill not rule out the idea that, in relation to other civilisations, and possibly certainsections of our own as well, a different formulation of the traditional spirit – itselftranscendingallparticularhistoricalmanifestations–mayserveasanequallyvalidbasis.Thenotionofdivineright,forinstance,whichiscorrectlystressedbytheauthors,maybefound in no less rigorous a form in non-Christian (e.g., Japan) or non-Catholiccivilisations (e.g., ancientRussia). The readerwill thus have the chance to broaden hishorizons:ontheonehand,hewillbeabletoidentifyalltheforcesoperatingonthefrontofworld subversion, and not simply some of them, however important or striking theymaybe;andontheother,hewillbeabletograsptheprerequisitestoestablishacommoncounter-revolutionary front –one traditional rather than confessional – fullyopposed totheformer.Inaddition,whattheauthorwilllearnfromthisbookregardingthestrategybywhich certain forces in the past, blinded by their own particular interests and lack ofsensitivity towards a superior idea, have been led to play their enemy’s game, maypossibly help prevent this samegamebeingplayed in the future, and cause the bloc ofEuropeandefenceandoffencetobecometrulyinaccessible.

***

WewouldliketoaddafewwordsaboutthelivesofthetwoauthorsofTheOccultWar,awork sprung from de Poncins’ elaboration of a vast corpus of material gathered byMalinsky.

CountEmmanuelMalinsky,who passed away inMay 1938 inLausanne,was born inRussianPoland.Asportsmanandfencer,hehadalsobeenoneofthefirstpilots.Hehadperfect spoken andwritten command ofmany languages, and possessed an uncommonanduniversalsenseofculture.Therewasnocornerof theworldhehadnotvisitedandstudied:fromIndiaandJapantoAmericaandthevariousghettosofEasternEurope.Forthirty years, he examined the essence of the revolutionary phenomenon throughout theworldandof theprocessesconcomitant to it,with so sharpan intelligenceas toappearalmostvisionary.

Alreadymany years ago,Malinsky had foreseen and heraldedwhat is now occurring.Indeed,hewassoaheadofcontemporarythoughtthatheremainedunacknowledgedinhisownday.EvenbeforeMaxWeberandWernerSombart,hedenouncedthesecretforcesatworkbehind internationalcapitalism,aswellas the latter’sessential relation toJudaismanditstacticalconnectionstotheproletarianinternational.HisobservationsregardingthetruefaceofAmericaremainofstrikingrelevancetothisday.

Inthelastyearsofhislife,whenhehadgrownweakduetoaseriousoperation,CountMalinskyentrustedtheFrenchviscountLéondePoncinswithcontinuingtheworkhehadleftoffbycollectingthematerialhehadgatheredthroughhismanytravelsandstudies.

DePoncinshasbeenfightinginthestruggleagainstthesecretforcesoftherevolution,andespeciallyFreemasonryandJewry,foryears.Heistheauthorofseveralworksonthematter, which may be regarded as documentary evidence for what is illustrated in thepresentbookintheformofahistoricaloverview.Tomentionbutafewtitles:TheOccultForces of theRevolution8 (translated into six languages), FreemasonryAccording to ItsOwn Secret Documents,9 The League of Nations: The Masonic Superstate,10 TheMysterious Jewish International,11The SecretHistory of the Spanish Revolution,12 andStormsovertheWorld.13What’smore,dePoncinshasalsofoundedandistheeditorofaninteresting international magazine calledContre-Revolution. In France he is fighting astrenuousbattle against the forceswhicharecontrollinghis countryandaredestined todrag it down into the abyss, unless an adequate reaction takes place in short order. AstaunchtraditionalistandCatholic,dePoncinsnicelycombinesalackofcompromisewithgreat understanding: he is oneof theprecious fewmenwhomaybe reliedupon in theeventuality of establishing a sort of new Order to unite the elite forces of differentcountriesinspiritagainstthecommonenemy.

Italy, which is now fully awakening to the Judeo-Communist peril, will certainlyappreciate the contributionwhich this representative of those uncorrupted forceswhichremaininFranceisofferingtoourcommonactionwiththepresentwork,togetherwithhislate Polish comrade. For our part, we sincerely wish for his difficult struggle to gaingroundandfindincreasinglyworthyalliesinhishomecountry.

Quodbonum,felix,faustumquesit.14

Rome,23November1938-XVII15

JuliusEvola

1TheCrisisoftheModernWorld(Hillsdale:SophiaPerennis,2001).—Ed.

2RevoltagainsttheModernWorld(Rochester,VT:InnerTraditions,1995).—Ed.

3GiovanniPreziosi(1881-1945)wasanearlyFascistwhofavouredanadoptionofracialmeasuresinItalytomirrorthoseoftheThirdReich.HepublishedthefirstItaliantranslationofTheProtocolsof theEldersofZion in1920,andEvolawroteanintroductiontothesecondeditionin1937.PreziosialwaysremainedfaithfultoMussoliniandservedinthegovernmentatSaló.InApril1945,hecommittedsuicideratherthanbecapturedbytheAllies.—Ed.

4RobertoFarinacci(1892-1945)wasaFirstWorldWarveteranwhojoinedtheFascistsin1919.HequicklybecamearadicalleaderintheParty,andMussoliniappointedhimasSecretaryin1925.Heresignedhispositionin1926followingpolicydisagreementswithMussolini.HelaterfoughtintheAbyssinianWarandtheSpanishCivilWar,andin1935hebecame amember of the FascistGrandCouncil,where he favoured adopting anti-Semiticmeasures in Italy. In July1943, he backedMussolini, and as a result was forced to flee to Germany following the Duce’s arrest. The Nazisconsideredplacinghimat theheadof theItalianSocialRepublic,butappointedMussoliniafter the latter’srescuebyOttoSkorzeny.HereturnedtoItalybutremainedoutofpolitics,andwasexecutedbyanti-Fascistpartisansin1945.—Ed.

5AvailableinEnglishatweb.archive.org/web/20141108100743/http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id68.html.—Ed.

6TheHolyAlliancewasacoalitionofAustria,PrussiaandRussiawhichwassignedinViennain1815.OriginallyitwasintendedtodefendChristianvaluesinEurope,but,asitwasusedbyAustrianPrinceMetternich,itbecameaforceto counter the influence of the French Revolution, and opposed both democracy and secularism. Eventually, all the

Europeanstatesofthetimesignedontoit,exceptforGreatBritain,theOttomanEmpire,andtheVatican.ItisgenerallyregardedtohaveceasedfunctioningafterthedeathofCzarAlexanderIin1825.—Ed.

7Piotr Stolypin (1862-1911) served as bothPrimeMinister and asMinister of InternalAffairs inRussia.Hismainfocus was on countering revolutionary subversion, toward which end he attempted to institute land reform for thepeasantfarmersandtoimproveconditionsofurbanworkers.HewasassassinatedinKievin1911byarevolutionary.—Ed.

8Translated asFreemasonry and Judaism: SecretPowersBehindRevolution (Brooklyn,NewYork:A&BBooks,1994).—Ed.

9LaDictaturedesPuissancesOccultes:LaF.M.d’aprèssesDocumentsSecrets(Paris:GabrielBeauchesne,1934).—Ed.

10SociétédesNations,SuperÉtatMaçonnique(Paris:GabrielBeauchesne,1936).—Ed.

11LeMystérieuseInternationaleJuive(Paris:GabrielBeauchesne,1936).—Ed.

12HistoireSecrètedelaRévolutionEspagnole(Paris:GabrielBeauchesne,1938).—Ed.

13TempêtesurleMonde;ou,LaFailliteduProgrès(Paris:GabrielBeauchesne,1934).—Ed.

14Latin:‘Mayitbegood,prosperous,andauspicious!’—Ed.

15Designatingyear17oftheFascistEra,theItalianFascistcalendarwhosecommencementcoincidedwiththeMarchonRomein1922.—Ed.

TheNineteenthCentury:TheRevolutionAwakensThe entire history of the nineteenth century was shaped by the evolution of therevolutionarymovement,from1879downtoRussianBolshevism.

ThisundergroundstrugglebeganwiththeFrenchRevolution,whichwasbackedbythe’Illuminati’ assembled at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad under the presidency of theBavarianprofessor,Weishaupt.Thiscityhadbeenundersiegeforafewdecades:sincethetimeofVoltaire,Rousseau,theEncyclopédie,andthespreadofMasoniclodges.Oneofitsmostbeautifuldistrictswasstormedanditsinhabitantsweredraftedinordertoattackthesurroundingareas.

Asmighthavehappenedduringanactualsiege,thispartofthecitadelwastakenbackbythosepeoplewhohadbeenputundersiegeafterfiercefightingduringNapoleonictimes.The assailants then withdrew and took cover. In the stronghold, however, they left acontagiousgermwhichspread,tothepointofmakingFrancetheenfantterribleofEuropeinthenineteenthcentury.

Francewitnessedthebirthofrevolutionswhichprogressivelyandimperceptiblyalteredtheappearanceof theChristianworldand the innerstructureofEuropeansocietyunderthepseudonymsofliberal,noble,andgenerousideas.Revolutionaryelementsbenefittedfromthis,startingwiththeJews.Thedeephistoryofthenineteenthcentury,downtotheWorldWar, is the history of this struggle – largely amute and deaf one – between theattackers,whoknewwellwhattheyweredoing,andthebesieged,whowereunawareofwhatwastakingplace.

Thisprocesslastedexactlyonehundredandtwoyears–1815to1917–andhasledtotworesults.

The first is the transformationof one-sixth of the inhabitedworld into a revolutionaryhotbed steeped in Freemasonry and Judaism, in which the infection is developing andgrowing aware ofwhat forces it has easilymanaged to organise in view of the secondphaseofitsplan.

Thesecondresultconsistsinthetransformationoftherestoftheplanetintoaweakanddivided realm in which – much like the house Christ described – is inwardly torn byresentfulrivalriesandpettyhatreds.Theworldwasrenderedincapable–atleastuntiljustrecently,asnewanti-Marxistcurrentshaveemergedafter theWar–ofanyoffensiveoreven defensive initiative against an enemy whose forces and daring had considerablyincreased and which, confident of its immunity, believed it could continue to attackwithouteverhavingtodefenditself.

Ultimately,thecauseofallthisisthefactthattheworldwassodominatedbycapitalism,so drained by democracy, so shaken by socialism, and divided by misunderstoodnationalismsthatitwasnolongercapableofofferinganyfirmresistancetosuchanattack.

In1813, traditionalandChristianEuropehad finallychosen to firmly reactagainst therevolution, asembodiedbyNapoleon.The fightwasagainst the revolution,notFrance:

just as onewill fight against the illness a person is suffering from, and not the personhimself. The greatest proof of this may be found in the fact that the winners at theCongressofViennainnowaytookadvantageoftheirvictoryagainstFrance,whichlostnone of its territories when it reverted to being an honourable and highly esteemedmonarchy.

Thedivinely-appointedmonarchsofEuropeweremerelyexpiating theirguilt: for theyhadriskedlosingtheircrownsandplungingtheirpeoples in the turmoilofdemocracyacenturybeforethedateallottedbyfate.

The sovereigns’guilt lay in the fact that, as far as short-sightednessgoes, theyhadallmanagedtooutdoLouisXVI.1Thelatterhadinsistedonmerelyseeingcasualmovementsofrevoltduetocontingentdissatisfactionsinhiscountry,wheretherevolutionaryagewasin fact dawning. Similarly, European monarchs yielded to petty nationalistic rivalriesinstead of standing as one man and forgetting about their ongoing differences – merefamily squabbles by comparison – in such a way as they could have nipped the germthreateningtheworldinthebud,beforeitcouldshowitselfandspread.Likefartoomanyof our contemporaries, these rulers appear not to have realised that a new chapter ofhistorywasinthemaking.

The nineteenth-centurywarparexcellencewas that between overlapping social strata;thewarofuniversaldemocracyagainsttheuniversalelite;thewaroftheLowagainsttheHigh. The war of the Most Low against the Most High2 must follow on as a logicalconsequence.Wheredemocracytriumphed,theretheLowbecametheHighandthenhadtodefenditselfagainstsomethinglowerstill,whichinturnwasdestinedtofinditselfinthesamesituationassoonasithadattainedpowerandsupremacy.Inprinciple,thiswasalways the war of democracy against a relative aristocracy; and things were fated tocontinueinthiswayuntilwehitrockbottom.

Tothisday,onlyRussiahasreachedabsolutezero,belowwhichthereisnothing.Thusitis theonlycountryinhistoryinwhichtherevolutionhascometoastandstillandisnotspreadinganydeeper.Instead,itismerelyspreading–norcouldthingsbeanydifferent.

AgainstourclaimthattheBolshevikrevolutionhasreachedthedeepestlevel,onemightpointoutthat,onthecontrary,ithasyettowintheheartsofthevastmajorityofRussians.Anyone resorting to a similar argument, even ingood faith– formanyonly adopt it toconceal the truth – shows he is no different from those who consider the modernrevolutionordemocracy(whichisnothingbutanextensionofthelatter)asanexpression’ofthepeople,bythepeople,andforthepeople’.Actually,therevolutionanddemocracyareonlymeansemployedaspartofanoverallconspiratorialplanaimedatstrippingthepositively aristocratic group and idea that have alwaysbeen above andbeyondmost ofhumanityoftheirpoweroverthepeople.

The bourgeois revolution, democracy, the ‘social’ revolution, andCommunism are butepisodes in the vast conflict between two great principles: one embodied by integralChristianityandtheotherbytheanti-Church.IfSatanrebelledinthenameoffreedomandequalityvis-à-visGod,thiswasnotmerelysoas’nottoserve’;rather,itwasinorderto

subjugateothersbyreplacingthelegitimateauthorityoftheMostHigh.

The people, therefore, are not the subject but the object of this evolution of allegeddemocraticprogress,punctuatedbyviolentrevolutionsacceleratingitsmarch.

Human hierarchies remained after people had started to break away from Christ: theRenaissance. Princes and kings endured after breaking away from the Pope and theEmperor: the Reformation. The bourgeoisie remained after turning away from thearistocracy,headedbyitskingsandprinces:theFrenchRevolution.Thepeopleremainedafter transcending theplansof thebourgeoisie:1848-1917.Once themasses themselveshadbeentranscended,allthatremainedwasscumledbytheJew:1917.

Oncetherevolutionwillhavearrivedatitslowestdepth,asinRussia–andbyextension,aswillbethecaseoncetheentireworldendsuplookinglikethedecayedempireoftheTsars–itwillnotbeconcernedwithwhatthepeoplethinksanymorethanwemightbeconcernedwithwhatour ramsoroxenhave inmind: forweknow thata fewpiecesofartillerywouldbequiteenough toexterminateallherdanimalsput togetherwithout theslightestriskonourpart.

1LouisXVI(1754-1793)wastheKingofFranceatthetimeoftheRevolution,andwasexecuted.—Ed.

2Evolatranslatedthispassageas‘thewaroftheunderworldagainstthedivineworld’.—Ed.

TheHolyAlliance:Metternich,ChampionoftheCounter-Revolution1

Afteracenturyofbitterexperiencesandutterdisappointments,onlyaveryfewamongourcontemporarieshavegrasped the truemeaningof revolutionanddemocracy.Hence,weshouldnotbe surprised to find that in1815 theAllies, forwhom thismonsterwas stillsomethingnew,feltratherconfused.

Still,themostintelligentstatesmanofthisperiod,andtheleastshort-sightedoneofthenineteenth century, Prince Metternich,2 appears to have realised what a terrifyingnightmarewas loomingon thehorizon.Metternichneverceaseddoinghisbest tomaketheCongressofViennasomethingmorethanmerelyaprettysunsetforsovereigns.

Ofallthosegatheredinthisassembly–whichwasexclusivelycomprisedofnoblemen–Metternichalonemanagedtoriseabovethecontingentinterestsofhisowncountryinanattempttoestablishaunitedandenduringfrontforfacingnotsomuchexternaldangers,astheinnerperilthreateningallEuropeannations.

Themeasures taken to forestall the possibility ofNapoleon’s comebackwere directedlessagainstthegreatcommanderthanagainstthemanwhohadproclaimedhimselftobethe ’Messiah of the Revolution’ from the rocks of Saint Helena. Napoleon’smyth hadbeen usurped by democracy, which had confiscated his laurels in order to conceal itssordidragsunderaheroicmantle.

Metternich held nothing against France as such – the old, traditional France of theBourbons;whathemistrustedwasthecountryinwhichthe’new’mentalityappearedtohaveitsheadquarters.ThefuturewasdestinedtoprovejusthowrightMetternichwas.

The tragedy of theFrenchRevolution had not taken place in vain beforeMetternich’seyes.Hewasnever to forget this lesson,whichhadprovenuseless formanyothers.Hehadwitnessedthe’liberalandenlightened’ConstitutionpavethewayfortheGironde3andtheTerror,whichhadstartedwithembracesandendedwithbeheadings.HehadseenhowliberalismisnothingbutapreludetoJacobinism,4andharbourednoillusionsconcerningthehigh-flownwordsthatcharmedfeebleandsuggestibleminds.

Because of his foresight,Metternich became the greatest bête noire of all the ’noble,sensitive, andgeneroushearts’whodevotedly ralliedunder thebannerof the ’immortalprinciples’upheldby thefaithlessand lawless’giants’of theFrenchRevolution.To thisday,whensomuchevidencecanbefoundtoconfirmMetternich’sideas,theystillblamehim for having lumped together Jacobinism and liberalism, free thought, and thenationalityprinciple,asexpressionsofthesamesect,plague,andvolcano.

Metternich was not as blind as many of our contemporary conservatives and nobles.While having been offered so many occasions to study these symptoms in all theirapparentdiversity–phenomenacarefullydifferentiatedsoastoonlyprogressivelydeliversmallshocks–thesemenhavefailedtorealisetheintrinsicunityandcausalrelationships

amongthingsthat,foroveracentury,havebeenmutuallydistinguishedmerelyasawayoffoolingandconfoundingtheshort-sightedwitharangeofdifferentnames:liberalism,humanitarianism, tolerance, free thought, modernism, constitutionalism, andparliamentarism–idyllicpreludestoJacobinism,radicalism,Communism,theCommitteeofPublicSafety,andtheCheka.

Metternich’ssuperioritycomparedtoallotherstatesmenofhiscentury–nottomentionthoseof later times–liespreciselyinthefact thathegraspedtheevilof thefutureasaunitedwhole and synthesis.Havinggained awareness of this united frontwhich carriesmanydifferentnames,Metternichsoughttoassemblealltheforcesonhisside–allthosewhichtheRevolutionregardedasfutureobstacles–inordertoformanotherunitedfront,transcendingnationaldifferencesandcapableoffacingtheformereverywhereinEurope.

Thisunprecedentedandcreativeinnovationinthepoliticaldomainmaybesummedupasfollows:‘NowinEuropethereisnoenemytotheRight’–thecorollaryofthisbeing:‘AllthatwhichisontheLeft,orevenoutsidetheintegralRight,istheenemy’.

From this perspective, Metternich agrees with Lenin, but not with any contemporaryconservative.

Thetwoothermenofstatefromthisperiodwhomhistorybookstendtoputonthesamelevel as Metternich, namely Cavour5 and Bismarck, were a great Italian and a greatPrussian – or great German at most – whereas Metternich was not so much a greatAustrianasagreatEuropean.6SteepedinthetraditionsoftheHolyRomanEmpire,whichforcenturieshadbeenruledbyhissovereign’sforefathers,Metternichwaslessconcernedwithhis owncountryofAustria thanhewaswithEurope.Hewas certainlyoneof thegreatestEuropeansafterCharlemagne.Metternichwasnotoneofthosesenselessmenforwhom the highest diplomatic refinement lies in complacently gazing at a neighbour’shouseasitcatchesfire.MenofthissortdonotrealisetheyarelivinginanageinwhichallhousesinthecityofEuropeconcealexplosivematerialintheirbasements,theirownhomesbeingnoexception.

MetternichwouldneverhavestruckanalliancewiththeCarbonari7andtheFreemasons,asCavourdidtoservecontingentpatrioticinterests.Indrawingthispactwithsubversion,Cavour placed re-established Italy on a slippery slope that was gradually drawing ittowards Bolshevism. The country would already have been engulfed, had it not beensaved, against all hopes at a time when everything seemed lost, by a genuine miraclewhichCavourcouldneverhaveforeseen.8

Metternichwouldneverhaveencouraged theestablishmentofa republicandemocraticregimeinaneighbouringcountryunderthepretextthatitrepresentedapotentialrivaltobeweakenedanddemeaned.

This,however, ispreciselywhatBismarckdidwithFrance,despitebeingamonarchistandconservative.Anunconscioustoolofsubversion,hefoundnothingbettertodothanwage war against the Catholic Church and join the Jew Lassalle.9 The latter’s statesocialism was presented as being non-international and capable of reinforcing the

administrativeandeconomiccentralisationoftheGermanEmpire.

Thingswere intended to continue in thiswayuntil theprocessof centralisationwouldhave reached completion. Then a simple change in personnel would have sufficed totransform this empire, governed by an aristocratic oligarchy apparently as powerful asever,intoarepublicgoverned–farmoredespotically–byaJewisholigarchy.

Leninhasdescribed thisprocess inhisworks, andLassallehimself alludes to it inhiscorrespondencewithhiscoreligionistKarlMarx.

Nationalism leads to its own suicide when it has reached this level of intensity anddensity.

Metternichsawtheultimateperil,butnooneelsedid:forthisreason,hehardlytrustedanyoneelse,fromFrancedowntoRussia.Andhowcouldthingshavebeenanydifferent,whenhehadrealisedhewastheonlyonetoseethepointofintersectionofallthevariousforcescorrodingsocietyinhisday?

Forwhatreason,then,didaplanofthissort–stemmingfromsuchexceptionalforesightandsuchdetailedevaluationoftheoverallcharacterofanage–notattaintheresultsonemighthavelegitimatelyexpected?

Beforeansweringthisquestion,weshouldhastentopointoutthatitwouldbeunjustnotto consider the uninterrupted peacewhichChristian Europe enjoyed between 1815 and1853asagreatblessingforthepeoplesofthecontinent.Duringthistimetherewerenowarsorseriouscrises,andnoneofthenervoustensionamongnationsthathasruinedourcontemporaries’nervesoverthecourseofsubsequentyears.

Completepacificationforfortyyearsinarowrepresentsagoodrecord.OurgrandfathersowedthistoMetternich’santi-democraticviewofinternationalrelations.Certainly,itwasgreat;butitmighthavecometomuchmore.

ThereasonfortheultimatefailureoftheworkconceivedatViennaliesinthefactthataplanwillonlybearfruitifitisfullyadoptedandimplemented,notifitstrikesanysortofcompromise,includingapartialone.Whilefarmoreconsistentandcompletethanthatofall later congresses and conferences, the work of the Congress of Vienna remained acompromise between the view of theAustrianChancellor and the idiosyncrasies of theotherparticipants.

Metternich’sthesisconcernedadefensiveandoffensiveallianceamongalltheChristianandabsolutist10monarchsofEurope.Theserulersweretoregardthemselvesasfatherstotheir peoples and brothers to one another. Theywere tomutually secure one another’sfrontiers,asdefinedbytheTreaty,soastoavoidalldiscord,andjointlystrivetoopposeall subversivemoves thatmight have threatened – or simply challenged – their shareddignityasabsoluteanddivinelyappointedsovereigns.Thiswasthe’Eachforallandallforeach’ofthekings;inotherwords,aWhiteInternationalorLeagueofNationsoftheRight–animperialandroyalanticipationofPresidentWilson’sdemocraticandMasonicdream.

The Holy Alliance was doomed to failure right from the start for two reasons whichultimatelycoincide,butwhichweshalltreatseparately.

The first reasonalreadycontains the secondasapotential.Weshall start from it, as itpossessesamoregeneralcharacter.

Ifwewere to imagineourselves standingby thebanksof theblueDanube in theyear1815, in thatplacewhere theHolyAlliancewas firstestablished,wewoulddiscover toour amazement that someone was missing among its many and highly distinguishedgodfathers.Thiswassomeonewhobyall reasonought tohaveactedas thekeystoneofthe new political and social edifice that was then being built. It was the ’cornerstone’ChristmentionsintheGospel,andwithoutwhichthekindofunityindiversitytheHolyAlliancewasaspiringtowardscannotbeattained.Itwas therock–Peter– thatensuredthe unity in diversity of Christian nations fromConstantine the Great down to Luther,Calvin,andtheirdisciples.

Since the late fifteenth century, there has no longer been any spiritual unity: onlyconfessionalandideologicaldivergences.

TheReformationwasthefirstrevolutionaryoffensive,thefirstattackagainstOrder.ThelatterrestsnotonmereforcebutonFaith,whichfollowsnocriterionbutitself.WhatwemeanbythisisthatFaithmayresorttoforcebutoughtnottobeconfusedwithanyforceseekingtoartificiallycreateafaithforitselfwhichitmightthenmakeuseof.Thereisaveritablegulfbetweenthesetwoconceptions.

WhiletheReformation,asareligiousrevolution,maynothavekilledtheletterofdivineright, it killed its spirit, leaving the second act of the subversiveworkup to social andpolitical revolution. The Reformation killed it as far as the constitutional guarantee ofabsoluteregimesisconcerned,whichrestsonthemoralLawdrawnfromtheGospel.

This moral Law, which is the ultimate resource for man and independent individualsagainstforceandsheernumbers–whichamounttothesamething–possessesabsoluteanduniversalvalue.Itisalwaysthesameregardlessoftimeandplace,andisabovethewhimsofthemasses,aswellasthoseofprincesandelites.

Toclaim thatauthority isnecessary fororder is to speakonlyhalf the truth.Authoritymustalsorestonsomethingunchangeableanduniversal–notonwhatwillbetruetodaybutwrong tomorrow (nationalism).11 Otherwise, conflict will necessarily arise betweentoday’struthandtomorrow’s,betweenthistruthandthat.Insuchacase,paradoxicalasitmayseem,aslocalandtemporalauthoritiesbecomestrongerandmoreconfidentintheirtruths, the more universal anarchy will spread. This may easily be observed today bygazingattheworldfromabird’s-eyeview,ratherthanbylookingthroughamagnifyingglass to see what is taking place within an area of a few square kilometres only in aparticularseason.

Forauthoritytorestonsomethingsolid,itmustrestonthenotionofdivineright,forthisistheonlythingsolidandenduring,likeGodhimself.

Divineright–asthenameitselfsuggests–isnottherightofkings,northatofthePope.

Rather, it is the right of the Christian God, as it has been expressed through his Law.Headsofstatearebutitsvicars,thePopemerelybeingthefirstamongallvicars.JosephdeMaistre,12 who lived at the time of the Congress of Vienna, was only half right inarguingthatthePopeshouldbethemoderatorofkings.ThePopeandthekingsaremerelyinterpreters of the Law, each in their respective domains; in this regard, they act as itssovereignexecutors.ThePopenonethelessrepresentstheonlyvisiblerallyingsymbol,asymbolofunityindiversity,whichistosayofwhatistrueandunchangeableacrosstimeandspace.

Hereinliestheessenceofdivineright.

Onemight respond that monarchies of divine right have their origin in acts of force.While this is certainly the case, if such acts of force became divine right, or rather thedivineright,itmeanstheybecamesubordinatetoit–andthisimpliesadutyaswellasaright. In such manner, monarchies made their way back into the universal andunchangeableorderofthegreatfold,abidingtothesamecreedanduniformcatechism–thelatterbeingbutthecreedinaction.Whatmoreisneeded,inpractice?

Attheveryantipodesofdivinerightstandsnationalwill,13whichwillbepreciselytrueherebutwrongthere,truetodaybutwrongtomorrow.

ThekingswhochosetheReformationvotedforwhatwasdestinedtodoawaywiththevery principle in virtue of which they were reigning by God’s grace to begin with. InwishingtofreethemselvesfromtheyokeofGod’sWord,theyfellundertheyokeoftheincoherentwordsofmen.Withoutrealisingit,bybarteringtheirdivinerightfornationalwill,theysoldtheirbirthrightforaplateoflentils.

ThedemolitionworkbegunbyProtestantismwascarriedonbyphilosophising,atheism,democratism,civicism,nationalism,14andcapitalism.

With the advent of the Reformation, divine right ceased to exist. For some time, itcontinued to subsist as pure virtuality, as in the case of those extinguished or vanishedstarswhoselightstillreachesus;divineright,however,willneverreturntobeingreality.

TheRevolutionwasalreadycontainedintheReformation,astherewasadirectrelationof cause and effect between the two. In the countries where the Reformation hastriumphed, what has occurred is not any visible revolution, but rather a latent andprogressiverevolutionwhichhasledtothesameresult:namely,theworshipofabstractionandideasinplaceofGod,accordingtoasortofmythologicaldivineright.

Aswhatstandsatthesummitofthisnewrightisnotwhatissuperiorbutwhatisinferior,whatweliterallyhaveisahousebuiltupside-down.15

1Evolaentitledthischapter‘TheHolyAlliance:TheLastEuropean’.—Ed.

2PrinceKlemensWenzelvonMetternich(1773-1859)wasanAustrianstatesmanwhowasoneofthemostimportantEuropeandiplomatsofthenineteenthcentury.HewasinvolvedinthenegotiationoftheTreatyofParisin1814,whichmarkedtheendoftheNapoleonicWars.AttheCongressofViennain1815,hewasinstrumentalinestablishingthenewmapofEurope,andthebalanceofpowerbetweentheGreatPowerswhichwastolast,moreorlessintact,untiltheFirstWorldWar.Althoughhewasgenerallyareactionary,hedidbelievethattheAustro-HungarianEmpireneededtoprotect

equalrightsforall itsethnicgroups,andevenproposedthecreationofaparliamenttothisend,buthewasunabletoenactsuchreforms.HewasforcedtoresignduringtheRevolutionof1848.—Ed.

3TheGirondewasapoliticalpartyduringtheearlyyearsoftheFrenchRevolution.Mostofthemweresentencedtodeathandexecutedaftertheycameintodisputewiththerevolutionarygovernment,favouringamoremoderatecourseofaction.—Ed.

4 The Jacobin Club, a political group in eighteenth-century France, was one of the driving forces of the FrenchRevolution.Sincethen,‘Jacobin’hasoftenbeenusedasagenerictermforLeft-wingradicals.—Ed.

5CamilloBenso,CountofCavour(1810-1861)wasthefounderoftheLiberalPartyinItaly,andhebecamethefirstPrimeMinisteroftheKingdomofItaly,althoughhediedafteronlythreemonthsinoffice.—Ed.

6Evola’s version: ‘The othermen of state from this periodwhom history books tend to put on the same level asMetternich,essentiallyappeartohavebeengreatrepresentativesoftheirownnations.’—Ed.

7TheCarbonariwereasecretsocietyinnineteenth-centuryItalythatwasdedicatedtobringingaboutliberalreforms.—Ed.

8Evola’sversion:‘MetternichwouldneverhavestruckanalliancewithCarbonariandtheFreemasons,asCavourdid.It is true thatCavourdrewapactwithsubversionforspecific tactical reasons, in thenameof theunityof theItalianfatherland. In doing so, re-established Italy was placed on a slippery slope that was gradually drawing it towardsBolshevism It might have already been engulfed, had it not been saved, against all hopes at a time when in manypeople’smindseverythingwaslost,byagenuinemiracle–theFascistcounter-revolution–whichCavourcouldneverhaveforeseen.’—Ed.

9 Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864) was a German-Jewish Hegelian philosopher and political activist who firstintroduced the ideaofuniversal socialism intoGermany.HeandBismarckcorrespondedandhadanumberof secretmeetingsregardingpoliticalideas.—Ed.

10Evolahas‘authoritarian’hereinstead.—Ed.

11Evola version: ‘…not onwhatwill be truth today but error tomorrow (democracy), or part truth and part error(misunderstoodnationalism).’—Ed.

12 Joseph deMaistre (1753–1821)was a FrenchCounter-Enlightenment philosopherwho fled theRevolution andlivedtheremainderofhislifeinItaly.Healwaysremainedastaunchopponentofdemocracyandsupportedmonarchicalrule.—Ed.

13Evolaadds:‘thewillofdeconsecratedandmaterialisednations’.—Ed.

14Evolahas‘collectivistnationalism’.—Ed.

15Evolahas,‘isanoverturningofthetraditionaledifice’.—Ed.

TheHolyAlliance:NationalismandUniversalismOurcontemporaries,includingthosewhoaredirectlythreatenedbysubversion,realisenomore thanourgreat-grandfathersdid that inorder toeffectivelyreactagainst thisglobalperil, one must return not to the outlook of the eighteenth, seventeenth, or even thesixteenthcentury,buttothespiritoftheCrusades.

Weshouldaddthatit isnotamatterofreturningtotheuseoftallowcandles,coaches,serfdom,andwitch-hunting,butofrevertingtothatspiritwhichdidfortheforcesofgoodwhat subversion isdoing today for thoseofevil: aunitedChristian front,headedby itsleader;asingleunitwithlancesraised,setinsquareformationagainsttheinfidel,whichisalso one – although it is everywhere, and, like certain tropical insects, knows how tochangeitscolourtomatchthatoftheleavesitisgnawingandtheplacewhereitis.

TheRestoration,strictlyspeaking,wasnotacounter-revolutionthatmadeablanksweepofallthathadtakenplace–andhereinliesitsweakness.

ForgetfuloftheGospel’swarning,thisfeebleandoverlycautiousreactiondiditsbesttopourtheoldwineoftraditionalroyalty,thatwhichhadshapedthekingdomofFrance,intothenew,bloodyflasksleftbytheregicides.

The result, as we all know, was what had been predicted in the Gospel. This chieflydefensiveplan,farfromleadingtoanytriumphs,ledonlytodisasters.Itwasdrawnbythekindof‘moderates’whosluggishlyholdbackbutnevermakeanyabout-faceorreverseturn,sothatthosefollowingthemalwaysenduptreadingontheircorpses.

In1815,Austriaalonepracticallyandrealisticallygrasped thehistorical truth. Italone,through the eyes of its Chancellor, saw that the only way to react against a historical,conspiratorial plan conceived long before 1789, a total conspiracy both religious andprofane,wasatotalreaction–notapartialonesimplytargetingcontingentsymptoms.

One isnotcuredofapoisonby theadministrationof thesamepoisondiluted insugarwater.

When a household turns to the spiritual descendants of Louis XVI’s killers for helpagainst those of Nicholas II,1 how can it not perish? Likewise, when the Europeanhousehold turned to the spiritual descendent ofCharles I’s2murderers in 1815 for helpagainstthoseofLouisXVI,howcoulditnothavecollapsed?3

OncetheseamlessrobeofChristwastornbytheReformation,theacutexenophobiaofmodernnationalismensued,with itsshort-sightedself-interest,whichonly increased theadvantageofthecommonenemy.ChristianEuropethusbecameunmanageable.Itcannolongerexpressunityindiversity,nomatterhowmuchcaremaybetakentorespectsuchdiversity–whichiscertainlyrespectableinitself.Letimbecilescontinuetoscreamfromtheirrooftops thatreligionisnothingnow:religionis infactall,andeverythingfollowsfromit.ThisiswhytheHolyAlliancefailedtobecomeanewHolyRomanEmpire.

TheHolyAlliance is to theHolyRomanEmpirewhat theLeagueofNations is to the

HolyAlliance.

The League of Nations is a demagogy of demagogies and an incoherence ofincoherences.Itthusamountstoademagogyandincoherencesquared:inotherwords,itisaparliamentofparliaments,anationofnations,andacrowdofcrowds.

Besides, the Holy Alliance does not really stand halfway between the Holy RomanEmpireandtheLeagueofNations.Itisratherclosertothelatter,forletusnotforgetthattwoof itsmembers,FranceandBritain,werealreadyconstitutional regimesat the time,withparliamentstheirleadershadtoreckonwith.

Tosumup,theillnesswhichwasdestinedtoleadtheHolyAlliancetoitsdeathwasanoriginalone,inherentinitsmomentofhistory.Noonecoulddoathingagainstitin1815,astherewasnowayofretroactivelysuppressingLuther,Voltaire,Calvin,andRousseau.Itwas theghostsof thesemen–alongwith thoseofCromwellandRobespierre,unitedinthefightagainst theircommonenemy–thatultimatelymurderedtheHolyAlliance:fortheAlliancehadfailedtosuppressthemasecondtime,intheirgraves.

AnoutwardsignofthisoriginalsinwastheabsenceofthePope.

ThePopewouldhavebeena rallyingsymbolofunity.ThePope is theonlypersononEarthwhocanclaimtobeaboveallandstandoutlikeacommonbanner,withoutanyonedownherefeelinghumiliatedorbelittled:forheisonlyadefencelessmoralprinciple,anunarmedoldmanwhorepresentsHewhose‘kingdomisnotofthisworld’.OncethePopeisnottheretosaypaxvobiscum,4 insteadof thesilenceofbowedcrownedheadsallwehave is the voice of people singingFrance d’abord, Italia sopra tutto, orDeutschlandüberAlles–soloudlyastomaketheirneighboursinaudible.5

Rightfromitsbirth,theHolyAlliancecarriedadeadlyillnessinitsbosom.Asweshallseelateroninthiswork,thetwostateswhichhadsprungfromtheReformationandwhichnourishedthememoryoftheRevolutionwereitsenfantsterribles,andultimatelytoreittopieces. This process lasted some time, almost forty years, duringwhich the void grewbiggerandbigger;imperceptibly,theHolyAlliance–orwhatwasstillleftofitonpaper–becameamythwhoseonlytangibleexpressionwasAustria.

Withitskingdoms,principalities,andearldoms,anditspeoples,languages,andraces,allpeacefullyunitedunderthesamesceptre,thisvestigeoftheHolyRomanEmpirealreadyembodied–albeitonalesserscale–theformandcharacterofaHolyAlliance,inwhichCatholicismheldprimacyovernationalism.6

Bothpoliticallyandreligiously,AustriawasthustheCatholicstateparexcellence.Thisis why it became an object of hatred for all forms of Protestantism, nationalism, anddemocracy.7

Austria alonemight have continued to be the driving force behind theHolyAlliance,whichitassimilatedto theHolyRomanEmpire,withouthavingmanagedto includethePopewithinit–forwhatcoulditdoagainstthree,orevenfourotherstates?

Austria remained suchuntil thedaywhen its formerpartners inevitably turned against

her.Thevoiceofhistoricalaffinities–freedfromcontingenciesandfromtheaccidentoftheHolyAlliance,andrevampedbytheuntiringactionofmodernsubversion–ultimatelymadeitselfheard.Ithadbeenstifledbyfearforfortyyears,butthenaturalinclinationthathadbeensuppressedcamebackwithabang.

TheRevolutionof1830marksthehistoricalfailureoftheHolyAlliance.

Bearing inmindwhatwehave said so far, let us nowexaminewhyMetternich’s ideafailed,afterhavinggiventhepeoplesofEuropefortyyearsofpeaceandprosperity.

Metternich’sgreatsalvationplanfailedbecause,despitetheagreementssigned,aunitedfront against the return of the revolution existed only on paper. If the most importantclauseoftheseagreements–theright,orratherduty,tointervene–hadbeenfollowed,8itismostlikelythatafter1789–whichwassweptawayby1815–therewouldhavebeenno1848.Consequently,aseverythingislinked,therewouldhavebeenno1866,no1870,and finallyno1914or 1917–years that haveplungedus9 into thedeadlydoldrums inwhichwelaydying,andallfor thegreatergloryoftheMasonictriangleandthestarofIsrael.

If thesolidarityamongkings,ata timewhentheywerestill incontrolof thesituation,hadbeenanything like thatamongtheJews, the latterwouldneverhavesuppressed theformer.YetdespitethelessonsoftheFrenchRevolution,afteravertingimminentdangers,monarchs returned to thinking and acting as they had in the eighteenth century, that is:accordingtocontingent,self-servinginterests.

Leavingaside thecaseofBelgiumand thatof theSpanishcolonies inSouthAmerica,which are not as relevant to our subject, it was France which delivered the first blowagainstthepactofVienna.

The Revolution of 183010 was a case foreseen by the principle of intervention.Legitimate sovereigns ruling ‘by grace of God’ had mutually ensured their ownlegitimacy.

Thistime,theinsurrectionoustedalegitimatekingruling‘bygraceofGod’,asovereignwhomGodaloneought tohavecalled tohimself,ora legitimatesuccessorshouldhavereplaced.Alegitimatesuccessorindeedexisted,yetanotheronewaschosen.

Thisnewsuccessorembodiedthe‘happymedium’mentality,thebourgeoisandmediocrementalityparexcellence.Hestoodforthemonarchicaltraditionandtherevolutionaryonesimultaneously.

Thismanhadbeenchosenbecausethepeoplelikedthem:hewastheKingoftheFrench,not the King of France – not the hereditary holder of France, but rather the first civilservantofthecountry.Likeallcivilservants,hecouldbedismissed.

Onanofficialleveltoo,hewasdescribednotasruler‘bygraceofGod’,but‘bygraceofthe nation’: a new formula which clearly applied not to amonarchy, but to a republicposingasamonarchy.Thekingdomwasthusstrippedoftheprinciplethatconstituteditsveryraisond’être.

The distinction between these two formulas is no mere nuance, for a chasm existsbetweenthetwoworldstheyembody:thatoflogicandthatofillogic.Logicallyspeaking,whatisabovecannotbestraightforwardlysubordinatedtowhatisbelow,withoutceasingtobeabove.TheclaimthatthePeopleisnotthesumoftheindividualsitiscomprisedof,butratheraquasi-metaphysicalentitybeyondandaboveall,isnothingbutsophistry–or,toputitmoresimply,abadjoke.

Thisclaimisextremelydangerous,despiteitsapparentmoderation,whoseaimisnottofrightenmoderatemilieus.We shouldnot forget that even socialists andBolsheviks aremostlysayingthesamething:factoryworkersinindustrialcountriessuchasBritainandworkersandfarmersinruralcountriessuchasRussiamakeupthemajorityofthepeople;hence,bythedemocraticvirtueofnumbers,theymakeupthePeoplewithacapitalP.

Onceweacceptthethesisthatpowerstemsfromthewillofthepeople,thereisnolongeranyneedtotheoreticallyproceedontoBolshevism:thereisonlyalogicalandprogressivedevelopment of the doctrine.An actual chasm exists only between the idea of rule ‘bygraceofGod’andthatofrule‘bythewillofthenation’;itisherethattheslipperyslopestarts.Theentirehistoryofthenineteenthcenturyprovesit.

Leaving Switzerland aside, Francewas the first country on the continent to cross thischasmforthesecondtime,in1830.ThiswasarepetitionoftheRevolution,yetitwassodiscretely carried out that no one foresaw its consequences and no one suspected thatFrancehadinprincipleceasedtobeamonarchy.

With the return of the tricolour in place of the fleurs-de-lys,11 France reverted to itsrevolutionary andNapoleonic tradition. It turned to promoting democracy and nationalself-determination, thus newly adopting the revolutionary testament ofwhichNapoleonhadclaimedtobetheexecutoratSaintHelena.

ItwastofightagainsttheseveryprinciplesthattheHolyAlliancehadbeenestablishedinthefirstplace.

There isonlyone internationalRight: thatofdivine right,of theprincipleof authorityfromonhigh.Byvirtueof thisprinciple,notmerely thekingbut alsoevery father andlegitimatesuperiorrepresentsGod,providedhekeepsthecommandments.Likewise,thereisonlyoneinternationalLeft:thatofpopularwill,oftheprincipleofauthorityfrombelow–ofauthoritystemmingfromthosewhoshouldobey.Butifthosebelowdonotobey,thentherecanbenoorder,noteveninasmallshoporhumblefamily,nottomentioninastate.Forhowcouldonebothcommandinprincipleandobeyinpractice?TaketheBolshevik‘Soviets’: in theory, the colonels and officers only give orders according to thewill ofthosewhoshouldobeythemintheirregiments,namelytherepresentativesofthesoldiersgatheredintheassembly,or‘Soviet’.Thisiswhathappenswhentheprincipleof‘nationalwill’ is logically applied on all levels, instead of being illogically confined to anyindividual one.This is a principle opposite to that of ‘divine right’, by virtue ofwhichcolonelswillgiveordersinthenameoftheking,whointurnwillruleinGod’sname.

Themostcrucialdifferencebetweenthesetwoprinciplesrestsonapointoftheutmostimportance:thefactthatthegovernmentofdivinerightisneitherarbitrarynorabsolute,

sinceitisguidedandlimitedbythelawsofChristianmorality.

Nor could things be any different. All we need is a little logic to understand that a‘visiblelieutenantofGod’–whetherheisaking,father,orleader–cannotactagainstthepreciseinstructionsgivenbyhisinvisiblecaptain,GodorChrist,withoutundermininghisownauthority.

So-callednationalwill–which is to say thewillof themajority: a plebeian, ignorant,inconsistent,andincoherentwill–hasnooneitmustbeaccountabletowards.Itremainslegitimate, legal,andsupremewhatever itmaydo,whatever tribulations it imposes,andwhatever crimes, impieties, extravagances, andabominations it commits.Thiswill doesnottaketheplaceoftheking,butofHewhomakesallkingsrule–God.

People do not realise that this path remains legally open as soon as the principle ofnationalwillhasreplacedthatofdivineright.

AllEuropeannationsnowfindthemselvesonthispath.ThisisthereasonwhytheyaresoreluctanttofightBolshevism,whichismerelyprecedingthemalongit.Forultimately,Bolshevismstemsfromthesameideologicalprinciple: theallegedwillof themassesoffarmers and workers – alleged, that is, because the masses actually play no part indeterminingthepublicwill.

ItistheAnonymous,Imperceptible,andInvulnerablethatdoessointheirstead,hereandthere.TheAnonymouscanonlybegraspedandperceivedwhenit takestheformofthe‘people’scommissar’–invariablyaJew,asonewouldexpect.Inothercases,however,itmakes sure to conceal itself more prudently. It is the will of the Anonymous whichreplacesthatofkingsorevenGod.

ButwhileallEuropeannationsnowfindthemselvesonthispath,thingswerenotsoin1830. At the time, France alone abandoned the body of nations destined to serve as abulwark against the revolution. France walked out just like that, without banging anydoors,andjoinedtheothersideofthebarricade.ManyFrenchmenwereveryproudofthis–indeed,manystillare!Buthowlongwilltheycontinuetofeelthatway?Onlythefuturewilltell.

1NicholasII(1868-1918)wasthelastTsarofRussia,executedbytheBolsheviks.—Ed.

2Charles I (1625-1649)was theKingofEngland, Ireland,andScotlanduntilhisexecutionduring theEnglishCivilWar,whentherevolutionaryforcesofOliverCromwellinsistedonaconstitutionalmonarchyforEngland.—Ed.

3ThispassageismissinginEvola’sedition.—Ed.

4Latin:‘peacewithyou’.—Ed.

5Evola’sversion:‘OneoftheexteriorsignsofthisoriginalsinwastheabsenceofthePope,who–atleastforCatholicnations –might have served as a rallying symbol of higher unity.More generally, a Leaderwasmissingwho, as arepresentativeofpurespiritualauthority in thefullnessof itsuniversalityand transcendence,mighthave imposedhisown right over all and risen like a common banner, without any of the greatmen down here feeling humiliated orbelittled,giventhetranscendenceandsupra-politicalqualityofhisveryfunction.Ifthissupremeandintangiblepointofreference iswanting,and thispurespiritualauthority issilent,what is left issimply thevoiceofpeoplesingingRuleBritannia,LaFranced’abordorDeutschlandüberAlles–soloudlyastomaketheirneighboursinaudible.’—Ed.

6Evolaadds,‘overallparticularinterests’.—Ed.

7Evolahas,‘Protestantism,liberalism,anddemocracy’.—Ed.

8Thisclausestatedthattheotherpowerswouldcometotheaidofanymemberstateintheeventofanuprisingagainstthemonarchythere.AlthoughtheAlliancedidintervenetocrushanumberofrebellionsinitsearlyyears,by1825risingantagonismsbetweenthevariouspowerscausedittolapse.—Ed.

9Insteadof‘us’,Evolahas‘mostofEurope’.—Ed.

10 In the July Revolution of 1830, the monarch of France, Charles X, was overthrown by his opposition, and aconstitutionalmonarchywasestablishedtoreplacehim.ThenewgovernmenttookFranceoutoftheHolyAlliance.Themonarchyitselfwasfinallydisbandedaltogetherin1870.—Ed.

11The fleurs-de-lys, a stylised lily that was often used in French heraldry, was closely identifiedwith the Frenchmonarchy.—Ed.

1848:TheBeginningoftheWorldRevolution1

With the French revolution of 1830, the united front of counter-revolutionwas broken.Francebecameabreedinggroundforthekindofrevolutionaryideaswhichultimatelyledto the 1848 revolution, as peoplewaited for the day inwhich the countrywould havetakenastandastheofficialchampionofnationalisms2andpoliticalequality.Thecausesof the1848 revolutionare so futile and imperceptible that it is best to ignore themandsimplynotethattherevolutionbrokeoutbecauseitwasdestinedto.

Ultimately,whatisitthatthepopulaceofPariswanted?

Itwouldbedifficult toanswer thisquestionother thanwith theold refrain: ‘Itdidnotknowwhatitwanted,butwanteditverybadly.’Apparently,itwanteduniversalhappinessonEarth.Butthenwhodoesn’t?

Thespecificvariantofthisideain1848wasthehappinessofothersaswellasone’sown,meaningnationalismforthose‘groaningunderforeignyoke’anddemocracyforoneself–sincetheFrenchalreadyhadnationalism.3

Thewords‘yoke’,‘groaning’,and‘foreign’werealltreatedassynonyms.Likewise,theword‘happiness’wasregardedassynonymouswithdemocracy,republic,andnationalism.

Howcanonebesonaïveastoevenimaginethatthecommonsenseofthepeople,whichissoadversetoabstractionbynature,drewthiscloudyideologyfromoutofitsbosom?

The people is the same everywhere. At times it seems to show extreme generositywithoutunderstandingathing,whileatothertimesitbehavesferociouslyfornoapparentreason; sensitive to the point of silliness at times, even when there is no reason to bemoved,atothertimesitremainsimpassiveorevenactscynicallywhenitoughttoreactorevenbecomeenragedsoasnottobeshamed.Thepeopleiswhatcertainelementswouldlikeittobe.Suchelementscrownthepeople,astheyknowfullwellthatsovereigntywillalwaysrestintheirownhands.

Thisistherootofallinfatuationwithdemocracy,aswasthecaseinParisin1848.TheFrenchpeoplethenwantedarepublic.Soonafter,itwantedtheempireagain,andwarinthenameofnationalism.Suchwastheplanoftheinternationalconspiracy.

ItwasarguedatthetimethatFrancewasnotanationliketherest:thatitsownpatriotismwas too small for its big heart and that the country had to embrace all nationalismsonEarth–without actuallyascertainingwhether thesewere realormerely figmentsof theimagination. France owed this to itself, for it had inherited the mission of the FrenchRevolution;andanhonourofthissortjustifiedallsacrifices.

Thehappinessofmen–peopleargued–doesnotconsistofgoodhealth,well-being,orsecurity. What a disgracefully materialist view this was for men who, in the name ofevolutionism,claimedtobenothingbuttheoffspringofapes!Nor–theycontinued–doeshappiness consist in the joys of the heart and spirit, this being mere sentimentalismunworthy of strong minds. Happiness for them consisted of two things: first of all, in

havingpoliticians electedbyuniversal suffrage; and secondly, inhavingpoliticians andministers who all speak the same language. They need not share the same ethnicbackground, for they may be pure-blooded Semites, without this posing the slightestinconvenience. In this respect, the nationalist dogma was most generous: indeed, itconsidereditasignofbadtastetoevenregarditspolicyasaformofaccommodation.

The great revolutions of 1848 signalled the beginning of the political, social, andeconomicriseoftheJewishpeople.ThroughoutEurope,theJewsbecamewhattheyhadalreadybeen in the aftermath of theFrenchRevolution: citizens of the countrieswheretheyhadsetuptheirgoldBedouintents,citizensonthesamefootingasactualnationals–GermansinGermany,PrussiansinPrussia,AustriansinAustria,HungariansinHungary,andItaliansinItaly.Theydidnotbecomesuchallofasudden,butonlygradually,asonerevolutionwas followed by another and the new ideas became the statute of Europeancountries.

The alleged disenfranchisement of peoples and men was nothing but thedisenfranchisement of the Jews. The alleged spring of the peopleswas nothing but thespringoftheJews.Somuchso,infact,thatsuchwordsonlyhavemeaningwhenusedinreferencetothem.

All theanarchicdevelopmentsoflaterdemocraciesenabledtheJewstoacquiregreaterinfluenceandpower.Allthearmamentsimposedbytheexacerbationofnationalismwereasourceof revenue for them.The taxes that ruinednationsandmenenriched theJews,whoweretheirultimaterecipientsviathestate.TheJewsbecametheuniversalcreditors.Taxhikesmerelyservedtopayoffsomeoftheever-mountingdebts,whileautomaticallyincreasingthewealth,power,andinfluenceofIsrael.Clearly,thiswenttothedetrimentoftheentirehumanrace,whichfelldirectlyorindirectlyindebttotheJewswithoutrealisingit.

The wars and revolutions that continued spreading after 1848, which became anincreasingburdenonEuropeancountries,werebutthefinestofallfinancialoperationsfortheIsraelitegoldpeddlers.

TheJewsmayhavenoindustries,forests,castles,orfactories,buttheyownthestocks,sponsorships,andlettersofcreditforthem.ThosewhooffendtheJews’enviousgazesbyshowingofftheirownrichesareinfactnothingbuttheJews’tax-payers,onewayortheother. At the same time, these individuals serve as lightning rods attracting blasts ofpopular rageupon themselvesand their tangibleassets, therebydiverting this rage fromtheJew,whoremainsundetectableandfreefromresponsibility.

Whenthegapbetweenthewealthofbusinessesandthemiseryofthemasseswillgrowtooconspicuousorshocking,peoplewillexplain–byresortingtoscientificarguments–thattheproblemisawidespreadeconomiccrisis,andnotsimplythetransferofcashintoJewishpockets.

This process unfolded relatively slowly in the first half of the nineteenth century, butsince 1848 everything has been moving along with giant steps in this direction –uninterruptedprogress,indeed.

The simultaneous revolutions of 1848 were exceptional events in both economic andpoliticalterms:Jewishbusinessmennevermadeabetterinvestment.

Ifincertainrespectsmencametoenjoyagreaterlevelofcomfortaftertheserevolutions,this was due to the industrial application of science, which has nothing to do withcapitalistpracticesordemocraticmethods.4

The juridical disenfranchisement of the Jews and their acquisitionof equal civil rightswenttothedetrimentoftheirnewfellowcitizens.SomethingsimilarmaybefoundintheArabianNights,whichtellsofafoolwhoopenedabottlecontaininganevilgenie.Whenthegeniewasreleasedfromthepressureofthebottle,itgrewtosuchasizethatitendedupoccupyingtheentireworldandrulingoverhumanity.

Inthelatterhalfofthenineteenthcentury,allprofessions,careers,andfieldsofaction–withtheexceptionofcertainhonorificofficesofnosocialimportance–wereopeneduptotheJews,whorushedtooccupythemenmasse.TheyfiercelycompetedwiththeChristianflockandgraduallytookoverallthebestposts.

Russiaalone remainedclosed to them.TheoutrageouscaseofRussia thusbecame thefavouritesubjectmatterofallJewish-madeEuropeanliteratureandthought.Thereislesstalk ofRussia nowadays –when the state of the country is enough tomake one’s hairstandonend–thantherewasbetween1848and1914.Thisinitselfshouldmakeusthinkandrealisethat,accordingtomodernparlance,astateisliberal,tolerant,andenlightenedwhenithonourstheJew,evenifitoppressesallitsothercitizensandisheadedbyanewNero. A state, on the contrary, is regarded as despotic, oppressive, and backward, andelicitsfeelingsofoutrage,assoonasitseekstodefenditselfagainsttheJew,evenifallitsothercitizenshavenoreasontocomplain.

Israelwasnever to forgiveRussia.As soon as it had attained its goals inwestern andcentralEurope,itdirecteditseffortsagainsttheoneenemystillstanding.

Iftheyear1848wastheequinoxoftheJew,itwasfollowedbycountlessAprilshowers,withgreattemperaturevariations.Still,ittookabouttwentyyearsforrelationsinEuropetoconformtotheneworder.

LeavingasidethecaseofFrance,wherethemonarchyoftheOrléanswasbroughtdown,this firsthistorical attempt at apan-European revolution initially seemed tohave failed,sincetheoldorderwasre-established.

The overall plan, however, had beenwell prepared: no conservative statewas to dealwithitsneighbour’srevolution,foreachhadarevolutionofitsowntodealwith.Russiaalone was free, but had its eyes fixed on Constantinople, where the ‘sick man’ wasgrowing sicker and sicker.TheTsar focused all his diplomatic efforts on the attempt toensurehissuccessionandthusbecometheexecutorofPetertheGreat’swill.BritainheldRussiaincheck.Whileneithersidewishedtowagewar,thesituationremainedtense.

Thistensionwasexploitedbythepartiesofsubversion,whichwerehopingtoavertthepossibilitythatNicholasmightdealwiththerevolutionsincentralEurope.

TheTsarneverintervenedinthisarea,noteveninPrussia,wheretheruler–hisbrother-in-law–wasfacingadifficultsituation.StilllessdidtheTsarconsiderinterveninginItaly,whichwasfaraway.

While in his heart he was utterly foreign to liberalism, Nicholas I did not possessMetternich’sgenius,norhisoverallviewofthehistoricalchainofcausesandeffects.Agreatersoldierthanstatesman,andarulersoauthoritarianastoignorealladvice,theTsaronly saw what was before his eyes and never considered the possibility that the fireconsumingEuropemightenvelophisownempire.

NicholasI, themanbeforewhomeveryonefromtheWhiteSeatotheBlack,andfromtheCarpathianMountainstothePacificOcean,trembled,believedhisempiretobemadeofiron.Herefusedtoadmit–orevenconsiderthepossibility–thattheJudaisingliberalsoftheWesthesodeeplydespisedhadalreadystarteddigginghisdescendants’graves.

He behaved like our contemporaries do and like Bismarck did (who nonetheless isconsidered to have been a great statesman). But the behaviour of Nicholas I is moreexcusable,sincehelackedthesamelevelofexperience.

TheTsarwascertainlycapableofcrushingtherevolutionin1848,forhewasstillsureofthe unfailing loyalty of his troops. However, he committed the terrible mistake of notdoingso,andthepricepaidforthiswastheveryexistenceofhisdynastyandempire.Therevolutionof1848wastheeggfromwhichtherevolutionof1917wasborn:forhistoricaleventsarealwaysinterconnected.Regrettably,theonlypeopleawareofthisaretheJews,andhereinliestheirgreatsuperiority.

In the life of individuals, families, and nations, there are certain suprememoments inwhichthefuturerestsinone’shands.

Historymighthavetakenadifferentcourse,hadNicholasI–whoseempirehadnotyetbeenaffectedbythesurroundingputrefaction–resolutelystoodupastherepresentativeofabsolute authority in 1848, just as Napoleon III was to do a short time later for theprinciplesoftheFrenchRevolution.Short-sightedpeoplewouldhaveaccusedtheTsarofengaginginauselesswar.Fromacontingentpointofview,itwouldnodoubthavebeenuseless forRussia,but from thepointofviewof thephilosophyofhistory–asmaybejudged today– itwouldhavebeenawarof salvationboth forhisowncountryand forChristianhumanity.

OnlyNicholasIcouldhaveintervenedandcrushedtheinfernalconspiracy.Whathedid,however,wasmerelystifleoneofitslocalsymptoms:therevolutioninHungary.

A Russian army led by General Paskevitch got the better of it. The insurrectioncapitulatedandtheholycrownofSaintStephenwasreturnedtoitslegitimateholder,theEmperorofAustria.5

Thisactput thegovernmentofViennaback inpower,when foramoment ithadbeenthrown intoconfusionby theoccurrenceof simultaneous revoltsacross itsdomain.Themovementwas temporarilyquelled,but the impulsehadbeengivenby thenandwouldnevercometoahalt.

Politically,Metternichhadnovoice.Anoldmandisheartenedatwitnessingthetriumphof what he hated and feared the most in his last days, this great European – the laststatesmentohaveenvisagedEuropeasanorderlyandunitedwhole–hadinawaybeenburiedbytheruinsofhisownedifice,theHolyAlliance.Onlythememoryofitsurvived.Itshourhadcomeandtheonlymancapableoffullygraspingtheeventsofthecenturyhadnothingtolookforwardtobutdeath.6

The old emperor Franz had died. After the short reign of the weak Ferdinand, FranzJoseph–whomourgenerationhascometoknowasthepatriarchofEurope–ascendedhis ancestors’ throne at the age of eighteen. He hadn’t had the time to acquire muchexperience,forhehadbeencaughtinthemidstofeventsarisingoutofdemocraticchaosthatwereevenlessintelligibletothemenofhisdaythantheyaretous.

This young man, who had been raised according to the traditional principles of theHapsburg household, was most disconcerted by the first encounter he made with thephenomenonofdemocracyonthethresholdofadulthood.Theimpressionitcreatedmusthavebeenlikethatofanupside-downhousepaintedbysomeextravagantartisttryingtobeoriginalandshockingbyinvertingallestablishedvalues.FranzJoseph’sreactionmayeasilybeimagined,especiallybecausedemocracyatthetimewasstillsomethingnewthatfound its only precedent in the French Revolution, a frightful nightmare which stillhauntedpeople’simaginations.

Peoplenomorerealisedatthetimethantheydotodaythatthiswasanattackmountedbyaminorityassmallastherulingelite,andseekingtoreplaceit.Theso-calledPeoplewasregarded as an actual entity which plotters and adventurers who were in the pay ofcapitalistanonymityclaimedtoberepresenting.

ThenewChancellor of theEmpire,CharlesPhilip,PrinceofSchwarzenberg,was lessinspired than his brilliant predecessor and took the dangerous path of concessions andcompromises. A similar approach will never satisfy an enemy who is insatiable bydefinition: it will merely show one’s fear of him, and thus make him all the moredemanding and arrogant.One cannot claim toknowwhat impertinence is until onehaswitnessed democratic arrogance and heard the unrestrained words of the blitheringmaniacswhoclaimtoembodythemuteandindifferentpeople.

This regime based on half-measures lasted several years. Finally, a parliamentaryconstitutionwasintroduced.

The Austrian state started down a slippery slope. The Jews were assigned full civicrights.Allpaths,exceptthosewithintheimperialcourt,wereopenedtothem.Fromthismoment onwards, the Jews anonymously began playing a conspicuous anddire role byhiding–astheyarewonttodo–behindthefetishofthe‘people’.

The party of the FrenchRevolution –which should not be confusedwith France as acountry–thuscelebratedanewvictory.ItdidsoinVienna,the‘Kaiserstadt’whichwasregarded as the sanctuary of feudalism and which had been the cradle of the HolyAlliance.

In Austria, however, despite political changes, the economic and social structureremained imbued with the feudal spirit. The great noblemen remained economicallyindependent of capitalism and continued to hold far greater prestige in the eyes of themassesthanthebureaucratsandpoliticians.Besides,onbothsidesoftheLeitha,itwastheheadsofgreatfamiliesof impeccablelineagewhomadeuptheUpperChambers,whichwereknownastheLords’Chambers.ThingscontinuedthiswayuntiltheGreatWar,muchtotheindignationofall‘generousandenlightenedsouls’.

Austria andHungary, not unlike Prussia and the rest ofGermany, showed themselvesmorereluctanttoembracedemocracythanFrancehadbeen,andRussiawasdestinedtobein the future.NoLouisXIV orRichelieu, no Ivan the Terrible or Peter theGreat, hadsapped the lifeblood of patriarchal feudalism and domesticated the landed aristocracy.Gradually,almosteverywhereexceptinAustria,thisnobilityhadbeendrawntowardstheroyalcourts,thuslosingtouchwiththecountrysideithadonceruledover.InFranceandRussiathisaristocracywasreplacedtoafargreaterdegreethaninAustriaorGermanybypaidofficialswithnorootsinthecountryandreadytoservethehighestbidder.

The victory of subversion, while striking, was only partial. Planning to proceed withorder,asusual,subversionwassatisfiedwithwhatithadaccomplishedandlefttherestuptoitsally:time.

Things would have been much easier if republican and parliamentary regimes hadalreadybeenflourishinginEuropeinthatage.Itwouldhavebeenenough,then,withthehelpofthepressandsomepropaganda,tofabricatethedesiredpublicopinionandinstilitin the sovereign people,which at that point could have been exploited to demolish thestate.7 Demagogues devoted to the cause would have occupied ministerial seats. Byfinancialmeans, theywould have nourished certain dispositions, giving the impressiontheyweresimpleandspontaneousones.Thisishowinternationalcapitalismmanagestohaveallthewarsitdesiresandpreventthoseitdoesnotwant.

In order to implement this process, however, two things are required: first of all,completefreedomofthepress,wherebynoauthorityhastherighttomuzzlethepress,notevenwhen thesalvationof thenation isatstake;andsecondly,a republicandemocraticregime,inwhichtheweakmeninpowerhaveonlyacasualrelationwiththeirministerialportfolio.Theonlypermanentandhereditarytiesthesepoliticianshavearewiththeirownportfolios,orratherwallets,whichiswhytheywillsay:‘Afterme,thedeluge–aslongasIcantakeenough“dough”onboardNoah’sArkformyfamilyandme.’8

A similar point of view is more of an exception in the case of kings, and especiallyabsolutemonarchs, for thesimple reason that thestate represents theirpersonal fortune,power, wealth and glory, as well as their descendants’ heritage. It is particularly rareamong the landed aristocracyof theold sort,whose traditions are not nomadic like theArkoftheCovenantoftheOldTestament.Thefortuneofthesenoblesconsistsofasumofelementsdrawnfromthenationalterritory:itisnotmobileandisnotbasedoncredit,which is to sayondebts thatmake it dependenton creditors.The abovepoint of view,however,isquitelogicalandnormalforschemingpoliticianswithnolinkstothesoilor

history:menrisenoutofGodknowswhere,onlytodisappearwiththeirpocketsfullafterhavingcarriedoutthetasksallottedtothembyGodknowswhom.

Tobehavedishonestly towardshisowncountry,anobleman–not tomentionaking–mustbedishonesttothepointofselflessnessandstupidity,somethingrareindeed.

Tobehavehonestly,a‘Tartempion’9ofdemocracybroughtintopowerbyananonymouscliquethatcollectedhimfromabarn–ifnotfromadunghill–mustbehonesttothepointofselflessnessandself-sacrificingheroism.

Thisisalsoaninfrequentcase:menlikeCincinnatus10aretheexception.Besides,evenwhentheyaretobefound,itisnottheywhoarebroughttopowerandgivenanycredit.

This iswhypolitical regimes ruledbydishonestmenof the above sort are sowarmlypraisedbythemenof‘progress’–whoseallegedprogressismerelythepowerfulleveragetheyexerttothedetrimentoftheblindmasses.

Butupuntil1848,thisgoldenageofdemocracyhadyettodawn.

1Evolaadds,‘IsraelEntersintoAction’.—Ed.

2Evolahas‘plebeiannationalisms’.—Ed.

3Evolahas‘Jacobinnationalism’.—Ed.

4TheprevioustwoparagraphsarenotincludedinEvola’sedition.—Ed.

5The1848revolutioninHungaryexpandedtobecomeawarforliberationfromtheHapsburgs.RussiaintervenedatFranzJoseph’srequest,andinvadedTransylvaniainApril1849,althoughtheRussianforcesweresoundlydefeatedbyaHungarianarmyunderthecommandofthePolish-bornGeneralJózefBem,TheRussianssentalargerforceinduringthesummerandwerevictoriousthesecondtime.—Ed.

6Evolaomittedthelastsentencefromhisedition.—Ed.

7TheoriginalFrenchhas‘another’inplaceof‘thestate’.—Ed.

8InFrenchthisisapun,sinceportefeuillemeansbothpoliticalportfolioaswellaswallet. InItalian,portafogli canonlymeanwallet,causingEvolatousethewordfor‘offices’(cariche)thefirsttimeitoccurs.—Ed.

9InFrench,Tartempionservesthesamefunctionas‘JohnDoe’inEnglish,todesignateananonymousmaleperson.—Ed.

10LuciusCincinnatus(519-430BC)wasaRomanconsulwhowaselecteddictatorofRomein458during timeofwar.Hewassuccessful,andbecameaherototheRomans.—Ed.

NapoleonIII:AnAllyofWorldSubversionInthehistoricalperiodwearefocusingon,subversionhadthetremendousluckoffindingapowerfulallywhocouldexercisetherighttointerveneinthedomesticaffairsofothercountries.HedidsoinawayoppositetothewayMetternichhadintendedit,namelyinthenameofanewprincipleofinternationalsolidarity:mutualsolidarityamongnationalistand democratic states bent on freeing one another from the yoke of alleged traditionaltyrannies.

This ally and selfless champion of democratic solidarity based on the ‘immortalprinciples’wasNapoleonIII,whoemergedinFrance thanks to the1848revolution.Yetbefore undertaking any new tasks, subversion more prudently sought to prevent thepossibilityoftherebeinganyreversaloffortune.Upuntil1848,ithaddaredtoignorethewild card represented by the Tsar of all Russia. This monarch, who had hardly beenenlightened by the torch that Weishaupt had passed on to Nubius, and Nubius wasdestinedtopassontoLenin,1hadthreatenedto‘spill thebeans’: thesaucetheJewwaspreparinginordertopoisonallthosewhostoodinhisway.

LuckilyfortheJew,thisautocratwhocontinuedtotreatGod’sChosenPeopleasrabblehadonly intervened inHungary.While ithadbeenpossible to remedy thisdamage, thepartisansoflibertyonthemarchwerenevertoforgetthelessontheyhadlearned.

BeforehavingFranceinterveneinItaly2inanyway,itwasnecessarytoaverttheriskofanyRussianinterventiontoreinforceAustriandefences.Inotherwords,itwasnecessarytodeliverablowagainst theRussianEmperoralone, inorder toimmobiliseanddisablehim.ThenanotherblowwouldhavebeendeliveredagainsttheemperorofAustria,whobythenwouldhavebeencompletelyisolated.Theaimwastohaveonlytherevolutionsoccur simultaneously, while fostering divisions within the opposite front. It was a finepoliticalstrategy.

WeshallnotfocusonallthevariousincidentsoftheParisianrevolutionof1848.Sufficeit toknowwhere it led to,afterall the incoherentdeclamations that followed it: first, itbrought a President of the Republic, namely Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte. Then,throughaplebiscite,NapoleonIIIbecameemperor–clearly,EmperoroftheFrench,notofFrance;andbythewillofthenation,notbygraceofGod.

ItwasNapoleon III’s ambition tocompletehisuncle’swork.But inorder tocompleteanykindofwork,onemustfirstunderstandofwhatitconsists.Now,‘tounderstandistoequal’:theworkofNapoleontheGreatcouldonlyhavebeencompletedbyNapoleontheGreat,notbyNapoleontheLesser.

MorethansimplytheworkofNapoleon,TheMemorialofSaintHelenaisaproductoftheman’sdisenchantment–whichcaneasilybeimagined,consideringhowhemusthavefeltafterhavingbeenabandonedbyall theprincesandgreatmenoftheworldwhohadoncebeenathisfeet.Havingbeenbetrayedandevenleftbyhisownwife,anemperor’sdaughter,Napoleonnaturallyturnedbacktohisorigins:thegospelofresentmentpreached

bytheFrenchRevolution.HowdifferentthingshadbeenonthedaywhenNapoleonhadplaced the imperialcrownonhisownheadwith themomentouswords: ‘Godgave it tome,woetohimwhotouchesit.’

Whyhadhenotsaid:‘Thepeoplegaveittome,andIshallkeepituntilthedayitwantsitback’?

WhatwasthereasonforthepresenceofthePopeattheconsecrationceremony?Didthewillofthepeoplerequireit?ThiswasverymuchinthetraditionofCharlemagneandtheHolyRomanEmperors,onlywithanaddedtouchofpride,forwhilethelatterhadgonetoRome,NapoleonhadpersonallysummonedRome.Still,hisceremonywashardlyinthetraditionofRobespierre.

WhyhadNapoleonmarriednotjustablue-bloodedprincess,butthedoublegrandnieceof Marie Antoinette – a representative of the purest Catholic, feudal, aristocratic, andmedievaltradition,theveryoppositeofthatoftheRevolution?

Why had he appointed arch-chamberlains and arch-seneschals in place of thechamberlainsandseneschalsoftheancienrégime?Whatwasthereasonforallthisroyalpomp, which showed none of the republican simplicity enjoyed by Washington orLincoln?3

IfNapoleonhadn’t fallen,hewouldhave leftanewfeudalsystemof fiefs loyal to thecrown,withgenerals’sonsasthenewneighboursoftheoldcountrynoblemen.

Butwhat about the principle of indivisible nationalities?Was it to be found inFrance(whichextendedbeyonditsethnicboundaries),intheConfederationoftheRhine,intheKingdomofWestphalia,inthatofNaples,orintheGrandDuchyofWarsaw?

The truth is that it hadn’t taken Napoleon long to throw his republican cloak out thewindowanddonamantledottedwithbees.Itwasonlywhenhewasforcedtoremovethelatter that, now a lonely and abandonedman filledwith bitterness,Napoleon addressedposterity from the rocksofSaintHelenaasanobedient sonof theRevolution.Upuntilthat moment it was not the ‘great achievements of the human spirit’ that the greatconquerorhadsought.

Napoleon has sought to present himself as an heir ofCharlemagne, not of the FrenchRevolution.Withhisambitiongrowingwithvictoryaftervictory,hehadyearnedforthehonourofbeingEmperoroftheWestandnotsimplyEmperoroftheFrench–toomodestatitleforhim,andonethat,inanycase,wouldnolongerhavefittedhim.ForNapoleon,nationalismnevermattered.4

NapoleoncertainlypaidagreatservicetotherevolutionarycauseinEurope.Buthedidso unconsciously, without really intending to, only because almost all his officers andsoldierswereoldrevolutionarieswhocarriedthedustoftheRevolutionontheiruniformsandboots,leavingtracesofitinthecapitalstheymarchedthrough.TheloyalsubjectsofemperorsandkingssawtheirlordsandprincesbeinghumiliatedbytheGreatUpstartandhisbandofupstarts,asaconsequenceofwhichtheoldrulerslostmuchoftheirprestige.

It was no revolutionary, democratic, and nationalist dream which the new Caesarcherished for his son, who was bestowed the medieval – and in a way imperiallyinternational–titleofKingofRome.ThistitlealoneisenoughtorevealtherealnatureofNapoleon’s thought, his Memorial being but the sour grapes of his resentment andbitterness.5ThetitleofKingofRomeimpliedthat itsholderwasaRomanemperor–aFrenchRomanemperor,justasinthepasttherehadbeenGermanHolyRomanEmperors;anemperor,nonetheless,whowouldhavehadthePopeashischaplainandkingsashisgreatvassals(whointurnwouldhavehadprincesastheirownvassals).Thiswouldhavebeenanewfeudalsystem:apyramidwithasummit–whathadbeenmissingtomaketheMiddleAgescomplete.

SuchagrandviewofhistorywastoomuchforthelimitedintelligenceofsomeonelikeNapoleon III. Ultimately he was nothing but a petty conspirator in the pay of theanonymousconspiracythathadbroughthimtopower.

IncapableofgraspingtherealplansofNapoleonatworkbehindtheeventsoftheFirstEmpire,hisheirmerelygavealiteralinterpretationtothemanuscriptwhichNapoleonhadhaddictatedtohimbyhisownresentmentanddisenchantmentatSaintHelena.

Thepartiesofsubversionmadesure to interpret themanuscript forNapoleonIII.TheyhadalreadyclaimedthegreatnameofNapoleonIforthemselvesintheaftermathoftheeventsof1815,alongwiththedesireforrevengefeltbytheFrench.Therewasactuallynoreason for feelingvengeful, as thehistorical territoryofFrancehadnotbeenmutilated.OnlytheFrenchRevolutionhadbeendefeatedwiththeCongressofViennain1815.Thesubversive parties, however, put their subtle minds to work in an attempt to link therevolutionaryideatothatofFrance,therebyconfoundingmediocresouls.

OneofthesemediocresoulsborethenameofNapoleonandthesurnameofBonaparte.The forces of subversion were very clever at exploiting this man by making a mostparticular – and indeed historically unprecedented – emperor of him. Napoleon III’smissionwastofightkingsandemperors(hisnewcolleagues),toweakentheprestigeofthemonarchyinEurope,todisintegrateallempires,andtomaketheRevolutiontriumpheverywhere,withalltheimplicationsthiswouldhavecarried.

Asamonarch,NapoleonIIIhadaparticularlylustrouscourt,teemingwithtitle-holdersand gold-spangled dignitaries.He conferred hereditary noble titles that included all theprivilegesoftheold,traditionalones.6Asamatterofprinciple,hefoughtwithfanaticalzeal – to the point ofmaking this the very purpose of his reign – against the principleunderlyingtheprivilegesbyvirtueofwhichheruled,andcouldhopetopasshisthroneontohisdescendants.

This is a paradox that has hardly been seriously considered.Otherwise, peoplewouldsoonhaverealisedthatsomethingunusualwasgoingon.

Preciselybecausetheyhaveseriouslyconsideredthismatter,certainwritershavereachedtheconclusionthatNapoleonIIIwassimplyanagentoftheoccultcirclesthatdominatedsociety in his day. These circles brought him to the throne and kept him in power bymeansofinvisiblestrings,thenatureofwhichisunknowntous,butwhichestablisheda

genuineformofservitudefromwhichtheemperorcouldnotbreakfree.

Thismayallsoundalittlefar-fetched.Butwhileit isaratherboldjudgement, it isnotunjustified.

Itiscertainlyhardtounderstandhowanemperormighthaveenthusiasticallypromoteddemocracyworldwide–theonethingthatmostwentagainsthisownraisond’etre–anddonesoalmostpurely for thesakeofart, so tospeak,whensuchapolicydamaged theinterestsofhisowndynastyandcountry.

Speaking from his throne in the middle of the Atlantic, Napoleon I had proclaimedhimselftobethe‘MessiahoftheRevolution’.NapoleonIIIwasamanforalltasks:atooltodemolishwalls.HeowedhiscrowntotheRevolution,whichwouldtakeitbackassoonashehadplayedhispart.Thispart,forwhichNapoleonIIIhadbeenraisedoutofnothing,hecertainlyplayedverywell:for,asweshallsee,hewasreadytolistentothepromptswhichwerewhisperedinhisear.

ThefirstwallthatneededtobedemolishedwasNicholasI.Thisunscathedchampionofreaction–theonlymanwhohadsuccessfullyintervenedinthepastandwhomighthavedone so again in the future – hanged over the forces of subversion like a sword ofDamocles.

ThequestionwaswhetherNapoleonIIIwasstrongenoughonhisowntobringdownthisformidableathlete,whowasthenatthepeakofhispower.

Asifithadjustfallenfromthesky,in1853Napoleonfoundtheallyheneededtopavethe way for democracy and avert the danger that threatened it. Britain did not usuallymeddleincontinentalaffairsandwasinterestedinonlyone:thatoftheOttomanEmpire,Constantinople,andtheDardanelles.ItslatentrivalherewasRussia.7

Unlike the countries of continental Europe, Britain had not witnessed any explicitrevolutions.Instead,ithadundergonealongphaseofevolution,asimperceptiblefromtheoutside as it was profound on the inside. British institutions had apparently remainedunchanged.TheCrownwasstillthere–indeed,itsprestigewasevenontheincrease–aswerethePrivyChamber,theHouseofCommons,andtheHouseofLords.Still,thesenolonger retained their original significance. Everything had been democraticallytransformed,whileremainingunchangedonthesurface.

LetusalsobearinmindthatBritainwasswarmingwithMasoniclodges.Itistruethattheirmental,intellectual,moral,orevenmundaneandsociallevelwasfarmoreelevatedthanthatofcontinentallodges.Butstill,oneshouldnotforgetthatwhileMasoniclodgesare often perfectly respectable places in themselves, they are particularly prone tobecomingthepassiverecipientsofprogressivesuggestions.Certaincellswillthusbecomesaturated with these influences, without most members of the lodge – including itshonoraryleaders,thoseadorningitsfaçadeandattractingoutsiders–everknowingabouttheirroleorpresence.

Intheagewearenowdiscussing,aradicalLiberalministerwasinpowerinBritain.Ithasactuallybeenfoundthathewasunderthecontroloftheradicalwingofhisparty.Its

head,LordPalmerston,wasPrimeMinister,whichistosaythathewasthepoliticalleaderof theUnitedKingdom.Thiswas thesamepartyas thatwhich isnowpresidedoverbyLloydGeorge – himself a radical, i.e.more than just a Liberal.At the time, this partybroughttogetherpureliberalsandradicals.YetasthewheelofhistoryhastravelledquitealongwaysinceLordPalmerston’sday,becauseofthedistancethatseparatesusfromhim,henowstrikesusasbeinglessofasubversivethanLloydGeorge.

Lord Palmerston and his radical circle naturally sympathised with the Europeanrevolutionarymovement of 1848 and could not bearMetternich’s policies,Nicholas I’sattitude,andtheMoscovitespiritofthoseyearsmoregenerally.

TheiraversionforTsarism,whichhadlittleregardfortheChosenPeopleandtheirideals,wasonlyPlatonicatfirst.Thingschanged,however,assoonasapretextwasfoundthatcould bring British interests into play. This pretext – something rather insignificant initself–wouldnothavebeenenoughforaconservativegovernment,whichwouldeasilyhave found a way to come to an arrangement without sacrificing any of the country’sinterests. On the other hand, it was quite enough for Lord Palmerston to launch anoffensive against the Russian Empire: for he was heeding the call of his blood. LordPalmerston foundanunexpectedally inNapoleon III–unexpected, that is,because theTurkishquestionmayhavebeenagoodenoughreasonforBritaintoattack,butcertainlynotFrance.

Theremayhavebeenfewgrounds forseriousconflictbetweenFranceandRussia,butmanycouldbefoundforconflictbetweenRussianautocracyandtheFrenchRevolution.Whatmorecouldbeaskedfor?

1Evolaaddsthisfootnote:‘JeanAdamWeishaupt,borninBavariain1748,wasthefounderoftheso-called“Orderofthe Illuminati”, a secret association of great historical importance, as it clearly illustrates the transformation ofaristocraticandspiritual initiatoryorganisations intopolitical, revolutionary,andsubversivegroups.“Nubius”wasthepseudonym used by a mysterious figure who exercised considerable influence over early nineteenth-century secretsocieties,startingwiththeItalianCarbonari.Besides,itislikelythatthenameWeishaupt–meaning“Whiteleader”–wasitselfapseudonym.’

2Evolaremoves‘inItaly’.—Ed.

3Evolaomitsthisparagraphfromhisedition.—Ed.

4Evolaomitsallbutthefirstsentenceofthisparagraph.—Ed.

5TheprevioussentenceisomittedinEvola’sedition.—Ed.

6Evolaomitsthefirsttwosentencesofthisparagraph.—Ed.

7DePoncinsisreferringtotheconditionswhichledtotheoutbreakoftheCrimeanWarin1853.—Ed.

TheFirstWarsforDemocracy:TheCrimeanWar1

Thewarof1853,knownastheCrimeanWar,markedanimportanthistoricalturningpointfor tworeasons.Firstofall,because itsignalled thefinalcancellationof thepactof theHolyAllianceandtheclosing–atthehandsofitssignatories–ofthebeneficialperiodofinternationalpeace ithadbrought.Secondly,because thewarcoincidednotmerelywiththecancellationoftheHolyAlliance,butwiththeverynegationoftheprincipleonwhichitwasfoundedand its replacementwithanoppositeone throughacomplete reversalofvalues.TheCrimeanWarwasaneventandasymptomwithnohistoricalantecedent: itwas a war for democracy, and ultimately nothing other than that. For the first time inhistory,twomonarchiesactedasthemercenarychampionsofasweepingrevolutionthattranscendedtheapparentlynationalboundariesoftheFrenchRevolution.

Strictlyspeaking,thewarsoftheFrenchRevolutionhadnotbeendemocraticones.Theyhad been defensive wars waged by France, which happened to be in the thralls ofrevolution at the time. The Napoleonic Wars had been fuelled by the all-consumingambitionof agreat conquerorwho thirstedaftergloryandpower.Thewarof1853,bycontrast,wasthefirstopenlyandgenuinelydemocraticwarinhistory.Asweknowalltoowell,itwasnotthelast.

Forthefirsttime,youngmenfromgoodfamilies2killedoneanother,notinthenameoftheircountries,princes,oranyinbornfeeling,butsothatscumonbothsides,instigatedbythetumultuousJew,couldtreadontheircorpses.

It tookwhat ismockingly referred to as ‘freedom’ tomake such bitter irony possible,withitsrepressionofpeople’sgenuinepersonalities.Peoplewouldoncehavegiventheirlives forwhat they loved.Now that they are ‘free’, they are forced to have themselveskilled, if needs be, for the devil himself or the interests of Jewish capitalism – whichamounts tomuch the same thing. If they refuse todo so, theywillbeaccusedofbeingtraitorstotheircountryandpossiblyshot,asifone’sfatherland,Freemasonry,democracy,andtheJewwerealloneandthesamething.

The spokesmen of democracy and the so-called freethinkers cherish few illusionsconcerningtherealmeaningofthewarof1853.Theyseeitnotasaconflictamongmanyothers inhistory,onemotivatedbysomeissuewith theTurks,butratheras theclashoftwoworldsandtwobasicdogmas:‘thatofthebarbarianChristianityoftheEastandthatoftheyoungsocialfaithofthecivilisedWest’,toquoteMichelet’s3ownwords.

Weshouldhastentoaddthataccordingtothatwayofthinking,ChristianityisbarbarousinNaples,Munich,orevenSaintPeter’sCathedral.Lodges,stockexchanges,andbankswere to be the future temples of the ‘civilised’ West. Nicholas I was a ‘tyrant’ and‘vampire’, as Metternich had been. There are some people whom one cannot disturbwithoutbeinglabelledavampire,whilethereareotherswhomoneisfreetomassacrebythethousandsinthenameoffreedomwithouttherebyceasingtobeanobleandgenerousperson.

AccordingtoMichelethimself,this‘wasareligiouswar’–whatanaccurateexpression!–whichcalledfor‘thedeathofhundredsofthousandsofmen’.ItwasthusnecessaryforChristians – formost of thesemenwere not freethinkers, financiers, or Jews – to havethemselveskilledinordertodestroyChristianityandpavethewayforBolshevismintheEastandtheubiquitousspreadofcapitalismintheWest.

The Crimean War – the work of capitalism, democracy, and their artificial product,modernnationalism4 – inaugurated this newmethod ofwarfare,whichwas destined tofinditstriumphintheWorldWar.

Russiawasunpreparedfor thisconflict.Howcouldithavenotbeen?TheTsarandhisministers were men of the ancien régime whose political approach was based on thelessonshistoryhadtaughtthem;theywerenotapocalypticvisionariesofthefuture,afterMichelet’sfashion.

Things we have grown accustomed to by now, such as the ‘selfless’ wars waged bycountries – especially monarchies! – for democracy or the profit of internationalcapitalism5wereunintelligibletothefollowersof‘barbarianChristianity’.Whattheysawwas that in1853 therewasnogood reason to trouble the livesofpeoples, and that thereasonsinvoked,whichfelloutsidethespectrumofordinarycausesforconflict,wereanunprecedentednoveltythatutterlyescapedtheirunderstanding.

No one inRussiawas expecting any clash to occur inCrimea. Troops thus had to bemoved across thewhole ofEuropeanRussia – a slow and difficult operation in an agewhenthecountryhadfewrailwaysandallofitsroadswereeitherincompleteorinastateofdisrepair.

Inshort,thearmyofMoscow,whosereputationfollowingtheeventsof1813wasratheroverinflated,weredefeated,andtheTsardidnotevenmakeittothebattlefield,forhefellillalongthejourneyanddied.Accordingtotheofficialversion,hediedofflu;accordingto the most common opinion, this proud and uncompromising man poisoned himselfbecausehecouldnotbear the thoughtofhavingbeenhumiliatedbydemocracy.Othersstillsayhewaspoisoned.

WiththedeathofNicholasI,alivingembodimentofTsarismdisappeared,andofallthatbywhichdemocracywasmosthorrified.Yet,NicholasIlivedonintheheartsofhisownpeople,whoadmiredhimasatrueTsarandlord.Adoredbyhissoldiers,NicholasIhadbeengenerouswiththoseloyaltohimbutmercilessinthefightagainstrevolt,whoserealsignificanceinnineteenthcenturyhistoryhehadgrasped.Once,whentherumbleofrevolthadreachedthewindowsoftheWinterPalace,NicholasIhadsteppedoutonthebalconyandshouted: ‘Onyourknees!’Thepeoplehadkneltbeforehim:suchwas theauthoritywhichhisbearingandvoicecommanded.

NicholasI’ssuccessor,AlexanderII,half-heartedlyprofessedavaguesortofliberalism.Totheextenttowhichthisispossibleforanautocrat,hewaswellregardedbydemocrats,whoonlytolerateweakandirresolutemonarchs.ItwasthusinthereignofAlexanderIIthat the decay of the Empire began. It was destined to never end. All other obstacleshavingbeenremoved,subversionwasnowtodirectallitseffortsagainstRussia.

TheCongressofPariswasNapoleon III’s triumph.People saw it as anactof revengeagainsttheCongressofViennaandfortheFrenchdefeatatWaterloo.Onewouldbehardput to find out just how andwhy thiswas considered to be the case, unlesswe are toreduce thiswhole triumphand revenge to thesimple fact that theCongresswasheld inParis.Francewasdestinedtoreceivemuchthesamedegreeofsatisfactionin1919,intheaftermathofabiggerwarfordemocracy.

This, then, is what France gained. Britain hardly faired any better. The rest went todemocracy.Itwasdemocracywhichreallytriumphed,forNicholasIhadneverposedanyrealdangertoFrance–onlyaseriousthreattotheRevolution.

1Evolaentitlesthischapter,‘TheFirstWarsfortheOccultFront:TheCrimeanWar’.—Ed.

2Evolahas,‘sonsofthesamefamily’.—Ed.

3 JulesMichelet (1798-1874) was a French historian andman of letters. Hewas verymuch an anti-clericalist andopposedtothepre-RevolutionaryorderofFrance.—Ed.

4Evolahas,‘thesubversiveandanti-traditionalnationalismofmoderntimes’.—Ed.

5Evolaomits,‘ortheprofitofinternationalcapitalism’.—Ed.

AfterBringingRussiaDown,theRevolutionDirectsItsEffortsagainstAustria

AfterhavingtemporarilybroughtRussiadown,alleffortsweredirectedagainstAustria.The revolutionmade nomistakes about this country.Hatred, like love, is driven by anunfailinginstinctwhenitcomestowhatisintrinsicallyone’sopposite.

Austria was the most hated of all countries. It was the most visible embodiment ofCatholicism,theancienrégime,theconceptofpersonalproperty(asopposedtothesocialoneofcapitalism),theheritageoftheHolyRomanEmpire,andtheidealofahierarchicalorderingofChristendomunder a single sceptre– inotherwords, an embodimentof allthatwasconsideredtobemostbarbarous.Inshort,AustriastoodfortheveryoppositeoftheidealsoftheRevolution:capitalism,democracy,andnationalism,1all threeofwhichwereutterlycontrarytotheAustrianandmedievalworldview.

Now, Austria in the first half of the nineteenth century was a country of the ancienrégime. The reason for this lay not simply in the fact that itwas a politicalmonarchy.Capitalismmight, in theory, have contented itselfwith turningAustria into amonarchyruledbybankersandfinancialtraders.Thecountry,however,consistedofafederationofself-sufficient economicmonarchiesgovernedbya sovereignwhowasabig landownerfreeofdebts–inotherwords,anindependentruler.Thesemonarchieswereself-sufficientinthattheymadeupforoneanotherasconcernsbasicgoods.

Trade,moneylending,andagiotageweretobefoundalmostexclusivelyinthebigcities–whichwere certainly not as big as those of today – yet only constituted a secondaryfeatureoftheeconomy.Thiswasinsteadbased–forindividualsasmuchasforthestate–onproduction,consumption,andexchange.Theeconomicrulersofthecountrywerethelandowners,whowere often industrialists aswell, and producedmost of the necessaryfoodstuffwiththehelpoftheirfarmers.Therewerenocomplaints,poverty,orstrikes,firstbecausethisrulingclasswaspatriarchalanditsmembers–fromfathertoson–werethusvisibleandpersonallyaccountable;andsecondly,becausetheselandownershadnofixed-term creditors ready to hold a knife to their throats. Theywere free from debts, whilepayingallof their taxes, for thestatewasrelativelyundemandingat the time,notbeingindebtedastoday’sstatesare.

ThisisnottosaythattheJewplayednorole,butsimplythathedidnottakethelion’sshare–onebigenoughfortheLionofJudah.

In economic as well as political and social terms, Austria set the tone for the wholeGermanConfederation,whichwas comprised of stateswhichwere all rather similar inthisrespect.Theyconsistedoffederationsofbigpatriarchallandownersandindustrialistsunderthepaternalleadershipofprinces,archdukes,andkings–whowerelandownersandproducersthemselves.Thelatterreceivedajustamountoftaxesnotfortheenrichmentofusurers,butfortheupkeepoffamousschoolsanduniversities,thepolice,thelawcourts,roads,andtheirsmallarmies.

If Austria – albeit stripped of its Italian provinces – had taken the upper hand inGermany,thiswouldhavemeanttheestablishmentofareactionaryandanti-capitalistblocbasedonfeudalpropertyownership(or,rather,anupdatedversionofit).ThisblocwouldhavecutRussiaandtheBalkanpeninsulaofffromtheWesterndemocracies:itmightthushavepreventedthedestructiveinfiltrationoftheideasspawnedbytheFrenchRevolution.TheCatholicelement,moreover,wouldhavebeenpredominant.

Austriahadtobedestroyed.

Itwasbecauseof thisgoal that suchgreat importancewas assigned to theproblemofnational irredentism, which had previously been utterly non-existent.2 We should notforget that in the first half of the nineteenth century, Austria was even more of apatchworkofdifferentracesandlanguages thanat thebeginningof the twentieth.Itnotonly ruled – without granting any constitutions or autonomy – over Bohemia, part ofPoland,Hungary,andCroatia;inotherwords,overaMagyarlandandthreeSlaviconeswith different languages; but it also controlled thewhole of northern Italy: theVeneto,Lombardy,andTuscany.

Itwas thus chiefly in pursuit of the above goal that the ingenious Jews – never to becaught off-guard – staked everything on nationalism, which they started fostering. TheterrainchosenfortheirattackwasItaly.

ItalywasnodoubtthemostvulnerableareaoftheHapsburgempire,especiallybecausethe peoples of the north of the peninsula were the heirs to democratic and republicantraditions–whichwereinsteadprominentlylackinginthecentralEuropeanregions.

Italiancitieshadbeen,forthemostpart,republicanifnotdemocratic.Theyhadalwaysfought against the German emperors. Traces of this remained in the local politicaltemperament.TheyaloneinEuropehadprofessedasortofpatriotismorparticularismthatwaslessdynasticthancivic,beingreminiscentofthespiritoftheancientMediterraneancities.

There were thus good reasons to expect the new ideas sparked by Napoleon and theFrench Revolution to be better received in Italy than elsewhere. Italy was the mostvulnerable region of the Empirewhose dissolutionwas so eagerly sought; at the sametime,itwasthemostdesirablevictimaccordingtotheoverallplanofsubversion.

It was not somuch bymeans of democracy and the ‘immortal principles’ as throughnationalism that Austria had to be isolated as far as possible, so as to prevent hercompanionsinmisfortunefromcomingtoheraid:forshealonewouldneverhavebeencapableofgettingherselfoutoftrouble.AfterdemolishingAustria,therewouldhavebeenplentyoftimetothinkaboutwhatyetremainedtobedoneabouttheotherstates.

NapoleonIIIfulfilledhistaskbydeclaringwaragainsttheEmperorofAustria,withnoapparentgroundsorprovocation,fornotevenavaguereasonwastobefoundthatmightsomehowhaveconcerned the futureofFrance.NapoleonIII simplydeclaredwar,ashehad done with the Emperor of Russia, in order to complete the revolutionary work of1848. The true and undeclared reasonwas the following one: theCatholic unity of the

Hapsburg state, which lay above all national and ethnic differences, was a relic of theHolyRomanEmpire,amorelimitedexpressionandmodelofwhattheHolyAlliancewasoriginallymeanttobe,butinpracticeneverwas.Howcouldtheenforceroftheloftyplansof the great Revolution not contribute to the disintegration of this hated vestige of themedievalorder,whichwasconsideredsooffensiveintheageofprogress?

Aseconddemocraticwarwasthuswagedinthenameofnationalism.

Austriawas defeated andwithdrew from Italy forever.3 It lostmuch of its power andprestige within the German Confederation, where Protestant Prussia now gainedpredominance.4

Twoother idealswereweakenedasaresultof thiswar: theCatholic idealofChristianpoliticaluniversalism,whichyieldedtotheProtestantideaofnationalistseparatisms;andtheconservativeandfeudalideal–astraditionallyembodiedbyAustria–whichyieldedtodemocratic‘progress’.

TheKingofItalybecameyetanothersovereignruling‘bythewillofthenation’.Infact,heruledbythewillofsubversiverather thanpurelynationalelements.Hence, theKingfoundhimself inanextremelydifficultposition: foras theheir toaCatholicdynastyofillustrious princes, he represented the conservative ideal; but at the same time, heembodiedtheveryoppositeideal,astheinvoluntaryenemyofthePope–thesourceofalllegitimacy–andtheproductofMasoniclodgesandothersecretsocieties.

Napoleon III himself faced much the same difficulties: for as the head of a Catholiccountry,hewasforcedtotakethereligiousfeelingsofhissubjectsintoaccount.HecouldnotbearealallyofthenewItalyofMazziniandGaribaldiagainstAustria,andwasevenforcedtostandinitswayatthegatesofRome.Hisarmy,whichhadcruciallycontributedto the Italian victory and unification,was destined to prevent the Italians from gainingaccesstotheirnewcapital.Ultimately,inunifyingItalyNapoleonIIIwentagainsthisowninterest,somethingwhichheoughttohaveforeseen:for‘awomanwilleasilyforgetwhathasbeendoneforher,butwillneverforgetwhathasnotbeendoneforher’.Thisproverbequallyappliestonations.NapoleonIIIalienatedtheinternationalfrontoftheRightonlytobeabandonedbytheinternationalfrontoftheLeft.Thelatter,ahabitualpriest-basher,wasnowafterthehighestpriest.

From this moment onwards, Napoleon III grew increasingly isolated. Seeing that hecould followher no further, the revolution searched for a different tool and found it inPrussia,inthepersonofBismarck.

1Evolahas,‘collectivistnationalism’.—Ed.

2InEvola’sversion,thisparagraph,aswellasthefollowingfiveparagraphs,aresubstitutedbyaverydifferenttext,whichisappendedattheendofthischapter.—Ed.

3 InEvola’sversion, for thisparagraphhesubstitutes thefollowing:‘Therealpurposeof thiswarwasnot tofavourgenuine Italianpatriotism, of the sort that strikes no compromisewith theunderground forces of theRevolution andFreemasonry; rather, it was to weaken the power and prestige of Austria within the German Confederation, whereProtestantPrussianowgainedpredominance.’—Ed.

4 Concerning the backstage political events surrounding the Italian Risorgimento, it will be useful to refer to thedocumentsincludedinCretineau-Joly’sL’ÉgliseromaineetlaRevolution(Paris,1859,vol.II).TheseclearlyillustratetheroleplayedbycertainconcealedJewsandFreemasons,whoopenlyexpressedcontemptamongthemselvesfortheideasoftheItalianpatriots.Thelattertheyregardedasmerely‘ameansforturmoilworthholdingonto’.Mazziniwasconsidered a ridiculous and romantic conspirator who could never be introduced to the ‘unknown superiors’ of theCarbonari.Armedthreatswereevenmadeagainsthim,lestheshouldevermeddleintheirbusiness.TheCarbonariwerepursuing fargreateraims.AgainstRome they felt ‘ahealthy,cold-blooded,well-pondered,andmostprofoundhatredthatisworthmorethanallthefireworksanddeclamationsofthepoliticians’.Theirgoalwastostriketheveryheartoftraditional spiritual authority, with full awareness that this would have caused ‘the fall of thrones and dynasties’. ItwouldalsobeinterestingtoexploretheroleplayedbyBritainanditsMasonicleadersnotonlyinFrance,butalsoinItaly– that is tosay,withrespect to theItaliansecretsocietiesoperatingfor therevolutionary internationalunder theguiseofnationalistandpatrioticgroups.Theaforementionedworkcontainssomereferencestothis.(JuliusEvola)

EVOLA’SVERSION:Austria,therefore,hadtobedestroyed.

We should not forget that in the first half of the nineteenth century,Austriawas evenmore of a patchwork of different races and languages than at the beginning of thetwentieth. It not only ruled – without granting any constitutions or autonomy – overBohemia,partofPoland,Hungary,andCroatia; inotherwordsaMagyarlandandthreeSlaviconeswithdifferentlanguages;butitalsocontrolledthewholeofnorthernItaly:theVeneto, Lombardy, andTuscany. The chosen tactic consisted of laying particular stressupon thepreviouslynon-existent issueofnational irredentism,whileclosely linking theideaofnationalismtotheliberal-democratic,anti-traditional,andanti-hierarchicalone.

ThechosenterrainforthefirstphaseoftheattackwasItaly.Eventsunfoldedasfollows.InItaly,twotraditionsandheritagescoexisted.Thefirstone,theoldestandmostgenuine,was the Roman, Catholic, and aristocratic tradition. It found expression in Dante’sGhibelline5andfeudalItaly:thatofthedistinctlyItalianprinceswho–startingfromtheSavoyandMonferrato families–hadneverhesitated to takeuparms indefenceof therightsoftheEmperorandnobilityatthetimeoftheinsurrectionoftheItaliancity-states.Thesecondtraditionwas thedemocraticoneof thesecity-states,whichwasparticularlystrong in northern Italy.As a consequence, this regionwas one of themost vulnerableareasoftheHapsburgempire.WhatmayrightlybedescribedastheshadiestsideoftheItalianRisorgimento–whichbetraystheinfluenceofthesecretforcesofworldsubversion–consistsinthefactthattheideaofItalianunificationcametobeexclusivelyassociatedwith the second of these traditions. The ideas spread by Napoleon and the FrenchRevolutionbecametoolsinthehandsofMasoniclodgesandtheCarbonari.Thegreatesteffort was spent in trying tomake Italians forget about the first of the aforementionedtraditions; in otherwords of theirRoman, imperial, and aristocratic heritage. The stakeherewastwo-fold:ontheonehand,theaimwastoopenacrackintheempirethatwastobe demolished; on the other, itwas to turn Italy into one of themost desirable victimsaccordingtotheoverallplanofsubversion.

NapoleonIII…

5GhibellineisathirteenthcenturytermwhichwasoriginallycoinedtonamethesupportersoftheimperialpoweroftheHohenstaufenthroneagainstPapalauthority.TheywereinconflictwiththeGuelphs,whofavouredtheruleofthePope.—Ed.

BismarckandtheTransformationofCentralEuropePrussiahadendoweditselfwithalessliberalconstitutionthantheAustrianone.Ittoowasamonarchy inwhichvestigesof feudalismsurvivedandbig landowners acted as smallkings,having few linkswith thebanksand stockexchanges.Yet theoverallmindsetofPrussiawas no less open to new ideas, if for no other reasonbut the fact that itwas aProtestant country and one in which – as in all other countries of the Reformation –Freemasonryflourished.

WhilebothAustriaandPrussiaweremonarchiesruled‘bygraceofGod’,theydifferedconsiderably.

Already before the French Revolution, Frederick II – a friend of Voltaire’s and agenerouspatronof freethinkers–hadstated that ‘theking isbut the first servantof thestate’.Thishadmerelybeenaprince’sopinion,withnoimmediatepracticalconsequencesfor his reign.Yet it is difficult to imagine this sentence coming fromHapsburg lips, orthoseofthemanwhoclaimedsuchthingsas‘Iamthestate’,‘Ifailedtowait’,and‘thegreatest person in my kingdom is whoever I might be speaking to, the moment Icondescendtodoso’.Likewise,itwouldhaveneverpassedthelipsofNicholasIorFranzJoseph.

This momentous sentence is part of the Masonic repertoire. It clearly illustrates theimperceptiblespreadofthe‘newideas’throughcellswhoseaffiliationsremainedutterlyunknown.Berlinwasoverflowingwithlodges.Someofthem,suchastheRoyalLodgeofPrussia, were aristocratic ones in which – interestingly – Jewswere not admitted. Thelatterwerenonethelessrepresentedbyothercellsimbuedwiththeirspirit.

The Royal Lodge of Prussia, like the British ‘Great Lodge’, was a salon attended bypure-bloodedprincesand themostprominentmembersofsociety,whowouldbesubtlyinfluencedbyformsofpropagandacarefullymeasuredsoasnottoalarmthem.

‘Theprince, the first servantof the state’: apparently, there isnothingwrongwith thisclaim.DidChristhimselfnotsaymuchthesamething?‘TheSonofManhasnotcometobeservedbuttoserve.’DidChristnotwashthefeetoftheApostles?ButitwasthepopesandemperorswhoimitatedthisgestureofChrist,notthekingsofPrussia,asitappliedtolivingmenandnotabstractionssuchastheideasofnation,society,andthestate.

Ifprincesareservantsofthestate–anelusiveconcept–ratherthanitslords,thentheyarenolongertheservantsofChristtheKingorGod,forthestateitselfbecomesGod.ThecapitalistandfiscalstatetrulyisthereignofMammon.

WhatweareapproachinghereistheestablishmentofastatethatseekstoreplaceGodbysituatingitselfaboveall,insuchawayastoidentifyitselfwithenslavingcapitalism,hate-fuelled nationalism, and finally democracy (which refuses to serve God, serving thepriestsandpeopleofMammonalone).

At the duskof ancient history, theRomanEmperorConstantine theGreat had alreadysought to use Christianity for his own purposes. The Roman Empire passed away, but

Christianityendured, forwhat isgreaterandeverlastingcannot servewhat is lesserandtransient.Thiscausalvaluerelationcannotbe inverted.WhatConstantinehadsought toaccomplishwiththegreat,positiveforce-ideaofhistory,1Bismarcksoughttoaccomplishwithitsgreatnegativeforce-idea,Judaism,inthehopethatthisage-oldcurrentmightbeputtowork‘fortheKingofPrussia’.

Britishstatesmenofourdayhaveactedinmuchthesamemanner,possiblyinthebeliefthatbyrevivingtheKingdomofJudeaundertheUnionJacktheywouldbedeliveringamasterstroke.

In all three cases, thosewhowere hoping to seizewere seized themselves.Nor couldthingshavebeenanydifferent.ForneitherChristianitynorJudaism(itsantithesis)canbeseizedbythepettyandcontingentself-interestofanypoliticalregimeornation:fortheyrepresentthetwoleadingforce-ideasofhistory,notmerehistoricalincidents.

Everythingelseconvergestowardsthesetwocurrentsandcannotseizeeitheroftheminthepursuitofpersonalornationalgoals.

Theword‘Israel’means‘hewhofightswithGod’,hewhoisasstrongasGod.ItwasbestowedasatitleonthepatriarchJacob,thecommonfatheroftheJewishrace,followingtheBiblical dream inwhich he had seen himself caught in an endless fight against theMostHigh.

HasBismarck – not tomention LloydGeorge – ever dreamt anything as grand? It israther unlikely, because everything suggests that these men were nothing but pettyopportunists.

AsstrongasGod!…

But let us not rush ahead of things.Whatwewish to show for the time being is thatBismarckwas the first inEurope to relyoncapitalism,which isnothingbuta front forJewry. Bismarck tried to ‘take the bull by the horns’ by turning a feudal state into acapitalistone.Thestate,whichhadhithertobeenonlyameanstoimprovecitizens’lives,becameagoalinitself:adeitytobeworshipped.Religion–Protestantism,inthiscase–simplybecamean accessory, as did thewhole feudal structure, for the statewasnowamaterialist one. It was also strongly nationalistic, as it sought to claim the nationalistoutlook of 1848 for the exclusive profit of monarchical Prussia by stripping it of itsdemocraticovertones.Itwasapparentlysuccessfulatfirst.

Much discussion has beenmade about the political transformation of Germany underBismarck’s drive. There has been far less talk about the economic and socialtransformationofthecountry,whichwasmoresubtlebutmuchmoreimportant.

Noeconomicandsocial transformationasradicalandrapidhasever takenplaceunderthe rule of oneman.The city ofBerlin alonewitnessed its population increase tenfold.ThesameoccurredinHamburgandmanyothercities,particularlyinthecoalbasinoftheRhineland.

ThewholeofGermany followedPrussia’s example, even to thepointof surpassing it.

The gentle balance between consumption and productionwas suddenly replaced by thecirculationofgoodsandcapital.

AtthetimeofBismarck’sdeath,Germanywasoneofthecountrieswiththemostintensecapitalistlife.ItwasaheadofFranceandBritaininthisrespect,andalmostonaparwiththeUnitedStates.WhenBismarckhadfirstcometopowerinPrussia,ithadmerelybeenaloosefederationoffeudalandagrarianstates.UndertheimpulseofthisPrussiansquire,the idyllicmotherland ofHermann andDorothea2 became a country of great financialwealthandproletarianmisery.

Germanycametobeknownasaflourishingcountrythatwasgrowingricherandricher.Inallgoodfaithandwithnoexceptions,Germansseemedtobeveryproudofthis.Theynever wondered why they themselves or those close to them were not growing anywealthier,when the country – their country –wasmeant to be taking such giant stepsforwardintermsofeconomicprogress.Theyneverwonderedwhytheneedhadsuddenlyarisen to expand abroad or – if this was not possible – to emigrate en masse to theAmericasorotherplaces.

Thesequestionswereansweredbysimplyinvokingoverpopulation.Therewasnodoubtsome truth to the issueof suddenoverpopulation,butwhatwas its cause?Theproblemhad emerged in just a few decades, when for centuries no such development had everthreatenedGermany’s existence.Was it the various applications ofmodern science thatwere making men more prolific? The excess population might have gradually flowedtowards Russia, whose government at the time did not hinder asmuch as favour suchmovements. Nor would Germany have really lost part of its inhabitants, for it wouldmerely havewaited forRussia to turn – as onemight have expected – into an area ofGerman penetration. By colonising empty Russian space, these emigrants would haveacted as colonisers and, in away, thepioneersofGerman influence.Theempireof theTsarswasalreadysprawlingwithGermancoloniesatthetime–flourishingcoloniesthatextendedasfarastheVolga.

ThewretchednessoftheGermanmasseswasinfactduenotsomuchtooverpopulation–whichwasmerelyinvokedasapretext–astothesuddenandextremeintensificationofproduction.Thiswas geared not towards consumption,which it far surpassed, but onlytowards trafficking, commerce, and agiotage, all for the benefit of loan sharks. As thelatterfinancedshippingventuresandindustries,theyaimedtoincreasethesebusinessesinorder tohavemore to finance.Hence, theydid theirbest to eitherdirectlyor indirectlydiscouragethecolonisationofRussia,astheyhadlittletogainfromit.

As for the state, it sankdeeper and deeper into debt as it grew inmilitary strength. Itbecamemoreandmoreindebtedtowardsthesepeople,towhomitwasforcedtopassonmostoftherevenueitacquiredintheformoftaxesfromitscitizens.Thelatter, inturn,were forced tocomeupwithartificialmeans tomeets their ever-expandingneeds: theyplungedintothewhirlpoolofbusiness,sothatthestatemightbeablepayoffitscreditors’interests.Germanyautomaticallydraggeditsalliesandpotentialenemiesintothisviciouscircle.ThewholeofEuropethusbecameafieldopentocapitalism,throughwhichtheJewobtainedthemoneyheneededtofinancefuturewarsandrevolutions.

BismarckisthemanwhobestowedthecrownofunifiedGermanyuponWilhelmI.Yet–andthiswassomethingfarmoreserious–hewasalsooneofthemenwhocontributedthemosttocrowningMammonasKingoftheEarth,atatimeinwhichMarxandLassalle,followedbyLiebknechtandBebel,3werecarefullyobservingthismarchofprogressasitsweptacrossthecentreofEurope.

Bismarckcertainlywasn’tademocratinthemostobviousandordinarysenseoftheterm.By birth he belonged to a class which was particularly loyal towards the Prussianmonarchy,thatofthesmalllandedgentryofPrussia.Hewasthereforeaferventroyalist.Buthis royalismwasof a strictlyPrussian sort andonlybecameGermanwhenPrussiaitselfturnedintoGermany;itwasneverEuropeanandhistoric,asMetternich’sroyalismhadbeen.

UnlikeMetternich,Bismarckdidnot see thepresenceof two internationalandhistoricfrontsengagedinastrugglethathadbeengoingonforgenerations.HedidnotrealisethatEuropewasabouttobecomeasinglebodywhosevariousorganswouldincreasinglyreactagainstoneanother.

AllhesawwasthereadyprofitsmonarchicalPrussiacouldmakebybecomingatoolofubiquitous capitalism, even to the detriment of themonarchical ideal. Bismarck was agreatPrussianbutasmallEuropean.

Heknewthat themonarchywasapointofstrengthandwanteditforhisowncountry;but for the same reasonhealsowanted liberalism for thepotential enemiesor rivalsofGermany, as this would have been a point of weakness and inferiority for them. Allcountries,infact,representedpotentialenemies,asGermanywas‘aboveall’.

BismarckhumiliatedandweakenedAustria,thiscitadelofthefeudalnobility.

He fought against Catholicism and the Holy See, which is to say against the veryprinciplebehinddivineright.HecalledthisfightKulturkampf,thefightforcivilisation!Isthisnotthelanguageofthemenof‘progress’athomeinMasoniclodges?

BismarckcontributedtotherepublicanisationanddemocraticisationofFrance,inordertohumiliateanddemeanthisgreatcountry.

Asforhisowncountry,Bismarckturnedfeudalism,whichhadbeenitsverysocialframe,into nothing but mere pretence. He replaced it with state bureaucracy, which is whatRichelieu4haddoneinFrance,forgettingthatamereturnoverofpeoplewouldhavebeenenoughtoturnthesystemintostatedemocracyorsocialism.

Bismarck,inotherwords,fellunderthespellofimperialistcapitalism.

Thereasonforthisisthefactthat,blindedbyhisnationalistpride,hetrustedPrussiatobeexceptionallyimmunetocertaininfluences.

Bismarck drove his own country – and in doing so all others too – down the road ofmilitarisation, to the point that universal conscription, which is to say armed masses,became the rule throughoutEurope.Bismarckwas only naively seeking to increase themilitary power ofGermany vis à vis its neighbours.What he failed to realisewas that

theseneighbourswouldhavefollowedGermany,andhencethatthebalanceofpowerwasdestinedtoremainsubstantiallythesame.Thebalancewhichdidchange,inGermanyaselsewhere, was thatwhich concerned the possibility of classwar. If there had been noexcusesforanyEuropeanstatesmanworthyofhisnametoignorethisthreatinthelatterhalfofthenineteenthcentury,therewereevenlessinthefinalquarterofthecentury.

Inmuch the sameway, theRomans in the ageofdecadencehad taught thebarbarianswhomadeuptheirlegionsthescienceofwar,onlytoletthemreturntotheirhomesandpreparetoinvade,pillage,andconquertheEmpire.

Thearmsrace,whichgrewenormous,forcedthestatetoadoptabroadtaxpolicywiththesoleaimofpayingofftheinterestsfromitsloans.Thispolicyledtomoreandmoredebts,thesumofwhichcouldnolongerberecoupedbecauseithadbeenswallowedupbyexpenditures of no benefit to anyone except ubiquitous international Jewry. Ever-newexpendituresweremade,sothat theprivatewealthof individuals–whowerebecomingincreasingly indebted to the Jews through the state – soon dwindled: once solid andtangible,itnowvanishedintothecoffinsoftheanonymouscreditor,5intheformofeasilytransferablegoldandnotes.6

Bismarck’s overall policymight have been excusable or even normal a few centuriesearlier, for kingdoms back then had no internal enemies.Or evenwhen they did, thesewere not permanent enemies, but only contingent ones: each acted for his own self-interest, and therewasno international frontwithnationalbranches followingageneralstrategicplanunderacommoninspiration.

Emperors thenwere free toquarrelwithpopes;kingswithoneanotherand theirgreatvassals;andprelateswithprinces:fortherewasnoformidableandomnipresentcommonenemy plotting everyone’s ruin.A similar enemy, however,was already in existence inBismarck’sdayandaskedfornothingbetterthantoswitchalliesattherightmoment,soastograduallydestroythemallbydrivingoneagainsttheotheruntilitremainedtheonlywinneronthebattlefield,withoutactuallyhavingtorunanyrisksinperson.

Asimilarpolicywassimplysuicidalafter1848,oreventheFrenchRevolution.Butsuchwas the policy of amanwho had no doubt been a sincere conservative and royalist –someonereactionaryandabsolutistatheart–andwhichhistorywouldhaveusdescribeasagenius.

EitherBismarckwasnothingbutafalsereactionary,aconscioustoolofsubversionwhobehavedlikeJudastowardstheancienrégime, inwhichcasehereallydidgiveproofofgenius (but this scenario is frankly impossible to assume); or his allegedgeniusmerelyconsisted of being the most unlikely fool of the century. In this respect, Bismarck faroutdid Richelieu. In demolishing feudalism, the latter stripped the Kingdom of Francedowntothebone,sotospeak,inordertobringabouttheriseofakingwhocouldclaim‘Iamthestate’.Preciselybecauseofthisclaim,thestatewasallthemoreeasilyguillotinedlater in the personof itsKing.Still,Richelieuhadnot experienced almost a century ofrevolutionarystrategies.

Bismarckprovedall themorefoolishbecausehepossessedundeniableintelligenceand

shrewdness.Thesevirtues,however,remainedenclosedwithinthenarrowboundariessetbythecontingentambitionsoftheHohenzollernandtheself-servinginterestsofGermany.Withintheseboundaries,Germanywasregardedasbeingnotsimply‘überalles’,meaningaboveeverything–whichwouldhavebeenunderstandablefromaGermanperspective–butbeyondall:sheltered,thatis,fromthecurrentsthatmadeallpartsinterdependent,andthussituatedoutsideofuniversalhistory.7

If Bismarck had been a genuinely great man – or even just an egoistically butintelligently great patriot – and if he had possessed the sharp foresight of a genius, hewouldhaverealisedthatafutureforhisovercrowdedandcongestedfatherlandwastobefoundinRussia.Withitsfertileanduncultivatedfields,Russiawouldhavebeencapableof feeding twenty Germanies for a whole century. Its vast territory concealedunimaginable richesandall the rawmaterialsonemighthavewished for.The futureofGermanywasnottobesoughtforinover-industrialisation,whichwasdestinedtoprovideonly temporaryrelief,andwhichactuallyworsenedthecountry’scongestion in the longrunandmadesocialismanincreasinglylikelyscenario.8

ThepenetrationofRussiamighthavetakenplacepacifically,forthecountryneededthekind of capacity to organise which was possessed by its neighbour, just as Germanyneededthematerials tobefoundonRussiansoil.Thetwomonarchicalcountries–withtheir related dynasties, which were bound by traditional ties of friendship – had everyreason to get along with one another. A mutual alliance between them would haverepresentedaformidablebarrierorevenforceofattackagainstthedemocratictide.

WilhelmIInotonlyworsenedBismarck’smistakes,butevenfailedtofollowhimwherehehadbeenmoreinspired.

A characteristic of real political geniuses is their highly developed foresight: a sort ofdoublevision.ThesemenarecapableofdiscerningwhattheGospelcalls‘thesignsofthetimes’, in other words what is essential and permanent, which they are careful not toconfusewithwhatisonlyaccessory,contingent,andaccidental.

What was essential and permanent in the nineteenth century was the implacableantagonism not between two nations, but between two superimposedworlds: the upperworld,whichcontinuedtolieundertheinfluenceoftraditionalChristianity,andthelowerworld, which was either consciously or unconsciously under the occult hold ofFreemasonry and imperialist,militant Judaism.The latter concealed itself by taking thetwo-fold formof capitalism, andwasopposed to personal ownership, anddemocracy–bourgeoisatfirstandlatersocialist–whichopposedlegitimateauthority.

Thelowerworldwasinternationallyunitedinthoughtanddeed:‘NoenemyontheLeft’.The upperworldwas divided by nationalism:Franced’abord,Deutschland über alles,‘RuleBritannia’.Hencethemanifestinferiorityofthelatteroftheseworlds.Givensuchconditions,thingscouldhavegonenodifferently.

Like all of his contemporaries, bar none, Bismarck found it easier to act as anopportunist;inotherwords,nottogoagainstthehistoricalcurrentcreatedbytheforcesofsubversionbuttofollowit,seekingtoexploitthiscurrentinordertofulfilhiscontingent

ambitions and thoseof his country.AsBismarckwaswithout a doubt themost skilled,crafty,andresourcefuldiplomatofhisage,hemanagedtooutdoallhiscolleaguesasfaras opportunism went, and achieved brilliant success, while unconsciously playing thegameofinternationalsubversion.Clearly,thelatterhadnointentionoflosingBismarck,asithadlostMetternichandNicholasI,whohadstubbornlygoneagainstitscurrent.Onthecontrary,itfullysupportedBismarck,andthisisthereasonwhyhisnamehaslivedonasthatofawinner,ashasthatofthelaterrulerEdwardVII.

MetternichandNicholasIhaveinsteadgonedowninhistoryaslosers.

Thegreatestofall thesonsofmen,Christ,Hewhomevenunbelievers regardasmorethan just a genius, was also defeated. More than anyone else Christ went against thecurrent createdby the ancestors ofmodern subversion; and it is for this reason that hisChurch,whichistwothousandyearsold,enjoystheuniqueprivilegeofeternalyouth.

Bismarck thus paid a greater service to the revolutionary cause than Napoleon III.Bismarck’sworkwasonlymadepossibleby theweakeningofAustria,whichhadbeenbroughtaboutbythe1848movementfirstandthenNapoleonIII.

Totheveryend,NapoleonIIIremainedloyaltotheRevolution.Notsatisfiedwithhavingunified Italy to the detriment of Austria, he did nothing to prevent Germany fromunifying,againtothedetrimentofthesamecountry.

It did not take great political acumen to foresee that a unified Germany under theleadership of amilitarisedPrussiawouldhave constituted a far greater threat toFrancefrom the east than a pacific Germany divided into small autonomous states – eachconcernedwith its age-oldparticular interests–under thevague suzeraintyof a remoteAustriacomprisedofaheterogeneouspopulation.

Confident of Russian neutrality, Germany had no serious rivals in Europe except forNapoleon III. The latter stood isolated and could not rely on Russia, which he hadhumiliatedinCrimeamerelyforthebenefitofdemocracy;norcouldhecountonItaly,forthiscountryhehadunifiedinthenameofnationalismcouldnotforgivehimfordefendingRomedespite this ideal.Napoleon III could rely even lesson the idolatrousdemocracythatwasnow leavinghimforBismarck, themandestined to lendanew impulse to theever-advancingmarchof‘progress’.

NapoleonIII’sturnhadcome,then.Again,apretextwaseasilyfound.Ifithadn’tbeenthefamousEmstelegram,9itwouldhavebeensomethingelse.Itisdifficulttounderstandwhycertainhistoriansliketowastesomuchtimediscussingsuchminordetails.

Thedecisionwas takentogotowar.TheGermanarmywasready,but theFrenchonewasnot.TheEuropeanchessboard favouredPrussia as thepower thathadgivenanewimpulsetointernationalJewishcapitalism.

A German army of half a million well-armed and disciplined soldiers – the greatestmilitary force Europe had seen sinceNapoleon I’s campaign of 1812 – entered Frenchterritory.

The main French army, led by Napoleon III himself, was surrounded and forced tosurrender.TheEmperorwasmadeaprisonerofwar.ThetwootherFrencharmies,ledbyNapoleonIII’sgenerals,metmuchthesamefate.TheKingofPrussia,accompaniedbyalltheGermanprincesandsovereigns,laidsiegeuponParis.

The hybrid monarchy which had sacrificed the country’s interests to those of theRevolutionfellvictimtotheveryRevolutionithadoncecherished.

NapoleonIIIwasastrangemonarch,ofasortthatishardlytobefoundincontemporaryhistory– even amongusurpers andparvenus, forwhile the latter usually try to concealtheirorigins,itwasasifNapoleonIIIfeltproudofhisown,andonlyheldthethroneinorder to demolish all monarchies – ultimately, including his own. The Second Empireapproachedtheformofasecularrepublic,tothepointofalmostcoincidingwithit.Forallitsdeceivingpomp,itwastheregimeofdemocracyandfreethinking.

1InFrench,idée-forcereferstoanideawhichbecomesadrivingforceofhistory.—Ed.

2AnepicpoembyGoethewhichdescribesGermanrefugeesduringtheFrenchoccupationofpartsoftheRhinelandin1792,duringtheFrenchRevolution.—Ed.

3KarlLiebknecht(1871-1919)andAugustBebel(1840-1913)werethefoundersandleadersoftheSocialDemocraticPartyinGermany;LiebknechtlaterfoundedtheCommunistPartyofGermany.—Ed.

4CardinalRichelieu(1585-1642)wasaclergymanwhobecamethechiefadvisortoKingLouisXIIIin1624.SeekingtocentralisepoliticalpowerintheKing,heweakenedthepowersofthenobilityandhadtheirfortressesdestroyed,inordertomakerebellionsagainstthecrownmoreunlikely.—Ed.

5Evolaadds,‘andtheJew’.—Ed.

6 It will be worth quoting the following words whichMetternich spoke in 1849 and which once again show howprophetic his visionwas: ‘InGermany, the Jews play a prominent role and are class revolutionaries. Jewishwriters,philosophers,poets,orators,andbankerscarrytheweightof theirancient infamywithintheirmindsandhearts.TheywillbecomearealplagueforGermany…Still,theyareprobablydestinedtomeetanominousfate’(quotedbyI.Within,TheTrailoftheSerpent,1936,p.93).(JuliusEvola)

7Evolaomitsthislastsentence.—Ed.

8Onemustacknowledge,then,thatBismarcksetcertainlimitstothispolicyofall-outindustrialisation,forwhichhissuccessor,WilhelmII,istobeheldmoreresponsible.(dePoncins)

9On13July1870, theFrenchambassadormetwithKingWilhelmofPrussia inEms todeliverademand fromhisgovernmentthathewouldneverallowaHohenzollerntobecomeacandidateforthethen-openthroneofSpain,whichwouldposeastrategicthreattoFrance.TheKaiserremainednoncommittal.Bismarck,afterhavingreceivedareportoftheconversation,editedthereporttomakethemeetingappearmuchmoreconfrontationalthanithadactuallybeen,andthenreleasedit ina telegramto themedia.PerBismarck’sdesigns, this telegramangeredtheFrenchandled themtodeclarewaronPrussia.—Ed.

TheCommuneandtheEternalHatred1

ThedeathofLouisNapoleonBonapartewashardlyagreatlossforFrance.Butwhowastobehissuccessor?

Theinfernalmachinefuelledbyinternationalgoldwhichcontinuedtooperateinthedarkundergroundofnineteenth-centuryEuropeanthoughthadvisiblygovernedFrancefortwodecades, leading the country to unsheathe its sword beyond its borders. Nor did themachine come to a halt under the subsequent ‘enlightened’ regime, which reeked sostronglyofthe‘FrenchRevolution’.

Anewversionofthemachinewasabouttobelaunched:aconsiderablyperfectedone,tomatch the ‘progress’which the ‘immortal principles’ hadmade – likewine stored in acanteen–overthepasteightyyears.

WasFrancenot tocontinuebearing the torch ithadcarried in1789? Is itnot thecaseeventodaythatmanyFrenchmenarestillproudtobethefirsttoimplementIsrael’splans?

And yet, the torch of 1871 could not be the same as that of 1789. The ‘immortalprinciples’developedinYear1,2,and3oftheJacobinage2hadturnedintocommonplacestatementsinEuropeanthought.Anunprecedentedinnovationiswhatwasneeded,anewParisian trend. It was found in the proletarian revolution, something Europe had neverwitnessedbefore.

TheFrenchRevolutionhadbeenthefirstrevolutionofthebourgeoisandmiddleclass–whatishistoricallyknownastheThirdEstate.

TheCommuneofPariswasthefirstrevolutionoftheproletarianclass,whichuntilthatmomenthadremainlargelybehindthescenes.Itwasthefirsthistoricalembodimentofthedictatorship of the proletariat – a short-lived andquickly suppressed attempt to expressthisunprecedentedformofsubversion.

As theadventof theFourthEstate, theCommunerepresentsastep forward fromwhathadcomebeforeit.Hence,itmarksadateintheevolutionofthespiritofrevolt.Allthepontiffs of contemporary subversion, from its socialist and Communist phase, areunanimousinstatingso.Thegreatestamongthem,MarxandLenin,haveostentatiouslyrejectedalllinkswithbourgeois,republican,anddemocraticrevolutionssuchasthoseof1789and1848,regardingthemassimplyameansandstartingpointsratherthanasgoalsin themselves.By contrast, they all claim to be the direct heirs to theParisCommune,evenwhentheycriticiseitstechnicalfailures.All,withoutexception,havebowedbeforeitasifitwereasortofleader,devotingcountlessspeeches,booklets,andbookstoit.TheCommune provided a foretaste of the Bolshevik revolution. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky,Kautsky,Lawrof,andmanyothershavediscussedthispointintheirpolemicaltracts.

It would be a great mistake to suppose that the Paris Commune was a spontaneousmovement–amistakepeoplemakewithallrevolutions.

Againandagainwefindmen–hundredsofthousandsofthem–whoaresonaiveasto

believe that things can emerge spontaneously out of nothing without anyone’sintervention.Itiseasytorealisewhataphilosophicalabsurdityandchallengetocommonsensethisis.Thisisespeciallytrueinanallegedlyscientificage,inwhichpeopleshouldknow that even those processes which were previously believed to be automatic andregulatedbytheabstract lawsofnature–suchasbodilydecay, illness,oldage,andso-callednaturaldeath–areinfactdeterminedbyconcretelivingagents,namelybacilliandtoxins,whichoperate toward thoseends.Without theseagents therewouldbenodecay,fever,decrepitude,ordeath:whileinvisibletooureyes,theyarenonethelessreal.

Thesameappliestosociety(i.e.,humanitysituatedinspace)andhistory(i.e.,humanitysituatedintime).

Bacilliandtoxinsinhumanformremainunseenbygenerationsofmen.Historiansignorethem,ormoreoftenfeigntoignorethem.Still,theexistenceoftheseagentsisnomysteryto the bacteriologists of society and history. It is they who cause fevers, decrepitude,decay,paralyses,convulsions,ageing,collapse,anddeath.

Their victims believe that the process affecting them is unfolding independently, byvirtueofineluctablelawsintrinsictotheverynatureofthings–whichiswhytheyneverreact.Afterall,onlyafoolwouldreactagainsttheineluctablenatureofthings…

TheCommuneof1871wasnomorespontaneousthantheeventsof1789,1793,1848,1905, and 1917, or the disorders in China, India, Sudan, Syria, Turkey,Morocco, andAfghanistan. Even less spontaneous are all the strikes taking place in our age. It isnonetheless true that – as with animal organisms – in order for bacilli and toxins toaccomplish their deadly work, the affected body must first have been weakened anddamaged by exposure to weather and fatigue. Healthy organisms possessing all theirstrengthusuallymanagetodefendthemselvesandcounteractbalefulinfluences.

Itisforthisreasonthatsocialinfectionsusuallyfolloweconomicorpoliticalcalamities,whichisnottosaythattheyarecausedbythem.Nodirectcausallinkexistsbetweenthemilitarydisastersof1870andtheCommune.

One could understand the rabble wanting to lynch some of those responsible for thedefeat.This toocouldonlyhaveoccurred throughpervasive insinuationson thepart ofthose who had an interest in doing so. But the Commune of 1871 was no more anti-Bonapartistthanitwasanti-Orléanistorevenanti-Gambettist.Itwasdirectedagainstallthatwasseentoembodythesocialorder,whethergoodorbad.Itwaspracticallyagainsteverything.

Onemayretortthatthepeoplehadbeentoldthatthesocialorderitselfwasresponsiblefor all ills. But this is precisely what we are arguing. A similar idea did not emergespontaneously: it required a long preparation and sophisticated planning of the mostdetailedandcarefulsort.

Onlyasuperficialobserverwithouttheslightestclueaboutthewayinwhichrevolutionsarefashionedcouldbelievethatthesewereimprovisedsymptoms.Menhavealwaysbeenmen,and themasseshavealwaysbeenmasses: thematurity theyhadallegedly reached

after just a few decades was but a huge bluff. There have always been defeats andsetbacks,butonlyfromthelatterhalfofthenineteenthcenturyhavetheseinvariablybeenfollowedbyphenomenasuchastheCommune,whichhavegonetotheexclusiveprofitoftheJewsandthesubversiveelementsofsociety.

TherecanbenodoubtastothefactthattheFirstInternational,whichwascreatedandheadedbyMarx, thefounderofmodernsocialism,actedas thedrivingforcebehindtheParisCommune. Itmadeuseof theBlanquistparty3 likea lever: theparty’s leaderwasdead, but its traditions lived on, and did not need to be revived in the suburbs of theFrenchcapital.

The same process is at work nowadays in England, where the Third International isoperating through the radical factions of theBritish trade unions,which it is graduallybolshevising.

Thewhite-manedlion–asMarxiscalledbysomeofhisdisciples–couldnotmakeittoParishimself,butstillcloselyobservedallthatwastakingplaceinthecity.Itwaseasyforhim to do so, as he was regularly corresponding with all themajor Communards, andespeciallyKügelmann,4whoappearstohaveactedashisspokesmaninParis.

The First International had already been around for a few years. It had already heldseveral congresses, chiefly in Switzerland, under the presidency of the Judeo-socialistmessiah in person.These congresseswere theCouncil ofNiceaof socialism,whichbythenhadacquiredunityandleftitscatacombsundertheguidanceofitsmaster.ItsgospelandcreedweretobefoundintheCommunistManifesto,publishedin1847.Thisbooklet,whichwasmadeaccessiblebytheworkingmassesandsignedbyMarxandEngels,endedwiththefamousrallyingcry:‘Workersoftheworld,unite!’

Ifweweretogobyitsappearance,thisbookletwasmakingabreakwithwhathadbeenregarded as the revolutionary essence until then, namely themonopoly of radical ideaswhich – according to the nineteenth-centuryway of thinking –was held by theFrenchRevolution.Theseideashadcrystallisedinthetwinformofliberaldemocracy,connectedto the Feuillants and moderate Girondinists, and radical democracy, connected to theradicalGirondistsandJacobins.

TheideasissuedfromtheFrenchRevolutionproclaimedindividualequalityandthenon-existenceofclasses.Inpractice,boththingswereautomaticallydenied.

Lesshypocritically,theCommunistManifestorejectedallthissanctimoniousliberalism,whichwasultimatelynothingbutaconventionadopted tomisleadfools.TheManifestoinsteadopenlyproclaimedsomethingthatwasalreadyinpeople’smindsbutwhichnoonehaddaredstateuntilthen.Itproclaimedinequalityandthedictatorshipofoneclassabovetherest.Therewasnoneedforthisnewrulingclasstomakeupthemajority,forthiswasnotthecasewiththeproletariatinregionscomprisedofsmallruralestates.Itwasenoughfor this class to be the poorest and less enlightened one – something the text does notopenlystate,ofcourse.Inotherwords,thisnewclasscoincidedwiththeonewhichcouldmost easily be indoctrinated and led wherever one pleased; and this, clearly, not onlybecause its weak intelligence made it more prone to suggestion, but because it had

everythingtogainandnothingtolose.

Only an apparently unbridgeable gap separates the Communist Manifesto from theDeclarationoftheRightsofManandoftheCitizen.5Ifanygapistobefoundatall, infact, it is only in countrieswhere theworking class is still in theminority. This class,however, isbecoming themostnumerouseverywhere, including in rural regions,wherecapitalism–anotherallyoftheJew–isstrivingtoturnallestates,bothlargeorsmall,intonothingbutpiecesofpaper.Peoplewhowere formerly small landholders arebecomingcityworkers,whoseworkwillbeidlyexploitedbytheformerlargelandholdersthroughthe intermediation of Judaised banks and stock exchanges. Meanwhile, democracy isacceleratingthisprocessthroughitsinheritancetaxesandparcellingoftheland,whichisbeingdividedintoplotssosmallastobeofnopracticaleconomicvalue.

TheCommunistManifesto,therefore,hassimplyacceleratedaprocesswhichtheleadersofsubversionfeltwasunfoldingtooslowly.

Thisprocessbeganthedayindividualegalitarianismwasproclaimed:itdatesbacktotheFrenchRevolution.Apparently,andtosuperficialobservers–whichistosay,tomostmen– Marx was burning what he professed to adore, namely the ‘immortal principle’ ofequalityamongmenandclasses.Thisequalityindirectlyyetunequivocallyservesasthebasis formajority rule, onwhich all democratic legality rests. For this reason,moderndemocracy – the heir to the first revolution – is accusing the prince of the secondrevolutionofwishingtore-establishthereignofprivilege:anupside-downancienrégime.

Thereisanotherpointonwhichpeopleliketoargue,namelythatachasmexistsbetweenthe second revolutionary programme, which was espoused byMarx in hisCommunistManifesto, and the first programme, that of the ‘immortal principles’ of the FrenchRevolution,whichstillmadethemenof1848swoon.Thisarosebecauseoftheprincipleofnationalism,whichtheFrenchRevolutionandtherevolutionsof1848appeartohaveupheld,whereastheManifestotreatsitasathingofthepast.

Actually,theFrenchRevolutiononlyusedthenationalistsentimentasawayofrepellingforeigninvasion,justasamanunderattackmighthavegraspedthefirststickhefoundtodefendhimselfagainstanaggressor–buthemighthavepickedupastoneinstead,ifthishad served him just as well. The Revolution later found that it could employ Frenchnationalismasavaluabletoolforitsaggressiveproselytism,andsocontinuedtomakeuseofit.Still,theso-calledFrenchRevolutioninitiallyaimedtobecomeaninternationalone.

To pursue this aim, it organised genuine congresses in Paris attracting subversiveelementsfromallcountries,justastheRussianRevolutionisdoingtoday.Thelatter,nodoubt,will not hesitate to brandish the nationalist standard the day theWestern powerswillfinallydecidetoattackit,especiallyiftheyweretoinvadeRussia.Afterall,isitnotthecasethatthecurrentChineserevolution–whichweknowwasspawnedbytheRussianone – is already raising this standard to acquire legitimacy in the eyes of the stupidEuropeans?

Nationalismoffered toogreatanopportunityfor therevolutionarymovementsof1848.Wehave already frequently referred to the huge servicewhich nationalism6 paid to the

causeof subversionbydividing theChristian front, therebypreventing it fromstandingunited against the common enemy. The groups that followed the path of the FrenchRevolutionwouldhavebeenill-inspiredandindeedungratefuliftheyhadsoughttorejectthisally–anallythatismadeallthemorepreciousbythefactthatitisunawareofbeingsuch,andwhichinpracticemayprovethemostimportantallyofall.

Letusopenourwindowandstareatwhatisgoingoninthestreet:whatweshallseeistheworldRevolution, very strategically split into two armies, each pursuing a differentgoal. The first openly draws upon the French Revolution and that of 1848, brazenlyclaiming to be a barrier against the other army. Its mission is to spread among theChristiannations so as to rouse theirnationalistic antagonisms to a frenzy.At the sametime, in the name of democracy, it seeks to exacerbate old forms of animosity amongdifferentgroupsandindividualswithinsinglecountries.Thesefeelingshavenotyetbeenexhausted by the French Revolution, whose work of equalisation and levelling awaitscompletion.

Themissionofthesecondarmyofsubversion–theonerallyingunderthebanneroftheCommunist Manifesto – is to join all the militant forces of subversion into a single,homogeneous,andcompactbloccentredaroundaJewishcore.Theseforceswillprovidethe assault battalions for shattering the opposite front, which will have been splithorizontallybynationalismandverticallybydemocracyinallofitsvariousforms.

All these things hang together and are part of one and the same conspiracy, whoseauthors see nationalism asGambetta7 saw clericalism: as somethingworth exporting ifJewscanbenefitfromit.Thisiseverywherethecase:inEurope,aswellasinotherpartsoftheworld.

Nationalism is thus being exported along with the Rights of Man and worthlessCommunisttrash,whichiswhyithasbecomepopularagaintoday.8

Inaway,theParisCommunesignalledtheentranceofthesecondoftheserevolutionarywavesontothehistoricalstage.ItwaslaterdestinedtomanifestitselfmoreacutelywithBolshevismandproletarianterrorism.UntiltheCommune,however,ithadn’tyetlefttheworldofintellectualspeculation.Itwasonlyin1871thatthisnewavatarofthespiritofrevoltcametolife.Itsadherents,farfrombowingbeforethe‘immortalprinciples’asallpreviousrebelshaddone,regardedthemasretrogradeandoutdatedideas.

Therewasnodivideseparatingthetworevolutionarycurrentswhichhadsprungfromthesame Jewish source; rather, the two fitted together. The Commune was their point ofintersection.Inaway,itstemmedfrombothcurrents,representingasortofintermediatespeciesbetweenthetwo.ItwasthislackofaunifiedcharacterthatultimatelycausedthefinaldefeatoftheCommuneandpreventedtheriseofBolshevisminacornerofEuropefiftyyearsbeforethefateddate.

It is particularly interesting to study the Paris Commune because it shows the tworevolutionarycurrents–thatof‘89andthatoftheManifesto–facingandhamperingeachother, to the point of thwarting the enterprise of those who had made the mistake ofseekingtoreconcilethem.

TwohumantypesaretobefoundamongtheleadersoftheCommune.Ontheonehand,wehaveproletariansdirectlyinspiredbytheFirstInternational:thespiritualforefathersofcontemporary Bolsheviks (for it was the First International which spawned the Third).These people contemptuously turned their backs on the ‘glorious day’ of the FrenchRevolution,whichtheyalreadyregardedasanoutdatedmodel;alltheyhadinmindwasthe‘greatevening’tocome.

Thenwehavethepettybourgeoisandshopkeepersof thecapital,whoharbouredideaslikethoseofMonsieurHomais9andwererathersimilartotheradicalsorradicalsocialistsof today.Thesepeoplewere republicansdrivenprimarilybyanti-clericalism;often theywere also quite nationalist and sported the revolutionary cockade of the ‘immortalprinciples’.Theyonlyhalfagreedwiththerevolutionarytraditionof‘89and‘48andstillhad scruples based on the idea of democratic legality, which is to say the principlewhereby sovereignty restswith themajority.They appear not tohave realised that theyhadalreadydeparted from thisprinciple, insofaras theCommunewasnotaFrenchbutonlyaParisianaffair: fromthepointofviewofdemocratic legality,asconceivedby itsleadingtheoreticians,acity–beitevenacapitalortheCityofLightitself–hasnorighttodeterminethefateofanentirenation.Thisisparticularlythecasewhenithasreceivedno mandate from the latter and is acting behind its back – for at a certain point allcommunicationbetweenParisandtherestofFrancewascutoff.

Drivenbyaforcebeyondtheircontrol,theCommunardscouldnotactlawfullytowardsFrancefromthepointofviewofanallegedlegalitybasedonthenumberofvotes.Oneisled towonder, therefore,whysomanyof themweresokeennot to transgress thisholyprincipleofdemocracywithregardtothecityofParis.

Concernforthe‘immortalprinciples’wassuchthatatagivenmoment,theCommunardsmissed the chance to crush Thiers’ government,10 installed at the gates of Paris, atVersailles,becauseelectionsfirsthadtobeheldtoaskfordemocracy’spermission.

Thisway of actingwas indeedworthy of faint-heartedmerchants accustomed to theirroutine. Marx and Lenin remarked that the Communards had been like revolutionarystones petrified by the principles of the French Revolution – just as others had beenpetrifiedbytheprejudicesoftheancienrégime.

TheFrenchRevolutionwastheCommunards’ancienrégime.Saturatedbyitsspiritdownto their very marrow, they completely lacked flexibility and boldness. The immortalprinciplesof1789and1848held themback throughcurious feelingsofhuman respect,timorousness,andscruple.

True revolutionaries do not act in this manner. They do not wait for power to bebestowedonthem:theysimplytakeit.Theycarenothingabouttheallegedpopularwill,whichtheytreatjustastheirfatherstreateddivineright–theholyprincipleoftheirday.This ishowtheBolsheviksacted,having learnedfromtheexperienceof theCommune,fromwhichtheyopenlyadmittohavingbenefited.

ItwouldbedifficulttosingleoutanyleaderoftheCommune.Infact,therewerenone.Fromstarttofinish,therewasonlyaCentralCommittee–asortof‘SovietoftheNational

Guard’–whichsquabbledwith theCommune, insteadof leading itby thenose.This iswhattheBolsheviksdidhalfacenturylaterwithallthosewhoresistedthem,ontheLeftaswellasontheRight.

Under these conditions, a revolution – and particularly one with such radical ideas –couldneverbeexpectedtotriumph.Marxrealizedthis,muchtohisdistress.HisadvicewentunheededandhisagentswereoverwhelmedbytheTowerofBabelofthedemocratsfromthenew‘ancienrégime’.

Fromanotherpointofview,however,theParisCommunewasindeed‘alltherage’initsday. After all, it embodied the first historical attempt to establish a government of theworkers,fortheworkers.Butwhileworkersmadeupthemajority,theyhadnotyetbeensufficientlymouldedbytheFirstInternational.TheCommunecoincidedwithaphaseoftransitionbetweenthefierce,romanticideologyof1848andthemerciless,utilitarian,andmaterialist cynicism that was destined to gain the upper hand in the future. Jewishinfluencewasstrong,yetperhapscaughtoff-guardbythespeedatwhicheventsunfolded.Consequently,Jewryfailed to takecontrolof thesituation,as it laterdidatPetrogradin1917.

The dictatorship of the proletariat had been established, but there were no Jewishdictators to exercise it. This may explain the weakness and ultimate failure of theCommune,despitetheatrocitiesitunsystematicallycommitted.

Arevolution,howeverradicalitmaybe,isdestinedtobescatterediftherearenoJewstodirectitbychannellingitsvariousmovementstowardtheiranti-Christianimperialism.

Christians–eveniftheyareonlyformerChristiansliketheCommunards–willcommitunnecessary crimes, while failing to commit others which would be required. TheCommunemayhaveexecutedanarchbishopandafewgenerals,andknockeddowntheVendôme Column, but it had scruples which a Jewish government would simply haveignored.ItcommittedmurdersforwhichitthenapologisedwithloftystatementsaboutthegrandaimsoftheConventions,insteadofshunningpublicopinionandforgingahead.ForthisishowtheJew,abornrevolutionary,wouldhaveacted.

The Commune nonethelessmay be seen to have adopted certainmethodswhich latermade the fortune ofBolshevism. Itwould take hostages and thus terrorise its enemies,whotrembledandfearedfortheircloseones.

It is thismethodof takinghostages and leadinghundredsof them topainfuldeaths inretaliationforeveryattackagainstahigh-rankingBolshevikthatenabledthegreatleadersoftheRussianRevolutiontopreservetheirownlives.

French readers, who might have heard stories about the 1871 Commune from theirparents and relatives,will be surprised to learn that one of themost serious reproachesbroughtagainsttheCommunardsbyleadersoftheRussianRevolutionsuchasLeninandTrotsky is the charge of having been too soft with those under them and with theirenemies.Thisinitselfgivesagoodenoughideaofhowterribletheyear1917andthetenyears11thereaftermusthavebeeninRussia.

The Commune is only one generation away from us. There is therefore no need todiscusstheallegedsoftnessofitsmethods,asitshistoryisknownwellenoughandalmoststilllivinginpeople’smemory.

OneofthedistinguishingfeaturesoftheCommunewasitssectariancharacter,whichitdemonstrated in its approach to Christianity. Its spiritual roots unequivocally bear themark of Jewry: it is easy to see how the unreasonable and especially deep hatredharboured against Catholic priestswas not a natural feeling inherent to the soul of theproletariatinanageinwhichtheChurchhadlongceasedbeingasourceofdominationorpersecution,andinwhichindividualswerequitefreetoignoreit.

TheSecondEmpireissoclosetousthatthereisnoneedtoexplainthatitwasnotanageof religious intolerance or great ecclesiastical influences, capable of weighing peoplesdown in anyway.On the contrary, itwas an age of largely unprecedented indifferencetowardreligiousmatters.TherewerefewpractisingCatholicsandeventheycouldhardlyhaveputanypressureontheirfellowcitizens,eveniftheyhadwishedtodoso.Fortune’sfavour was to be sought in the growing number of temples of Mammon, not in anyCatholicchurch.

Howcouldpeopleenvythewealthoftheclergy,whentherewasnothingtoevensuggestitsexistence?

Itwasthebankerswhohadallthenicecarriages,luxuryhotels,stablesfilledwithracehorses, and bejewelled babes the sight ofwhichmight have roused bad – albeit all toohuman – feelings of greed, envy, and spite in the hearts of the working classes. Butnothing, absolutely nothing, in the figure of clergymen – who were often the sons ofworkersthemselves–couldhavereasonablyengenderedsuchfeelings.

Shouldwedemolishallmosquesandkillallmullahsforthesimplereasonthatwedonotbelieve inMuhammad?Such thoughtshavenever sprung to themindof even themostmalicious,vicious,anddepravedamongus–whyshouldthey?

Are the Communards’ feelings of hatred, then, to be interpreted as forms of sadism,sexualperversion,ormentaldepravityconnectedtoknownpathologicalconditions?Well,no.

The striking thing is that certain events came to pass in a century of almost completereligious indifference.Peoplewereentirelycaptivatedby the ideaofmechanisationandwerehardlyconcernedwiththeological,liturgical,anddogmaticissues.

This isasubjectwhichourcontemporarieswoulddowell toexplore.Let themsimplyconsider for a moment what the possible origin may have been of this intense hatredwhichParisianworkers felt in 1871 for priests,whowereneither their bosses nor theirsuperiors.

Priestshadfewtieswiththem.Bychoosingtobeanunbeliever,aworkercouldrelegateprieststothemarginsofhislife,preventingthemfrominfluencinghisfutureinanyway.Nor was there anything particularly enviable in priests’ spirit or lifestyle, which werecertainly less enviable than those of the middle classes.Workers, especially ones who

wereunbelievers,oughttohaveseenpriestssimplyaspassers-bytheymighthavecomeacrossinthestreetnowandthen–menwithnorightsovertheirlivesandnoholdovertheirfates.

Fromwhatmysteriousdepth,then,mightthishatredhavesurged?Theanswerisalreadycontainedinthequestionitself.Thismysteriousdepthwasmostcertainlynottobefoundinthesoulsofshopkeepersorworkers.Rather,itwasamentalsuggestioninducedfromtheoutside. Its roots lay in the radicalandsocialist intellectualmilieus,and inMasoniclodges.

Yet thisanswerdoesnotsolve theproblem,whichremainsopen,butonlyeschewsthequestion.

Whenexaminingthesesubjects,itiseasytooverlookanimportantpsychologicalfact:inorder tohateagiven faith, it isnot enoughmerelynot toadhere to it; rather,onemusthaveanoppositefaith,whichisthenegationoftheformer.

It is also easy to overlook another psychological fact, one that is perhaps even moreimportant for the purposes of the present discussion: to hate a religious faith, it isnecessary toholdadifferent religiousone.Possessionof a faith that ispolitical, social,patriotic,orofanyother sortcouldonly indirectlyexplain thiskindofhatred inageofreligiousintolerance–anageinwhichreligionissocloselyintertwinedwithpoliticsandsocialorinternationalaffairsthatitactuallyinfluencesthem.

Ifthereisanycenturywhichmightbecriticisedinallrespectsexceptfromthispointofview, it is certainly the nineteenth, particularly in its latter half. The reason for theprofoundandSatanicfeelingsofhorrorinspiredbyChristianity,andespeciallytheRomanCatholic Church, is not to be found in the political, economic, or social faith held byFreemasons, radicals, and socialists, but rather in their anti-Christian religious faithexclusively.

This relentless loathing spread to theworking classes and petty bourgeoisie through athousand underground channels that were skilfully arranged for this purpose. Thisreligious faithheldby the subversivemilieus incommandof the situationwasnot–asmany of our contemporaries naively imagine – merely accessory to politics andeconomics. It was and still is the essential feature of world subversion: it is politics,economics,andethics–dependingonexpediency–thatareaccessorytoit.

Thisapocalyptic12evilparexcellencecontinuestofostertherevoltoftheangelwhonolongerwishedtoserveamongmen.ItprolongsthesinofEden,formenhavebeenmadetobelievethatthroughdisobediencetheywillbecomeGod-likeandwillbeabletogovernthemselveswithouttakingaccountofauthority.

AstrikingexampleofthisisprovidedbycontemporaryRussia.Intheeconomicfield,wearewitnessing an extension and exacerbationof theworst formsof capitalistic serfdomandmedievalabuse:thecommonpeopleinthiscountryhavefallenintomiserywhiletherichhavebeenruinedcompletely,allfortheprofitoftheJewsandtheircloseservants.Inthe political sphere we have an upside-down aristocratic oligarchy, Jewish by three-

quarters, which rules the people with an iron fist. This religious faith and everythingconnected to it stands at theveryoppositeof theChristian ideal, as an antithesismightstandtoathesis.

Thepro-socialistelementsacrosstheworldareinfavourofthestateofaffairswehavejustdescribed,whichtheyactuallyoughttoresolutelycondemniftheyweretofollowthepurely profane principles they claim to embrace.All those professing to be radicals, orsimplyliberals,finditdifficult toconceal theirdiscreet,yetprofound,sympathyforthishistorical outrage. Finally, capitalists in both hemispheres are secretly allied withBolshevism, for without capitalist support, the latter would be long dead – or, rather,would never have arisen in the first place – given its anti-capitalist tirades, which areintendedtobeexportedandspreadamongthepoor(whoarebeingmisledbytheirownmisery).Itwasthroughtheworkandarmsofthepoor–ifnottheirbrains–thattheParisCommuneof1871wassetup.

Itiseasytoseethatthislinkisnoprofaneorsecularfaith.

Itissomethinglessevident,yetinfinitelymoreenduringandprofound.

Thismysteriouslinkisareligiousfaith,oneasdeeplyrootedinthesoulsofitsfollowersas early Christianity was. This faith has its profiteers, but also – and one mustacknowledgeit–afairnumberofselflessapostleswhohaveundergonepersecutionandshedtheirbloodforit.

Weareherefaced,then,withametapsychical13mysterythatisquiteunfathomableevento thedevelopedmindofordinaryman.Forhowcancertain individualschoose togivetheir lives out of a selfless love for evil with no hope for their immortal souls and nomaterial concern for their children or loved ones,whom inmany cases theywill cold-bloodedlysacrifice,feelingtheyareaccomplishingsomesinisterdutyindoingit?

Theseareundeniablefactswhichareunequivocallyprovenbythehistoryofallcountriesinallages,includingourown.Ifweweretoseekanexplanationforit,wewouldnotfinditthroughhumanlogicalone,asthereisonlyonesciencewhichcanprovideit.Andthisscience–ouragnosticreaderswillforgiveus–isChristiantheology.

Within itwe find two typesof superhumanandabsoluteselflessness: thatof thebeingwho,whileomnipotent,cannotincreasehisownexaltation,namelyGod;andthatofthebeingwhocannotfurtheraggravatehisdegradation,namelySatan.Thesupremegoodandthesupremeevilthusrepresentthetwoperfecttypesofselflessness.

Aseverythingintheworldoriginatesfromeitheroneortheotheroftheseprinciples,theselflessnessofcertainmenwithrespecttoevilisasunderstandableastheselflessnessofothers with respect to good. To pursue evil merely for profit, self-interest, and thesatisfactionofthefleshisonlyaweaknessoftheflesh.Withafewexceptions,weallfallintothiscategory.Butwhilethisappliestothemasses,itdoesnotapplytotheirgenuinespiritual leaders, who do not guide the sweeping historical offensive of evil for profit,weaknessoftheflesh,orself-interest.Rather,theydosooutoflove:specificallyforthatnegativelovewhichisthehatredofallthatstemsfromGod.

ASataniccurrentparallel to theChristianone flows throughhistory. Itdoes so just asselflessly,wagingitsperpetualbattleagainstChristianity.

Thismysteriousanddeephatredisessentiallydifferentandsuperiortothevariousotherformsof hatredwe find inhistory.The latter areoften fierce and shameful, but alwaysdrivenbystrictlyhumanmotivessuchasenvy,pride,rancour,andvengeance.Theyneverpossess the sort of permanent character that leads one to constantly focus on the sameobject fornoapparent reason– forChristhimselfstated: ‘Theyhatemeforno reason.’Preciselybecause theyconcernspecific things– tangiblecausescommensurate togiveneffects–normal formsofhatreddonotpossess the frighteningcharacterofastreamofprimitivefurythatinevitablybringsdemonicpossessiontomind.AsChristputit:‘Thisisyourtime–thetimewhendarknessrules.’

Hatredofthissortliesbeyondallreasonandisquiteimponderable.Itcorrespondstoamysteriouscrisisaffectingnotthebody,butthesoul.

***

AftertheCommune,therevolutionaryflamemadeitswaybackunderground,whereitlaydormantforfortyyears,withonlysuddenandviolentblazeshereandthere.

In1789,thefirehadravagedFrance.

In1848,ithadextendedtoEurope.

In 1914, the whole world was set ablaze by the Great War – the prelude to socialupheavalsofwhichBolshevismisbutthefirstconcretemanifestation.

1Evolaentitlesthischapter,‘TheCommune:TheMetaphysicsofRevolutionaryHatred’.—Ed.

2Therevolutionarygovernmentproclaimedanewcalendarin1793,althoughithadfallenoutofuseby1805.—Ed.

3TheBlanquists,whoadheredtotheprinciplesofLouisAugusteBlanqui(1805-1881),heldthatsocialismshouldbeintroducedbyasmall,secretiveeliteseizingpoweratthetopofasociety,ratherthanrelyingonthemassestoinstigatearevolution,asMarxheld.—Ed.

4LouisKügelmann(1828-1902)wasaGermangynecologistandaSocialDemocratwhowasafriendofbothMarxandEngels.—Ed.

5TheDeclaration, passed by theFrenchAssembly in 1789,was the fundamental statement of the principles of theFrenchRevolution.—Ed.

6Evolahas,‘democraticnationalism’.—Ed.

7 Léon Gambetta (1838-1882) was an assemblyman who came to prominence following the suppression of theCommune.HeassistedinthecreationofthenewConstitutionin1875,pursuingacourseofmoderationbetweenradicalsandconservativeswhichhetermed‘opportunism’.—Ed.

8Forthisparagraph,Evolasubstitutes,‘Onlyveryrecentlywasnationalismtosheditsdemocraticovertonesandfollowadifferentcourse,insomecasesresolutelyconvergingagainstthosedarkforceswhichhadsooftenexploiteditinthepreviousphase.Elsewhere,however,andespeciallyamongcolouredraces,Moscowcontinuestoplaybytheoldrules:itusesnationalistideologyasawayofmakingthesepeoplesriseupagainstthehegemonyoftheEuropeanpowersandjointheinternationalredfront.’—Ed.

9 Monsieur Homais is a character in Flaubert’s novelMadameBovary, a shopkeeper who adheres to the ideas ofVoltaireandotherrepublicanandscientisticideas.—Ed.

10AdolpheThiers(1797-1877)wasapoliticianandhistorian,andaformerPrimeMinister,whobecameheadoftheprovisionalgovernmentfollowingthecollapseoftheSecondEmpirein1871,andheultimatelycrushedtheCommune.—Ed.

11Evolajusthas,‘followingones’.—Ed.

12Evolahas‘metaphysical’instead.—Ed.

13Metapsychologyreferstoaspectsofpsychologywhichcannotnecessarilybeunderstoodthroughempiricalscience.—Ed.

1914-1918:TheGreatWar1

WhentheorderofgeneralmobilisationwassoundedfromthePyreneestothebordersofChina, the impression among all peoples was one of astonishment more thanconsternation.Itwasdifficultforthemtorealisejustwhatwashappening.

Formostmen,warmeantoneormorebigbattleswithbreaksofafewdaysorweeksinbetween.Then,exceptincertainareaswhosebordersmighthavebeenshiftedafewdozen–or,morerarely,a fewhundred–kilometresbackwardsor forward, thingswouldsoonhavegotbacktonormal.

Given the power of modern weapons, which had been rendered particularly deadlythroughappliedphysicsandchemistry,peoplecertainlyfearedthatthenumberofpeoplekilledorwoundedwouldbemuchhigherthaneverbefore.

Awarofthissort,basedonuniversalconscription,couldneverbealacewar,2suchasthosewagedinagesinwhichtheelitesalonehadtherighttobeararms.Asmuchasthisclaimwill upset the partisans of democracy, it is indeed the case that brutality ismostcommonamongthelowerstrataofthehumanrace.Modernwarfarehassimplyconfirmedwhat plebeian revolts and revolutions – in which such elements were at work – hadalreadylongsinceproven.

OneofthegreatmeritsofChristianityconsistspreciselyinhavingturnedtheprofessionofarmsintoa‘nobleart’reservedforthebestandregardedasaprivilege–anartentailingspecificdutiesknownasthecodeofhonour.

By contrast, modern war, which is a conflict among nations and not simply amongarmies,seekstodestroytheeconomicoutputoftheenemyalongwithhismilitarypower.Itthereforetreatsdevastationasastrategicduty.Thisinitselfmakesmodernwarfareanditsmethodsnecessarilyimmoral,asbecomesmostpainfullyevidentwhenwariswagedinenemyterritory.

Whatpeoplewerehoping,however,was that theevilaspectsofmodernwarfaremightultimatelyturnouttobeagoodthingbyshorteningtheconflict.

PeoplegenerallybelievedthatthewarwhichhadbrokenoutinAugustwouldlasttwoorthreemonths,endinginearlywinterattheverylatest.

Weourselveswerethefirsttothinkalongtheselines.

WebelievedthatRussiawouldsoonbeputoutofaction,whereasthingswouldbemoreuncertain in theWest – although Germany seemed to hold some advantage. To avoidlosingcountlesslivestopreservetheintegrityofRussia,WesternpowerswouldhavethennegotiatedwithGermany.Thelatterhadfewreasonstomakeanyclaimsinthewest,andahundredtimesasmuchtogainfromtheeast.

Insuchaway,apeaceadvantageousforbothsideswouldhavebeensigned,withoutanyrealwinnersorlosersexceptRussia.Thecountrywouldhavebeenpartitioned–atleastto

some extent – into areas of influence assigned to each of the warring parties. ThesovereigntyoftheTsarwouldhavebeensafeguarded,justasthatoftheSultaninBosnia,Crete,andMacedonia.

A similar outcome would have meant putting an end to the congestion of civilisedpeoplesforquitesometime,whichwastheonlynaturalcauseoftheWarinreality–ifnottheonlycauseatwork,aswenaivelybelievedatthetime.

Leavingasidewhatwas takingplacebehind the curtains andwhatonly initiates couldknow,thefirststagesintheGreatWarappearedtofullyconfirmtheabovepredictions.

Only a fewweeks later,mostof theGermanarmywas stopped in its impetuousdrivetoward Paris and forced to take up a fixed position during thememorable days of theMarne.Itwasnotdefeated,though,andstilllessquashed.

At the same time, most of the Russian army, including its best troops, were literallycrushedbyasmallcontingentofGermanforcesinthegreatBattleofTannenberg.

This moment signalled the end of theWar, in the sense that its final outcome couldalreadybeforetold.TheoutcomeoftheWarsimplylayintheBattleoftheMarnetothewest and Tannenberg to the east. These two battles carried the four years of uselessbutcherythatfollowedinthemselves,justasseedsmaybesaidtocontainpotentialtrees.

ThosewhohadimaginedthattheWarwouldlastnomorethantwoorthreemonthshadnotreallybeenmistakenafterall,asinanyothercenturyoragetheconflictwouldindeedhaveendedwiththesetwobattles.ThefirstbattlefrozetheGermanswheretheyoughtnottohavegoneinthefirstplace–whereitmadenosenseforthemtogo,foritmeantsimplyincreasingeveryone’scongestion,startingwiththeirown.

ThisfirstbattlecontainedaclearwarningfortheGermans,awarningwritteninblood:thattheyweretofollowadifferentpathandwerenotboundtopassthroughParis.

ThesecondbattleinsteadopenedupthegatesofRussianAsiatotheGermans:theplacewhere they ought to have gone.AGerman advance into this vast territorywould havemeant thebeginningof thede-congestionofcivilisedpeoples,since therewasplentyoflandthere,notonlyfortheGermansbutforallthosewiseenoughtofollowtheirexample.People in this endless expansewouldneverhavebotheredone another andwouldhavefoundnoreasontoplottheirmutualdestruction.

Those who had imagined that the War would last no more than two months wereultimately proven wrong. In all good faith, they had believed that the War served apurposewhich actuallymeant something to the parties involved. In doing so, they hadignoredapowerfulplayerwhoseaspirationsandinterestslaybeyondwhatwasgoodandprofitableforeachofthewarringparties–whichistosay,everyoneelse.

IfEuropehadbeencomprisedofabsolutemonarchiesandgovernmentsandhadnotbeenforcedtotakeaccountofoccultcontingenciesandinfluencesthatwentagainsttheactualinterestsof itspeoples; if facelesscapitalismhadn’tbeen incontrolofalldrivesbehindpersonalandcollectivelife,makingthingstakeadirectionoppositetotheonetheyought

to have taken – then the War would certainly have lasted no more than two or threemonths. The solution adopted to bring the conflict to a prompt end, to everyone’sadvantage,wouldprobablyhavebeensimilartothatwhichwehavejustoutlined.

The prompt and advantageous settlement of a frightening cataclysm that threatened toextend even further – turning from a European conflict into a global one – was acompellingoptionforall reasonableandhonestmen.Whatwecall logic,evidence,andtruth are things of great intrinsic power that risked spilling out of oppressed hearts andmindslikeanavalanche.

This prospect posed a huge danger:3 something had to be done before itwas too late.Judaised propaganda, which fashions public opinion by influencing themultitudes, puteverythingtoworktowardthissupremebattle.

Thusanotherwarwaswaged,parallel to the tangibleoneandwithoutwhich the latterwould have lasted a shorter period inmonths than it lasted in years. This campaign ofsubversionwasconcealedundernationalgarbsandpassedoffassomethingrespectable.

Thepeople’swayofthinkingwasthebattlefieldinwhichitwreakedsuchfrightfulhavoc–albeitinalessevidentwaythanthewarwagedintheothersphere.

Thehistoryofthiswarhasyettobewritten.Onthedayonwhichitwillbe,humanitywillbeshocked.Thiswillnotbethehumanityoftoday,however,inwhichtracesofthebewitchment which was worked still survive. What we are talking about are futuregenerations.

Ifjudgedfromthepointofviewofthelogicalrequirementsofinternationalpolitics,astaught by past history, the events which followed 1914 will appear as a muddle ofcontradictions.

Theseeventsbecomeunderstandable,andindeedquiteclear,bycontrast in the lightofthefactthattheGreatWarwasmerelyafrontfortheadvancingrevolution.

Everyoneknowsthat theWarwasanunprecedented tragedy.Detailedstatisticsgiveusthenumberofpeoplekilledandmutilated,of thecitiesdestroyed,fieldsdevastated,andhistoricalmonumentsirreparablydamaged.

Many authors from all the warring nations have discussed this subject. We shall notwasteourtimerepeatingwhatisuniversallyknown.

Wemust instead focus on a different kind of damage: one hardly ever discussed, yetincomparablymore serious for its historical consequences that all thewounds inflicted,whichtimeandforgetfulnessareboundtoheal.

First of all, in all countries and regimes, the World War has favoured the rise ofsubversive idealsbasedon Jewishvalues.These idealshadmerelybegun to take shapewiththemostseriousrevolutionsofthepast.WiththeWartheywereinsteadrealisedinpractice, and came to affect men’s lives and mores. They were often imposed againstpeople’swillanddespiteallresistance,forthesimplereasonthatwithoutthem,theWarwouldnothavecontinued.

Rousseau is the authorof a famouspostulate that inspired twocenturiesof subversionandisitselfrootedintheJewishnotionofpolity:‘Libertyconsistsinthetotalalienationof each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community.’ This is theidolatrousidealofmenwhohaveforgottentheywerecreatedbyGodandforGod,theirCreator,believingtheymerelyexistthankstoandforthepolity.4

The World War brought these principles out of sociological workshops and directlyappliedthemtotheeverydaylifeofallmen.

Inpractice, privateproperty ceased to exist: itwasonly tolerated to the extent that itsownerswereseenastax-payingservantsofthestateandcollaboratedtoattainthetriumphofideasofwhichtheymayhavepersonallydisapproved.

After people had been forced to send their children to get killed in order to ‘makedemocracycomfortable’–withouthavingeverbeenaskedwhether they themselves feltcomfortable – their horses, cattle, carts, and household goods were seized. They wereorderedtoplantpotatoesintheirfieldsandrationingwasimposeduponthem,eveniftheywere producers themselves. Sometimes people’s houses were seized, leaving them justenoughspacetolivein.Allthiswaspolitelyreferredtoas‘requisitioning’.

Private accounts were examined, as was the way owners managed their property.Industrialists had their factories militarised and workers were mobilised by the state.Individuals,witheverythingtheyhadorembodied,cametoberegardedasthepropertyofthestate:likethings,warmateriel,androbotswhoseonlyfeelings,thoughts,anddesiresweretobethoseoftheirleaders.

Peoplewereexpectedtojumpinwithallgunsblazingforthewarandtotreatitasifitwere apersonal quarrel.Dependingon their countryofbirth, theywere to consider theGermans,English,orFrenchastheirpersonalenemies.

Ifsomeoneclosetothemwasmurderedorcrippled,theywereexpectednottocomplainbuttoconsiderthemselvesluckyifthepaperssaidtheyhaddiedfordemocracy.

Those men whose fathers had been dispossessed, humiliated, shot, or guillotined bydemocracywereexpected towelcomethe ideaofofferingup theirownpossessionsandlivesuponthealtarofdemocracy.Theseweremenwhowereabouttobeopenlytreatedassecond-class citizens, and who because of their interests, temperaments, and inbornsentimentscouldonlyenduretheyokeofdemocracywithprofoundhorror.5

IfweexaminethemeaningoftheaforementionedpostulatebyRousseau,weshallsoonrealise that it contains the seeds not only of all democracy, but also of all forms ofsocialismandCommunism,asthelatteraresimplythelogicaloutcomeoftheformer.

This unlikely and disconcerting utopia became incorporated into real life through theexceptionalrequirementsimposedbyawarwithnohistoricalprecedents.

Slowlyandgradually,whathadbeenamereemergencymeasurecametopermeatewhatissecondnaturetomenassocialcreatures:theircustomsandhabits.

Afterall, socialisationwasneverofficiallyor juridically imposed, in thesense that the

big owners, be they landowners or industrialists, continued to be known as such. Theycontinuedtobepaidthesamerespectasbeforeandtoplayanimportantrole,yetthiswasonlywith national production inmind: strictly speaking, they exercised the function ofpublicfunctionariesunderstatecontrol.Theywerenotownersinthegenuineandliteralsenseof the term,for theycouldnolongerclaimtobemasters–afterGod–over theirancestral possessions, on the sole condition of respecting laws which no normal andcivilisedbeingwouldseektotransgress.

Nobodyseemedtorealisethatthissituationdefactorepresentedtheaccomplishmentofthesocialistplan.For theonly trulyessentialconditionfor thisplan–allelsebeingbutaccessorydemagogy–isstatecontroloverallproduction,orratherallsourcesofvalue,whichthestatewillthendistribute.

ThisisthestatecapitalismLeninhasdescribedanddefinedinmanyofhisworksasthepenultimatestage:theanteroomtohisparadise.

The transition from this state of affairs – which the most famous Bolshevik writers,startingfromMarxandLenin,regardasapreliminaryandnecessarystage–tothatwhichisopenlyadvocatedbytheapostleoftheneworderdoesnotrequireanysocialrevolution:asimplepalacerevolution,orrathercabinetrevolution,isenough.

Withoutanygreatupheavals,thecapitalismofthebourgeoisstatewillthenbereplacedby what Lenin calls the capitalism of the proletarian state – that which Soviet Russiaacknowledgestobeitscurrentregime.Afterall,weareherequotingLeninalmosttotheletter.

Asfortheplacidmasses,whichsubversivesscornfarmorethantheoldaristocracieseverdid, their role is now simply to shout ‘The King is dead, long live the King!’, whileembarkingonapilgrimagetovisitthetombofthisorthatLenin–justastheywouldhavedonewithsaints’tombsonlyafewyearsago.

Fortheuninitiated,thenewmonarchwillbethepeople:farmersandworkersexpressingtheir will through councils directly appointed by them (soviety in Russian, Soviets inEnglish).

For thehalf-initiated–suchasLeninhimself, to judgefromhisconfessions– thenewmonarchwillbe theCommunistParty: thechosenguardianof thepooruntil theday inwhichtheywillhavecomeofage.

But for the initiated–andLenin’sconfessionsdonotextend that far– themonarch issimplyJewishMammonism,concealedunderthelabelof‘CommunistParty’.

Theabove argument, except for the last point, is simplybasedon the teachingsof thegreatestBolsheviks.

Byadoptingsocialism,whichhadpreviouslybeenregardedasanunworkablechimera,theprincesandlandedgentrywhocontrolledGermanyandAustriapracticallyupuntilthearmisticepavedthewayforsubversion–thelandmarkeventintheaftermathoftheWar–even more so than the democratic and Judaised leaders of republican France, liberal

Britain,andpro-MasonicItaly.Iftheywentfurtherinthisdirectionthantheiradversaries,this was not intentional, but simply because the geographic configuration of theircountries,inthefaceoftheblockadeimposeduponthem,requiredagreaterconcentrationofallsourcesofvalueandmeansofproductioninthehandsofthestate.Thiscalledfortightercontroloverprivatepropertyaswellaspeople,whichistosayforaformofsocialconstraint reminiscent of the socialist ideal – the dreadful constraint which Rousseauregardedastheultimateexpressionoffreedom.

The leaders of the two great reactionary monarchies, who for the most part weremembersofthelandedgentrythemselves,werenotsimplymadmenunawareofwhattheyweredoing.Whiletheymayhaveoverestimatedthetraditionalvirtuesoftheirpeopleandtheirimmunityagainstthevirusofsubversion–althoughthefuturehasproventhattheyhadnotbeencompletelymistakeninthisrespect–theywerequiteconsciousofthedeadlyrisks they were running. Still, they could hardly have acted otherwise, for they foundthemselvescaughtbetweenthedevilandthedeepbluesea.

Thedevilwas thefrighteningspectreof thepossibility that theoutlookof theworkingclassesmightgradually takeasubversivedirection,openinguparangeofrevolutionaryscenarios. The deep blue sea was the fear of an immediate revolution sparked by theinevitabletriggerofallsocialunrest:hunger.

Theonlywaytoavertthisscenario–oratanyratetocontainitsconsequences–wastodrive production to its limits, or even beyond them through new inventions andapplications.

Theoldleadersthuschosethelessimmediateandimminentofthesetwoscenarios.Theyfoundthemselvesinthetragicsituationofsomeonerollingdownaslopetowardachasm,knowingfullwelltheywillfallintoitbutunabletostop,andwithnootherhopebutthechanceofbeingsavedbysomefortunateeventatthelastmoment.Thiseventcouldonlyhavebeenadecisivevictory,butonthewesternfrontasimilarprospecthadbecomeratherunlikelyaftertheBattleoftheMarne.

Thosewhoarguethatthegreatconflagrationwascausedbyaclashofeconomicinterestsarenotfaroff themark.Still, theyarequitemistakenif theybelievethat thisclashwasfatalinitself.

Thecauseof theWarwas thedesire tochangethe innerstructureofsociety ingeneralandtohelpworldsubversiontakeagreatleapforward.

Thismomentous intention iswhereall threadsofmodernhistoryconverge.Weshouldnever lose sight of it, if we are to avoid losing ourselves in the inextricable tangle ofevents.

TheWarwasanewoffensiveoftheRevolution.Ithadbeenplannedthroughdecadesofconvoluted diplomacy in the intentional pursuit of the very opposite of what commonsensedictated.6

TheRevolutionwasnotatallconcernedaboutgivingAlsaceandLorrainetoFrance,orTrentino to Italy, or with pleasing Britain by assigning it a few more Negroes. The

changingofbordersinnowayaideditscause.TheRevolutionleftthesetriflestotheblindpatriots who had gone through such pains to prepare its triumphal banquet. The chiefconcernoftheRevolution,afterfouryearsofunprecedentedslaughter,wastobringdownthelastbastionsthreateningdemocraticprogress,asPresidentWilsonlaterstated.

Besides,assoonasitwasnolongernecessarytotakeaccountofthefeelingsoftheTsar,anunwillingvictimtohisowninconceivablefolly,thingssuchasthesewerequiteopenlydeclared.Thisoutburstfollowedquitenaturally,ascertainpeoplebecamefreetoexpressthesecret that filled theirhearts,andwhich theyhadbeenforced toconceal forso longwiththegreatesteffort.

After the imperial guestwas told to ‘go get hanged elsewhere’7 – whichmight not beliterallywhathappened,but isnot far fromthe truth–hewasreplacedbyanAmericanfellowwhowas awareof the realmeaningof events.Thingswere thuskeptwithin thefamily.Whycontinuetoholdbackthestreamofdemocraticoutpouringsthathadhardlybeencontaineduntilthen?

The time had come to unceremoniously give oneself over to sheer joy, without theslightest concern for the thousands of honestmenwho continued to suffer and die fordemocracy,aregimetheydespisedandwhichwasabouttotreatthem–inallcountries–astheonlyreallosersoftheWar.8

Thanks to the thorough work which had been carried out by the social termites ofdemocracy,onlyanonymouspropertyandanonymousauthoritywereacknowledgedintheeconomicandpoliticalspheres.Likewise,heroismandmeritwereonlyrecognisedundertheveilofdemocraticanonymityandimpersonality.Tangibleproofofthistransformationinthepeople’swayofthinkingthroughthegradualyetunrelentinginstillationofJewishvalueswas soon tobe found in themonuments erected to the ‘UnknownSoldier’.Thisfigurecametobepraisednotonlymorethanthegreatleaderswhohadbroughtvictory,butalsoandaboveallbythemoremodestheroeswhohadsprungfromthepeople.

Based on sheer statistical probability, it is most likely that this ‘Unknown Soldier’ –whetherFrench,British,Italian,orPolish–wasamanofthepeople.Itisequallyprobablethat this factwill be implicitly knownand that this newcultwill come to be seen as apopularoneby themasses.The‘UnknownSoldier’will therefore ingeniouslybe turnedinto a sort of anonymous champion whose impersonal and popular character willsomehow counterbalance the personal prestige enjoyed by ‘known’ leaders and heroes.The latter areguiltyof embodyinga strikingexampleof inegalitarianism, andhenceofofficiallydisproving thedemocratic theoryaccording towhicheachperson issimplyanexpressionofthecollective.9

ItmustbeacknowledgedthatdemocracygaveproofofpossessingthelaudablevirtueoffranknessinthelasteighteenmonthsoftheWar,foritnolongerconcealedthefactthatitwassimplypursuingitsgoalsthroughtheonslaught.

TheaimsoftheWorldWarwerequiteclearinthemindsoftheanonymousmilieuswhowished to turn it into a ‘total’ conflict, namely: the destruction of the feudalHapsburg

empire and its replacementwith a hive of radical and economically unviable republicsbound to be at themercy of the Jew, and the Jewish corrosion of themedieval Asianempire of the Tsars and its transformation into a great hotbed for the Jewish worldrevolutionofthefuture.

TothiswecanaddthecreationofaferventlydemocraticPolishrepublic,boundtofinditself–onaccountoftheabsurdarrangementofitsborders–forevercaughtinastateoflatent conflict with Germany. It was feared that the latter might experience a counter-revolutionaryawakeningandexpandtotheeast,anareawhichwasbynowsacredtotheforcesofsubversion.10

Clearly, the democratic Republic of Poland was bound to soon play the tragic anddisgracefulroleofawesternbufferfortheJudeo-SatanicorgyofMoscow.Anyattempttospoilthisplanwasstrictlyprohibited,astheverycentreofuniversaldecompositionwastobeestablishedthroughit.

Toall thisweshouldaddthedemocraticturninpeople’swayofthinking, theresultoftheinversionofallthetraditionalvaluesofthehumanperson.ItwasnecessarytomakeEurope into a suitable broth of nutrients for themicrobeswhichwere spreading at thesametimeinRussia.

The capitalist or socialist turn in people’s way of thinking – through the forcedintroductionofstatecontrolandcollectiveformsofeconomyinthosecountrieswhichhaduntil then resisted them themost–wasno secondarymatter, since it contributed to thedevelopmentofdemocracyandthepreparingofthatbrothwehavejustmentioned.

We should also take account of the striking rise of indebtedness, which exclusivelybenefitted international Jewry, and its ubiquitous lending of money to up-and-comingdemocraticregimes,bothgreatandsmall.Nationsthusbeganindirectlyfinancingtheverycauseoftheirmisfortunes.

TheultimateaimoftheWar–thegoalparexcellence, thesummationandcrowningofallothers–consistedoffosteringphysical,material,andmoralexhaustionand lassitudeamongbothwinnersandlosers,confoundingtheirideasandvalues,insuchawaythatnostatewouldeverinterveneaftertheWaragainstthespreadoftheinfectionwhosecentrewasMoscow.Nothingwas toprevent thisdeadlydisease from travelling freely, farandwideacrosstheentireworld.

Withthis,webelievetohaveillustratedall theessentialaspectsoftheplansdevelopedby the aforementioned milieus. After having deliberately made war unavoidable, thesemilieuschosetowageittotheveryend,untilthefruitsofsubversionwereripeenoughtobepicked.

Afterthreeyearsofconflictandunspeakablesuffering,thisstagewasfinallyreached.

The various cells of the front of subversion had done a good job at spreading theirinfluence through speeches and writings among overexcited minds in all the mostvulnerableareas.Theclanofinternationalsubversionrejoicedatthelong-awaitedtriumphthathadbeentherealobjectoftheWar.Still,itwasnottooostentatiousinitsrejoicingfor

Russia,wheretherewasstillachancethatTsarismmightunexpectedlyrisefromitsdeathbed, as certain attitudes of its last political representatives appeared to suggest. But assoonasthislastscruplevanished,thetruthwhichhadbeenconcealedforsolongfinallyshoneforth.

PresidentWilsonbecameitsherald.Hegavealmostimmediateexpressiontoanewstateofmindwhichwasfarfromhavingemergedspontaneously–fornothingeverdoes.

It was like a forest fire long smouldering in the soil, consuming all roots, and thensuddenly lighting ablaze and enveloping the very summits of the trees – which werealreadypartiallydriedup,yetstillgreen.

Fromthatmomentonwards,theWarcouldbesaidtohavealreadyaccomplishedmostofthegoalswhichconstituteditsactualraisond’etreinthemindsofthosewhohadplannedit.

By that stage, democracy had gained a sure foothold in Europe. To the west it wasflankedbytheevenmoredevelopedAmericandemocracy.TotheeastitfoundtheJudeo-Muscovitemodelofdemocracy,whichwasanxioustobeatallrecordsof‘progress’.Initswake stood all ‘young’ democratic states, whichwere expressions of democracy ratherthannationalism:foroneandthesameprocesswasatworkbehindthecreationofPoland,Bohemia,Croatia,Lithuania, andall thevariousother countrieswhichweredestined tospringfromapeacethatcompletedthesubversiveworkoftheWar.

Democracycouldnowspeakopenly,foritnolongerneededtoconcealitself.Itnolongerhesitatedtofullyrevealthehideousandshockingtruthtotheworld:thatifriversofbloodhad been spilled and continued to be spilled (the yearwas 1917), thiswas not in vain,sincethedemocraticfrontwasalreadythepotentialmasterofthebattlefield.Afterall,iftherealaimoftheWarwasdemocracy,haditnotbeenmet?

Theso-calledwaramongnationswassimplyalong-awaitedandplannedconflictbasedon a complicated series of secret manoeuvres and intrigues. It was a battle betweenRevolutionandCounter-Revolution.

ThisistheonlyrealmeaningoftheWar.

Democracyhadneverfounditself insuchagoodposition.Ithadneverbeengiventhechancetoperformsobrilliantlybeforetheattentiveeyesofthefivecontinents.

Still,whenthetimecametopassfromtheorytopracticeandshowpeoplesthattheideaof a republic is not only a fine thing under an empire, what happened was anunprecedentedfiasco.

Whenputtothetest,democracyproveditsincapacityandfrighteningharmfulness.

1Evolaentitlesthischapter,‘1914-1918:TheTwoFacesoftheGreatWar’.—Ed.

2TheLaceWarsreferstoaseriesofwarswhichtookplaceinEuropefromthelateseventeenthtothemid-eighteenthcenturybetweenthevariousmonarchies.OneoftheprizeswasthetownofMecheline,ontheborderbetweenBelgiumandHolland,whichproducedahighlywell-regardedtypeoflace.—Ed.

3Evolaadds,‘fortheoccultfrontofworldsubversion’.—Ed.

4Forthissentence,Evolasubstitutes,‘This,ofcourse,wouldbeacommunitythathasbeenstrippedofallsacrednessandbecomepurelymaterialistic:onethatfindsitsraisond’etreinitselfandopposesitscollectivism–asirrationalasitisomnipotent–toalllawsfromonhigh,aswellasalltraditionalformsofhumandignityandfreedom.’—Ed.

5For theprevious sixparagraphs, including thisone,Evola substitutes, ‘Byyielding to theseprinciples,human lifenecessarilyacquireda“total”character;and this, in turn,necessarilybecameageneral rulewhichcontinued tobe inforceevenoncetheemergencystateofwarthathadledtoitsadventhadpassed.’—Ed.

6Wewould like here to recommend de Poncins’ book,Société desNations,SuperÉtatMaçonnique (Paris, 1936),whichgivesreadersanaccountofacongressheldbyinternationalFreemasonryinParisinthesummerof1917.InthiscongressthetrueintentionbehindtheWorldWar–whichwastheninfullswing–wasopenlydeclared.Whatismore,thefuturepeacetreatieswereanticipated,alongwiththeLeagueofNations,explicitlyrevealingthesubversivefunctiontheyweretoserveforthebenefitofthesecretforcesoftheRevolution.(Evola)

7ThisisaFrenchexpression,whichmeansroughly,‘gotoHell’.—Ed.

8Asconcerns Italy, itmightbeworthquoting the followingpassage fromM.Rygier’sworkLaFranc-Maçonnerieitaliennedevantlaguerreet le fascisme (Paris,1929,p.42):‘UponItaly’sentry into thewar, theGreatOrientsentamessagetotheItalianpeople,whichhadprovenitsloyalty.Thedraftofatextexaminedbythemasonicauthoritiesincharge emphasised the role playedby theGreatOrient in the interventionist campaign and the success this hadmet.These sentences, however, were removed from the final version of the text and replaced by a more conventionalstatement… that thewar just declared fulfilled the expectations and prophecies of themartyrs and prophets of theRisorgimento,whoseteachingsandconductmasoniclodgeshadalwaysrecommendedtotheirmembersasasourceofinspiration.IftheGreatOrientactedinthismanneritwas–asisattestedintrials–outofconcernforthesacredunion:in order to make Catholics and especially the indifferent masses aware of the fact that the country’s soldiers werefightinganddyingforacausepromotedbyFreemasonry.’(Evola)

9Evolaendsthesentencewith,‘afacelesspartofthecollectivebody’.—Ed.

10Evolaendsthesentencewith‘theJudeo-Bolshevikorgy’.Healsoomitsthefollowingparagraph.—Ed.

1919:ThePeaceTreaties–TheDisruptionofEuropeandtheLeagueofNations

Theaimof the famous andpitifulParisConferencewas to legalise and consolidate thenew conquests through a Jewish peace.Thesewere not the conquestsmade byFrance,Britain,orItaly,whichwerebutaccessoryfactors;theyratherconsistedofrevolutionaryanddemocraticprogress,whichrepresentedtheessentialaspectofit.

Manyinternationalcongresseshadalreadybeenheldinthepast:theCongressofViennain1815,thatofParisin1855,andBerlinin1878,nottomentionminoronesorthoseofpreviouscenturies.Theworld,however,hadneverwitnessedanythingcomparabletotheParisConferenceof1919.

Itwaspresentednotasaconferenceinwhichpeoplewould‘confer’,discussthings,andnegotiate,butasasortofcriminalcourtofhistorythatwouldjudgethewholeworldinthelightofdemocracy.

Various regimes and historical outlookswere to be brought before this court as guiltypartiesordefendants. Individualsandpeoples– theformerfilledwithanxiety, the latterwith hope – awaited the outcome of this great conference, as if it were the FinalJudgement.EverythingwastotakeplaceaccordingtotheHolyScriptures,exceptforthefollowinginversion:thegoodandrighteous,thesheepandlambs,weretobefoundontheLeft;theevilones,or‘goats’,ontheRight,whencetheywouldbeplungedintoGehenna,amidtearsandthegrindingofteeth.

As therewereno longeranywarmongeringprincesorambitiousnobles tooppress thehumbleanddisinherited, fromthatmemorablemomentonwards justicewasexpected toruleonEarth.InaperfectedEdenbloomingwith‘immortalprinciples’,withthefruitsoftheFrenchRevolutionandtheCommunistManifestoastheonlyonesnotforbidden,anewgoldenagewouldhavedawned.

TheConferencewasaone-sidedaffair.Inall itshearings,itactedasacourtretiringtodeliberate.Thedefendants,inotherwordstheopposingparty,wereonlyallowedtostandbeforeittohearitsverdict.

Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey were the ‘criminals’. After finallyrepenting of their sins against Jews and democracy, these states –much likemedievalpenitents – hopelessly awaited in the ‘darkness outside’ for the ‘Maundy Thursday’ onwhichtheywouldhavebeenadmittedintothechurchofdemocracy.

On theotherhand, states regardedasallies, suchasPoland,Czechoslovakia,andevencertain countries that had been part of the Entente,1 like Romania and Serbia, foundthemselvesinanuncertainsituation.TheywerenotmembersofthecourtandinasensewerenotevenmembersoftheConference,sincetheywerethepartiesforwhichthelatterwasexpectedtogrant justice.Theyawaitedthis justicepassively,withnoright topleadtheircasesexceptwhenexplicitlyinvitedtodoso.Theywerelikebelieversstandingbythedoor,forbiddentoenterthechurch.

TheParisConferencediffers frompreviouscongresses inmanyother respectsaswell.There were no longer any great men here – kings with their ministers, courtiers, andfollowers,whichistosayprivilegedclans–todeterminethefateof‘unfortunate’peoplesby exchanging, partitioning, and distributing them ‘like cattle’, aswould have been thecaseinagesof‘obscurantism’and‘barbarism’.Thistime,progressseemedtomeanthatthevariouspeoplesthemselves,freeatlast,coulddeterminetheirownfate.

These peoples – over a hundred million Americans, a hundred and fifty millionEuropeans, and an even greater number ofAsians, not tomention all theAfricans andAustralians – were therefore expected to speak through the voices of Wilson, LloydGeorge,andClemenceauinthehallsoftheQuaid’Orsay.TheParisConferencepurportedtobeafreediscussionamongfreeandequalpeoples.

In practice, it was what the British and Americans referred to as the ‘big three’ thatultimately made up the supreme court which was called to judge all the nations andindividuals of the world.2 This court was intended to pass judgement according todemocraticjustice,whichistosayaccordingtoanewcodecompletelyindependentfromoutdatedthingssuchasnaturallaw,theDecalogue,andRomanlaw.

Thenewcodewasenvisagedasanexpressionof‘humanprogress’beyondall thathadcomebeforeinthehistoryofcivilisation.Hence,therecouldbenocriteriaabovethisnewcode,whichcouldonlybeinterpretedbythethreegreatjudges.Ifanyoneelse,eventhePope,haddaredclaimthesamedegreeofinfallibilityasthem,thewholeworldwouldnodoubthavebrokenout inacryof indignation.Theclaim to infallibilitymadebyLloydGeorge,Wilson,andClemenceauwas insteadregardedassomethingquite legitimateonaccount of the fact that these threegentlemen allegedly actednot as individuals, but as‘peoples’.

TheJewishorJudaisedpress–whosemissionitistoinfluencepublicopinionandmakepeoplestoicallybearthemostabsurdburdens–fedtheincoherentmassesthislie,whichwasquitereadilyswallowed.

The‘bigthree’weretheonlyjudgesandinterpretersofanewmorallawwhosecanonsdid not even exist in writing, but which allegedly promoted the higher interests ofdemocracy.

Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and Wilson were thus invited to play a historicallyunprecedented role. The parliaments of the three fiercely parliamentary democracieswhich these gentlemen represented suddenly fell silent, as if ordered to do so: theirspokesmenalonewereallowedtosliceEuropeandpartofAsiauplikeapie.

All thesemenwereconcernedwithwas toplease theJew,whowasabout to ‘take theworldbystride’!Atanyrate,everythingtookplaceas if thisweretheironlyconcernatthisfatefulhourofhistory.

TheworkaccomplishedbytheParisConferencemaybesummedupasfollows:firstofall, it led to the creation of the largest possible number of sovereign nations, in otherwords the largest possible number of mutually conflicting interests – which could

nonethelessstillhavebeenreconciledtosomedegree;then,asiftoruleoutthischanceofsalvation,theConferencelimitedthesenations,sothattheirinterests,andinmanycasesvital needs, would indeed become mutually irreconcilable; finally, it established theLeagueofNations,aPlatonicassemblylackinganypowerandincapableofimposinganysanctions – an assembly that meets no clear corporate interest and is entrusted withtheoreticallyreconcilingwhatisinpracticeirreconcilableforthelongestpossibletimebysimplyplayingonpeople’sfearofthingsbecomingevenworse.

ThechaoswepresentlyhaveinEuropeisnotdue,asisoftenclaimed,totheevilnatureorcollectivemaliciousnessofthisorthatpoliticalorethnicgroup.Norisitdue,aspeoplemakeashowofbelieving,totherancourandhatredengenderedbytheWar:forrancourofthissortisalwaysatemporarythingandtendstowaneaftersometime.ThepresentstateofEuropeissimplythelogicalconsequenceofthesituationandrelationsdeterminedbytheParisConference.

Consider how Hungary was dismembered for the benefit of Czechoslovakia andRomania,ashadpreviouslybeendonewithPolandforthebenefitofRussia,Prussia,andAustriabeforeitsthirdandlastpartition.Oragain,considertheplaceofHungaryvis-à-visthe new tiny Austria, whose capital alone used to boast over a million and a halfinhabitants.Neithercountry is self-sufficientandcan importorexportanygoodsunlessGermany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia grant them permission to passthroughtheirterritory.

Ontheotherhand,Czechoslovakiaitself,whilepamperedandhelpedineverypossibleway,andtreatedbyJudeo-Masonicdemocracyasitslovechild,nonethelessfindsitselfinapositionwhereitcannotbreatheandcannotgetintouchwiththerestoftheworldexceptthroughthesilvertunneloftheElbe,aGermanriver.

Germany,inturn,withitsgrowingpopulationandcountlessindustries,issplitinhalfbyPolandandsurroundedonallsides.

Poland,restoredtothefrontiersithadafteritsfirstpartitioning,canonlyaccesstheseathroughanartificialcorridor.

Italy,withitsoverflowingpopulation,iscrampedinitspeninsula,withnootherprospectofmeetingitsphysicalneedforexpansionthanwar.3

Whereverwemaycastourgaze–providedwelookatthingswithascientificmindandeye,soastodiscovertheirunderlyingcauses–weshallsoonrealisethatwhatwehaveisthecompulsorywarofallagainstall,potentiallyifnotinact.

Whileprivilegednationsmaynotbeengagingwithoneanotherinsuchdrastictermsyet,they still find themselves in the equally difficult situationof beingdemanding creditorsanddebtorsforcedtobleedthemselvesdrybyimposingnewtaxesinwhatisnothingbutaformofsocialisation.

ThisisthestateofEuropeintheaftermathoftheWar:acontinentdividedandorganisedinsuchawayastomakeeachcountryunbearabletoalltherest.Tocompletethispicture,however,we should add the socialism of theMuscovite East and the capitalism of the

American West, each of which is manipulated in its own way by the Jew, with bothseekingtoinfiltratethemselvesintoallplacesinordertogaincontrolofeverything.

WemusthavethecouragetoadmitthatintheEuropecraftedbytheingenioushandoftheParisConference,more than everbefore inhistory, theonly common interest of allnations, both old and new, is war. If, despite this, we still have peace – a restless,burdensome, and armed peace, but peace nonetheless – it is only because the commoninterestofallnations findsa temporarycounterbalance in theircommonfear.This fear,however,isprogressivelywaningasthepreviouswarbecomesathingofthepastandnewgenerationsarebornwhichneverexperiencedit.Bycontrast,thisinterestandindeedvitalneedforwarwillbeaconstantthingforallnationsforaslongastheorderestablishedbytheParisConferencewillendure.

All this ismathematically,or rathergeometrically,certain.Torealise it, it isenough totakeacareful lookat themapwithout losingsightof themost important thing: the factthateconomicfrontiershavebeenreducedtoacorollaryofpoliticalfrontiers,asifthetwoweremutuallyinseparable.

Ultimately,noneofthenationsofEuropeissatisfiedwiththesetreaties,yettheyareallobsessedwith the idea that any changewould onlyworsen their situation. This idea isdeeplysetinallmindsandpreventspeoplefromseeingthingsastheyreallyare.

Peopletellthemselvesoverandoverthatacompleterevisionofthetreatieswouldonlyleadtoanewwar,orwhoknowswhatothercatastrophe.Theythusfailtorealisethatitispreciselythesetreatieswhich,soonerorlater,willinevitablybringaboutanewcataclysm.

TheworkoftheParisConferenceisasabsurdasitisbrilliant:itisabsurdfromthepointofviewof the interestsof theoverwhelmingmajorityofmen,butbrilliant ineverytinyrespectforacertaincategoryofindividuals.

The overwhelming majority of men in France and Poland, including educated men,believeGermanytobetheoneplotting.AccordingtotheGermans,itisFranceandBritainthataredoingtheplotting–orevenItaly,especiallynowthatithastakenanopenlyanti-revolutionarystance.4

MoscowissimplybroughtupinrelationtoCommunism:nomentionisevermadeofthebackstage connections whichMoscow has to all those around the world who have noenemiesontheLeft.

Onceevidenceofplottinghasbeenfound,itisalwaysone’spartnerandneighbourwhoareaccused,rarelytheSovietstateandnevertheinternationalJew.Thismerelyaggravatesalreadyexistingdisagreementsandpavesthewayforfutureplottingthatwillagainbenefitthe–supposedlynon-existent–Jew5andtheSovietstateitself,whichisalwaysacquittedofanypossiblechargeofinvolvement.

AtthetimeoftheFrenchRevolution,peopleusedtosaythatFreemasonrywasaBritishinstitutionintheserviceofBritain–whichwasonlytruetotheextentthatBritainindeedfavouredtheRevolution.Inrecenttimes,peopleinFrancehavewrittenthatFreemasonryisaGermaninstitutionintheserviceofGermany,whichagainisonlytruetotheextent

thattheWeimarRepubliccollaboratedwiththeIsraelitestatetotheeast.TheGermans,onthe other hand, would have us believe that Freemasonry is an essentially Frenchinstitution.

Similarconsiderationsarebeingmadeconcerningcapitalism:theFrenchclaimthatitisintheserviceofGermany;theGermansswearthatitservesBritain;andalmosteveryoneagreesthatitservestheUnitedStates.

Largelythesameassertionsarebeingcirculatedaboutsocialism:thuspeoplewillpointout, for instance, that Marx and Lassalle, while Jewish, were nonetheless born inGermany.

Still,nooneexcept‘conspiracycrackpots’apparentlydarewritethatthesecountriesareinfactthevictimsofFreemasonry,socialism,andcapitalism,bywhichtheyareallbeingmanipulatedtovariousdegrees.

Undertheseconditions,itisclearthattheLeagueofNationscaninnowayrepresentarallyingpointforEuropeaninterests.Atmost,itmightserveasajunctionforalltheplotsand counter-plots, manoeuvres and counter-manoeuvres being made by large, medium,andsmallworldpowers.Thesecountriesignorewhatmightbringthemtogetherandareonlyawareofthatwhichdividesthem.TheEuropeanpowersfindthemselvesinthisstateofdiscordnotthroughanyfaultoftheirown,butbecauseaconditionofirreparableandinevitablemutualdivision,animosity,andantagonismhasbeencreatedbytheimmutabletreatiesoftheParisConference.

ItisclaimedthattheLeagueofNationsistheembodimentofpeace.Butifthatisso,itisonlybecausethetreatiesofwhichitisthedepository–andwhichitcannotchangeintheslightest, for indeed it can only comment upon them, just as the Church mayauthoritativelycommentupontheHolyScriptures–arebeingpresentedtousastheveryessenceofpeace,whereasinfacttheyarenothingbutseedsoffuturewar.

The role of the League ofNations is that of amystic body for perpetuating the spiritimposedbytheactsofVersailles,Saint-Germain,Trianon,andSèvres–‘final’actsthat,touseacommonexpression,formthenewGreatCharterofhumanity.

TheParisConferenceadopted the languageofCatholic logicwhile inverting its terms.Effectsitalwaystreatedascausesandvice-versa.Italwaystreatedwhatisaccidentalaspermanent,whiledismissingthingspermanentasbeingmerelyaccidental.

Whatisessentialittreatedasbeingaccessory,andwhatisaccessoryasbeingessential.InordertoshowhowtheConferencefocuseditsattentionononlythemostaccidentalandaccessoryissues,weneedtotakebutonecaseintoconsideration.

Austria-Hungarywas treated as the permanent and central evil. TheHapsburg empire,seenastherootofallills,wasstruckoffthemapofEuropeanderasedfromhistory.

Germanywasregardedasamoreaccidentalandaccessoryilltobedoneawaywith:asonelessimportantthanAustria-Hungary,althoughmoreimportantthanRussia.Thelatterwasseenasaperfectlyaccidental,accessory,andindeednegligibleproblem–somuchso

thatitwasdismissed.

Exactlytheoppositeistrue.TherealanddeadlyperilcomesfromMoscow,whichposesathreatnotunlikethatoftheplagueintheMiddleAges:attemptingtocometotermswithit is sheer folly.As effects are inseparable from their causes, the peril and infection ofMoscowcannotbesuppressedbysimplysuppressing theoutcomeof theJudeo-Russianrevolution.

TheGermanperilwascertainlyreal.Still, itwasnotessential, for–unliketheperilofJewishBolshevism–itdidnotstemfromtheessenceoftheGermannation.TheGermanperilwas simplydue toaccidental factors,ofwhicheconomiccongestionwas themostimportant.Bysolvingthisproblem,theperilitselfwouldhavebeenaverted.

Bycontrast,therewasnosuchthingasanAustrianorHapsburgthreat.Inordertomakeeveryonehappy,exceptofcoursea fewambitiousrebels, itwouldhavebeenenough torestoretheancientempireonafederalbasis,assuggestedbyArchdukeFranzFerdinand,afterassigningGaliciatoPolandandtheItalianprovincestoItaly.

Thisexamplerevealssomethingofcrucialimportance.

Thework of the Paris Conferencewas not carried out carelessly by people acting oninstinctwhosimplyaimedtosmooththingsandgetoutofadifficultsituationinwhateverwaytheycould.Thiswasnot–assuperficialcriticsliketosay–theworkofmenignorantofgeographyandhistory.

On the contrary, thework of the ParisConferencewas carefully planned down to theslightestdetail.Itstrikesusasbeingimbuedwithhistoricaluniversalism,yetithasinfactreversedallvaluesforthebenefitoftheonecurrentinhistorythatrepresentstheantithesisoftheCatholicthesis.

TheHapsburg empirewas completely suppressed because itwas the onemost in linewiththeCatholicthesisandmostopposedtotheJewishantithesis.

Well into the twentieth century, theHapsburg empire constituted an expression of thehistoricallyCatholicPentecostthatopposedtheTowerofBabeloflanguagesandraces.Itrepresented theunity indiversityof theMiddleAges,a reduced formofwhat theHolyEmpirehadsoughttobeduringtheCrusades–onestillsurvivinginanagepoisonedbythe Reformation and the Revolution, with its nationalism, capitalism, and socialisticdemocracy.

In other words, the Hapsburg empire embodied what was most hateful to – and lesscompatible with – the products of Judaism and Freemasonry in shaping contemporaryhistory.

The German empire, sprung from the Reformation and brought to completion byFrederick theGreat’s freethinking, a secular and civic empire, and hence a statist one,elicited far less hatred. Indeed, it ceased attracting any hatred at all themoment it didawaywithitsprincesanditsvestigesoffeudalism,whichstillendureddespitecapitalismand statism, and chose to recogniseLuther,Kant,Hegel, and the JewMarx as its only

forebears.Whenitthenfoundaningenious,ifnotbrilliant,wayofensuringthatitwouldbecome the ally, technical advisor, and organiser of the new Jewish state by force, theGermanempireevenbecamesomethingdesirableanduseful.6

BoundhandandfoottoJewryintheguiseofCommunism,hatedRussiahasbecomeasacredanduntouchablecountry.Whenit isRussiathat touchesothers,onecannotreact,sinceitmakeseverythingitlaysitshandsoninviolable.

InordertocorrectlyevaluatetheworkoftheParisConference,itmustbegazedatfromtheVaticanHill, the towers of theKremlin, or the skyscrapers ofBroadway– the onlytrulyfixedplacesintheworld.TheworkoftheConferencewillthenstrikeusasaperfectconstruction lackingneither a senseofuniversalitynor thatofhistory. It is theworkofarchitects who are perfectly aware of what they are building, and who act underinspirationfromtheGreatArchitectoftheUniverse,thehighestfigureinMasoniclodges.

ThishugeedificeiscrownedbytheLeagueofNations.

ThegeniuswhohaspresidedoverthisglobaldisruptionishewhomChristcallsa‘liarfromthebeginning’.

IncompletingthewarforthecreationofthenewBabelknownastheLeagueofNationsandthevariousbodieswhichsprungfromit,theworkoftheParisConferenceservesasaprologuefor theworldconspiracyof the twentiethcenturyandasabloodyepilogueforthatofthenineteenthcentury.Whereoneends,theotherstarts.

NowitistimeforustocastourgazeonBolshevism.

1IntheFirstWorldWar,theTripleEntentewasanallianceconsistingprimarilyoftheBritishEmpire,theFrenchThirdRepublic,theUnitedStates,andtheRussianEmpire.—Ed.

2Intheory,therewasalsoafourthactor:theItalianPrimeMinister.Everyoneknew,however,thathisopinionmatteredlittle.ThisisnodoubtthereasonwhyheostentatiouslylefttheConferenceatagivenmoment,onlytomakehiswaybacklater.(Poncins)(Evolapresentsthenoteasfollows:‘Totellthetruth,therewasalsoafourthactor:theItalianPrimeMinister.ButalthoughItaly,atfirstneutral,hadthensidedwiththeAlliesandthusmadeacrucialcontributiontotheoutcomeoftheWorldWar,thecountry’svoicewaslargelyignoredinParis.TheItalianspokesmanwasactuallyforcedtoleavetheconferenceatagivenmoment.Italywaslatertobecomeoneofthefirstnationstoembracerevisionismandstandupagainstthepeacetreaties.’—Ed.)

3 Evola has this paragraph as follows: ‘Despite being one of thewinners of the conflict, Italy,with its overflowingpopulation,wascrampedinitspeninsulaandfacedtheprospectofhavingtowagewarinEuropeinordertomeetitsphysicalneedforexpansion.ThisprospectwasindeedabouttocometrueatthetimeoftheconquestofEthiopia,whichtookplacedespitetheoppositionoftheLeagueofNations.’—Ed.

4Evolaomitsthelastpartofthesentence,concerningItaly.—Ed.

5Insteadof‘Jew’,Evolahas‘theoccultfront’.—Ed.

6Evola rewrites this sentence as, ‘When it foundan ingenious, if notbrilliant,wayof ensuring that the Jewwouldcontrolallitsvitalcells(forsuchwasGermany’sperspectiveintheimmediateaftermathoftheWarandbeforeNationalSocialism),Germanyevenbecameworthyoflove,oratanyratedesirable.’—Ed.

TheBirthPangsofBolshevism:TheRiseofCapitalisminRussia

TheRussianRevolutionof1917marked thepenultimatestage in theplan to implementthe ideas of the international Left. As such, it played a crucial role in the history ofSubversion.

It isworth tracing theoriginsof thisRevolution to findouthowandwhy it spread inRussia.Inordertodoso,wemustbrieflyexaminetheperiodofRussianhistoryleadingtotheexplosionof1917.

Ourreaderswilltherebycometoknowfactsthatthemainstreampresshassaidnothingabout,butwhichacquireparticularsignificancenowthatwearehangingoverthechasmthathasopenedupbeforeourfeet.

***

TwocriticalmomentssealedthefateoftheRussiandynastyandempire.

ThefirstwaswhenAlexanderIIchosetoemancipatetheserfsundersuchconditionsthatonlyemigrationtowardtheeastwouldhaveenabledemancipationtowork.

The second moment was when Alexander III set out to industrialise his empire andtherebycreatedtwonewsocialclasses,theproletariatandthecapitalists,whichsuddenlyfoundthemselvesoperatingintermsofacollectiveeconomy.

WithAlexanderII’sact,propertybelongingtofarmerswasseparatedfromthatoftheirold lords. This act assigned rural communes1 enough hectares of land to support onegeneration. Its effects only became visible thirty years later, with the new generation,whenAlexanderIII–followingthealliancebetweenRussiaandFrance–wasrequiredtoindustrialisehiscountrywiththehelpofFrenchcapitalinpreparationforwar.

ThisrepresentedanoveltyinthehistoryoftheRomanovempirethatentailedmanyrisksfor the old system.Events unfoldedwithout people actually realising that a substantial,andindeedcrucial,changewastakingplace.

Following thepactbetweenFranceandRussia,a floodof liquidcapital swept into theempireoftheTsars.

Thiswas all quitenatural and tobe expected, since economics responds to lawsof itsownthatareasinescapableasthoseofphysics.

Fromaphysicalperspective,Russiarepresentedanemptyspacewithnocapital.Capitaltends to behave as bodies do: it dreads emptiness. The Russia of those years may becomparedtoalarge,hermeticallysealedroomwhoseairisrarefiedandwhosewallsarecoveredbythecondensedatmosphereofitssurroundings.

ThismonetaryatmospherewasnowhereascondensedasinFrance,theforemostcountryin termsofsavings. Its inhabitants,bothrichandpoor,savedfarmoremoneythan they

spent, and so their chief concernwas to find new investments for their ever-increasingfunds.

ThesortofinvestmentsthatusedtobeknowninFranceas‘headsoffamily’wouldpaysixorsevenpercent.Thesafestinvestmentofall,whichwasapparentlyguaranteedbyallthe alleged resources of the Empire, were government stocks, which would pay fourpercent.

These were highly appealing rates, compared to those which people were used to.Middle-classFrenchmenswoonedat theprospectofdoublingtheirrevenueswithout theslightest risk.Theapparentsolidnessof thegiantwhichhadoutdoneNapoleon’sgeniusfilledtheFrenchwithblindconfidence:fortheydidnotknowthatitwasstandingonclayfeet.

The small savers, however, whose ignorance of geography is well known, felt aninstinctualmistrusttowardsanythingbeyondtheircountry’sborders.

Itwasnecessaryfortheirgovernmenttoannouncethattheirfearswereunfounded,andthatbymakingthisinvestmenttheywouldbekillingtwobirdswithonestone.Asidefromdoublingtheirrevenues,Frenchsaverswouldbepayinganacknowledgedservicetotheirowncountry:thankstotheformidablesupportwhichtheRussiangiantwouldgiveFranceinthecaseofwarwithGermanyundertheseconditions,thesepeoplewouldbeensuringthesafetyoftheirhomelandandhencetheirown.

Withthefamous‘steamroller’onone’sside,thingswouldnolongerhappenastheyhadin1870.Hesitationwasnotanoption:allpursesandpennybanksbetweenthePyreneesand theVosges,between theAtlantic and theMediterranean,wereemptied inaboutofindescribableenthusiasm.

Acapitalistwindofunusualforcethusstartedblowingfromthewesttotheeast.

Windofthissortusuallybringsrain,butinthiscaseitwasashowerofgoldthatFranceraineduponRussia–acountrywhichwasasdryasadesertinthisrespect.

Naturally,theRussiansweredelightedtoreceivethisdownpour.Thedelightwassharedbylandownersasmuchasthebourgeoisie.Itwastheformer,inparticular,whorejoiced,becauselifeinthecountrysidedidnotcostmorethanitusedto,anditwastimeforthingsto change there. Landowners started selling their produce for more, so that withoutacquiringanynewpropertytheymiraculouslybecamericher,asifinafairytale.

We have personally met a Russian landowner who received five hundred thousandroubles for the felling of his trees. When he had first inherited his property, whichincludedmorethanjusttheforest,ithadbeenevaluatedatfiftythousandroublesanditsannualyieldwasnomorethanonepointfivepercentofthissum.Withthehalfamillionroubles this owner obtained, he purchased some papers that returned six percent. Thehouse, fields, pastures, and vegetable garden–what he needs to support himself in thecountryside–hekept;andwhatismore,infiftyyearsorsohisheirswillhaveanewly-plantedforest.2

Previously,veryfewmeninRussiahadgrownrichinthisway,byoperatingconjuringtrickswithscribblesonpaper.Peoplewhodidsousedtobecontemptuouslycalled‘birdsof thesky’–anallusionto thebirds that,accordingto theGospel,ourgoodLordfeedswithout them ever having to sow, gather, or store anything.This shows just howmuchaversionRussianlandownersusedtohaveforcapitalistmethods.

Thisnewmannerofactingand livingseemedmagnificent. ItwasRussia’shoneymoonfor the holymatrimony it had contractedwithCapitalism – behindwhich the Jewwashiding inwaitofhisprey.Tocelebrate themarriage in style, sumptuousbanquetswereheld, filled with champagne and vodka. People genuinely believed to have found thesecret formula for changingwater intowine, asChrist haddoneatCana.Noone–noteven the Tsar and his advisors (except a few perhaps,whomwe shallmention later) –realisedthatsomethingcrucialhadchanged.Peoplefailedtoseethatarealrevolutionwastakingplace,onewithoutwhichtherevolutionof1917wouldneverhavebeenpossible.

ThegoodoldtimesinwhicheachmanwasthemasterofhishouseandGodalonethemasterofallweredeadandgone.

The state became the one responsible for pumping blood through the arteries of thecountry in the form ofmoney –which had suddenly become something indispensable.Russiathusceasedtobeachequerboardofautonomousunitsandindividualliberties.Thestatetooktheformofasingleeconomicandsocialbody.Onceindebt, itwasforcedtogain effective control over the country, not in order to increase its output of thoseresourcesdirectlyandgenuinelynecessaryforlife,buttoproducetheconstituentelementsof capital and credit, without which it now seemed quite impossible to manufactureanything.

TheTsaristregimehadnotexpresslywishedanyofthesechanges,whichflewinthefaceof its tradition and patriarchal heritage. Yet, the new state of affairs followed as aninevitableconsequenceofthehastyindustrialisationofthecountry,pursuedonthebasisofpoliticalconsiderationsaboutthepossibilityoffuturewar.Theonlystartingpointforthis industrialisation was the foreign credit which had been explicitly given for suchpurpose.Giventheseconditions,thenewindustrylackedanynaturalsupportintheformof land capable of feeding its workers and of furnishing them with what they neededwithout resorting to endless transactions. Consequently, both employers and employeeslackedanyimmediatemeansforsubsistence.

Thingscouldnothavebeenanydifferentforanindustrybasedoncredit,whoseworkers,managers,anddirectorindirectbackersnolongerlivedofftheland.Inthecountryside,bycontrast,wherepeople continued to support themselves through farming, as in thepast,employersandemployeescouldhavecontinuedcollaborating–astheirfathershaddone–without the intermediation ofmoney. Yet psychological factors came into play: peoplewerenolongersatisfiedwiththeoldwayofdoingthings.

Bynow,humanrelationshadturnedintorelationsbetweencreditorsanddebtors.Brass,silver, gold, and paper bills camebetweenmen as soon as thesewere divided into twocategories. In the books of so-called double-entry accounting, figures split even

individuals into two,making themcreditors anddebtors at one and the same time.Thedamagedonewasirreparable.

1Evolaadds,‘theso-calledmir’.—Ed.

2Evolaomitsthisentireparagraph.—Ed.

Stolypin’sEconomicReformJustbeforetheWar,aprovidentialmanappearedwhomightyethavefixedthesituation.

Nicholas II,who never accomplished a thing, had finally found aman up to the task:Stolypin.Hadthismannotbeenkilled,hewouldhavesavedRussia–andwithit,perhaps,theworld–fromthesubtleplagueofthesoul.

The tale of these events is still clouded by passions and distorted by shamelesspropaganda.ButthedaywillcomeinwhichjusticewillbegiventoStolypinbyassigninghimarightfulplaceamongthegreatbuildersofempires.

Weshallfocusforamomentonthisgreatwitnesstothe‘twilightofthegods’whomaJew’sbulletpreventedfromimplementingaplanmorefruitfulthanthatofPetertheGreatand Catherine the Great. These two sovereigns had built a vast empire which wasultimatelynothingbutagiantstandingonclayfeet.Tojudgefromthepolitical,economic,andsocialworkStolypincarriedoutintheshortperiodbetweenJune1906andSeptember1911,fifteenor twentyyearsofexternalpeacewouldhavesufficedfor thisprovidentialmantobuildagreatnationandpeople inplaceofall thechaosandincoherencehehadfound.

Stolypinhailedfromanoldnoblefamilybelongingtothegreatlandedaristocracy.Eversincehewasachild,hehadbeensteeped in feudal tradition.Hisblood thus ledhim togazebackatapastthatwasdeartohim.

Stolypin’s mind, on the other hand, was open to the future: hence, he was the veryoppositeofthosereactionaries–intheliteralsenseoftheterm–who,withtheirnarrowminds, instinctively react against all that is new and blindly cling to outdated formswithoutknowinghowtoseparatethewheatfromthechaff.1

Thisfeudalgentleman,thesonofagreatchamberlainofthecourt,spenthiswholelifefightingbothagainstthepeopleofhisownclass,whosawhimasadangerousinnovatorandmanofprogress(whichheindeedwas,intheliteralsenseoftheterm),andofcourseagainst the champions of alleged democratic progress,who rightly regarded him as theworstenemytheyhadeverbeheldandthemostseriousthreattotheirevilplans.

While of pureRussian stock, theStolypin familyowned some land in theprovinceofKovno.Itwastherethatthefuturemanofstatebeganhispoliticalcareer.

Stolypinmanagedtobringstabilitytoamilieuinwhichmisery,resentment,andmutualmistrust–causedby theRevolutionof1905– leftno roomforanycorporate2 spirit ofsocialcollaboration.

Within a fewyears of efforts, Stolypin did such a great job at easing relations amongclassesandracesthathecametotheattentionofNicholasII,whowasveryworriedbytheagrarianquestion.TheTsarappointedStolypingovernoroftheprovinceofGrodno,whichbordersKovno and is home to an ethnicallymixed population of Poles,WhiteRusyns,Jews,andRussians.

Asthenewgovernor,Stolypinwasnotmuchofabureaucrat.Heinsteadmadebrilliantuseofhisskillsasamanofsocialaction,focusinginparticularonanin-depthstudyoftheagrarianproblem,whichheregardedastheGordianknotoftheTsaristempire.

The political situation had taken a very dangerous turn. The Revolution of 1905 hadbrokenout,andpeasantrevoltswereravagingtheVolgaregions.StolypinwasforcedtoquithispeacefulworkinGrodnoandtakecommandoftheprovinceofSaratov,whichlayattheverycentreoftheuprising.

Hiswasaplaceofhonourandcombat–atestoffirebothintheliteralandmetaphoricalsense.

Stolypin gave proof of qualities that immediately made him stand out among thoseservingthethreatenedregime.

Toshedlightontheproblem,hedidnotturntothebooksandpamphletswrittenbythoseundercover villains who claim to be voicing the grievances of the people. Rather, hepersonally made enquiries among the people themselves – those folk he had been inregularcontactwitheversincehischildhoodandwhichheregardednotassomesortofmyth, but as a body comprised of living individuals.EverywhereStolypin received thesameresponsefromthemouthofthepeople–whichalonewasauthorisedtospeakinitsownname.

Letusherequotethedaughterofthefuturereformer,whoreportedoneoftherepliessheoncehappenedtooverhear:

‘Theysaiditwastruethatpillagingandransackingwasn’tgoingtosolveathing.Whenmyfatheraskedthemwhytheywerethenbehavinginsuchaway,oneofthemanswered,withapprovalfromallhisfellows:“WhatIwouldlikeisapieceof blue paperwith the imperial coat of arms assigningme andmy family fullownership over a small plot of land. I could pay for it over time: thank God,peopleworkinmyfamily.Butwhatisthepointofworkingatthemoment?Youloveyourland,trytofarmitthebestyoucan,betterthanallothers,andthentheycomeandtakeitawayfromyou–afteryouhaveputyourheartandsoulintoit;theygive it tosomeoneelse,and thefollowingyear thecommunesendsyou toworksomewhereelse.WhatIamtellingYourExcellencyistrueandmanyofmymatesagree:whybother?Lifeisalreadydullasitis,YourExcellency!”’

AlexandraStolypinadds:

‘Myfatherwasverysorrytohearall this.“PoorRussia,acountryofwoodandthatch,”hewouldoftensay. Inhismindhewouldpicture the thriving farmsofnearbyGermany: inwhatwere tiny plots of land compared to our vast plains,serene and tenacious men amassed produce and wealth generation aftergeneration.TurninghisgazetowardtheUrals,inhismindhewouldthentraversethelongprisoners’routeacrosstheAsianRussianempire:allofnature’streasureslayburiedthereinvirginsoil,immersedintheirancientslumber…’

Wehavequotedthislengthypassagebecauseitsumsupthewholestoryoftheoriginsof

theRussiancataclysm,asubjecttowhichmanybooksinalllanguageshavebeendevoted.

ItisfairtosaythateveryoneinRussiahadheardthisvoice,butthatonlyonemanchosetolistentoit.Andthisiswhyhewassuchagreatman.Forthesamereason,thisChristianandloyalservantofthethrone,thisautocratbybirthandfeudalgentlemanbypersuasionandtemperament,maybesaidtohavebeentheonlyrealdemocrat–him,andnotWitte,Bakunin,Miliukov,Chernov,Kerensky,Lenin,Trotsky,oranyofalltheotheranonymoussympathisersofdemocracy,betheyRussian,Western,orAmerican.

Bythen,thepathStolypinwastofollowuntilhisdeathhadbeentraced.Knowingthatsinsagainst the spiritof evil areneverpardoned in thisworld,hechose to sacrificehisownlifetohisvocationoftirelesslyworkingforthehappinessoftheRussianpeople.

ThisgreatlandownerneverlostsightofthefactthatRussia–andmoregenerallywhatisreferredtoasone’sfatherland(literally,‘thelandofone’sfathers’)–oughtnotturnintoabranchof internationalbusinessandaconsortiumforsmoothfinancial transactions;but,onthecontrary,thatitoughttorepresentone’sheritageandland,agreatlandtobeputtogooduseforthebenefitofitsinhabitants.

In linewithwhat iswritten in theGospel,whenStolypinwasrequiredtoputhisskillsandfaithtothetestinasmallarena,hedidnothesitatetodoso.

Timewasworkinginhisfavourandhisday–destinedtobeashortone–wasrapidlyapproaching.AssoonasthedissolutionoftheDumawasannounced,Goremykin–amanofanotheragewhowasnotreadytofacesuchevents–resigned.Hissuccessorwasboundtobetheonlymanwhohadchosenadifferentpath:Stolypin.

Thenewheadof thegovernmentenjoyed the trustofhis sovereign,and justifiablyso.Bothultimately shared the same ideas, but theTsar, a fearful andhesitantman,didnotknowhowtogoaboutimplementingthem.Stolypinwaspracticallyinvestedwithquasi-dictatorialpowers.

Fatewasofferinghimthechancetofulfilhislife’sdream.Fewmenhavesuchfortuneinthisworld. Stolypin felt that hewould pay for this great opportunitywith his own life.Thisforeboding,orratherwell-foundedcertainty,wasalwaysatthebackofhismind.Heeven told his family about it: for he was quite conscious of what Enemy he waschallenging,andindeedcertainthatthisEnemywouldnothesitatetokillhiminordertopreventhimfromspoilingtheirSatanicplan.

Forthisreason,Stolypintriednottowasteasingleminute.Postponingthecreationofanewelectorallaw,hewentstraightforhisgoal.

The most urgent task was to sever the Gordian knot that tied Russia to those causeswhichweredrivingittowardtheabyss–nottodiscusshowonemightgoaboutuntyingit.Thesecausesweresimpleones,asareallfirst,primalcauses.

Thechiefcauseofdisorder inRussiawasfermentandexasperationamong thepeople.Norevolutioninhistoryhaseverhadanyotherinitialmotivebehindit.Eveninthecaseofrevolutionsclassifiedasreligious,denominationalfactorsareusuallyonlywhatsparks

theflames–notthefuelwithoutwhichnoblazingfirewouldbepossible.

Theprimarycauseofthepeople’sexasperationwastheirmisery.Theywerecaughtinadeadlockbecausetheywereexpectedtoliveoffwhattheysowedandreaped,andyetnolongerhadanylandonwhichtosoworreapafteradecreehaddisenfranchisedtheserfs.Thesituationwasgrowingincreasinglyworsefromonegenerationtothenext.

Theprimarycauseoftheexasperationandfermentamongthepeoplewasthereforequiteclearandperfectlynatural.Ifanythingwascertainandevident,itwasthefactthattherewerenoothercauses.Sure,professors,lawyers,andjournalistsinParisandLondon–orevenSaintPetersburg andMoscow–were told thatwhat tantalised theRussianpeoplewasthedesiretohavedemocraticinstitutions.ButcountrygentlemensuchasStolypin–orevenmenfarlesssagaciousthanhim–couldhardlybuythesetales.

Oncetheproblemhasbeenposedintheseterms,itremainstobeascertainedwhetherthisinitialcause– thisdeadlockof themasses–mighthavebeendoneawaywith forgoodwithoutfirsthavingtograntconstitutions,conveneparliaments,andhandoverthepresstoJewishcapitalists.Haditbeenpossibletodowithoutsuchrestrictions,theprimarycause–theexasperationofthemasses–wouldhavebeenautomaticallysuppressed.Itisclearthatthiscausecouldindeedhavebeeneasilyremoved,atleastforonecentury.Russiawouldhavefounditselfinamostfortunateandprivilegedposition.

Homelandandcolonyatoneandthesametime(thecolonybeingbutanextensionofthehomeland),Russiahadenoughresourcesnotonlytofeedseveraltimesitsownpopulation,butalsotoprovideitsinhabitantswithalltheyneededtobecomesmalllandowners.Theonly requirement would have been for it to gradually extend eastwards in a plannedfashion.

Toattain thismagnificentgoal, therewouldhavebeennoneed to robanyone; in fact,alongsidesmallpropertiestherewouldhavebeenplentyofscopeforthecreationofnewmedium- and large-scale domains.Would there havebeen theneed– as hadoncebeenclaimedelsewhere,indifferentcircumstances–‘formoney,moremoney,alwaysmoney’?

Well, not really:Russiawas still a newcomer to the capitalist system, andmost of itsinhabitantswere still doing happilywithout any currency.Besides, even supposing thishad been the problem,with all themoneyWitte3 hadmanaged to borrow, therewouldhavebeenplentyoffundstocoloniseandmanageaportionoftheAsianRussianempireof a large enough size to avert the threat of agrarian congestion for quite some time.Indeed,capitalwouldneverhavebeeninvestedinamoreusefulandadvantageousmanner–withcostssoontobeamortisedandtheprospectofcountlessbenefitsinthefuture.

Withoutthehindranceofademocraticconstitution,withoutanyhostileand treacherouscollaboration from frenzied parliaments, and without having to allow Jews and socialturmoil maniacs to dishearten the people through the so-called free press, the Tsaristgovernmenthadeverythingitneeded,inamaterialsense,tocompletelyeradicatetheonlydecisivecausesoftheapproachingcataclysm.

TheTsarcouldthushavesuppressedtheveryraisond’etreofallfuturerevolutionsonce

and for all. Had he done so, we can confidently claim that neither the War nor theBolshevikRevolutionwouldhavetakenplace.

Stolypin’smerit does not lie somuch in having understood all this: formany others,especiallyamongthelandowners,reasonedalongmuchthesamelines.Stolypin,however,wastheonlyoneinhalfacenturytohavedrawnthelogicalconclusionsbyimmediatelytakingaction.

After amere fourmonths since Stolypin had come to power, a new agrarian lawwaspassed by imperial decree, establishing private property for farmers. This memorableeventbearsthedateof9November1906.

Alexander II’smistakewas thus at least partly rectified. Farmerswere now given theright – and indeed the opportunity – to break free from servitude under the commune,whichhadreplacedthattheyhadknownunderthelandowners.

Thefarmers’agrarianbank–aspecialinstitutionthatwasalreadyinexistence,butuntilthenhadsimplybeenoperatingasasortoftoolforRussifyingforeignregions–purchasedlandsat a lowcost.Adding theseproperties to thosealreadybelonging to the state, thebankputthemtopublicuse,enablingeachfarmertobuyaplotoncreditafterannouncingthat he was freely leaving the commune. Each farmer would only pay the bank whatmoneyhehad,astheimperialtreasurywouldmakeupthedifference.

Almostimmediately,halfamillionheadsoffamilycameintopossessionofalmostfourmillionhectares.

Thiswas inpracticewhenserfdomwas finallyabolished.Yet,because itdidnotmarkany‘progress’towardscollectivesocialisteconomy,butratherwasa‘regression’towardindividualismandprivateeconomy,thiseventdidnothavethesameliteraryandtheatricalresonance as Alexander II’s reform. Enthusiastically welcomed by the people, it washardlyappreciatedby theirallegedfriends,advocates,andspokesmen–who treated thepeopleassomesortofmyth.Itwasalsogivenadisconcertinglylukewarmreceptionbyliberalsandtheirpress.Asfortheforeignpress,itmerelylookedoninalmostcompletesilence.

In the eyes of this press, Stolypinwas a reactionary obscurantist and tyrant –why, itcouldn’t quite tell. Certainly, had Stolypin given over all land to be managed by ananonymous Jewish company in the name of the people – according to Communist orsocialistpractice–hewouldhavebeendescribedinverydifferentterms.

Confident in what he had done, Stolypin continued along his path, ignoring all thebarking dogs. In just a few years – and we have witnessed this with our own eyes –EuropeanRussia,asifundertheprotectionofagoodfairy,becamefilledwithagrowingnumberofsmall,wealthy,andhappyfarms.

Thiswasonlythebeginning.Insettingouttotransformone-sixthoftheworld,Stolypinhadafargreaterplaninmind.Tobuypropertyatafairpriceandthensellitundermoreadvantageousconditions, insuchawayas tocover the inevitabledeficitof the treasurywhichwas created by the taxpayers,was clearly a plan geared toward social solidarity.

Ultimately, it meant artificially supporting the unemployed at the expense of the state,throughtaxes.YetStolypin’splanwouldnothavebroughtonlyfinanciallosses,foritwasbasedonthehope–almostthecertainty–ofmakingupfortheselossesinthefuture.

Thisstrategy,ofcourse,wouldnothaveincreasedthewealthofthenation.Whileonthewholethiswouldhaveremainedlargelythesame,therewouldhavebeenadecreasefromthe point of view of the country’s yield. Manorial estates, which were cultivated andmanagedinamoreintelligentway,weremoreproductive:theirparcelling–evenifonlypartialandcarriedoutinaperfectlyhonestspirit–couldhardlybeexpectedtocontributetothecountry’sexports;infact,ithadtheexactoppositeeffect.Still,goodbusiness–ifwemayuse this expressionwhich capitalismhas distorted – consists ofman’s triumphovermatterandenergy,notoverhisneighbours.

In a country inwhich the farmers’ agriculturalmethodswere outdated, the transfer oflandswhichhad alreadybeen exploited and cultivated fromoneperson to another – orratherseveralothers–wasbad,ingeneraleconomicterms.ButStolypin’sapproachwasonlyanexpedientaimedatcurbingtheimmediateeffectsofsubversion,insuchawayastobuysometimeandsecureatleastwhatlittlepeacewasnecessaryforhimtocarryouthisambitiousplan.

Stolypin’smajor idea,whichwasoffarbroader import,was toputwhatwemightcallthevirgin landsof theeasternandAsiaticpartof theempire togooduse.Toattain thisgoal,he firstneeded topave theway for it, chieflyby improving theexistingmeansofcommunication.Otherwise,hewouldhaveacted like thoseoverlyhasty imitatorsof theWest,whoendupwithafruitthatisalreadyrottenbeforehavingevenreachedmaturity,asthestorygoes.4

Theseproblems,therefore,hadtobesolvedthroughcarefulplanning.

Stolypinwasfirstofallconcernedwithagriculture,whichprovidestheessentialsforlifeandavertsthedangerofhunger–thepreludetoallrevolutions.Afterthiscametransportand communication routes,which enable agricultural regions to supply thosewith littleSun,whileatthesametimeenablingthelatter–whichmayberichinotherresources–tofurnishtheformerwiththematerialstheyneedtoincreasetheiragriculturalyield.Finally,thereisminingandwhatlittleindustryisneededtomeetthefundamentalneedsofmanandthelandwithouthavingtocalluponhelpfromtheoutside.Themainpurposeofthisindustry was not to export any goods or nourish the banks through commerce, but toprovide agricultural implements, so that the whole economywould take the form of aclosedcircuit,sotospeak.

Onlyoncethisgroundfloor–thefoundationsofStolypin’seconomicplan–wouldhaveproven solid enough to support a superstructure would the upper floor have beenconstructed, in the formof large industry.Such industry,however,wouldnothavebeenwildlyexpandedaccordingtooffersofcredit,butonlydevelopedinaccordancewiththeavailabilityofrawmaterials–envisagedasthestartingpoint–aswellasthedemandforfinishedproducts.

Indeed,industrymustfollowtheextractionofrawmaterialsinagricultureandmining–

neverprecedeit.Toactotherwiseistoputthecartbeforethehorse.Ourgeneration,morethananyother,knowsalltoowellwhatasystemofthiskindleadsto.

The criterion of harmony also applies to economics. An ideal national economy – orprivate economy, for that matter – is one that leaves nothing undone which can beaccomplishedwithoutexternalaid.

Stolypin realised that only under these conditions could a perfect economicmodel bedeveloped,oneshieldedfromthevicissitudeofexternaleventsandfinancialplotting.Thisisnottosaythatfinancewouldnecessarilyhavebeenexcludedfromthiseconomicmodel.The latterwouldhavemadeuseof it to the extent towhich itwas convenient,withoutdepending upon finance or being at itsmercy: for an economy that is not sustained byfinanceislikeapersonhangingfromaropeintheclawsoftheJew.

For themostpart,weowe theTrans-SiberianRailway toMrWitte.This railway– thelongestoneonEarth–isanimposingworkthathonoursthepersonwhoconceiveditandoversawitsconstruction.Still,itiscurioustonotetowhatextentitbearsthestampofaman as steeped in capitalist ideas asWitte. TheTrans-Siberian does not run across thewealthiestportionsoftheAsianRussianempire,thosewhichwouldbethemostsuitedforinternal immigration and most likely to become local production centres. The mainpurposeofthisformidablerailway–itgenuineraisond’etre–ratherappearstobethatofprovidingtheshortestpossibleroutetoconnectthedenselypopulatedregionsofwesternRussia–andviathem,Europe–toChinaandthePacificOcean,insuchawayastoopenupawindowonanotherseaforthedescendantsofPetertheGreat.

With its boundless riches stillwaiting to be explored and exploited, and stretching forthousands of kilometres, Siberia had merely been regarded in this framework as anobstacle to be overcome – the main concern being transport, commerce, and financialinterests.

The apparently similarwork thatStolypinhad inmind–butwhich anuntimelydeathpreventedhimfromfullyaccomplishing–wasactuallyofacompletelydifferentsort.TheSouthernTrans-Siberianranacrossthemostfertileregions,thosemostsuitedforinternalcolonisation.While shorter than theother railway, itwas still the second-longestone inEurope.

ThecreationofthefirstTrans-SiberianhadbeenmetwithenthusiasmbytheEuropeanpress because it had shortened the distance between the headquarters of the financialinstitutionsinParis,London,andBerlinandtheirPekingorShanghaibranches.Thissamepress,bycontrast,hardlyevermentionedthecolossalprojectofthesecondrailway.Thereason for this is that the creation of the Southern Trans-Siberianwas only of genuineimportancetotheRussianpeople.Thelatter,however,waspresentedasbeingmercilesslyexploitedby its greatest benefactor,while its impersonal namewasused to conceal theaspirationsofIsrael,inwhosewaystoodtheTsar.

Aquicklookatstatisticswillhelpmakethingsclearer.

In1895, after threehundredyearsofRussian rule,Siberia–which covers a farwider

surface than thewholeofEurope–was inhabitedby4,000,000people, someofwhomwere descended from deported political prisoners or ordinary criminals. Between 1895and1907,inotherwordsfromtheopeningofthefirstTrans-SiberiantoStolypin’srisetopower, this population increased by 1,500,000. In the three following years, underStolypin’sadministration, it increasedbyalmost2,000,000,despitethefact that thenewrailwayhadnotyetbeencompleted.

Had this reasonable pacebeenkept up, by1922 thepopulationofSiberiawouldhaveincreased by 10,000,000. Indeed, thanks to the new railway and to the fact that theRussianswouldhavestirredfromtheirage-oldapathyunderagovernmentwhichdevotedallitsenergytothistask,itislikelythatthisfigurewouldsoonhavemultipliedbyafactorofthreeorfour.

AccordingtotheestimatesweweregivenbypeopleclosetotheformerPrimeMinister,theRussianemigrantpopulationinSiberiaandTurkestanduringtheyears1920-30oughttohavereachedafigurebetween30and40,000,000.Thesewouldnothavebeenthirtyorforty million teeth-gritting, barefooted proletarians fighting for a miserable wage, butthirtyor fortymillion small landowners:well-off,prosperousmenwhowouldhavehadmore land and natural resources thanmost French farmers.Thirty or fortymillionmenleading happy lives, confident of their future, satisfied with their lot and enjoying thehighestpossibledegreeof economic independencewouldhave constituted a formidablebarrier against any sort of revolution: in no country in the world is such a powerfulconservativeandreactionaryforcetobefoundtoday.

TheonlyunquestionablebenefitbroughtbytheFrenchRevolutionwastheimprovementoftheeconomicconditionsofthepeasantclass.Godknowshowoftenthisrefrainisusedand abused today to excuse the abominations of the Revolution. At the cost of whatblatantrobberiesandglaringinjusticeswasthisimprovementachieved?

Withoutharmingasouloreverdepartingfromthemostscrupulousmoralityandlegality,Stolypintookapathwhichwouldhaveleddirectlytoafarmoreconsiderableoutcome.

1Evolaomitsthefollowingfiveparagraphsfromhisedition.—Ed.

2Corporate, in thesenseofa typeofsociety inwhichcitizensareorganised intogroupsbasedon thefunction theyperformforthebodyoftheentiresocietyitself,suchasagriculture,themilitary,oradministration.—Ed.

3SergeiWitte(1849-1915)wasanadvisortothelasttwoTsarsofRussia.HeoversawtheindustrialisationofRussiaandwas theauthorof the1905OctoberManifesto,whichwaswritten in response to theRevolutionof1905and thesubsequentneedfordemocraticreforms,andwastheprecursortotheRussianEmpire’sconstitution.—Ed.

4Evolaomitsthislastsentence.—Ed.

Stolypin’sWork:CapitalismandPropertyStolypinwasnotonlythecreatorofcountlessestates,butalsoofwhatnecessarilycamewith them,namely,asmany individual liberties.Thebêtenoireof liberalpartieswas infactagreatliberal,inthathecreatedmillionsoffreeandindependentmen.

AnditisnotinspiteofthefactthatStolypinwasafeudalgentlemanbybreedingdowntotheverymarrowofhisbones,butpreciselybecauseof this, thatheacted thewayhedid.Hisaimwas tomake the feudalismhe lovedablessing for thewholenation ratherthan the exclusive privilege of one class, as it had been in theMiddleAges. The onlypeoplewhowillfindwhatwearesayingparadoxicalwillbethosewhostruggletograspthetruenatureoffeudalism,andonlyseeitslimitsandshortcomings.

Thedetractorsoftheoldregimes,whosejobconsistsofdistortinghistoricalfacts,havemanagedtoconfusetwocompletelydifferentthings:feudalismandservitude.Whereastheformer reflects the relation between lords and their sovereign, or the mutual relationamonglords,thelatterdescribesthelords’relationtothepeasants,theirserfs.

Feudalism is a specific product of the ChristianMiddle Ages, by virtue of which allmembersofthelandedaristocracy,includingminorcountrysquires,exerciseindependentsovereigntyovertheirownlands–justasanemperororkingdoesoverhisterritory.Anemperororkingwillbethesuzerainofnoblemen,butnottheirmaster.They,inturn,willnot be his slaves, but rather his soldiers and military cadres, and this for their ownpersonalsafety–foreachofthemindividuallycouldneveradequatelydefendhimselfintheeventofconflictwithothernoblesoranotherking.

Inmodernterms,feudalismwasafederationofindependentownerswithsharedinterestswhoheldsovereigntyovertheirdomains–afederationensuringthesafetyofeachofitsmembers.Theonewhowieldedthegreatestpowerbyvirtueofinheritancepresidedoverthe federation – as onemight say nowadays. This personwas an emperor or king, thesuzerain of princes and dukes. Each of these princes or dukes, as intermediaries in thehierarchy,exercisedthesamerolevisàvisthelowerstrataofthearistocracy.

All ofStolypin’s effortswere directed at turning eachmanof the people into a small,independent lord and individual sovereign within his own domain, like a baron of theMiddleAges.Likebarons, thesemenwouldhavebecomevassals and tributariesof thecrown: theywouldhavebeenexpected toobey its lawsandconform to the rulesof theChristianfaith.Theywouldhaveofferedcertainservicestothekingandreceivedcertainbenefitsinexchange.Bycontrast,theFrenchRevolutionhadstriventoturneachmanofthe people into an interdependent member and ideal representative of a collective,impersonal,andanonymousformofsovereignty.

Stolypin’s idea was to create an individualist and decentralised society founded onprivate property. The idea of modern democracy is instead to create a collective andcentralisedsocietyfoundedonanonymouscapital.

StolypintriedtopushChristianfeudalismtoitsfinalconsequencesthroughaprocessof

ennoblement and de-proletarianisation extending to the very bottom, just as theRevolutionhadpushedpagandemocracy to its final consequences throughaprocessofproletarianisationextendingtotheverytop.

Thetreeplantedbytherevolutionstounderminefeudalism(insteadofextendingittothewhole of humanity, as needed to be done) is the capitalist system, and its fruits arepoisonousones.Wewilldie from them, sincewecannotcontinue to live in thisabsurdmannerforever.

Weshallperishbecausethefirstcommandmentofourmercantilecivilisation,createdbyJewsforJews,istoonlyeatwhathasbeenpurchasedwithmoney,afterhavingsoldwhatonehasproducedtogetthismoney.

Theoutcomeofthisprocessisanextraordinaryviciouscircle.Ontheonehandtherearepeoplewho are suffering from hunger because they are not able to sell their labour inreturnformoney,whichtheycanusetopurchasefood.Ontheotherhand,therearepeoplewhoaredestroyingtheirfoodstocksbecausetheyarenotabletofindanyonetosellthemto in return for money which they can then use to purchase the labour of theaforementionedmen,whowouldthenhavesomemoneytobuyfood.

Itisforbiddentoliveinanyotherwayexceptthroughmoney.Itisforbiddentoproducewhat would enable one to live without it. Never have regulations been more strictlyfollowed,norconventionsmorecarefullyobserved.

What we have is a country overflowing with essential goods in which half of thepopulation lacks food, housing, clothes, or fuel, as it does not have any money forpurchasing the things it needs. It could only get thismoneyby selling its labour to theotherhalfofthepopulation,whichisalsoshortofmoneybecause–aswehaveseen–itsuffersfromanoverabundanceofessentialgoodswhichitcannotsell.

Thestateisquiterightlyalarmedatthethoughtthatthosewhohavenothing,likeapackofhungrydogs,mayendupattackingthosewhoaresufferingfromanoverabundanceofgoods.Soitdecidestoact–justhow,weshallnowsee.

The state collects the taxes paid by the rich, or rather those classified as rich – thosesufferingfromoverabundance.Butthese,aswehaveseen,areoverflowingwithanythingbutmoney,astheycannotselltheiractualgoods.TheymightconsiderthemselvesluckyiftheymanagetopayofftheShylockfundingthemandavoiddeclaringbankruptcy.

Whatthestateisinurgentneedofarerathersuppliestofeedthehungry,andclothestodress those who are cold. It should ask the rich, then, who are overwhelmed by theirabundance,notforthemoneytheydonothave,butforpartofthestockstheydonotknowhowtodisposeof,andwhichwouldprovideexactlywhatthepoorneed.

Thissolutionwouldappeartobethemostrationalone,ineconomicterms.Itwouldhavetheadvantageofbenefittingbothparties,inotherwordsthevastmajorityofhumanityanditsmostsignificantminority.Inquantitativeandqualitativeterms,thiswouldincludethepeoplewhoproduce throughtheirworkand thosewhoproducebymakingotherswork.Yet,becauseasimilarsolutionwouldgoagainstthetinyminorityofvultureswhoneither

sow nor reap, neither work nor make others work, but simply grow rich through thefrenzied circulation of capital, the modern capitalist state prefers to adopt a differentsolution,onethatbeatsallrecordsofstrangeness.

What the state does is ask those taxpayers who are overflowing with the goods theunemployedneedfortheonlythingtheylack:money.Itforcesthemtosellsomeoftheirstocksatalowpricetotheaforementionedvultures,sothattheyendupbeinginevenlessofapositiontoofferworkersanyjobs.Thesecheapstocksthevulturesthenimmediatelysellatahighpricetotheunemployed,whopurchasethemwiththemoneythestatehastakenfromtheproducersofthegoods.

Thebalanceof this ingenious operation ismost edifying: sheer loss for producers andemployers,whoselltheirgoodsatalowpriceforthebenefitofparasites;sheerlossfortheunemployed,whopurchasegoodsatahighprice for theprofitof thesaidparasites;and,finally,sheerlossforthestateaswell–addingtoitsotherinevitablelosses–alongwith a predictable rise in future unemployment rates.On the other hand, this operationmeansprofitall roundfor theonlymiddlemenmanipulatingthecurrency– inshort, theabsolute triumph of merchants and Jews, with the prospect of things automaticallycontinuinginthesamedirection.

Themiseryoftheworkers,theruinofthosegivingthemjobs,thebankruptcyofthestateandthethreatofsocial turmoilareallconsideredpreferabletotheideaofgivinguptheintermediationofmoney–asiftherecouldbenohopeforhumanityoutsidethecapitalistsystem.

Itcannotbedeniedthatamongtheserancorousvictimsthereisasteadilygrowing(andhencethreatening)numberofpeoplewhoarealreadybrandishingaxesoutoftheburning,and indeed even legitimate and understandable, desire to fell this poisonous trunk –poisonousforall,thatis,excepttheJewsandtheiracolytes.

Onewouldbeonly toohappyto lend thesemenahand,were theyproposinganythingotherthanwhatotherJewspaidbyandaccomplicetotheformeronesarewhisperingintheirears.

Asmightbe expected,what the Jews are suggesting forChristians todo against otherJewsasawayofredeemingthecapitalistsin isactually–under theguiseofasupremeremedy – the most colossal exacerbation of the same ill, namely: the despotic anduniversalpan-capitalismthat,underthenameofCommunism,hasbeenraginginRussiaforoverfifteenyears,1bringingmaterialmisery,moraldecadence,andcompleteservitudeto150millionpeople.

One is led to wonder whether there is any solution for humanity outside these twoalternatives,themostrecentofwhichisevenworsethantheoldone.

Indeed, there is, and it consists of the pure and simple return to the path we haveabandoned,namelypropertyownershipofafeudaltype,inwhichwhatmatterareobjectsand living people – not figures and symbols. This time, the feudal regime could notoperatefortheexclusivebenefitofaprivilegedclass:wholecommunities–or,tobemore

accurate, the countless individuals comprising them – would have to benefit from thesystem.

Herein lies theprofound significanceof thepolitical, economic, and social experimentthatStolypinembarkeduponbetween1906, thedateofhiscoming topower,and1911,thedateofhisassassination.

Weshouldadd that, inorder fora similarproject tobe feasible, itwasnotenough fortheretosimplybeamanlikeStolypincapableofimplementingit:whatwasalsorequiredwasaterritorysufficientlyvastinrelationtothenumberofitsinhabitants.AndsuchwastheRussianEmpire.

AnotheradvantagethatshouldnotbeoverlookedisthefactthattheRussianpeoplehadnotyetfullyassimilatedthecapitalistmentality,whichissodifficulttoeradicate,andthat,forthemostpart,ithadnotcompletelylostthehabitofobeying.

Besides,itismostlikelythatStolypinwouldneverhaveconceivedaprojectofthissorthadhebeenaFrench,British,Italian,orAmericanminister.Todoso,oneneededtohavethe old sense of property ownership running through one’s veins; and in Westerncountries,evenamongtheheirsoffeudalfamilies,thisfeelinghadalreadybeenlostafteracenturyofcapitalisthabituation.

Nowadays,peoplewillhardlyunderstandusifwesaythat,betweenalandownerandaking,orone’s inheritanceandone’s country, there isonlyadifferenceofdegreeon thesamescaleofvalues.Indeed,formodernman,alandownerisonlyatypeofcapitalist;aninheritance,aninvestmentofcapital;aking,amagistrateinoffice;andone’scountry,anidealisedconsortiumortradingpost.

Stolypin, by contrast, had this innate feeling, which is becoming rarer and rarernowadays.This iswhatmadehimamost formidablechampionof economicand socialconceptionswhichwereradicallyopposedtothosewhichemergedfromtheReformationandtheFrenchRevolution.Hewassoformidableanadversary,infact,thathewasboundtobeassassinated.Hadhelivedandgovernedforthirtyyearsorso,andifpeaceinEuropehadnotbeenbroken,itismostlikelythathewouldhaveturnedtheanarchicalandchaoticRussiaofhisdayintoanunprecedentedmasterpiece.Anycomparisonwithdemocracieswould have been rather unflattering for the latter: governed by collective economy,democraciesowedtheirprestigeandthefetishismtheyweremadetheobjectoftothefactthatconservatives–oratanyratepeoplelabelledassuch–hadnobetteralternativetooptfor.

The Russia Stolypin had in mind would not have been simply a federation of smallfarms:itwouldalsohaveincludedmiddle-sizeandlargeestates.Itisworthstressingthispoint, as it stands in open contrast to the blind belief according towhich allmenmustnecessarilybeequalandalike.

As one might guess, Stolypin was not opposing the men of his class – the largelandowners. Very wisely, he wished to create new large properties that could act asgravitationalcentresfortheconstellationsofsmallpropertiesinalltheareasaffectedby

hisreform.

Stolypin necessarily envisaged these new large estates as models of high culture andsourcesoffarmoreeffectivemoralinfluenceuponsurroundingpeasantcommunitiesthanthebureaucracyhequiterightlydistrusted–forhewasconsciousofitscorruptnatureandconcealed revolutionary tendencies. Stolypin deemed the establishment of new largeestates essential because he saw them as the starting point for a future process ofindustrialisation. He acknowledge the crucial importance of this process for a modernnationdestinedtobecome–becausecapableofdoingso–theonecountryleastdependentuponothers,andatthesamethatwhichothershadmostneedof.

Still,StolypindidnotenvisagethisprocessofindustrialisationinthesametermsashispredecessorWittehaddone,whichistosayasaprocessbasedonconquestatthehandsofanonymous capital and international Jewry of what Russian territory still remainedunexplored, so as to turn it into an area of economic penetration, if not colonisation.Stolypinrathersawthisprocessasaformofproductivemutualcooperationbetweenlargeestatesontheonehandandtheworkersandresourcesofthesmallestatesontheother.Atthe same time, he did not disregard the possibility that, especially in the first phase,supportmightpotentiallycomefromeasilyandswiftlyredeemablecapital.Inthisorderofthings,asinmanyothers,thereisnothingasdireastoneglectopportunitiesbystubbornlystickingtoarigidprinciple.2

StolypinhadlongbeenacquaintedwiththesugarfactoriesownedbycountrygentlemeninUkraine.Each landownerwouldmanagemore thanoneplant–up to ten, at times–without incurring any debts to cover investments costs, without depending upon themarketfortheacquisitionofrawmaterial(forhewouldusehisownbeetroot,orthoseofhisneighbour,throughspecialarrangements),andwithoutthehelpofanyworkforceotherthan farmers fromsurroundingareas.Thiswasquite enough tomakeRussiaoneof theworld’sleadingexportersofsugar.

Much in the same way, the country gentlemen who farmed sheep had set up woolindustries without ever depending upon faraway investors or creditors. The owners oflarge forests had likewise set up sawmills andotherworkshops, such as paper factories(forwhichwoodrepresentsaprimaryresource).

Others had gotten together with relatives, friends, neighbours, or other partners –hereditarylandownersthemselves–andcreatedimportantindustriesalloverthecountry.

InLivoniaandCourland–theprovinceofKovnoinpresent-dayLatvia–Stolypinhadhad many a chance to study the holdings established by the Baltic barons, admirablepocketsofWesternculture(inthebestpossiblesenseoftheterm).Heretoo,industryhaddone its best to accomplish the work of agriculture without any external help – hencewithoutpeopleforgoingtheirindependenceorrunningtheslightestrisk.

The principle generally followed by country gentlemenwas the idea that the best andmostlogicalinvestmentofnetrevenueisnotdonethroughbanksorbypurchasingstocksand bonds for a business managed by unknown people God knows where. The bestinvestment, they reckoned,was theirownancestral land, theobjectof their affectionate

attentionandlegitimatepride.Fromfathertoson,theywouldtrytoimproveitandmakeitmoreattractive,askingsmightdowiththeirkingdoms:fortheywerenotbirdsofpassage,butactuallylivedontheland.Inotherwords,eachlandownerwasindissolublytiedtohisinheritance, which represented his raison d’être and would often bear his very name.Moneycomesandgoes,butlandremains–althoughthetimesinwhichpeoplebelievedthisarelonggone.3

In selling their wheat, beetroot, or wool to millers, sugar manufacturers, or weavers,landowners figured they had no reason to benefit external producers andmiddlemen: itmademore sense for them to reserve suchbenefits for themselves. In suchaway,verysignificantindustriesweregraduallyestablishedwithoutanycredit,fortheprofitnotonlyoftheirowners,butalsoofthesurroundingareas,inwhichthesegentlemenstillexercisedmoralauthority.

AswhatwasdonefortheRussiansoilcouldalsohavebeendoneforitssubsoil,whichwasjustasrich,itisreasonabletoimaginethat,inamoredistantfuture,bothverticalandhorizontal trustswouldhavebeensetup.Thiswouldhaveentailed thecreationofwhathasnowbecomethelatestfashionincapitalism,yet insuchamannerasnot to infringeuponprivatelandedproperty,genuinevalues,andrelationships,andthedynasticstabilityoftheholdersofthestrictlymutualcredit,whichwouldhavebeenpaidoffwithinaclosedcircuitandcoveredthroughreciprocalpersonalservices.

Theattainmentof this resultwouldhaveclearlyproven the superiorityof thepropertysystemoverthecapitalistone.Onlyanunflatteringmemorywouldhaveremainedofthedays inwhichgenerationsfollowing the torchofJewrybelieved theonlychoicefor thehumanracewasbetweenIsraelitecapitalismandJewishCommunism.

A crisis such as the onewe are currently experiencing – a paradoxical crisis of over-production–wouldhavebeenquiteunthinkableinasystembasedonlandedproperty.Insuchasystem,acrisisofthissortwouldratherhavebeenregardedasaheavenlyblessing.

InthedayofJoseph,thesonofJacobandministertothePharaoh,sevenyearsofgoodharvestswerecertainlynottreatedasanover-productioncrisis.

Capitalism thus disqualifies and condemns itself by formulating the astoundingconclusion thatover-abundanceengendersmisery,aconclusionmatchedby itsassertionthatcreditequalswealth.

Regrettably,allthisonlyappearstohavegonetotheprofitofsocialism,whichisnothingbutcapitalismmultiplied.

Itisimportanttopointout,therefore,thatatthebeginningofthiscentury,whichisevenmore foolish than the previous one, there was a man who had suggested a differentsolutionandevenstartedimplementingit.

In this context, we wish to reserve a word of praise for Nicholas II. People usuallycompare him to Louis XVI. But if a bullet from a wretched Jew had not changed thecourseofhistory, theTsarmight ratherhavebeencompared toLouisXIII:4 for like thelatter,hemanagedtofind–atleastononeoccasion–therightmanandtokeephimin

powerdespiteandagainstall.

Stolypin’s foresightmakes him a greater figure thanRichelieu.By centralisingFranceand seeking to destroy its feudal structure, the latter paved theway not only for LouisXIV’s sun,5 but also – without realising it – for Louis XVI’s guillotine. Had he hadenough time, Stolypin would instead have delivered a mortal blow against the risingrevolutioninRussia,insuchawayastochecktheprogressofworldsubversionforquitesometime.HeappearstohavebeentheonlymanofhisgenerationinpowertohavebeenclearlyawareoftheplanofSubversion.

The history ofRussia in recent years thus shows that it is enough for a given humanpersonalitytoappearnotonlyforcertaindevelopments–causedbythedeficienciesandfoolishnessofothermen–tocometoaclearhalt,butalsototurnthisdescendingcourseintoanascendingone.Atthesametime,itshowsthatitisenoughforsuchapersonalityto disappear for the exact opposite tendencies to resume their course as if nothing hadhappened, thanks to the foolishness, blunders, and shortcomings of men who haverevertedtotheiroldways.

Consideringwhatwas accomplished inRussia in the four years inwhich fate put thehelmofthecountryinthehandsofamanwhosegreatgeniuschieflyconsistedofneverforgetting that two and two make four, it is easy to imagine would could have beenaccomplishedinaquarterofacentury.6

‘Ourmaingoal’–Stolypinoncetoldajournalist–‘istostrengthenthefarmingfolk.Initliesthestrengthofthecountry,andwealreadyhaveover100millionfarmers.Believeme,iftherootsofthecountrygrowstrongandhealthy,Russia’svoicewillresoundwithnewintensity throughoutEuropeand theworld.Mymotto is shared labourbasedonmutualtrust.TomorrowitwillbethemottoofallRussians.GiveRussiatenyearsofpeaceanditwillseemlikeadifferentcountry.’

Only four years had passed, and it already seemed like a different country. Russia’spotentialpoliticalenemiesabroad,suchastheGermans,weregnashingtheirteeth.

Socialenemiesweredisintegrating,andtheriftwithintheSocialDemocraticPartywasgrowingwiderandwider.TheMensheviks,theRightwingoftheparty,declaredthattheywerereadytoworkpeacefullywiththegovernment:theybelievedtherevolutionwasdeadandburied,andtreatedtheBolsheviks(theLeftwing)asstubbornutopianswhocontinuedtohopeinanupheaval–seeingtheoneof1905asasortofdressrehearsalforit.

ManyofthefoundersofthePartydistancedthemselvesfromtheBolsheviksandadoptedamoreconciliatoryapproach.Among thesewasPlekhanov,7 oneof theparty’spundits.Lenin,inhisstubbornness,wassimplytreatedasamaniac.

Duringthelastcongressofthepartybeforetheoutbreakofthewar–ameetingheldinLondonin1907–theBolsheviksonlygot themajority throughthehelpofanofficiallyJewish organisation, the Bund for Latvian and Polish Social Democracy.8 Its mostillustrious representative was the famous Jewess known under the pseudonym of RosaLuxemburg,9whopresentedherselfasaGermanelevenyearslater.

The last embersof the fireof 1905hadgoneout.Thepacificationof the countrywascomplete, and Stolypin’s speeches in the House of Lords or in any other place wereinvariably met with thunderous applause. There was no reason to believe that thingswouldnotcontinuethiswayandget increasinglybetter.Thisenduringprogresswasnotthe result of a combination of circumstances or of more or less subtle manoeuvres ofinternal or external politics: itwas due to solid and permanent causes that had nothingartificialoraccidentalaboutthem.

1Evolasubstitutes,‘fortwenty-oneyears’.—Ed.

2Evolaomitsthefollowingfourparagraphs.—Ed.

3Evolaomitsthislastsentence.—Ed.

4CardinalRichelieuwasoneofLouisXIII’sadvisors.—Ed.

5LouisXIV(1638-1715)wastheKingofFrancewhenitwasattheheightofitspower,andwasknownasthe‘SunKing’.—Ed.

6Evolaomitsthisparagraph.—Ed.

7 Georgi Plekhanov (1856-1918)was one of the first RussianMarxists, and he opposed theBolsheviks from 1905onwards,feelingthattheirstrategiesdidnotcorrespondtotherealityofthehistoricalsituationtheywerein.—Ed.

8DePoncinsmaybeconflating twoorganisationshere: theGeneral JewishLabourBundofLithuania,Poland, andRussia; the Latvian Social Democratic Party; and the Polish Social Democratic Party, all of which supported theBolsheviksattheFifthCongressoftheRussianSocialDemocraticLabourPartyinLondonin1907.—Ed.

9Rosa Luxemburg (1871–1919)was aGerman-JewishCommunist leader and one of thefounders of the SpartacusLeague,originallyfromPolandbutwhobecameaGermancitizen.ShewasexecutedbytheFreikorpsforherroleintheSpartacistuprisinginJanuary1919,duringtheGermanRevolution.—Ed.

StolypinandtheJewishQuestion1

Asonemighthaveexpected,Stolypin’sworkcameupagainstthehostilityofIsrael.

Certainly,Stolypinwasnotexactlyfondofthisrace:likeallwell-informedRussians,heregarded Jewry as the enemy par excellence, the inherently hostile element behind allrevolutionaryattacks.YetitisequallycertainthatnotraceofinjusticetowardtheJewsassuchcanbefoundinhisgovernment’spolicies.

At thesametime,noRussianstatesman,notevenamongthemostheavy-handedones,haseverbeenmorehatedbyinternationalJewrythanStolypin.

To realise this,weonlyneed to lookat foreignnewspapers,andespeciallyBritishandAmericanones,whicharealmostinvariablyinthepayofIsrael.

WestillrememberthefirstlinesofanarticlethatappearedinoneoftheleadingLondonnewspapers – an allegedly conservative one, too. From Saint Petersburg, the paper’sforeigncorrespondentgaveanaccountoftheinterviewhehadconductedwiththeRussianPrime Minister: ‘Here I was, then, in the beast’s den… I examined the surroundings,withoutnoticinganythingunusualaboutthem…’2

Wemight expect to find similar language in the account of a meeting with Stalin orTrotsky,orperhapsMarat,Robespierre,orCromwell–allofwhomhavespilledriversofblood. But Stolypin had hugely benefited millions of poor farmers by delivering themfrom an unbearable yoke. The fact that this yoke had been imposed upon them bycommunes rather than lords did not make it any lighter – despite what certain pettysophistsliketoclaim.

Stolypin never shed anyone’s blood, except that of sentenced and executedrevolutionaries,whowould havemet the same fate in any civilised country, under anyregime. Republican France in 1871 had treated the Communards in exactly the samemanner,andyetitcontinuedtoberegardedasthebirthplaceoftheliberal,generous,andenlightenedideasoftheage.

Stolypin had been forced to dissolve the parliament twice because it had becomeungovernable.Thiscaneasilybeseenfromthetranscriptsofitssessions,whichwerenomystery to foreign journalists. If, after these two experiences, he also changed theelectorallaw,thiswasonlytoavoidhavingtosetupathirdparliament,whichwasboundtomeetthesamefateasthetwopreviousones.

Ultimately, Stolypin did not persecute the Jews more than any other citizens of theEmpire. Even ifwewere to believe thewidespread slander according towhich the so-called ‘pogroms’were caused by theTsarist police, the fact remains that no ‘pogroms’evertookplaceinRussiaunderStolypin.

Butwhile Stolypin never persecuted the Jews as individuals, he collectively did themmoreharmthanifhehadcold-bloodedlyexterminatedafewtensof thousandsof them.Stolypin personally did the Jews far more harm than all the ministers, governors, and

Tsaristpolicemeninhalfacentury.Itiseasytoseehow,forallspeciesofmigratorybirdslivingeverywhereandconstantlyonthemove,andallcategoriesofparasiteslivingoffthesweat and toil of others, Stolypin’s economic system threatened to turn into a realcatastrophe.

Christians tempted and demoralised by others’ bad example only led this sort of easyexistence at the expense of hard-working and sedentary inhabitants occasionally, as adeliberatechoice.Atanytimetheycouldreverttotheirancestors’lifestyle.ButtheJews,who had never lived in any other manner, actually considered this way of life to beperfectlynormal.Sowhen itwasbrought to an end, theywere forced todisappear andemigrate.

NeverhavetherebeensomanypassportrequestsfrompeopleinRussiawishingtoleavefor theUnitedStatesasunderAlexander IandAlexander II,when theTsarspartitionedPolandandinheriteditsJews.Thegovernmentwasalltooglad,ofcourse,toissuethesepapers.StolypinthusgreatlycontributedtoincreasingthepopulationoftheghettoesinthebigcitiesoftheNewWorld.

LiketheirancestorsinthetimeofMoses,thewretchedJewsfledRussia,whichwaslikea newEgypt for them, even though theywere not being forced to build any pyramidsunderthethreatofthewhip.Still–andthiswasevenworseintheireyes–theyfelttherewas less and less room for them and theirmethods inRussia.Their powerful brethren,however,whofabricatedconsensusandissuedcredit(afterhavingmadepeoplebelieveitwasthesameaswealth),didnotsoreadilyaccepttheideaoflosingincalculableprofitsintheRussianEmpire. It is also likely that theywere alarmedby the fact that amanhadshowntohiscontemporaries,bymeansofexperiments,thatotherwaysoflifeandmodesofhumaninteractionexistedapartfromcapitalismandsocialism.

As everything in thisworld is relative, it is clear that for the above-mentionedmilieu,StolypinmusthaveembodiedwhatLeninandTrotskyembodyintheeyesofourhonestChristian contemporaries, or what Danton and Robespierrewere for eighteenth-centurysociety: a dangerous threat to the social order and to established values. Stolypin,therefore,hadtobeportrayedasanoppressorofthepeopleandanobstacletoprogress.Thisispreciselywhatthethousandvoicesofthesubservientpresstriedtodobeforetheassembly of spellbound nations.The conclusionwas that itwas necessary to get rid ofStolypin as soon as possible, before hemight have the time to carry out his plan, thussettinganexampleforotherstofollow.

WecannowunderstandwhyStolypinwasseenasabeastbythatjournalist–soupsettofindhimself in its lair – even thoughhehadneverdevoured anyone.Likewise,wecanunderstandwhyonlyruinsremainedof this formidablemonster’sdenashort timelater,thevillainSaintPetersburgwhichthestateusedtoreserveforministersinpower.AbombthrownbyJewsdressedasofficialsexplodedonedaywhentheheadof thegovernmentwasgivingahearing.Ahundredorsoinnocentpeopledied:theministerhimselfescapedunscathed,buthisyoungchildrenweremaimed.

ThishappenedatthebeginningofStolypin’scareerasaminister.Anunbrokenchainof

attempts on his life followed, which the police managed to thwart. Stolypin was toointelligent a man to need anymementomori of this sort in order to realise that, onceengagedinsuchabattle,hecouldhardlyhopetodieanaturaldeath.

Throughout the fruitful years in which he was in power, Stolypin was ready to besummonedbyGodatanymoment.AgoodChristiandeterminedtofulfilhisdutytotheveryendanddieasasoldier,heserenelyawaitedGod’sjudgement.3

WhatwasfatallydestinedtohappentookplaceinSeptember1911inKiev,theoldcitywhich the Russians regard as the cradle of their civilisation. On the occasion of theinaugurationofamonumenttoAlexanderII,agalaeventwasorganisedwhichwasgracedbythepresenceoftheimperialcouple,thecourt,andthehighestdignitariesoftheEmpire.

Seatswereby invitationonly,buta fewhadbeensetaside for thesecurityagents (theOkhrana).During an interval, as thePrimeMinister rested against thebalustrade in thefirstrowneartheorchestra,engagedinananimateddiscussionwithhisentourage,oneofthesecurityagentsinaneveningdress–amanwhohappenedtobeJewish–approachedhimunnoticedandfiredhisrevolver.Justbeforecollapsing,thefatallywoundedStolypinmadethesignofthecrossinthedirectionoftheimperialbox.Hislastthoughtandgesturemusthavegonetohissovereign.4

Stolypin passed away a few days later. It was not only a minister who died; from ahistorical perspective, itwas evenmore than aTsar: that Jewishbullet fatallywoundedTsarism itselfand ImperialRussia.While the latterdidnot immediatelyperishafter theincident,itdiedofthewoundafewyearslater.

Thepublic–thegeneralpublicaswellaspartofthepeople–foresawwhatirreparablemisfortune awaitedRussia. Europe, however, paid little attention to the episode,whoseimplicationsitfailedtograsp.Tothisday,Europehasyettorealisethat,fromthepointofviewoftheoverallchainofhistoricalcausesandeffects,themurderinKievwasprobablyasseriousaneventastheassassinationinSarajevo.

It is likely that if Stolypin had lived, there would have been no war; and if war hadbrokenoutanyway,Russiawouldhave fareda lotbetter in it.As for theRevolution, itprobablywould have been anticipated and avoided despite thewar. But fate or cosmicevolution–termssynonymouswithoccultconspiracy–hadotherplans.

Stolypin’s unfinishedwork rapidly came to a standstill after his death. The greatmanRussialosthadnospiritualheirscapableofcontinuinghistask.Besides,theWorldWarwasapproaching.

Yet,genuinelysuperiormenalwaysleavesometraces.

InStolypin’scase, thetraceleft isadeep, ifnot indestructibleone,sinceithasnotyetbeen erased by those powers which have managed to destroy the Empire, the Tsaristdynasty,thearistocracy,thebourgeoisie,tradition,andthesocialorderofRussiaunderourveryeyes,andevenundermine its religion,withoutencounteringanyseriousresistance.This trace, which represents the greatest obstacle standing in the way of Bolshevism,consistsofthepresenceofrelativelywell-offindividualpeasantestates.

All books written and published concerning contemporary Russia talk of kulaks,sredniaks,andbiedniaks:wealthyfarmers,medium-holdingfarmers,andpeasantswithnoresources(comparabletotheproletarians).Theestablishmentofthefirstoftheseclasses,and to some extent the second one aswell, is largely, if not entirely, due to Stolypin’swork.Thisclassincludesaroundthreemillionfarmerswhowereformerlyunderthemir,theruralcommunescreatedbyAlexanderII.Stolypinturnedthesepeasantsandtheirheirsintofreeestateowners–beatipossidentes.5

Stolypin freed them from the yoke of themir,which had a socialist foretaste to it. Intoday’s fallen Empire, these men are the last champions of the principle of propertyownership,theonlyoneswhomtherevolutionfundedbyinternationalJewishcapitalismmustreallyreckonwith:fortheonlywayitcanconvertthemisbyexterminatingthem.

Thisisallveryrevealing:itwaseasiertocancelcenturiesofhistorythantherecentandhardlybegunworkofasinglemanwhostayedinpowerforonlyfouryears.Andif thegreatestattemptatcollectivisationeverwitnessedbyhumanitywilleverfail,itwillmeanthetriumph–twentyyearsafterhisdeath–ofthegreatfeudalinnovatorwhosenameourcontemporarieshavealmostforgotten.

Bolshevismhaseasily triumphedover livingmen,andyet it is thisdeadman–whomJewishbulletscannotkillasecondtime–whorepresentsitsgreatestthreat.

ThisisthemostbeautifulfuneraryorationNicholasII’sministercouldeverreceive,anditisbeingdeliveredonhisforgottentombbyHistoryitself.

WeshallendthischapterbycomparingtheworkofthetwomenwhofoundthemselvesinthelimelightatthetwilightofTsarism:WitteandStolypin.

If we forget aboutWitte’s ties with Jewishmilieus and his secret aspirations, he andStolypin may be said to have pursued largely the same goal: the establishment of apowerful, solid, and wealthy state – a materially advanced state in which all latentpotentialswouldhavebeenputtogooduseinpeacetimesothattheycouldbemobilisedintimesofwar.

StolypindidnotwantRussiatobeanexclusivelyagriculturalcountryanddidnotshuntheprospectofindustrialisation,forthiswouldhavemeantembracingconservatisminthemostfoolishoffashions.

Bothmenwishedtohaveagricultureaswellasindustry,althoughtheypursuedthisgoalbyfollowingtworadicallydifferentpaths.

Witteenvisaged thestateof the futureasavesselbeatenby thewavesofcredit in theoceanof fluid internationalbusiness transactions.Hedreamedof a state fashionedafterthecapitalistonesofEuropeandAmerica,whichkeeptheirbalancenotsomuchthroughtheirresourcesasthroughasortofgamblingthatgoesonuntiltheyhavenothingmoretostake.

Inamoreoriginalfashion,Stolypinenvisagedthenewstateasafortresserectedonthesoil and subsoil of his country, its foundations set deep in the solid ground of his

ancestors.Moretimewasrequiredtoconstructastateof thissort,but theonlyriskwasthatthebuildingworkmightbeinterruptedbeforeitwasfinished.

Witte automatically created an army of proletarianswho had everything towin in thecase of an upheaval.Without them, the Jewswould never have found recruits for theirrevolution. Aware of this, Stolypin instead created an army of proletarians who werenaturally and instinctively loyal to the social order and capable – as they still are – ofservingassoldiersofthecounter-revolution.

Witteworkedfor the triumphof internationalbusiness:fatally, thosewhobenefitedthemost fromhismethodwere the internationalofgold and the red international.StolypinworkedfortheTsar,forRussia,andfortheRussians.YethedidnotreckonwithhisdeathandaprematureWorldWar.

HadWitte pursued his plans to the very end,Lenin,Trotsky, Stalin, and their backerswould havemet few obstacles – indeed, theywould still bemeeting few today, fifteenyearsaftertheirtriumph.HadStolypinhadthetimetoaccomplishhistask,theBolshevikswould never have found the lever they needed to stir up one-sixth of theworld – theirworkwouldhavebeenconfinedtoisolatedattacksagainstindividuals.

1Evolaentitlesthischapter,‘TheJewishQuestioninRussia’.—Ed.

2Evolacondensesthefinalpartofthisparagraphandomitsthefollowingthreeparagraphs.—Ed.

3Evolaomitsthisparagraph.—Ed.

4Evolacondensesthisparagraphsomewhat.—Ed.

5Latin:‘blessedaretheywhopossess’.—Ed.

TheRevolutionofMarch19171

Withthedisappearanceofitsmostillustriousservant,Tsarismentereditsdeaththroes.

While Stolypin’s closest collaborators, Kokovstov and Krivoshein, had provedthemselvesworthyministers – the formerof finance, the latter of agriculture – nomanwasfoundwhocouldtakehisplaceandholdswayoverthepoliticalpartiesandthecourt.

Apparently,Stolypin’sdeathhadn’tchangedathing.Theministerswerethesame,aswastheDuma,thebureaucracy,andeventhestaff.Theintentiontofollowinthestepsofthisirreplaceablemanwhohadpassedawaywasstillformallythere,andwasprobablysincereenough. In reality, however, as themanwho had died had been the only leader of 100millionpeople,everythinghadchanged.

WithStolypin’sdeath,everythingfellapartandchaosspread,startingwiththeImperialcourt.Thingswereboundtocontinueinthiswaynotsomuchuntilthefalloftheregime–fortheregimeinitselfmeantlittle–butuntiltheriseofanewleader.

Unfortunately, this leaderwasLenin,whoseadvent signalled theendof theagonyandthebeginningofHell.

FollowingStolypin’smurder,NicholasII’sweaknessandhesitationonlyincreased.

Findingnoonetosupporthim,theTsarcouldnolongertellifitwashehimselfwhowasswayingtoandfro,ortheworldaroundhim.

Pulledhitherandthither,theEmperordidnotknowwhichwaytoturn.BornonthedayofSaintJob,hesawthisasafatalsign.NordidtheTsarknowwhomhecouldtrust,aseven his family stood divided on many questions. So he ardently prayed to God forinspiration.Soon, theonly thingshe trustedwereoracles, spiritualists, clairvoyants, andall the self-appointedmagicians and initiateswho started gravitating around TzarskoyeSelo,2whichtheImperialcouplehardlyeverleft.

TheRevolutionwasimminent.

Inunison,theJewsofbothhemispheresgotreadytoputsentencedRussiatothesword:thedaywasfastapproachinginwhichthebleakestpagesinthehistoryofmankindwouldbewritten.Meanwhile, in thecapitalof theTsars,peoplewereenjoying themselvesandpartyinglikeneverbefore.Evenintheprovincialtowns,thecarnivalseemedtobeinfullswing. No doubt, an undefinable sense of unease was in the air, even if no especiallyunusualeventsappearedtobetakingplace.

On8March1917,theRevolutionbrokeout,soongrowingtothreateningproportions.

TheRevolutionreceivedsupport–atleastmoralsupport–formtheEntente.ThefuturemembersoftheProvisionalGovernmentheldseveralmeetingsintheofficeoftheBritishambassador, Sir George Buchanan. The Tsar complained about this to Britain, allegingthat its spokesmanwas lendingsupport to theenemiesof the Imperialgovernment.TheBritish replied that therewasnoonewhocould takeSirBuchanan’splace.So theman

stayed.

OtherforceswereworkingagainstTsarism,startingwithinternationalJewry.‘TheSocialDemocratic, the Socialist Revolutionary Parties, the Polish Socialist Party, all countedJewsamong their leaders.Plehvewas,perhaps, rightwhenhe said that the struggle forpolitical emancipation in Russia and the Jewish question were practically identical,’ afanaticalJewishauthorandpartisanoftheRevolutionwrites.3Hethenadds:‘Toagreaterdegreethan…anyotherethnicgroupinthevastEmpireoftheRomanovs,they[theJews]havebeentheartisansoftheRevolutionof1917.’4

TheTsarfell.Adeliriouscryofjoyaccompaniedhisfall.

TheverdictofthepressoftheEntentewasunanimous.Notavoicewasraisedindefenceofthemanwhohadbeenourloyalally–untilhisdeath.

According to Princess Paley, LloydGeorge claimed: ‘One of the aims of the war forBritainhasbeenmet.’TheEntenteenthusiasticallywelcomedthenewstateofaffairs.

‘France in 1793 faced the opposition, if not of all the peoples of Europe, of all itsgovernments.Russiain1917hasallthedemocraciesoftheworldsupportingandassistingher,andhelpingherwin’,MrVanderveldewrote5–oneofthemenwhomtheEntentesenttoRussiatoconveytheregardsoftheWesterndemocraciestotheRevolution.

Greatwasthejoyforthis‘bloodless’revolution.

But despite such complacent claims, blood was indeed being spilled. Soldiers startedkilling their officers. The navy in Helsinki, Kronstadt, and Odessa witnessed genuinebutchery.AdmiralNepeninwas assassinated and his body exposed to the insults of thecrowdforthreedays.AdmiralViren,thecommanderofthefleetatKronstadt,wastiedtoastakeandburnedalivebeforetheeyesofhisdaughter.Inthehospitals,sickorwoundedofficerswerefinishedoffwiththebayonet.

TheTsarsignedhisactofabdicationbetween11PMandmidnightonthenightofthe15and16ofMarch1917.

Atthisdifficultcrossroadsinhistory,therevolutionariesdidnotcommittheirreparableimprudenceofshowing their real face.Withoutgoing too far, theycouldhave talkedofestablishingarepublic.Buthadtheydoneso,theywouldhaveriskedlosingthesupportofmostofthegenerals:forhadthelatterknownthatbyabandoningtheTsartheywouldalsobelosingTsarism,theywouldneverhaveactedastheydid.

Events have shown how well the invisible agents played their role by presentingthemselvesasbeingmoderateintheirdemands.

Gutchkov, a delegate of theDuma, arrived in Pskov, the headquarters of the northernarmies and theplacewhereNicholas IIwasbased, and asked theTsar to abdicate.Thelatterreadilyhandedhimthesignedabdicationact.Then,turningtooneofhisaides-de-camp,NicholasIIsaidthefollowingwords:‘IfStolypinhadstillbeenaround,noneofthiswouldhavehappened.’

Nicholas II was right. The only unexpected thing was the fact that the Tsar wasabdicatingnotinfavourofhisson–asicklyanddebilitatedminorhewantedtokeepbyhisside–butinfavourofhisownbrotherMichael,makinghimnotjustthePrince-regent,butthelawfulEmperor.

Unfortunately for Russia, theweakness and levity of this Princematched his naivety.Besides,hehadnowishtoruleundersuchdangerouscircumstances.

MorganticallymarriedagainstthewilloftheheadofhisfamilytothedivorcedwifeofanofficeroftheGuard,hehadbeenexiledandonlyallowedtoreturntoRussiaafterwarhadbeendeclared.Hismarriagehadcausedascandal,andtheGrandDukeMichaelwasnotthemanforthesituation.

He himself was perfectly aware of it. Two days after the abdication of Nicholas II,representativeleadersoftheDumaeasilypersuadedhimthatitwouldbeagoodmoveonhis part to postpone his accession to the throne andwait for the alleged verdict of thenation,asexpressedbythefutureConstituentAssembly,whichwouldhavebeenelectedthrough equal, direct, and universal suffrage.Vox populi voxDei:6 no one suspected oradmittedthatthevoxDeicouldonlyhavebeenthevoxJudei.

Hiswas away of abdicatingwithout abdicating; of hiding behindwords by paying aphonetic act of courtesy to the past. Thus, in less than aweek, in two stages, Tsarismceasedtoexist.

Greaterskillcouldhardlyhavebeenshowninthisconjuringtrick,asachievingitinonlyonestagewouldneverhavebeenpossible.

InPskov,NicholasIIhadgenuinelybelievedhewasdoingtherightthingbyabdicatinginfavourofhisbrother.Hadheknownexactlywhathewasbeinginducedtodo,hewouldprobablyhaverefusedtosign,ashewassurroundedbygeneralswhowerenotalltraitorstothedynastyandregime.EverythingsuggeststhatcivilwarwouldhavebrokenoutattheTsar’srefusal.

OnceinTzarskoyeSelo,theEmperorlearnedthathehadinfactabdicatedinfavouroftherepublic,theadventofwhichnoonedoubted.Healsofoundout,amongotherthings,thattheEmpresshadalreadybeeninterned,andthathehimselfwasaprisonerinhisownpalace.TheservantsoftheJewhadnotwastedanytime.

Meanwhile, the provisional committee of the Duma had given way to a ProvisionalGovernmentwhosenominalleader–asPrimeMinisterandMinisteroftheInterior–wasPrinceLvov.Ashisfamilyrootsapparentlystretchback toRurik,peopleused tosayatthe time that this aristocrat’s lineagewasmore ancient than that of theRomanovs.Thepossibility cannot be ruled out that Lvov ultimately planned to take advantage of theturmoil and disorder in order to establish a new dynasty.He believed that nothing hadchangedsinceBorisGodunov’sday.

Prince Lvov was surrounded by people more clever than himself. In turn, they weremanoeuvredbyothersclevererstill, throughakindof left-handchain leading toJews–either by blood or spirit. The latter were getting ready, at the end of this cycle, to

implementaplanstrangelysimilartothatoftheProtocolsoftheEldersofZion.

TherhythmoftheseeightmonthsofpreliminaryrevolutionmaybecomparedtothatofIsisgraduallyremovingherveils.

We shall list the leading ‘clever’ figures who controlled Prince Lvov right from thebeginningandmadesurehewouldnotabandonhisambitiousillusions.

ThehistorianMilyukov, theheadof theconstitutionaldemocrats some fiftyyearsago,was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs. Milyukov enjoyed the friendship of animportant Jewish-American financier, Jacob Schiff,7 who was a personal enemy ofTsarism.Forthisreason,thelatter’slifewasspared,whilenonethelesshewasthrownoutthemomenthisserviceswerenolongerrequired.

The establishedmyth according towhich twodistinct revolutions tookplace – a goodanddesirableoneinMarchandabadanddetestableoneinNovember–isutterlyfalse.

TheRussianRevolution occurred as a single dynamic unit. Three teams ofworkers –nothingbutpaidworkers,wewouldliketostress–workedtogetherforthesameboss.

The first team consisted of Rodzianko, Shulgin, Nekrasov, Milyukov, Guchkov, andothers.Thisteamsowedorletotherssow–whichamountstothesamething.Thesecondone, that ofKerensky,Chernov, and all the rest, reaped,while the third, that of Lenin,Trotsky,Zinoviev,andtheircomrades,servedthefoodatthemaster’stable.

The latter, the boss, or rather the active party in charge of the demolition andreconstruction business, did notmind showinghis feelings right from the start,withoutwaitingfortheNovemberevents.

AstheMinisterofForeignAffairsofaprovisionalstatethatwasnolongeramonarchy,but had yet to become a republic, ProfessorMilyukov– this old leader of theKadets,8whointheeyesofthewell-offwerethemembersofawiselyliberalandmoderateparty–received a telegram from New York which could essentially be compared to what asovereignmight sendhisgeneral tovoicehis satisfaction for some importantvictory inbattle.ThistelegramwassignedJacobSchiff.

AnyordinaryministerinMilyukov’spositionwouldhavebeenextremelysurprised.Butthe wise professor – who continues to be held in high esteem in Paris, where he isregardedasaparticularlyinterestingvictimoftheRussiantragedyratherthanoneofitschiefauthors–feltmosthonoured.HedidnotanswerSchiff’smessagewithwordssuchas,‘Whydon’tyoumindyourownbusiness?DoIeversendcongratulationstoyouwhenyoustrikeagooddealonWallStreet?’Instead,Milyukovexpressedhimselfintermsthatsuggest–attheveryleast–aperfectmutualunderstandingbetweenthetwo.

Thisfactissosignificantthatitisquiteamazing:foronce,breakingthecentury-oldlawofanonymity,aprinceoftheglobalconspiracydroppedhisreservations.

Thisprovesjusthowmuchthosepeoplebelievedthegamehadbeenwonby1917,notonlyinRussia,butallacrosstheworld.After thedefeatofGermany, theConferenceofParis, which was dominated by Jewry, made the world submit to international Jewish

finance.Thesepeople’sconfidenceintheirsuccesswassogreatthattheynolongerevenfelttheneedtotakepublicopinionintoaccount.

Thus themenof the (fortunately short-lived) revolutions inHungary,Austria,Bavaria,and Germany were almost exclusively Jewish by race, not strawmen recruited by thecircumcised,orpuppets in thehandsofIsrael.Thiswassomethingquiteunprecedented.Assoonastheyrealisedthatitwasstillearlytoactinthismanner,theyrevertedtotheiroldmethods.

ItwastheMarchrevolution,nottheoneinNovember,receivedasortofinvestiturefromIsrael, through Jacob Schiff’s best wishes. Some people naively believe that eventsunfoldedinthiswaybecauseonlytheMarchrevolutionwasdesirablefromaJewishpointof view,whereas theNovember one – in its zeal – had gone too far, creating a sort ofrevolutionwithintherevolution.Thetruthisthat, intheeyesoftheinitiates,thesecondrevolutionwassimplythefollow-uptothefirstone;hence,therewasnoneedtorepeatthewordswhich had been pronouncedwhen the first brick had been laid. The edificewillonlybeconsecratedonceitiscompleted,whichitstillisn’t.ThroughtheprompthelpofEuropeandAmerica, theworkgoeson,9 althoughnowadays it is called aquinquennialplan.

OncetheabdicationoftheTsarhadbeenfollowedbythatofTsarismitself,andoncethefirstdecreehadbeenissued,rulingoutwhathopestillremainedoflaunchingacounter-revolution, and thus signalling the final victory of the chosen race, the cataclysm hitRussiaforgood.

Prikase10 no. 1 had been conceivedwith diabolical craftiness,which theworkers andsoldiers’delegatesintheSaintPetersburgareawouldneverhavebeencapableofontheirown.Thisdocumentwasnotmodelledafteranyhistoricalprecedent,fornowherehadadocumentofthissorteverbeendraftedintheaftermathofarevolution.

Prikasenumber1meant themurderof theRussianarmy. Itbrokenotonly the latter’sdriveandspirit,butalsoitsskeletonandstructure, turningit intoaflabbyandspinelessbody.Asanationalandcounter-revolutionaryforce, thearmywasfinished.Oneforce–thenationalone–haddeliberatelybeensabotaged,orratherstifled,soastoavoidhavingto fear the other – the counter-revolutionary. To act any differently would havemeantcompromising, or at least jeopardising, the dynamism of the revolutionary progression,whichwasmeanttoleadtotheapotheosisoftheJewandthetransformationofthefallenEmpireintoanexoticcolonyfortheinternationalJewishbank,whereJewrywillforgeitsweaponsforconqueringtherestoftheplanet.

Wewishtostressthefactthatonethingwasquitedeliberatelyandconsciouslysacrificedforanother:theminorimportanceofRussiaasanallyofFranceandBritainwassacrificedto the evidently superior interest of the chosen race – otherwise, we would have toconcludethatthecultivatedmenwhohadreceivedtheheritageoftheTsarswerenothingbutcompleteidiots,whichofcourseisfarfromthetruth.

ItwasnotLeninandTrotsky’sworkthatfreedRussiafromtheyokeofTsarism.Itwasrather thework of the ‘noble, generous, and enlightened spirits’who reached this goal

withthebenevolentapprovaloftheAlliedambassadors.ThisworkwaswarmlyapplaudedbytheFrenchandtheBritish–includingmanyso-calledconservatives–nottomentiontheUnitedStates,which appears to havewaited for these events before abandoning itsneutralityanddeclaringwaronGermany.

Prikase number 1 did not dampen this enthusiasm, which nonetheless gave way toimprecations and insults the following year, when the Brest-Litovsk treaty was signedbetweenGermanyandthosecarryingontheworkofthe‘generousandenlightenedmen’who had made this treaty inevitable by destroying the Russian army and making itcompletelyunfitforwar.

Meanwhile, a general amnesty had been proclaimed. The doors of prisons and penalcolonieswereopenedup,sothatnotonlypoliticalprisonersbutcommoncriminalsaswellswarmedtofillthestreetsandroads.

All the terrorists who had bloodied the Tsarist empire over the previous quarter of acentury,allthosewhohadfledtoavoidthegallows,allthedregsofLondon,NewYork,Paris,andGeneva,madetheirwaybacktoRussia.

Theywerewelcomedlikedauntlessandspotlessheroes.Insomecases,theMinisterofJusticehimself,Kerensky,wastheretowelcomethegloriousmartyrsatthestation.

Finally, the third great act of ‘progress’ was accomplished on 14 April. A decreeannounced a radical agrarian reform: without any compensation, all landed propertiesbeyondacertainnumberofhectaresweretobeconfiscated.Thiswasawayofbeggaringtheentirearistocracy.Menof leisure from thebourgeoisie,however,were left alone, aswerestockholders,shareholders,peoplelivingfromlucrativeliberalprofessions,peasants,andso-calledkulaks,orwealthyfarmers.

Only twentyyearsorso later,onceeverythingwhichhadcomebeforehadbeensweptaway, did Jewry feel strong enough to attack these categories of people. For the timebeing,farmers–whetherlargeorsmall–weretreatedastheanimalsoftherevolution,notunliketheworkersandtheproletariat.Theaimwastogiveallofthemtheimpressionofbenefitingfromtheupheavalswhichweretakingplace,andofformingaunitedfront.

TheinhabitantsoftheancientEmpireweredividedintosuperimposedclasses.Ateverynew stage of progress, the class abovewas to be suppressedwith the help of all thosebelow.Therulingdynastyhadalreadybeeneliminatedwiththehelpofthelandedgentry,the rich bourgeoisie, the intellectuals, and the people. It was now the turn of thearistocracy,whichhadtobeeliminatedwiththehelpofthebourgeoisie.TherhythmoftheRevolutionhasremainedthesamefromdayone–ithasneverchanged.

The nobleman Lvov, the cultured bourgeois Milyukov, the revolutionary lawyerKerensky,theterroristChernov,LeninandTrotsky,Stalin,andalltherestwere–andare–merelythesuccessiveexecutorsofthesameoriginalandunbrokenplan.

Thewritersandhistorianswhospeakof theRussianRevolutionasgroping in thedarkuntil theriseofLeninaredeeplymistaken, for theyareconsidering it fromthepointofview of the interests of the middle class first, then of the farmers, and finally of the

proletariat. But if they were to simply consider it from the sole point of view ofinternational Jewry right from the start – calling for the progressive elimination of theroyal dynasty, the army, the landed aristocracy, the politically active bourgeoisie, andsmallruralproperties–theywouldsoonrealisethattheRussianRevolutionisaseamlessanddynamicwholecarefullyregulatedwithanadmirabledegreeofconsistency;andthatno process of elimination ever took place without a previous one having averted allpossiblethreats.

Yet,whileSaintPetersburgandtwoorthreeotherlargecitieswerestillcelebratingtheirdayofglorywithprocessions,parades,speeches,anddebauchery,inthecountrysideandthe rest of theEmpire, theGreatEvening had already come.Thewhole ofRussiawasalightwitholdpalaces,farms,parks,andforestsonfire.

The primordial instincts of themujiks,11 whose savage nature had only been held incheckby the fearof beatings,were suddenly awakenedwhen they learned that theynolongerhadanyGodorMastertofear;or,rather,thattheythemselveswerenowthisGodandMaster.Indeed,theyweremoresothantheTsar–theyweretold–becausewhereashisauthoritystemmedfromdivineinvestiture,bygraceofGod,theself-proclaimedheirsofTsarismclaimedthattheirownauthorityderivedfromthem.

Themujiksconcludedthat,sinceeverythingwastheirsandexistedthroughthemandforthem, there was nothing left for them to do but to eat, drink, beat, pillage, rob, rape,torture,burn,destroy,andkill–iffornootherreasonthantoprovethattheirpowerwasrealthroughsuchunquestionableattributesofomnipotence.

An orgy unfolded in Saint Petersburg, and torrents of blood stained the vast plains ofHoly Russia, while people waited for rivers of milk and honey to flow – a prospectdangled before their eyes by the accomplices of the Jew,who to this day continues topredictsuchthingsforthefuture.

In this period, which the virtuosi of the pen continue to describe as an idyllic one,desolation and abomination reigned inRussiamonths before theBolsheviksmade theirproper appearance. Russia’s capital has been mistaken for the whole country. In SaintPetersburg,peoplestillspokeofliberty,equality,fraternity,andjustice.Theforeignersinthecityfeltmoved,asdomanyRussiancitizens,whostillbelievethatifLeninhadneverarrivedonthatsealedtrain,thenobleandgenerousrevolutionwouldhavebroughtaboutasortofKingdomofGodononecorneroftheEarth.

OnlytheouterpeeloftheRussianupheaval–destinedtodisappearassoonasittouchedtheEarth–couldseemliberalandhumanitarian.ThefruititselfwassocialistandtheseedwithinthefruitCommunist,yetallofthesewerenothingbutdeadmatter.Thelivingbudthatwastheraisond’etreofthefruit,andwasdestinedtoemergeasitsconcentriclayersrottedorwereabsorbed,wasJewish.ThustheGospelparableofthemustardseedprovesequallyapplicabletothecounter-ChurchthatisbeingbuiltbytheapeofGod.

Letusnowbrieflyexaminethehistoricaldetailsbehindthisrevolution.

InearlyMay,atthepeakofthisidyllicperiod,anewriotbrokeoutinSaintPetersburg.

Teams ofworkers armed by an unknown hand and supported by a regiment took on amenacingattitude.MilyukovandGuchkov,themanwhohadobtainedanactofabdicationfromNicholas IIand toleratedPrikaze number1 asMinisterofWar, resignedamid theroars of a delirious crowd shouting ‘Peace!’ Meanwhile, Mr Paléologue, the Frenchambassador,quithisplace,alongwithallthedefeatedFrenchsocialistswhohadcometoRussiatoswoonbeforeitsliberatingrevolution.

Asaconsequenceofallthis,theProvisionalGovernmenthadtoberestructured.Asonemighthaveexpected,thisoccurredbyveeringtotheLeft.

The new government was a coalition one, but the absolutemajority nowwent to theSoviet,whosesoulwasKerensky.

Withinthisnewhybridcombination,KerenskytooktheMinistryofWar.Heclaimedhewishedtoraisethespiritofthearmyandhaltthedecayhehimselfhadcausedinthefirstplace.HesoughttodefeatGermanynotthroughstrategyandtactics,butthroughdialecticand rhetoric. He also aspired to make the disintegrating divisions and brigadesunstoppable throughmethods comparable to thoseOrpheus successfully usedwithwildbeasts.

It is quite likely that Kerensky, like theWestern braggarts in his party (Vanderwelde,Branting,Thomas,Henderson,andall therest)naivelydreamtofaso-calleddemocraticwhite peace, to be reached by the so-calledworking classes of the countries atwar byoverthrowing themonarchicalorbourgeois republican regimes inpower:apeacewhichwould bring the armed conflict to an end by common accord through a series ofsimultaneousstrikes–thepreludetoageneralrevolution.

Reasoningofthiskindwasquitelogicalcomingfromasocialistwhoseonlygoalapartfrom thepursuitofhispersonal ambitionwas the triumphof socialism. Itwas far fromlogical,however,fromthepointofviewofJewry,sinceforthelatter,socialismwasonlyameans,andnotanendinitself.Withotherstringsonitsbowwhichitsunwittingservantsdidn’tneedtoknowabout,JewryexpectedtopassthisstageonthewaytothePromisedLand, or at least to turn it into a means for future conquests. Indeed, Israel was notmistaken.

ItwasatthispointthattheAmericansectoroftheworldconspiracy,whichhadbeenkeptasideuntilthen,wasinvitedtojointhegame.

AninvitationfromtheJewishconsortiuminNewYorkwasanordertotheexecutiveinWashington. The latter’s representative, Woodrow Wilson, had no intention of beingremovedlikehispredecessor,WilliamTaft.

NoonehaseverquiteunderstoodwhytheUnitedStatesdeclaredwaronGermany.TheGermanEmpire posed no threat to either the present or future of the country.To bringaboutitscollapse,theyinvestedbillionsandsentalmosttwomillionsoldiers,draftedinahurry,overtotheothersideoftheAtlantic.

Nothinglikeithadeverbeenseenbeforeintheannalsofthispeace-lovingrepublic.

TheavowedreasonforAmerican interventionwas toavenge thesinkingofanEnglishship thathadcarriedAmericansonholiday,whomtheGermanambassadorhadactuallywarnednottomakethecrossingundertheflagofthewarringpowers.Thedisproportionbetween cause and effect was so great that all the sentimental and bombastic phrasesreeledofffortheoccasioncouldonlybetakenseriouslybyteenagerscompletelylackinganyexperienceofadulthood,orbypeoplewhohadbeeninstructednottoinvestigatethebackgroundoftheseevents.

ItisjustasdifficulttoexplainwhyPresidentWilson,aspawnofJewishcapitalism,heldback until mid-April 1917, allowing both warring parties to get their supplies fromAmerican industry.Nor is it easy tounderstandwhy itwasonly from thisdate that thewholemechanismofthetransatlanticpressturnedviolentlyagainstGermany.

Now,however,wecanseewherethesimpleanswerlies:upuntilmid-April1917,itwasnecessarytoallowtheGermanmonarchyofdivinerighttocrushtheRussianone.Bythedateinquestion,thisgoalhadbeenmet,andhenceonlythebigWesterndemocracieshadtobesupported,sothatalltogethertheycouldcrushtheGermanmonarchyofdivineright.

Undertheseconditions,RussiawasconvenientlyreplacedbyAmerica,andcouldbeleftto its owndestiny,which involvedgoingbeyond socialism,without therebyposing anythreattothefuture,inwhich‘theworldwouldbesafefordemocracy’.

1Evolaadds,‘AmericanIntervention’.-Ed.

2TheImperialresidenceatthetime,nearSaintPetersburg.—Ed.

3ASRappoport,PioneersoftheRussianRevolution(London:StanleyPaul,1918),p.250.—Ed.

4Ibid.,p.288.—Ed.

5EmileVandervelde,ThreeAspectsoftheRussianRevolution(London:G.Allen&Unwin).—Ed.

6Latin:‘thevoiceofthepeopleisthevoiceofGod’,aphrasewhichwasfirstintroducedbytheWhigsinEnglandin1709.—Ed.

7JacobSchiff(1847-1920)wasoriginallyfromGermany,butemigratedtotheUSandjoinedKuhn,Loeb&Companyin1875,whichatthetimewasoneofthebiggestinvestmentbanksinAmerica.In1885hebecameitsdirector.Healsobecame the director of many other prominent American corporations, includingWells Fargo and the Union PacificRailroad.In1904,throughKuhn,Loeb&Co.,heprovidedfundstotheJapaneseEmpirewhichendeduptotalinghalfofthefundingtheJapaneserequiredtowage,andwin,theRusso-JapaneseWar,whichSchiffsawasretaliationforRussiananti-Semitism.Whilehefinancedloanstomanynations,herefusedtoprovideanyfundsforRussiauntilafter1917.Theperiod between 1880 and 1920 is known as the ‘Schiff era’ in American Jewish history, as Schiff was the mostprominentandactiveJewishcommunityleaderandusedhiswealthtofinancemanyJewishcauses.—Ed.

8 The Kadets were the members of the Constitutional Democratic Party, which favored democratic reforms and aconstitutionalmonarchy.—Ed.

9Evolahas,‘ThroughtheprompthelpofacertainEuropeandAmerica,theworkgoeson,underdifferentnames…’—Ed.

10PrikaseisRussianfordecree.—Ed.

11Peasants.—Ed.

FromKerenskytoLeninTheeffortsmadebyKerensky inRussia tobringabout ademocraticpeace through themutualagreementofthesocialistpartiesofthewarringnations1wereallinvain.

Onethingwasclear:ifRussiahadcontinuedthewartotheveryend,therevolutiontoowouldhavecontinuedtotheveryend.

WhatKerenskyfearedwasnotcarryingtherevolutiontotheveryend,buttheprospectofcounter-revolutioninRussiaintheeventofoneofthetwoemperorsofcentralEuropeachievingvictory.HereasonedasanymanofthefarLeftwouldhave,whichistosayasanymansincerelydevotedtoJewry,althoughhedidnotknowwhatthefinalverdictoftheworldconspiracywasgoingtobe.KerenskydidnotbelievethatFranceandBritainwerefacingGermany andAustria-Hungary on a national level; rather, he quite rightly – forsuchwasthedeepermeaningoftheconflagration–regardedtheconflictasatitanicduelbetweenbarbarianmedievalismandthesmilingdemocracywhichhademergedfromtheFrenchRevolution.

TheautocraticTsarhadfallenfromhisthronebecausehehadignoredtheoccultnatureofthewarandembracedthecauseofdemocracyagainstsovereignswho,inspirit,werethe last representatives of the divine right. Kerensky, a democrat and socialist, quitenaturally asked himself whether the new democracy of progress of which hewas – orbelievedtobe–thefounderwouldescapethesamefate,werehetoabandonthecauseofhis comrades, the causeof the internationalLeft, at a time inwhich itwas fighting forworldhegemony.Andofcourse,healsowonderedwhetheractingthatwaydidnotmeanincreasing the chances of counter-revolution on all the internal fronts in Europe –somethingwhichthevictoryofthemonarchicalblocwouldcertainlyhaveledto–sinceneitherhimnoranybodyelse,apartfromtheinitiates,eversuspectedtheone‘asstrongasGod’wouldbringAmericaintoplayinordertoavertsuchanabomination.

Kerenskyandhismenloathedtheideaofworkingforkingsandofbeingmadefools,justas Nicholas II has unknowingly worked for the triumph of democracy. The Austro-Germansdidnotconcealtheirintentionsregardingthoseregionstheyalreadyeffectivelycontrolled.VaguetalkwasalreadybeingmadeabouttheprospectofhavinganAustrianarchduke or German prince as the King of Poland, and even of uniting Poland withAustriaunderthesceptreoftheemperor.Andthepossibilitywasalsobeingdiscussedofhaving a member of one of the German princely families as the duke of Lithuania,Ukraine,orsomeotherneighbouringcountry.

Kerenskywasinaverydifficultsituation.SigningaseparatepeacetreatywithGermanyandAustriawouldhavemeantbeingmarginalisedbythedemocracies,aswellasthrowingoneself intothearmsof thepreviouslymentionedsupportersof tyranny,whileallegedlybeingonacrusadeforprogress.

ButhadKerenskychosentocontinuethewartotheveryend,hewouldhaveattractedthewrathofthatrevolutionfromHellwhichhadledhimtothetop.Ineithercasehewouldhavebeenblamedforhavingbroughtaboutahopelesssituation.

Kerensky had first of all suppressed the notion of divine right, which, for a peoplewithoutanynationalismsuchastheRussians,representedtheonlymotiveforobedienceand loyalty.Thenhehadbroken thearmyby issuingPrikazenumber1.Finally,hehadstirredthemassesupintoafrenzybypromisingthemtoredistributetheland.

Kerensky,thissmall,garrulous,andcraftylawyerandpettydemagogue,foundhimselfatacomplete loss.Posingasa tribune, thanks toa seriesofunexpectedcircumstances,hehad been turned into a dictator. Yet, much to his own disadvantage, he was even lessresoluteandfirmthanNicholasII;andwhilelackofleadershipqualitiesmaybeexcusedinanemperor,it issomethingquiteunjustifiableinthecaseofarevolutionarychief.Toputitbriefly,Kerensky,thisamazingfence-sitter,hadwantedthemeansbutnowrejectedtheend.Hewasdefendinghimselfagainsteffectsofwhichhehadbeenthecause.Hence,hefullydeservedthechallengetohimmadebyLenin,whosestarwasontherise:‘Younolongertrusttheformulasofthepastandareafraidofthoseofthefuture,yetyouwillsoonswallowthelatterandtheywillchokeyou.’

Butwhatmanwasthis,whowasspeakinginsuchterms,andwheredidhecomefrom?

ItwastheleaderoftheBolshevikParty,whichhadoriginallybeenthefarLeftwingofRussiansocialdemocracy.

In 1914, when war was declared, the Bolshevik group had been almost completelysuppressedinRussia.Leninhadthenwrittenanappeal,launchedbythecentralcommitteeof the group, inwhich he called for the immediate transformation of the nationalwar,describedasan‘imperialist’one,intoacivilwar.

Becauseofthis,theBolshevikPartyclearlydivergedfromallotherrevolutionarypartieson a crucial question. In none of thewarring countries had a revolutionary party daredtakesucharesolutestanceonthematteranddeclarewaronthewarwithoutrestrictionsorhesitations.

The internationalismof theother internationalistgroupswasonly relative,andopen toopportunisticcompromiseswiththeirmutualfeelingsofxenophobia.Theinternationalismof the Bolshevik groupwas instead relentless and absolute. It is for this reason that itpassedthecrucialtestof1914withoutgivinginandbetrayingitsprinciples.

Thosepartymemberswhodidnotfollowthechosenline–andtherewerequiteafewinfluentialonesamongthem–wereruthlesslystruckoffitslist.Unlikeotherparties,theRussianBolshevikoneaimedforquality,notquantity.

This‘line’–ofwhichmuchtalkhasbeenmadelatelyinrelationtotherivalrybetweenStalin and Trotsky – has always been followed by the Bolsheviks, who cannot deviatefrom it. This group has always had an inflexible discipline, which it has maintainedthroughcontinuouspurges.

The Bolsheviks, therefore, made up the chosen team. The leading consortium ofinternationalbusinesshadbeenkeepingthemasideuntilthedayinwhich,followingtheanarchicandhencedestructivephaseof the revolution, itwouldhavebeennecessary toproceedwiththeconstructionofthenewKingdomofIsraelontheruinsofwhathadbeen.

In particular, the Bolsheviksmade up the offensive element – that is, the openly andproactivelyoffensiveelementoftheworldrevolution–whereasthefunctionoftheothersubversive parties would appear to have been the preliminary and simultaneousdisintegrationfromwithinofthechancestheexistingorderhadtodefenditself.

Hence,whileBolshevismmayhaveoutdone theotherparties in termsofbrutalityandcynicism, itwasoutdoneby them in termsofhypocrisyand treachery.Certainly, itwasvery straightforward and knew exactly what it wanted: it was the hard-liner of therevolution,whichitsoughttopursuetotheveryend;andwhat‘totheveryend’meantinthiscasewas‘totheveryJew’.

ThemissionofBolshevismwasnotsomuchtoundoastoredoaworldwhichtheerrorsor oversights of the last Tsars had already begun undoing, and whose destruction hadfinallybeenbroughtaboutbytheunspeakableanarchismoftherevolutionaries.

In the last years of Tsarism, Bolshevism had only played a secondary role, a role soinsignificantthatthepolicehadevenshownindulgencetowardit,reservingtheirharshertreatmentforthosegroupswhichwereresponsibleforterroristattacks.

Afterwarwasdeclared, theBolshevikParty completely fell fromprominence. Its fivedeputies in theDuma and a few othermembers of its central committee, including thefamousStalin,werearrestedandincarceratedonachargeofhightreason.

The other revolutionary sects, which were enthusiastic about the democratic war,reproached the Bolsheviks. The old Plekhanov, one of the founders of the Party, left.DrivenlessbythedemonofLeftistsolidaritythanbythatofnationalism,hespokeoutinfavour of national defence, which coincided with the crusade launched by thedemocracies.Thetwohard-liners,LeninandtheJewZinoviev(Apfelbaum),fledabroad.AndTrotsky,whilenotaBolshevikyet,alsocrossedtheborder.

Later, the Judaising press of both hemispheres depicted these poor devils, who hadcarriedtheirwretchednesstothemostlowlydwellingsofLondon,Paris,andGeneva,asthedevil incarnate:asmenwhointhefootstepsofthegreatprophets–includingChristhimself–hadawaitedthefatedhourabsorbedindeepmeditations.

Actually, theonlyhour thesecriminalswerewaitingforwasthatof theopeningof theJudeo-AmericanbanktillsortheirequivalentontheothersideoftheAtlantic.

TheHolySpiritthatwastodescenduponthefutureapostlesofthecounter-Churchandturn these small café-habitués into tigers was manna, in the modern form of accountsopened in credit institutes.Thosewhowerepowerful inNewYork soon started rainingdownthismanna,sincetheybelievedthetimehadcome–untilfurthernotice–toplaythecardofdemocracyandanarchybyfundingtheoldteam,whichhadnotyetcompleteditsworkofdemolition.

Accordingtoaproverbthatdatesbacktotheremotestantiquity,butwhichisincrediblyrelevanttoourage,thereisnofortresswhichadonkeyloadedwithgoldcannotapproach.

Byquotingthisproverb,wedonotwishtosuggestthatLeninandTrotskyweredonkeys.

Still, that’s a long way from seeing Lenin, Trotsky, and their accomplices as infernaldeities, or of consideringwhat they have said orwritten to be imbuedwithmysteriouspowersthathavechangedawholeareaoftheworld.

Whileitmightbeabitmuchtogivenocreditatalltothesethugsfortheeventsof1917,itisnonethelesstruethatnoneofthemwastherealconquerorofRussia;norwasitpeoplelikeMilyukovorKerensky.TherealconquerorofRussiawasthealmightygodofmodernmythology,Mammon,who has Israel as its envoy. It is always hewho under differentpseudonymscontinuestoactastheabsolutemasterofthecountrysixteenyearson,2underdifferentpseudonyms.3

The Bolsheviks did not lack a desire for action. They could sense the decay of theRussianEmpire.Buttherewasnotmuchtheycoulddo,becausethehunterwaskeepinghisdogsonaleash,waitingfortherightmomenttoletthemloose.

Andwhatlettingloosemeantinthosecircumstanceswasfinancing.

In their hovels inGeneva, London, and Paris, theRussianBolsheviks started growingimpatient and distressed at the thought that they were being outdone by the otherrevolutionarygroups.Theymadeashowofgoodwillby takingpart in theZimmerwaldand Kienthal congresses, where they openly announced their plan for immediaterevolutionthroughtheboycottingof thewar.Ontheotherhand, theyalsoprintedmanyrevolutionary papers inwhich they advocated themost cursorymethods.But given thepainfulabsenceof thoseotherpiecesofpaperwhichissuinginstitutionsprintandcreditestablishmentsdistribute, therewasahugedisproportionbetweenthesterileagitationoftheBolsheviks,whowerelefttotheirownresources,andtheresultstheyweredestinedtoattainonlyashorttimelater.

ManyyearshadpassedsinceTrotskyhadbeenexpelledfromRussia–andthenAustria,England,andFrance.AtthetimeoftheMarchcoupd’etat,hefoundhimselfinNewYork,wherehehadarrivedinthehopeofmovinghisgodtocompassionbyprostratinghimselfbefore thealtarofMammon.Receivedbyhiscompatriot JacobSchiff, thegreatpontiffwhohadtelegraphedhissatisfactiontoMilyukov,TrotskywasonlygivenpermissiontoreturntoSaintPetersburginordertokeepacloseeyeontheorthodoxyoftheteamwhichhadfreedthe‘landofcaptivity’fromthenewPharaoh.

Fromthatdayonwards,Leyba(Lev)Bronshtein,knownasLeonTrotsky,becametheeyeandearoftheSanhedrim4oftheworldconspiracy.AndthiswasagreathonourforthesonofoneofthemanyseedyJewsofwesternRussia.

Trotskygotthemessageandbeganmakinghiswayback,inthebeliefthatifhefulfilledhismission,cashwouldsoonstartflowing.

Here,wewouldliketomentionajuicydetail.

TheNorwegian ship that carriedTrotsky and his fortunewas inspected by theBritishauthoritiesatHalifax,inCanada.

Lenin’s future right-hand man was arrested. It was Milyukov, Russia’s Minister of

ForeignAffairs,who then rushed to diplomatically approach theBritish ambassador inRussia,SirGeorgeBuchanan,askinghisgovernmenttoreleasethehighlyundesirableJewandallowhimtocontinuehisvoyagetoSaintPetersburg.

Wedo not knowwhether itmight have been JacobSchiffwho ordered the ephemeralminister of the Provisional Government to act in that manner, but it would hardly besurprising.Indeed,thisistheonlyhypothesisthatcanexplaintheboundlessstupidityoftheman’sgesture.

Clearly, no one knows the exact nature of themeetings that took place in NewYorkbetweenmasterandservant.Still,despitetheconspiracyofsilenceonthepartofall thebigmedia, it is impossible to ignore that itwas in the name, not of the uncircumcisedLenin,butofLeonTrotsky thatanaccountwasopened in theStockholmbranchof theWarburgbrothers’bank,and that itwas this fortune thatbrought theBolshevikParty topower.We should add that one of theWarburg brotherswas Jacob Schiff’s son-in-law,whileanotherwashissister-in-law’shusband;andthattheirStockholmcorrespondent,thebankerJivotowsky,appearstohavebeenTrotsky’sfather-in-law.5

Lenin,whowas not on such excellent termswith the elite of the chosen race, did notwaste any time. At a certainmoment – a psychological one for him, as worries aboutmoneywerekeepinghimawakeatnight–herealisedthathismotto‘revolutionthroughdefeat’, which in principle applied to all the warring nations, could in practice mostreadily be applied to Russia. Under these conditions, Lenin’smotto could serve as thebasis for a temporary alliance between the Bolshevik Party and the German HighCommand,whichwasstilltoomuchinlovewithitselftofeartheGermanarmyornation.

Pleasedwithhisidea,LeninentrustedaJewbythenameofFürstenberg,whowaslivingin exile in Stockholm under the Polish pseudonym of Ganetsky, with the duty ofnegotiatingthisalliance,whichwasintendedtobringinsomefunding.

In case his ambassador failed, Leninwould disown him and pass him off as an agentprovocateurof theOkhrana–forall thiswastakingplacejustbeforethecoupd’etatofMarch1917.IfFürstenbergwereshot,all theworseforhim: theBolshevikshaveneverhadanyregardforhumanlife,includingthatoftheirowncomrades.

Not that principlesmatter to them, either.According toLenin,who innoway tried toconcealhisingeniousidea,butwasratherquiteboastfulaboutit,moneyknowsnocolour.Itisalwayswelltocashitin,whenitservesagoodcause(fortheendjustifiesthemeans),and especially when the money comes from an imperial, royal, or simply a bourgeoistreasury.Infact,insuchcases,itsimplymeanstakingbackpartofwhathasbeenstolenfrom the proletariat and must be paid back – provided, that is, the Jew is the one tomanageitwithdiscretionarypowers.Theproletariatwillthencontinuetosufferasinthepast,butwillbetoldthat this isonlyfor itsowngood; if itdiesofstarvation, itwillbeinformedthatitisfortheprosperityoffuturegenerations.

Lenin’splanworkedoutverywell.TheGermans,whofoundthemselves indirestraitsandonlyconsideredshort-termgains,wholeheartedlyaccepted.Fürstenberg,disguisedasGanetsky,wasnotshot,butinsteadappointedtradecommissionerofthepeople.6

Theworldthuswitnessedanextraordinaryevent:thesemi-feudalempireswerethefirsttofundtheactionoftheBolshevikParty.Germany,however,wastopayaharshpriceforits impiouscollusionin theaftermathof itsdefeat.Theonlyonetobenefit fromall thiswasLenin,atthedetrimentofthethreemonarchiesofdivineright.Hehadindeedguessedright.

TheGermanfundingwasasortofappetizer for theBolsheviks,as theywaited for thebrewersofbillionsofinternationalbusinesstoopentheirwallets.

Wemust insist on this point because of the enduringpopularity of the disconcertinglyabsurd theory according to which Bolshevism is a sort of German creation. The aimpursuedbytheproponentsofthistheoryistoturnpeople’sattentionawayfromtheJewishconspiracy of which Bolshevism is one of the effects and the most openly aggressivesector.Andasthistheoryhastheadvantageofcreatingamisunderstandingwhichworsensthe relations between Germany and its 1914-18 enemies, it is fervently embraced bynationalists, who in their blindness only fear the pacification of Europe and theestablishmentofauniformChristianfront,whichistheonlysafebastionagainstsweepingsubversioninitstripleaspectofdemocracy,capitalism,andsocialism.7

Ultimately,whatLeninmanagedtosnatchfromtheGermans–theChristiansoftheoldregime–wassavedupbytheJews.HisresourcefulnessattractedthebenevolentattentionoftheNewYorkconsortium,whoweresoontoinvestmoreinhim,despitethefactthathewasagoy,thantheydidinTrotsky,whosevanitydevoidofidealismandconstantdesiretotakealeadingroleinspiredlessconfidencethanLenin’ssincereandselflessfanaticism.

On the other hand, only theGermanHighCommandwas in a position to enable thispoliticalexile’s return tohisnativecountry,whohadparadoxicallybecomeitsally.TheMarchrevolutionhadbrokenoutinRussia,andnolawspreventedtheimmediatereturnofall revolutionaries, including the most abject murderers, who were counted among theheroesandmartyrs.

As soon as he received the glorious news, Lenin,who found himself in Zurich at thetime, addressed some letters to his comrades, exhorting them to swiftly organisethemselvestowardtheendofcomingtopower.Lenindidnotconcealhisimpatienceandanxietyatbeingabroadatsuchacrucialtime.

Hedidnothave towait long.Without toomuchhesitation, theGermangovernment–perfectly realising what favour it was doing for the new Russian government, whichinsisted on not withdrawing from the war – agreed to allow Lenin to pass through itsterritoryon a sealed trained, as if hewere a cholerabacillus, andwithhimmanyotherrevolutionaries, including his wife Krupskaya, Zinoviev, Radek, and Sokolnikov, thefutureambassadortoLondon.Thelatter threeareJewswhohavegiventhemselvesnewnames,asthesepeoplearewonttodo.

AndsoitwasthatthisagreeablepartytravelledthewholelengthofGermanyandacrossDenmarkandSweden,skirtingtheBalticSeatothenorth,untilitfinallyreachedFinland,whichwasstillpartoftheoldEmpire.

1Evolahas,‘…peacethroughwidespreadsabotagingonthepartofthesocialistpartiesofthewarringnations…’—Ed.

2Evolahas,‘aftersomanyyears’.—Ed.

3Evolaappends,‘Atanevendeeperlevel,itistheforcesofthesecretfront,ofwhicheachrevolutionaryphenomenonisbutanoutermanifestation.’—Ed.

4ASanhedrimwasacouncilthatexistedineverycityofancientIsrael.—Ed.

5TheJewSchiffhadlonghatedTsaristRussia:theWarburg-Schiff-Kuhn-LoebgrouphadalreadyfundedtheJapaneseintheirwaragainsttheRussianEmpire.Schiffhadactuallybeenawardedagreathonourforthis.AsfortheWarburgbrothers, it should be noted that already in 1912, one of them had stated that theAmerican banking trustwhich hechaired had been createdwith ‘the possibility of a war’ in view – a possibility quite unforeseen at the time. In hismemoirs, theBritishambassador toAmericabetween1912and1917writes: ‘NegotiatingwithSchiffandWarburg islikenegotiatingwithGermanyandtheUnitedStates,asPresidentWilsonhimselfhastoldmetheyarethearbitersoftheUSDepartmentof theTreasuryand that thegovernmentobeys them.Heactuallyquoted theproverb:hewhoharmsIsraelshallknowneitherpeacenorrest’(SirCSpringRice,TheLettersandFriendships[London:Constable,1929]).IntheWorldWar, theJewishinternationalworkedperfectly.OneoftheWarburgbrothers(Max)stayedinGermanyandanother(Paul)inAmerica,whileathird(Felix)actedasanintermediarybetweenthetwo.Thisway,regardlessofwhichofthetwowarringpartieswon,Jewishinterestswouldbesecured.AnditwasindeedtheWarburgbrotherswhowerechosen as ‘financial experts’ for the peace conference in Paris! Light has also been shed on the links among theaforementionedJewishfinancialtrust,theBritishIntelligenceService,andoneoftheheadsofthelatter,theJewErnestCassel, one of Schiff’s partners and themain shareholder of Vickers, a shipping andmilitary hardware trust. Someimportantconnectionswithintheoccultfront thusbecomeclear.Itshouldbeborneinmindherethatbywithdrawingfrom itscommitment to furnishRussiawithweapons,Vickerspurposelycontributed toweakening theRussianarmy;anditshouldfurtherberecalledthatBritainrefusedtoallowNicholasIItoboardaship,whenthismighthaveallowedhimtogetawaywithhislife.(Evola)

6WeshouldalsonotetheimportantroleplayedinthesenegotiationswiththeGermangovernmentbythemysteriousinternational Jew Parvus-Helphand, who successfully upheld the thesis in Germany of the tactical usefulness ofpromotingextremeformsofrevoltinRussia.(Poncins)

7Evolaomitsthisparagraphfromhisedition.—Ed.

LeninAs soon ashe reachedRussian soil,while still onboard the train that hadbroughthimthere,withworkersandsoldiersgettingoffandonateachoftheendlessstopswhichweremadeinthosedaysofgeneraldisarray,Leninbeganhispropagandacampaignagainstthewarandfortheredistributionofland.Hewasintelligentenoughnottooverdothingsinhis speeches: he only discussed matters everyone could understand, and only touchedupon those issues people were most concerned with. And what themujiks were mostimmediatelyinterestedinwastoleavethetrenchesandgainownershipofthelandwhichwasbeingpromisedthem.Askilledfellow,whenestablishinghisfirstcontactsLenindidnotmakethemistakeoftalkingaboutintegralruralCommunism.

ThenewsofLenin’sreturntoRussiahadnotbeenmadepublic.Byherownaccount,hiswifecouldnotunderstandhowthenewshadspread.Bethatasitmay,Lenin’sreceptionwasa triumphalevent: itbecameclear that theboldgentlemanwith slantedeyeswasaleadertheverymomenthesteppedoutofanordinarycar.

Inallstationsandalongalltherailwaytracks,redflagswereflappinginthewind.ThesailorsofKronstadt,notoriousfortheirbloodydeeds,surroundedandacclaimedthemanwhowasdestinedtoguidethemtovictory,onlytohavethemshotlater.Thestreetsofthecapitalwere teemingwith crazedworkers singing hymns suited to the occasion. In themidst of an imposing procession, the future triumphant leader and head of the ThirdCommunistInternationalmadehisgrandentryintowhatwastobeknownasLeningrad,without the so-called authorities even daring to show themselves. This was all veryauspicious. Lenin addressed the workers and soldiers: ‘No support to the capitalists’government!Downwiththeimperialistwar!Longlivethesocialrevolution!’

It was mid-April, and the March revolutionaries, the ‘glorious heroes’ who hadoverthrownthe‘tyrant’,brokenthedisciplineofthearmy,promisedtogiveallthelandtothe farmers as its rightful owners, and announced the establishment of a ConstituentAssemblythroughequalanduniversalsuffrage,werealreadybeingtreatedlikecapitalistsandreactionarymembersofthebourgeoisie.

Leninspentthewholedayharanguinglargecrowdsfromthewindowsofthehotelhehadrequisitioned.Hehammeredhisideasintothevirginandmalleablesubstanceofcountlessbrains.Hiswordswerereceivedwithenthusiasm,forthethingshesaidmusthavepleasedthecrowdsandbeeneasyforeveryonetograsp.

HiseloquencewasmediocreandhisrhetoricfarinferiortoKerensky’s,butheknewjusthowtoconveyhissincereanddeepbeliefstohisaudience.Besides,Leninhadanintuitiveunderstandingoftheplebsandtheirsubconsciousinstincts,enablinghimtosaywhattheywere incapable of expressing in their own words. Lenin would speak without anyrestrictions, hesitations, or procrastinations. His speeches, while very down to earth,possessedasober,substantial,andimplacablelogic.

Without any preambles or perorations, superlatives, or exclamations, Lenin would gostraight to the point, drawing all the necessary consequenceswithout ever slipping into

contradiction.Hewaslikeoneofthosesimpleparticlesorchemicalelementsthatcannotbedestroyed, since they are undifferentiated, and cannot decompose, since they are notcompositebodies.

Whetherwelikeitornot,thesparenessandrawnessofLenin’scynicism,freeasitwasofany traceofhypocrisyorhuman respect,had somethinggreat and terriblynew to it,whichcannotbefoundamonganyoftheclownsoffreethoughtanddemocracy.

Norwas there anything Jewish in this perfect instrumentwhich Jewry had found andrecognisedforitsshrewdness.JewryknewhowtomakeuseoftheunwittingLenintotakeanincredibleleapforwardtowardthefulfilmentofitsage-oldhope.Indeed,forbetterorworse,amongall the reformersofhumanity,Leninwasprobably theone leastawareoftheaimhewasaccomplishing.

Mostopportunely,LeninhadmanagedtomakeWilhelmIIandhisgeneralsworkfortheadvancement of socialism. In all good faith,Lenin believed he could do the samewithJacobSchiffandhisconsortium.Hebelievedthisbyvirtueofhismaximthatgoldknowsno colour, and that it is a goodmethod ofwarfare to accept offers from emperors andcapitalists as long as they may be used to overthrow their thrones and banks, sinceanythingwhichhelpsdoawaywith the impure ispure,and theend justifies themeans.Thistime,however,Leninwasdealingwithsomethingmorepowerfulandmoreevilthanhimself.

Aninternationalisttotheverymarrowofhisbones,andonewhojudgedotherstobelikehim,LeninfailedtograsphowmessianicallynationalisttheapparentinternationalismofIsraelreallyis.

Autilitarian,materialist,andatheistattheverybottomofhisbeing,Leninwasincapableofsensingthenegativelyspiritualandmalignantlyreligiousaspectsofso-calledhistoricalmaterialisminitschainofconsequences.

Leninsufferedfromahypertrophyofcunning,malice,andintelligence,whichtooktheformof a single recurrent idea: that of the class struggle for the trough, in the light ofwhichheinterpretedalltheeventsofhistoryandtheproblemsofhumanity.WhatLeninwas doing was applying Darwin and Haeckel’s theories on a human level by directlytransposingtheirhypothesisaboutthestruggleforlifeasthestartingpointforallanimalspecies.Humankind,asLeninsawit,isverticallydividedintotwospecies:theexploiters,orreplete,andtheexploited,ordisinherited.Theonlyreasonforthisdistinctionliesinthestomach:thereisnoroomforthespirit–andevenlessfordivineorSatanicinspiration.

Giventheseconditions,LeninregardedJacobSchiffandhisrichco-religionistsasbeingonthesamesideasNicholasII.InLenin’seyes,thiscapitalistwhowasfundingsocialismagainst capitalismwas nomore evil than the sovereignwho, by the grace ofGod, hadloanedhisarmiestoMasonicdemocraciesinordertooverthrowthemonarchiesofdivineright.

Such was the simplistic view of this genius with blinkers over his eyes. And this ispreciselywhatmadehimoneofthebestworkersforthevineofIsrael–themandestined

to render priceless services to Jewish capitalism, while firmly believing that he hadconsecrated his life to the emancipation of the proletariat through the application andimplementationofintegralsocialismatoptheruinsofcapitalism.

Lenin’s specificallymaterialistandDarwinistmistakewas ignoring the fact that,whilethehumanbodymightbeabrothertotheanimals,thesoul–ofwhichhewantedtoknownothing–isasistertogoodorbadangels.Becauseofthis,unlikeintheanimalkingdomandinagreementwithwhatScripturesuggests,thespiritualelementcomesfirst.WhathasreallybeendividingtheoffspringofAdameversinceCainandAbelisnotthestruggleforlifeor theclass struggle,but thewarbetween thegoodangelsandbadwho inhabit theflesh of the rich and poor alike, making no distinction between the two – a war thatstretches back to the beginning of time and is bound to continue until the end of thecenturies.

Leninonlybelievedinthebeastandtheoffspringoftheanthropoidape.HebelievedinneitherthedevilnortheserpentofEden,whichhasbecometheblazonofthechosenrace.This is the reason why he served Israel and served it so well, while believing he wasexploiting it. And it is precisely because Lenin never realised that class struggle onlyserves–incidentallyandonspecificoccasions–asaninconspicuousandsecularfrontfortworeligiousdispensations,theprodigiousfateofthismaninspiresmorepitythanhatred.HiscunningwithrespecttothemenwhowerehisdupesisoutdonebyhisingenuousnesswithregardtotheJews,1whoseunwittingtoolhealwayswas.

Prior to Lenin’s arrival, theMensheviks and the various other types of socialists hadmadeupthestaffoftheSoviets,whosepolestarhadinitiallybeenKerensky.

On the occasion of their first pan-Russian congress, known as the Soviet of Soviets,whichtookplaceinmid-April,thedelegatesoftheBolsheviks–whowerestillaminorityatthetime–assembledinaseparatemeetingtolistentothewordsoftheirleader.

Leninreadouthistheses.Thereactiontohiswordswasfarfrompositive.Plekhanov,thepersonwhohadfirstbroughtMarxismtoRussiaandwhoupuntilafewyearsearlierhadbeen regarded as one of the most uncompromising revolutionaries, described Lenin’sspeechassheermadness.

ThegentrifiedLeftwhichhadoverthrownTsarismcalledLenina traitor inGermany’spay.TheMarxistMensheviksandrevolutionarysocialiststreatedLeninasalunatic,andeventheBolsheviks–accordingtoMilyukov–felt‘thewindhadbeentakenoutoftheirsails.’

TheleitmotivofthisfirstblowwhichwasdeliveredbyLeninwasthefollowing:‘PeaceandfraternisationwiththeGermansoldiers;theimmediatedistributionofall landtothefarmersandofallfactoriestotheworkers;allpowerandallcontroloverproductiontotheSoviets.’

These words, which shocked intellectual cadres, went straight to the heart of the realpeople,whose immediate interests they perfectly expressed.And the people,whoweretiredofformalitiesandpromises,repliedthroughtumultuousdemonstrations,whichledto

Milyukov and Gutchkov’s resignations and to the establishment of a ProvisionalGovernmentwhichwasevenmoreLeftistthantheonebeforeit.

ComparedtowhatLeninwaspreaching,thisresultdidnotamounttomuch.ButLeninknewaswellasanyoneelsethatRomehadnotbeenbuilt inaday.Andultimately, thisstriking ‘première’, despite the uproar it caused, was a success, since it marked thebeginningofanewshifttotheLeft.

Meanwhile, thanks to the incomprehensible intercessionof themoderate and allegedlypatriotic Milyukov with the British parliament, Trotsky arrived from New York andimmediatelyjoinedtheBolshevikParty.

VladimirIlyichUlianov,otherwiseknownasLenin,thesonofaRussianofficial,wasapractical ideologue. He was bona fide. In contrast, Leyba Braunshtein, also known asLeonTrotsky,whohadbeenborninaghettoandwasfilledwiththehumiliatedprideofhis race, cared very little about Christian farmers andworkers, whom he hated just asmuchhehatednoblesandpriests.TrotskywasawareoftheexclusivelyJewishpurposesofsocialism.Thiswastoturnhumanityintoasingle, impersonalcorporationwithequalshares;2 this society would have found its capital throughout planet Earth as a whole,exploitingthelabourofallcreatures.Israel,possiblyalongwithafewstrawmenatfirst,wouldhavemadeupthedictatorialadministrationcouncilofthenewsociety.

Thethirdpointintheplan,knowntoinitiatesalone,escapedLeninforthepsychologicalreasonswehavepreviouslyillustrated.ItwastheonlythingthatdistinguishedhimfromTrotsky.Yet,thisdidnotpreventhimfromoperatinginfavouroftheimplementationofthisplanwith convictionandzeal, in thegenuinebelief thathewasbuilding the futuredictatorshipoftheproletariatovertheruinsofacapitalistsociety,whichtheJewsdidnotcompletelycontrolandhenceregardedasonlyalesserformofhumanprogress.

Lenin considered the religious question to be merely something accessory within theframework of the materialist struggle between undernourished apes and well-fed ones.The very oppositewas true for Trotsky, the son of the Promise, despite his superficialagnosticism:socialismhesimplyperceivedastheharbingerofJudaism.Butinpracticaltermsthiswasofnoimportance,sincetheplanhadbeendrawnupinsuchawaythatthetwogoalswereindistinguishable.

Leninwastheincorruptibleasceticofpureidealism.Becauseofhisfaith,whichspoketothelong-repressedinstinctsofthemassesthroughgenuinesympathy,hewascompletelydisinterestedinbothhisownpersonandhisrace.AsafighterhewasthereforesuperiortotheambitiousIsraelite,whowasprobablymoreconcernedabouthispersonalexaltation,whilebaskinginthemessianicgloryofhispeople.

Thesetwomenweredestinedtocomplementeachother,anditismostlikelythatinthemindof theNewYorkconsortiumtheyweretokeepaneyeoneachanotheraswell, tomakesuretheywouldnotstray–onethroughhisingenuousnessandtheotherthroughhisvanity–fromtheshortestpathtowardthetriumphofIsrael,oratleastthenextstageinitsExodusthroughouttheages.

JustasTrotskywasmakinghiswayfromthewestonboardanocean liner, rushing tojoinLenin at the head of themarch of progress, another collaborator – one called to ahigherdestiny–endedhis exile inSiberia,wherehehadpatientlybeenwaiting for therevolutiontodevouritsfirstchildren,andheadedforthecapital.

WearetalkinghereabouttheGeorgianJugashvili,whowasalreadyknownundervariousnames as a terrorist, including that of Stalin, which went down in history. In Russian,‘Stalin’means‘manofsteel’,justas‘Lenin’means‘manoftheLena’–thisbeingthebigSiberian river near the penal colonywhere the founder of Bolshevism had spent someyears.

Stalin took up residence in a small and very modest dwelling in Saint Petersburg,togetherwithhisclosefriendsSkriabin,otherwiseknownasMolotov,aformerstudentofthepolytechnicwhohadbecomeStalin’sassistant,andDzerzhinsky,whowasagenuinePoleandwhowasdestinedtobecomethechiefoftheterribleSpecialCommission,betterknownastheCheka.

ByMay1917, the high command for the next stage of progresswas thus complete: aRussian,Lenin; aCaucasian,Stalin; and aPole,Dzerzhinsky; all theotherswere Jews,startingwithTrotsky,Sverdlov,Zinoviev,Kamenev(Trotsky’sbrother-in-law),andRadek(whoserealnameisSobelsohn).TheyrepresentedtheextremewingoftheRevolutionintheprovisionalcounciloftheRussianRepublic.ThiswasatemporaryinstitutionbetweentheDuma,whichhadbeenpiratedandthenburied,andthefutureConstituentAssembly,which had yet to be established. The Bolshevik Party only had sixty seats out of sixhundred, which were occupied by various socialist groups and a certain number of‘bourgeois’ones–mostlyfence-sitters.

Still, despite their political weakness, the Bolsheviks gradually gained control of thestreets. The inner circle of the Party, committed to action, was always vigilant. TheGermanHighCommand,whobynow regarded theRussianarmyas anegligible force,halteditsfunding.ThroughthebanksinStockholm,however,AmericangoldsoonstartedflowingintotheBolshevikcoffers.

Not a stir came from the government. Its members were caught in hair-splittingdiscussionstodecidewhetherthedeathpenaltywascompatiblewiththesacredprinciplesof democracy. The oratorswho shared the stage engaged in rhetorical challenges of analmostscholasticnature.

ExactlythesamesymptomsasthosewhichhadalreadybeenwitnessedduringtheFrenchRevolution manifested themselves in Russia. In France, in August 1789, the NationalAssembly,which consisted of relativelymoderate revolutionaries,was passing laws onregardingthe‘RightsofManandoftheCitizen’.TheKeeperoftheSeals,3reinforcingaclaim previously made by Necker, had then raised a cry of alarm during one of thesessions:‘Propertiesarebeingviolatedintheprovinces.Arsonistsareravagingthehomesof citizens. The proper forms of justice are being ignored and replaced by assaults;proscriptionsand licentiousbehaviouraregiven free rein; the lawsarenot in force, thecourtsareclosed,andtradeandindustryhavecometoahalt.Anditisnotpovertyalone

which is leading to all these troubles: the greatest cause of all ills is the completesubversionofthepoliceandallregularauthorities.’

Acenturyandaquarterlater,thesamecausesinRussialedtothesameeffects.InRussia,justasinFrance,theusurpersperishedbytheswordofusurpation.

ThesuccessmetbytheideasofTrotskyandStalinledtheBolshevikstowonderwhetherthemomenthadcomefor themtoseizepowerbyforce, sincenooneat the timereallyseemedtobeincharge.Lenin,however,theFabiusCunctator4oftheRussianRevolution,a strategistof socialupheavalwhospenthisnights reading theworksofClausewitznoless than those ofMarx, believed – or so it seems – that the timewas not yet ripe foractionandthatitwasbettertowait,particularlyastimewasworkingintheirfavour.

IfwhatpeoplesayaboutLenin’soppositionistrue,the‘oldman’,ashewascalledbyhiscomrades,wasquite right. Itwasnot at all necessary to climb the tree, and risk fallingfromit,topickfruitswhichwouldsoonbefallinganyway.

ItisclaimedthatanappealinvitingthemassestooverthrowtheProvisionalGovernment,and which was supposed to be issued through the official paper of the Party, Pravda(Truth), was withdrawn at the very last moment. Rumours of this plan, however, hadalreadyspread,andwereenoughforthesailorsofKronstadt,theenfantsterriblesoftheBolshevik sect, to show up in Saint Petersburg in armoured vehicles crammed withmachine-guns.

InthemonthofJuly,fortwodays,whatechoedthroughthestreetsofthecapitalwerenotthechantsofparadesandbanner-filledprocessionscrownedbytheusualpublicspeeches,butrather thesoundofrifleshots.Machine-gunscrackledaswell.Bulletskilledseveralbystandersandonlookerswhohaddaredgazeoutoftheirwindowsjusttoseewhatwashappening.This time, a fewcavalry regiments assembled in a rushwerenot enough toscattertherioters.

TheBolshevikslaterclaimedtheyhadsimplyorganisedalargedemonstration,andthatthishadbeenenoughtoscarethegovernment.Theincidentsthathadregrettablyoccurredhadthusbeenduetoanactofprovocationbythegovernment.

Itisextremelydifficulttoknowtherealtruthaboutthematter.

As we personally witnessed during those days in July, we believe – but are far fromcategoricallystating–thatwhatoccurredwasareal,butfailedattemptatinsurrection.

LeninandtheJewZinovievwereforcedtofleetoFinlandindisguise.PerhapstoremindhimofthegoodolddaysofTsarism,TrotskywasarrestedandimprisonedinthePeterandPaulFortress.Manyothersensationalarrestsweremade.

Nodoubtasaprecaution,LeninandZinovievonlyshowedupinSaintPetersburgagaininOctober.Mostofthearrestedrevolutionaries,however,weresoonreleasedbyorderoftheProvisionalGovernment,whichclearly found itdifficult toaccept that itcouldhaveanyenemiesontheLeft.

Still, people could hardly believe it when they found out that Kerensky himself, the

actualleaderoftheregime,hadgoneoutofhiswaytoapologisetooneofthosewhohadbeencaughtintheact,andtopersonallyfreehimfromthepolicestation.

The person in question was an Israelite called Nakhamkes, who operated under theRussianpseudonymofSteklov,the‘manofglass’.

Thebehaviourofthereal,ifonlynominal,headofstateseemedbizarre,tosaytheleast–iffornootherreasonthanbecausethegovernmentatthetimeappearedtohavepassedthechallengeastheundisputedandconfidentvictor,andsocouldhavebeenexpectedtodealwithBolshevismonceandforall,andtore-establishorder.

Toattainthisresult,itwouldhavebeennecessaryforthegovernmenttorelyontheforcewhichhadalreadysavedit,namelythearmy–theantidote toall revolutions.Thearmyshowedatleastsomedegreeofloyaltytowardthegovernment,althoughitisdifficulttosaywhetherthiswasinspiredbyattachmenttotheestablisheddisorder,orratherthefearofthingsworseningevenfurther.

A large portion of the army, however, was, if not literally Bolshevised, at leastprofoundly demoralised and anarchical. So it would be more exact to say that thegovernmentcouldhavereliedonsomecavalryregiments,particularlytheCossacks.Theseformedasortofautonomousmilitiabasedinaspecificarea,andwerelessopenthantheoldserfstoanyfancifulprospectsofagrarianreform.

Formany generations, theseCossack regiments had been the Jews’ nightmare and theterror of all subversivemovements.A governmentwhich emerged from the triumph ofsubversion,undertheauspicesofthechosenrace,wasboundtoharbourinbornfeelingsofmistrustorevenrepulsiontowardtheCossacks,feelingssomeonelikeKerenskycouldnotovercome. Besides, even if there were no other means of salvation apart from thesemethods which were hardly in keeping with democratic orthodoxy, it is likely thatKerenskycouldnothaveadoptedthemwithoutbetrayinghimself.

UndertheprotectionoftheCossacknahaiki(specialwhips),Kerenskyfeltnosaferthanamouseprotectedbyacatorthedevilhidinginholywater.Butitiscertainlyironicthatthisdemagoguehadnootherwayof remaining inpower fora fewweeksmore than toresorttotheguarddogsoftheoldregime!

TheBolsheviksmayhavebeendefeatedinreality,buttheywerethemoralwinners.ThecircumstancesoftheirdefeatrevealedthedistressoftheProvisionalGovernment,whichneededtothrowitselffromthearmsoftheBolsheviksintothoseoftheCossacksinordertoendure.Andwhileintheformercaseitwouldhavebeencompletelystrangledbytherevolution,inthelatteritwouldhavebeenstrangledbythearmedreactionofasymbolicknout,5whichwouldneverhavestoppedhalfway.Facedwiththesealternatives,thesmall‘garrulousandcowardly’lawyer–toquoteLenin–‘followedthevirtuewhichappealedtohimthemost’:democracy.Practicallyspeaking, thismeanthechoseanutterlyacrobaticbalance,aconditionimpossibletokeepupforlong.

In the aftermath of his Pyrrhic victory, this winner, who was in a far more difficultpositionthanthedefeated,beganbydismissinghissaviours,whomhewasterriblyscared

of,withouteventhankingthemforhavingriskedtheirownlivesandlostseveralhorses,which theyhadpaidforwith theirownmoneyandwhichaccording tocustomought tohavebeenreplacedfor them.ThismilitiawasboundtobearagrudgeagainstKerensky,whohadharmedthemwheneverhehadthechancetodoso.

Immediately afterwards, Kerensky set out to get rid of some of his colleagues, andespecially Prince Lvov, who was certainly out of place in that milieu. The pretext heinvokedwastheneedtocreatestrongdemocraticcompactness.

Whatcompactnessmeantherewasthefactthatdemocracyhadtobeconcentratedinthehands of Kerensky as Prime Minister, Minister of War and of the Navy, and in factministerofjustabouteverything,nottomentiongeneralissimoofthetroopsatwar.

The‘generalissimo’Kerensky,whilehighlyconfidentofhisrhetoricalskills,realisedheneeded a sword.He believed he had found it inGeneralKornilov, the son of a simpleCossack soldier andamanwhohadwonhis rankson thebattlefieldduring theRusso-JapaneseWar,andontheAustrianfrontduringtheGreatWar.

GeneralKornilovwastheperfectexemplarofaroughsoldier.Incapableofanypretence,withnodiplomacyatall,hewasharshandevenbrutal,butalsobraveandjust.Kornilovwaslovedbyhismenforhisuprightnessandfrankness.

Kornilov’s democratic affinities had already been sufficiently examined, since in theaftermath of theMarch coup d’etat he had been appointed as themilitary governor ofSaintPetersburg.Inthesecrucialhours,suchanappointmentwasasignofgreattrust.ItwasKornilovwhohadbeenchargedwithnotifyingtheEmpressofthefalloftheTsaristdynasty and who had put her under arrest in her palace at Tsarskoye Selo, which theEmperorhadnotreturnedtoafterhisabdication.

Withthissensationalactofloyaltytowardsthenewregime–anactKornilovonlyagreedto carry out once he had been assured that the two legitimate heirs had renounced thethrone,otherwisehewouldhavebrokenhisoathtotheTsar–theGeneralhadseveredalltieswiththelegitimistreaction,whichwasnowboundtoregardhimasatraitor.Oncehehad irreparably compromised himself, Kornilov could no longer reasonably aspire tomonarchicrestoration.

Undertheseconditions,GeneralKornilovservedastheswordwhichdemocracyandtherepublicweredreamingof–totheextent,atanyrate,thattheycoulddreamofasword.Harshnecessityforcedthemtotemporarilydepartfromthe‘immortalprinciples’;andasthe one in question was no tin sword, and the person bearing it a man of war, itrepresentedexactlywhatwasneeded tomakeupforwhat the‘generalissimo’Kerenskywaslacking.

Nevertheless,onthisoccasionthepsychologicalskillsofthegarrulouslawyeronceagainfailed.Themanofstagebattlesandthatofrealoneshadnothingincommon.Kerenskyhadnotreckonedwiththefactthatasoldierbyvocation,andthedescendentofalonglineofprofessionalwarriors,evenwhencontemptuousofprivilegesofbirthandwealthandofimperialfavours,wasboundtocondemnthedemagogicmethodswhichPrikazenumber1

hadintroducedintothearmy.

Thisdocument,whichJewishmalicehadinspireddemocracytoadoptinitsmadnessasaway of averting the threat of a reactionary conspiracy by the officers, hadmanaged toexasperateeventhoseamongthemwhohadinitiallywelcomedNicholasII’sabdication.Indeed,everyonerealised that itwas impossible to leadanarmy tovictorywhen itwasbeing governed by parliaments elected through equal and universal suffrage, and itsleaderswerelittlemorethanrepresentatives.

Sure enough, only a short time later, the Austro-Germans, who had received somereinforcementson thewesternfront, inflictedadisaster inTernopiluponwhathadoncebeentheRussianarmy.

ForWilhelmII,thisRussiandefeatwasonlyafleetingtriumphandconsolation,butforLenin and Trotsky it meant a great victory. Their idea of immediate peace andinternationalproletarianfraternisationgainedmuchground;andrealisingthis,theychosetomakethemostofit.

Caught more than ever between the hammer of reaction and the anvil of radicalrevolution,KerenskyturnedtoKornilovasaprovidentialfigure.

Asthepersondirectlyresponsibleforthearmy’sdisorder,whichhadinturninevitablyled to the bloody defeat at Ternopil, Kerensky took the chance to summon GeneralBrussilov,aformerofficerofanaristocraticregimentoftheImperialGuard.Itwasonthisoccasion that, by parodying Nicholas II’s gesture, Kerensky proclaimed himselfgeneralissimo,withKornilovashisfirstlieutenant.Andthentheinevitableoccurred.

TheplebeianKornilov,justlikethe‘former’Brussilov,didnotfeelhecouldwinorevencontinuethewarwithsovietisedtroopsandanarmyinwhichthosewhosetaskitwastoobeywerecalledtocontrolthosewhosedutyitwastogiveorders.

Whenitcomestotherealfactsoflife,nodemocraticprincipleshold.Achoicehadtobemade, and there were only two options. The first was to make peace with the centralempires; and as neutrality was practically out of the question, this would have meantsidingwith themin theWorldWar,wheredivineright facedoffagainstallegedpopularsovereignty. Thiswould have been a paradoxical approach for the socialists,whoweresupportedbytheLeftinbothhemispheres.

Thesecondsolutionwastocontinuethewarafterre-establishingandreinforcingmilitarydiscipline and the soldiers’ respect for hierarchy by reinstating the death penalty andmartiallaw,andofcoursesuppressingdecreenumber1.ButforKerenskyandhisfellows,thiswouldhavemeantmakingabreakwiththoseagentswhohadbroughtthemtopowerandwerekeepingthemthere.

Thewretchedandself-lovingdictatorhadimaginedthatGeneralKornilovwouldproveadocilesubject,easytomanipulate.Instead,awareoftheenormousresponsibilityheboretowardsRussiaandconfidentonaccountoftheunquestionableserviceshehadrenderedtothebloomingrevolution,assoonashehadreachedtheheadquartersandtakenstockofthe situation at hand, Kornilov showed himself to be even more categorical than his

predecessor.

With the rather brutal frankness of a soldier from the people, andwith amilitary-likebrevitywhichleftlittleroomfordialecticalsubtleties,Kornilov–asonemightsay–didnotmincewords.AndthiswayofactingwasnotatalltoKerensky’slikingorinkeepingwithhisstyle.

Towinsometime,Kerenskytriednegotiating.Hebeataroundthebushashewaswonttodo,anddodgedissues,vaguelypromisingthereinstatementofthedeathpenaltyandafew other partial measures. But the discussion dragged on, and the communicationbetweenthesetwoutterlydifferentmenwasfarfrompleasant.TheroughsoldierwhohadarrestedtheEmpressbecause–asheputit–hecaredmoreaboutRussia,finallylosthistemperandgaveKerenskyanultimatum,askingfortheimmediateabolishmentofallthechangesthathadbeenmadeinthemilitarysinceNicholasII’sabdication.

This time,Kerenskyno longerhesitated.Clearly, itwasamatterofnonpossumus6 forthecounter-Church.RealisingthethreatbeingposedtotheachievementsofJewryandtheRevolution, Kerensky switched from softness to harshness: dismissing Kornilov, heordered him to immediately come to Saint Petersburg.Kerensky had forgotten that theGeneral hewas dealingwithwas not a sycophant he could impresswith some officialthundering, but a hard-boiled man who had made his career through the blows of hissword ina regimebasedon favouritism.Refusing toobey, the furiousGeneralmarchedwhatheregardedashisloyaltroopsonSaintPetersburg.

Foramoment,theshiverofcounter-revolutionpassedthroughthecapital.Right-thinkingmilieus, forgetting theway inwhichKornilovhadbehaved towards the imperial family,drewasighofreliefandturnedtohimasapossiblesaviour.Butthismomentwasshort-lived.

Kornilovandhislieutenants,thebravegeneralsKrimovandKrasnov,couldnotcleantheAugeanstables7ofthedungoftheRevolution,foronthisdungtheseedscastbyLenin,Trotsky,Stalin, and their accompliceshadalreadyproduceda richharvestofpoisonousweeds.Thegeneralshadnottakenaccountofthesovietisationofthetroopsanditseffects.

Warnedoftheimpendingdangerandstruckbythejoyshownbyhonestmen,KerenskymusteredadesperatecrytowardsallthosewhoweremovingaboutorslumberingontheLeftsideofthelinethatcutsacrosstheheartsofmen–thosewhosebodies,accordingtotheGospel,willattracteaglesorvultures.Hiscallwasansweredbythetemporarylosersof the Julydays: theSovietofworkers’ representatives and themilitarySovietofSaintPetersburg, created and led byTrotsky, alongwith the gangs recruited from among thedregsofthepeopleandarmedbyStalinwithweaponsfromthestatearsenal.

In the faceof this suddenoffensive, thosewho,upuntil thepreviousday–when theythought they had vanquished their common enemy for good – had been talking aboutslittingoneanother’s throats, immediatelymade friends.They remembered that,despitetheirbloodyfamilyquarrels,theywereallsonsofthesamecounter-Church.

Theherdoftheworldconspiracy,apparentlydividedandheterogeneous,closedranks.

In those September days, Kerensky and Lenin, the March revolution, and the futureNovemberone, formeda single, uniformbloc. In acting thus, theywere refuting futurehistorians’ claim that they represented two mutually contradictory and oppositerevolutions, as well as the suggestion that democracy can serve as an antidote toBolshevism.

For Kerensky, there were no more enemies on the Left. The voice of the blood hadspoken.8Ahundredthousandriflesandmachine-gunscametoKerensky’sdefence,sincehehadbecomethesacredwarbannerofthewholeRevolution.

Kerensky,bycontrast,sawnothingbutenemiesontheRight,startingwiththosewhohadsavedhimfromtheBolshevikambushinJuly.

Onelasttime,ProvidencewasofferingKerenskyandhispartisans–manyofwhomweredestinedtodieinpenalcoloniesorbetorturedtodeathlikecommongreatdukesorsimplefeudallords–thechancetosavethemselvesandsaveRussiafromthefinalcataclysm.Butclearlythesemenmusthavebeenboundbysomemysteriousoathorterriblecommitment,forwhereasinthepast theyhadalwaysdodgedissuesandbeatenaroundthebush, theydid not waste a single moment when faced with this higher interest or categoricalimperativeoftheirdemonicconscience.

Theydeclaredthemilitaryleaderswhohadopenlyrebelledtobeoutlaws.ThisincludedGeneralKaledin,theataman,orhighestchiefoftheCossacks,whoonnocleargroundswassuspectedofbeinginleaguewiththerebels.ItwasKerensky’swayoftakingrevengefortheinsulttheCossackregimentshadperpetratedagainsthimbysavinghimfromtheBolsheviks.

From that moment onwards, the situation was no longer paradoxical. Brothers moreadvancedonthepathtothePromisedLandofthechosenpeoplesavedKerenskyfromtheinfamytobecrushed’.9

TheBolsheviksthenrealisedthattheyweretheonlyrealforceoftheRevolution,sincethepersonwhohadallegedlydefeatedtheminJulynowowedthemhisnewvictoryovertheformerallieswhohadhelpedhimachievethepreviousone.

Besides, the latest victory did not cost the hundred thousand thugs mobilised by theBolsheviks in St Petersburg a single bullet to help the threatened revolutionary avant-garde.RevolutionarygroupsandcellshaddonetheirjobamongKornilov’stroops.Theyhad explained to all those stunned illiterates that they were being marched off tooverthrowagovernmentwhichwasbentonendingthewarandgivingeveryonethelandoftherich.Thesewordssoonproducedthedesiredeffects.

Alongthepathsleadingtothecapital,undertheheatproducedbytherevolutionaryfire,the troopsmelted likewaxwithout engaging in a single battle.Kornilovwas forced toflee,whilemanyofhislieutenantsblewtheirbrainsout.

Kerensky,whohad triumphedover theabsolute revolution inJulywith thehelpof therelative reaction,nowtriumphedover the relative reactiononly thanks to thesupportoftheabsoluterevolution.

Stalin wrote to Lenin, who was still living in refuge in Finland at the time: ‘We arevirtually themasters.Day after day,we aregaining an increasing consensus among themassesof soldiersandworkers.Wehaveone thousand riflesatourdisposal and this ismorethanenoughtoputtheProvisionalGovernmenttoflight,whichonlyhasitswomen’sbattalionstoopposeus.Youcanconfidentlyreturntoourhead:Icannotseewhocouldbeasfoolhardyastoorderyourarrest.’

SuchwastheassessmentmadeofKerensky’ssecondvictory.Itsignalledthebeginningofthedeaththroesofthesemi-JewishorJudeo-democraticregimeoftransitionbetweenthatoftheTsarandtheonehundredpercentIsraeliteone.Andifthesedeaththroeslastedabouttwomonths,itisonlybecauseLeninwasstillmistrustful.

Lenin did not allow himself to be hypnotised by events in Russia. He very carefullyscanned theEuropeanhorizon,wheremenwhowereparty to thesecretsofgovernmentchancelleries–ifnotthoseofthegods–couldalreadycatchthesignsofapeacewithoutwinnersorlosers.

Severalmonths had passed sinceEmperorKarl had taken the place of his great-uncleFranzJosephonthethroneofAustria.Hehadentrustedhisbrother-in-law,PrinceSixtusofBourbon-Parma,withunofficiallynegotiatingwiththeFrenchgovernment.

It was later found out, through sensational revelations, that Wilhelm II had alsoenvisaged thispossibility, and thathis advisershadagreedwithhisview–except for afewpan-Germanistswhohadlearnednothingfromhistoricalevents.

Had it not been for the ill will of thosewho pursued the triumph of capitalist Judeo-democracyandtheabolitionofthelastvestigesoffeudalismattheexpenseofthegoodoftheirowncountriesandof thewholeofhumanity, themutualexterminationwouldhaveendedmuch sooner, andanhonourablepeace, advantageous forboth sides,wouldhavebeensigned.

But a very different outcomewas being sought, even if this was to cost hundreds ofthousandsofwomenandchildrenthelivesoftheirhusbandsandfathers.

The infamy had to be crushed. And the infamywas notWilhelm II, although he hadviolated theneutralityofBelgium,his troopshad committed anumberof reprehensibleacts,10andhissubmarineshadtorpedoedoceanliners.

TheinfamywasratherwhatWilhelmIIstoodfor,andevenmorethanhimtheharmlessandinnocent,butCatholic,KarlofAustria.Indeed,bothweresovereignsbydivineright:under their sceptre they brought together the traditional nobility attached to its landedestates.And thisnobility, despite all, stillmaintained itsposition,both in termsof rankandinthepolitical,economic,andsocialdomains.

Thisiswhathadtobedoneawaywith.Everythinghasbeensacrificedtothismadness,whichallpeoples,withthesoleexceptionofthechosenone,arenowdigesting,attheriskoflosingtheirlivesbecauseofitstoxiceffects.ThismadnessrepresentedtheundisclosedandlongpremeditatedaimoftheWorldWarandthereasonfortheunprecedentedreleaseofhatredthatcamewithit,andwhichwasconstantlyfedbypropagandafundedforthat

specificpurpose.Thisisthereasonwhyanykindofpeacewhichwouldnothaveachievedthisgoal,nomatterhowacceptabletothetwowarringparties,wasangrilydismissedasadefeatistandprematuresolution:for itmighthaveservedas thebasis forrealEuropeanpacification and the establishment of a united Christian front against the one commonenemy.

Still, a moment came in 1917 when, faced with the enormity and uselessness of thesacrificesthatweretakingplaceeveryday,manyEuropeanheadsofstate–slightlylessJudaisedthantheircolleagues–awoke.Arayofhopeflashedacrossthestormysky.

In the chancelleries – clearly, within closed doors – talk was heard of this allegedlydefeatistandprematurepeace.ButtherewasnodangerofthepriestsofMammonandthepontiffsofZionallowingthispeacetobesigned,asitwouldindeedhavebeenpremature,since the infamousmedievalismhadnotyetbeencrushed,andEuropehadnotyetbeenpolitically,economically,andsociallysubverted.11

ThelettersentbytheEmperorofAustriahadnoeffect,theinterventionoftheCatholicKing Alphonse XIII and of Pope Benedict XV fruitless, and the good will of severalFrenchministersperfectlyuseless.

Kings,emperors,andpopeshavenopowernowadays;likewise,theheadsofdemocraticgovernments, parliaments, and even electoral bodies have no influence over globaldevelopments.Proofof this is the fact that, foranother fifteenmonths,menofall racescontinuedtobutcheroneanotherforthesoleprofitandgloryofthatsmallpeoplewhichisin constant exodus across time and space towards a prestigious future.And this future,whichitsprophetshavebeenheraldingforthelasttwenty-fivecenturiesorso,nowseemstobetakingshapebeforeourveryeyes.

Theplanofsubversionhadtobecarriedouttotheveryend,forthiswastherealoccultmeaningoftheexpression‘totheveryend’asopposedto‘defeatism’.Otherwise,itwouldbedifficulttounderstandwhyapeaceadvantageousforFrance,Britain,andItaly,aswellasGermanyandAustria,whichwouldhavebeensignedbeforethecollapseofthelasttwocountries,shouldhavebeendescribedasdefeatist.

It was essential for Germany to fall so that it could then be forcibly converted todemocracy.12

Ifthe‘noble,generous,liberal,tolerant,andenlightenedspirits’in1917wereunwillingtoacceptanypeacewithGermanyunless thecountrywasexhaustedand‘on itsknees’,thiswasbecausetheyknewitwouldonly‘convert’oncecrushed.

ByOctoberofthesameyear,allhopeofageneralpeacehadbeenlostinEurope.FromthenonwardstheRussiangovernmenthadonlytwooptions:aseparatepeace,orwartothebitterend.

Lenin’striumphwasamatterofdays,orweeksatmost.

1For‘theJews’,Evolasubstitutes‘theoccultforces’.—Ed.

2Evolaomitstheprecedingphrasefromhisedition.—Ed.

3TheKeeperoftheSeals,laterknownastheMinisterofJustice,wasCharlesLouisFrançoisdePauledeBarentinatthetime.—Ed.

4FabiusMaximus(280-203BC)wasaRomangeneralwhofoughtintheSecondPunicWar,whowasgiventhetitleofCunctator, or ‘delayer’, due to his use of guerilla tactics to fight against the forces of Hannibal, who had superiornumbersincomparisontotheRomanarmy.—Ed.

5Awhip.—Ed.

6Latin:‘wecannot’,whichreferstoastoryinwhichtheRomanEmperorDioceltianforbadetheearlyChristiansfromhavingacopyoftheScripturesorfrommeetingonSunday,whichledtothefamousreply,leadingtotheirmartyrdom.—Ed.

7ThisreferstooneofthelaboursofHercules,whowaschallengedtocleanupthestablesofKingAugeas,whoownedalargenumberofcattle,inasingleday,afeathemanagedtoaccomplishbydiggingtrenchestotwonearbyriversandfloodingthestables.—Ed.

8Thesamewaslaterthecasewiththeestablishmentoftheso-called‘popularfronts’,whichbridgedtheapparentgapbetweenthetwointernationals.(Evola)

9ThiscomesfromanepigrambyVoltaire,whostatedthatreligionandsuperstitionwerean‘infamytobecrushed’,claimingitashiswatchword.—Ed.

10Evolaomitsthepreviousphrasefromhisedition.—Ed.

11IntheJewishmagazineDerJude (January1919,p.450)weread: ‘Thefallof these threepower(TsaristRussia,monarchicalGermany,andCatholicAustria) in theirancient formswouldmeancrucially facilitating thedirectivesofJewish politics.’ The famous Jewish ‘writer’ Emil Ludwig (inWeltbühne, no. 33, 1931) adds: ‘TheWorldWar waswaged to imposemodern political forms upon central Europe, of the sort in force in all surrounding countries (i.e.,liberal-democraticgovernments)…Weonlymade itbyahair’sbreadth: thepartisansofa separatepeacemighthavesavedboththeTsarandtheKaiser,preservingaEuropeunbearabletous.’(Evola)

12Evolaadds,‘asapreludetoMarxism’.—Ed.

TheCoupd’EtatofNovember1917:TheTriumphofBolshevism

In theearlydaysofOctober, theultra-revolutionarymovementgrew throughoutRussia.ThecountlesscitySovietswhichupuntilthenhadbeendominatedbytheMensheviksandtheSocialRevolutionaries–thetwogroupswhichfavouredKerenskyandChernov–soonturnedBolshevik.AndtheSovietinSaintPetersburg,whichwasthemostimportantoneofall,electedTrotskyasitspresident.

The municipal elections proved to be a real disaster for the Mensheviks and SocialRevolutionaries.InMoscow,threehundredandfiftyBolshevikcouncillorswereelected–making up about half of the assembly – and only two hundredKadets, and just over ahundredSocialRevolutionaries.

Spurred by Bolshevik agitators, many Russian soldiers fraternised with the Germans,who in turn were encouraged to behave in the same way by the Austro-German HighCommand. The latter believed thiswas contributing to themoral disarmament ofwhatremained of the Russian army, whereas the Bolsheviks’ aim was to contaminate theImperialGermanandAustrianarmy,so that theemperorsbydivine rightwouldaid thecause of the international revolution, ever confident that what was happening to theirneighbourscouldneverhappentothem.

The Bolshevik Party wasted no more time. Since it had been driven out of theKschessinskaHotel inJuly, it requisitionedan institute foryoungaristocratic ladies, theSmolnyInstitute,whichitturnedintoitsheadquarters.Thepartyhadfourprintingpresses,which issued half a dozen newspapers and hundreds of thousands of pamphlets andleaflets. The insurrection and coup d’etat were not simply approaching: they wereannouncedasimminent.1

AsStalinhadwrittentoLenin,Kerenskyonlyhadafewfemalebattalionsathisdisposal,comprised of women who had put on a uniform in a bout of patriotic exaltation andlearnedhowtohandlefirearms.

We might correct Stalin by pointing out that Kerensky could rely not only on thesewomen,butalsoonthecadresofthemilitaryschoolofSaintPetersburg.Afewhundredwomenandteenagers!Whatwonderfulsupportforthisabjectregime,which,evenmorethan thatofNicholas II at its eleventhhour,hadmanaged toalienateeveryone from itscause.Howapplicableare theGospelwords to it: ‘Sinceyouare lukewarmandneitherhotnorcold,Iamgoingtospityououtofmymouth.’

TherewasnothingleftfortheProvisionalGovernmentanditsnolessprovisionalleaderto do than to die as they had lived: the former by debating questions of democraticorthodoxy; the latterbyholdingspeeches.And it shouldbementioned that thisgloomyperspectivedidnotpreventKerenskyfromdrinkingfromthecupof lifewhile loungingabout in the luxuryof theWinterPalace,whichhehadmadehisresidence,andtreatingtheballetcompanyoftheOperaashispersonalharem.

Atthesametime,Kerenskyfidgetedlikeadevil inholywaterandgenerouslycast thepearls of his rhetorical treasure about in an attempt to create a homogeneous coalitionwithintheProvisionalCommitteeoftheRussianRepublic,whichwasstillservingasaninterimbodyfortheparliament.Despitehisefforts,allhegotfromthisheterogeneousandanarchicalassemblywerefiveutterlydifferentagendas.Aprobablyunprecedentedeventinparliamentaryhistorywasthefactthatwhilethemattersatstakewereallcrucialones,suchaswhethertocontinuethewarornot,nomajorityconsensuswaseverreached.Thepreviouseightmonthshadwitnessedanendless successionof revolutionaryministers–only Kerensky seemed to always keep his place. These men had been invoking theConstituentAssemblyasameansofsalvation,yetappearedtobeinnohurrytoconvokeit.

This,ofcourse,wasnotsuchabadthinginitself,sinceacollectionofunbridledrusticappetitescouldhardly lead toanythinggood.Still, therewassomethingveryunusual inthefactthatnoonefelttheurgetoconvoketheAssemblyamongthepeoplewhosworebyit.Andwhile theBolshevikswerenofansofWestern-styleparliamentary institutions, itwaseasyforthemtotakeadvantageofthesituationandportraythevictorsofMarchasanoligarchy shamefully presenting itself under the guise of democracy, but which wasactuallysoldouttofinancialpower:anoligarchythatwasputtingofftheconvocationofrepresentativesofthesovereignpeopleoutoffearthattheymightaskfortheimmediatesettlement of the capitalistwar and the distribution of land to thosewhowould farm itwiththeirownhands.

ThosewhohadbenefitedfromtheMarchrevolutionfailedtounderstand–orrefusedtobelieve–thatthecauseofwhatwashappeningwasthedesireoffarmerstoindividuallyownland,ofworkerstocollectivelyowntheirfactories,andofallpeopletoendthewarandhavepeace.

This is the sheer truth of the matter; the idea that the Russian nation was insteaddreamingof liberal institutions, allegedpolitical liberties, and formsof civic equality isnothingbutfiction.

Themujiks in uniformswere quite ready to stand at attention before thosewho had aright to this honour, just as in civil life theywould lower their hats before lords, lords’retinues,andstateofficials.

Forcenturiesthemujikshadbeenaccustomedtoobeyingpeopleofahighersocialrank.Forgenerationstheyhadbeenaccustomedtobeingill-treated,andindeedofpayingtheirrespectsthemoretheywereill-treated.Thisallseemedquitenaturaltothem–amatteroforderestablishedintimesimmemorialbydivineProvidenceasawayofregulatingsocialrelations.

Whathadpassedthelimitsoftheirendurancewasthefactofbeingexterminatedbythethousandswithoutknowingwhy–or forwhom,after the fallof theTsar–andwithoutevenbeingabletodefendthemselves,mostofthetimebecauseofalackofammunition.Atleasttheycouldfightbackastheyawaitedtheirdeaths.

TheRussianfarmersroseupagainstthewaranditscontingencies:againstthebutchery

whichwas reaching colossal and unprecedented proportions andhad beengoing on forthreelongyears.Thefarmerswerenotrisingupagainstdisciplineinitself;or,rather,theirrevoltagainstdisciplinewasmerelyaconsequenceoftheirrevoltagainstthewar.

Untilthentheyhadbeentoldthatitwasone’sdutytosacrificeoneselffortheTsar,God’sregent.Andtheyhadagreedtodoso,althoughtheyweregrowinglessandlessconvincedbytheday.

Thenallofasuddenpeoplehadstarted telling themthat itwasfor thecollectiveTsar,whichis tosayforthemselves, that theyhadtolitterfarawaylandswiththeirowndeadbodies:thattheyhadtocontinueenduringthismartyrdomfortheloveoftheircountry!2ItwasliketellingthesementheyhadtofightanddiefortheloveofMinervaandJuno!

Such august and abstract myths were incomprehensible to them. The farmers got theclearimpressiontheywerebeingmockedevenmoreinsolentlythaninthepast.

While continuing to ignore what the mujiks feared and wanted, thoughts, desires,feelings, ambitions, and forms of susceptibilitywere attributed to themwhosemeaningtheythemselvesdidnotunderstand.

Soldiers were given the right to forsake discipline and the shocking privilege tocollectively command thosewhom theyhad toobey as individuals,when all theywereaskingforwastherighttopeace,safety,health,andlife.

Farmersweregiventheright togoverntheircommunities,districts,andprovinces,andindeedRussiaitselfthroughdeputiestheyweremeanttoelect.Andyet,theycontinuedtobedeniedthatsmallplotofarablelandeachofthemwanted,sothathecouldcultivateitwithoutmeddlinginhisneighbours’business.

Forthemujiks,KerenskyandhisfellowswerelikethosepriestswhopromisedthemeachSunday that they would enjoy their Heavenly Father’s inheritance in the hereafter,providedtheyacceptedtheirmiseryinthislife.

Switchingfromtalktoaction,Leninannouncedhewouldconvenehisownparliament,thePan-RussianCongressofSoviets.ThesixtyBolshevikswhomadeupaweakminorityintheProvisionalCommitteeoftheRepublicnoisilylefttheAssembly.

With this resolution, the Bolsheviks severed their ties with the regime and openedhostilities.ThedecisionhadbeentakenduringasecretmeetingoftheCentralCommitteeof theBolshevikPartypresidedoverbyLeninhimself,whohad finally leftFinland. Inorder tonotbe recognisedduring the journey,hehad shavedhisbeardandcoveredhisboldheadwithawig.

Thus plans had beenmade for the coup d’etat whichwent down in history under thename of the October Revolution, according to the Russian calendar, or the NovemberRevolution,accordingtotheGregorianone.

The prelude to the new phase of the Revolution was an article by Lenin which waspublished in five hundred thousand copies and distributed by the Soviet, even in theremotestcornersofRussia.

Thearticlestated:‘Inthecollectivistworldwhoseadventwesalutetoday,eachworkerwillhavetherighttoaplotoflandwhichhewillbeallowedtocultivatehimself,orwiththehelpofhisfamilyandrelatives,withouthavingtoresorttowagelabour.’

Thesewordswent straight to the farmers’ hearts.All that remained to be donewas toorganise a coup to seize power,whichwas in nobody’s hands, really.With this aim inview,acommissionwassetupcomprisedoftheCaucasianStalin,thePoleDzerzhinsky,and three Jews known under the pseudonyms of Sverdlov, Bubnov, and Uritsky. Thespecific duty of the commission was to organise the uprising of the troops; hence, itsmemberswerealsoenlistedintherevolutionarymilitarycommitteeheadedbyTrotsky.

The Bolsheviks’ tactic was not to openly attack the government, but rather to takeadvantageofthedisorderandanarchyinordertogaincontrolofthestate’svitalorgans,which were concentrated in the capital. These included the telegraph and telephoneexchange,thepowerhouse,thegasometers,therailwaystations,andthebridgesovertheNeva.Insuchaway,theinsurgentswouldcutthegovernmentoffandparalyseit.

AllTrotskyneeded to reach thisgoalwereahandfulof resolutemencarefullychosenamongthetechniciansofthevariousservicesthathadtobeparalysed.Thesemenwouldbehelpedbyothersarmedwithhandgrenades,whowouldcauseamomentofpanicintheongoingdisorder.Indeed,for thisplantobefeasible,anorgyofdisorderwasneededofthesortimpossibletoimagineforthosewhowerenotinSaintPetersburginthatcoldandfoggyautumnof1917.

Trotsky easily found themen he needed in the underworld of Saint Petersburg,whichwas teemingwithcountlesshungrydesertersandpoliticalcriminals,aswellasordinaryones,sincethegatesofthepenalcoloniesandprisonshadbeenopened.

Still, the cunning Jew who had conceived this daring plan, which was destined toproduce such a disproportionate effect, kept his daring within strict boundaries, as iscustomary for his race.Hedid not personally expose himself, but had an idealistic andunknown goy pull the chestnuts out of the fire:VladimirAntonov-Ovseenko, a formerTsaristofficerwhohadspentmuchofhislifeinapenalcolony.

This group of rascals easily infiltrated the services they were familiar with and tookcontrol of them, while their comrades spread panic outside. While the ministers andProvisional Committee, unaware of what was happening, continued quibbling aboutdemocracy,thegovernmentwasputoutofaction.

ImmediatelyafterwardstherewastheattackontheWinterPalace,wherethedummiesinpowerhadassembledunderKerensky’spresidency.

ThesailorsofKronstadthadseizedtheAurora,awarshipanchoredontheNeva.Theyopened fire on the old Imperial residence, without the batteries of the Peter and PaulFortressontheoppositebankoftheriverdoinganythingatalltodefendthepalace.OtherarmedmenlatermadetheirwayintothemeetinghallandarrestedalltheministersexceptKerensky,whosomehowmanagedtoescape.

Trotsky’spartisans,whoareeagertogivetheirheroallthecreditfortheNovembercoup,

claimthatthisishowthingswent.

Stalin’s partisans uphold a different claim. According to them, it was the committeeheaded by Stalin which was responsible for everything, since it inspired the garrisontroopstoriseup.

Webelievethereissometruthtobothversions.Infact,nobodyonthathistoricdayknewexactlywhatwashappening,includingLenin,whowashidinginasuburbofthecapital,andupuntilthelastmomentremainedunawareofthefactthathewasalreadythemasterofRussia–justasKerenskydidnotknowforcertainthathenolongerwas.

Thequestionofwhoistotakecreditformostoftheeventsofthatdayisofnointeresttousatall.BehindmenlikeLenin,Stalin,andTrotsky,justasbehindMilyukov,Guchkov,Kerensky,andChernovinthefirstactofthetragedy,layJacobSchiffandtheinternationalJewish consortium.3 And even before the birth of this visible author4 of the RussianRevolution–whoremainsunknowntomostofourcontemporaries5–theworkwhichledtoithadlongbeenunderway.Indeed,othervaletshavereplacedLeninafterhisdeathandTrotsky after his banishment, just as otherswill replaceStalinwhenhe is no longer bearoundorwillhavebecomeatroublesomefigure.

Theseservantsandsuccessive leadersof theworldconspiracywillpass.But the initialplanwillremainandbeforevercarriedon:itsperfectprogressiondoesnotdependupontheirephemeralexistence.

Riots broke out in the streets of Saint Petersburg, and the city’s dismayed inhabitantswerenolongersurejustwhotheirmasterwas.Meanwhile,aloneinasmallroomoftheSmolnyInstitute,Leninspentthenightdraftingadecreeontheexpropriationofthelandofthenobles,theChurch,andthestate.

Leninknewperfectlywellthatthereareminutesinhistorythatcountasyears,andwhichdecidethefateofempires.

WhentheloyalStalincametoinformhimabouttheprogressoftheinsurrection,Lenin–whohadnotyetbeeninthestreets–showedhimthepaperhewaswriting,addingthesehighlyrevealingwords,whichhavebeenrecordedbyawitness:‘Ifwearestillintimetoissueit,noonewillevermanagetodriveusoutofhere.’

Thetimetheyhadwasquiteenough.Lenin’sprophecyhascometrue.

On the eveningof 8November 1917, as the rioting and revolution swept acrossSaintPetersburg,theCommunistinsurrectiontriumphed.

Itwasexactly8:40PMwhenthunderousacclamationsannouncedtheSovietcommittee’sentranceattheSmolnyInstitute,withLenin–theredTsar–asthemasterofthehour.

Hestoodup.Restingontheledgeoftheplatform,hescannedhisaudiencewithflashingeyes, apparently impervious to the huge ovation which had been going on for severalminutes. When it wore off, all he said was: ‘We shall now proceed to construct thesocialistorder.’

Andsohisfamousdecreewasissued.

Anothertremendousoutburstshookthehall.

Thursday,8November:theSunroseoveracityattheheightoffervourandconfusion,overanationcarriedawaybyatremendousstorm.

Anewerainthehistoryoftheworldwasabouttobegin.

Itopenstheageofthefinalapocalypse.

1Evolaomitsthisparagraph.—Ed.

2Evolahas,‘oftheirdemocraticcountry’.—Ed.

3Evolaadds,‘theoccultfrontofworldsubversion’.—Ed.

4Evolahas,‘birthofthesevisibleauthors’.—Ed.

5Evolaomitsthisphrasefromhisedition.—Ed.

EuropeStrikesBack1

Following the rise of Bolshevism and the signing of the peace treaties, events havefollowedoneanother inEuropewith suchapace that it difficult toprovideanyoverallpictureofthem.

It initially seemed as though the anti-traditional bloc controlled by Freemasonry andJewryinitsvariousforms–thedemocratic,capitalist,andsocialist-Communistone–hadsecured such a great triumph that it would long enjoy undisputed hegemony.After themajor obstacles had violently been removed and three of the greatest Europeanmonarchiesdestroyed,aseriesofrevolutionsinboththewinners’andthelosers’countriesweremeanttocompletetheworkoftheWar:anattemptwasmadetoemployproletarianandworkers’movements as assault squads, to pave theway for the achievement of themost far-reaching goals. Simultaneously, an attackwas launched against two sectors ofcrucialimportance:theculturalandthefinancial.

Thehistoryofso-calledinflation,justlikethatofmanyotheraspectsoftheoccultwar,still waits to be written: for here too the current opinion, according to which thisphenomenonisoneneitherprovokednorcarefullydirected,butsomethingsimplyboundto happen on account of impersonal causes, is yet another of the erroneous viewsintentionally spread by the front of world subversion in order to conceal its action.Inflationstrucknotonlythecountrieswhichhadlostthewar,butultimatelythosewhichhad won it as well. Through the wide-scale plundering of liquid wealth, it led to theattainmentoftwospecificgoals.Firstofall,inflationdestroyedtheindependentfinancialpowerofthenationsaffectedbyit.Secondly,itledthemassesintosuchmiseryandhenceexasperationas to turn themintopassivematerial in thehandsof theagitators.Thetwomanoeuvresthusconverged–theindirectone,carriedoutthroughthespeculationsofhighfinance;andthedirect,revolutionary,andproletarianone.

At the same time, an offensive was launched on the cultural front with the aim ofsuppressinganddemeaningallvalues,ethicalprinciples,andcustoms.Theseformsofso-called ‘cultural Bolshevism’, which are current in the fields of art, theatre, criticism,cinema,andintheintellectualworld,haveessentiallybeenspreadbyJews.Theiractioniseither concomitant or preparatory to that of militant Bolshevism and social subversionproper. Piling disrepute upon all notions of authority, tradition, race, family, heroism,religion,andidealism,whileemphasisinginternationalismandcosmopolitanism,hasbeenthe aim of this offensive of the secret revolutionary front in its pursuit of what areultimately–asweweresaying–globalgoals.Generallyspeaking,itsoughttoengenderphysical, economic, and moral exhaustion, apathy, the confusion of ideas and values,defeatism, and materialism and corruption among both winners and losers to such anextentthatallnationswouldbestrippedoftheirindependenceandturnedintomeretoolsinthehandsofthesameforceswhichhadtriumphedinRussia.

EveninthoseplaceswhereCommunistrevoltswerecontainedthroughvariousculturalor political forms – democratic, humanitarian, communitarian, or even national ones at

times–thehegemonyoftheseforcesprovednolesstangibleintheimmediateaftermathoftheWar.Itmaybearguedthatwhatneededtobedonewastoagaincarryoutasortofbroad, sweeping action. Politically, themain task appeared to be to carry out a timelyconvergence manoeuvre to link the two big international fronts, which were largelycontrolled by Israel and only apparently – for the tactical reasons we have stressed –mutuallyopposed: thefinancial international,wearing themaskof‘democracy’,and theMarxistandCommunistinternational.

A series of unexpected events occurred, however, which hindered this attempt tocomplete the anti-traditional arrangement and Judeo-Masonic victory. The real menbehindthistriumph,bolsteredbytheirsuccessandcertainthatthefieldwastheirs,musthave forgotten thatoneof thecrucial factorsof their successwas the fact that theyhadactedbehindthescenes,insecret.Intheirself-assurance,andconfidenttheirenemieshadbeenvanquished, theyhadstartedactingopenly.Thisprovedafatalmoveon theirpart.Deep-seated forces stuck back of the sort which tend to manifest themselves in anorganism when it is experiencing a life-threatening crisis. It is to these forces whichEurope,onthebrinkoftheabyss,mightoweitssalvation.

ThefirstsetbacksufferedbytherevolutionintheaftermathoftheWar–onethatwentalmostunnoticedatthetime–wastheoverthrowingofCommunisminHungaryafterfourmonths of dictatorship (Bela Kuhn, Jew). This was followed by the quashing ofSpartacism, aGerman form ofCommunism, inMunich (Kurt Eisner, Jew;Levin, Jew)and Berlin (Liebknecht, half-Jew; Rosa Luxemburg, Jew). Then the red troops weredefeatedatthegatesofWarsaw,andthisstoppedtheBolshevikinvasionwhichwasabouttosweepovercentralEurope.

Anewandunexpectedeventsuddenlyoccurrednotlongafterwardswhichreallyworriedthesecretleadersofworldpolitics.TheFascistreactionagainsttheBolshevikperilwhichhadsurfacedinItalychangedthiscountry–whichhadlongsinceslippedintodemocraticanarchy and become a hotbed of Masonic sects – into a new and independent nationdestined to lay the initial foundations for a positive reconstruction of Europe. The firstconsequenceofthiswasthesuppressionofFreemasonryinItaly,anunprecedentedeventin contemporary history, and one which struck the front of world subversion as a realchallenge.

Thelatter,however,didnotpaytoomuchattentiontoFascismatfirst,whichitregardedas merely a local and passing phenomenon. The front was busy working elsewhere,upholding the territorial clauses of the Treaty ofVersailles and preventing any form ofrevisionism.

Meanwhile, Portugal too freed itself from anarchy and began to undergo a profoundregeneration,which also entailed the suppression of Freemasonry. ThenMarxist SocialDemocracy (JuliusDeutsch, Jew;OttoBauer, Jew)was crushed inVienna, andHitler’srise to power signalled the endof all prospects forCommunism in centralEurope.ButNationalSocialismdidnotsimplyattackFreemasonry:italsoturnedagainstJewryinanevenmoreresoluteway.Thiswasaneventofdecisiveimportance:forthefirsttime,abigstatewaschallengingJewishsupremacy,justwhenJewrybelievedtohavefinallybecome

themaster of theworld.Not long afterwards,Germanyquit theLeagueofNations andbrokeoff its relationswith theUnitedStates,which in the immediatelypreviousperiodhadfallenunderthealmostcompletecontrolofJudaisedfinance.ItalyisnowstandingonGermany’sside,sinceitsharesitsrevisionistviews.Thusanageofnewrapprochementshasbegun:betweenGermanyandPoland,GermanyandHungary,ItalyandGermany.

We are witnessing the formation of a new front of nations lined up against Jewry,Freemasonry, internationalism, and Communism. Faced with such a serious and broadthreat, the secret forces of world subversion have felt the need to take up a defensiveposition,oreventocounterattackbydeployingnewtechniques.

Particularlysignificant,inthisrespect,isthecreationofthe‘PopularFront’.Inordertobringabouttheunityofsocialistandrevolutionaryforcesontheleveloftheanti-Fasciststruggle,firsttradeunionsjoinedforces,thenanalliancewasformedbetweentheSecondand Third International, and finallymutual solidaritywas fostered among the ‘nationalfronts’ofvariouscountries.TheItalianfeatsinAbyssiniaareenablingthemobilisationofall pacifists and democrats against anti-Masonic Italy; yet the tool of the League ofNations,whichisbeingusedforthispurpose,isactuallyproducingtheoppositeeffect:itisrevealingitsincapacitytoimposeanysanctionsaswellasitsinnerinconsistency,whenitwasintendedtoserveasaMasonic-democraticsuper-stateforcontrollingallpeoples.

Oneof thefewCatholicmonarchies tohaveescapedthecollapseof traditionalEuropewastheSpanish.Throughacombinationofcircumstances,Spainhasbecomethefocusofthis directly revolutionary action: one by one, the moves of the occult war are beingrepeatedinthiscountry.LiketheTsar,theKingofSpainwastrickedintoabdicating:hewas told that this was the will of the nation, when actually in the elections – merelymunicipal,notgeneralones–themajorityofvoteshadbeeninfavourofthemonarchy,except in somemajor cities. The farce of a democratic republic followed, which soonshoweditsrealfacebygivingwaytoCommunistradicalism.Butinthemostcriticalanddecisivemomentofabattleitalreadybelievedtohavewon,heretootheJudeo-Masonicfrontwhich is in cahootswithMoscow suddenly found itself facedwith anunexpectedreaction: the counterattack of the nationalist forces led byFranco. Spain turned into aninternationalbattlefield:forthefirsttime,theforcesoftheredinternationalclashedwiththelegionaryforcesoftheanti-revolutionaryinternational.

Atthesametime,theinternalsituationinRussiaworsened.ThenumerousexecutionsofSovietleadersandtheliteraldecapitationoftheleadingofficersoftheRedArmyrevealjustinwhatastatethisJudeo-Communistparadiseisin.Theanti-CommunistpactamongItaly,Japan,andGermanyfurtherposesaninsurmountableobstacletoit.AnotherserioussymptomofRussia’s awarenessof its ownweakness, andof the inefficiencyof the so-called‘RedArmyoftheworldrevolution’whenfacedwiththeprospectofabitterwar,isthefactthatithasfailedtoreactagainstthewarwagedbyJapanuponCommunisedandfragmentedChina.Thus,inthatwell-knownandseriousfrontierincident,RussiadeemeditbesttoavoidallcomplicationsratherthanusetheeventasapretextforcounterattackingandparalysingtheJapanese.2

Over thepast twenty tumultuousanduncertainyears,however, themostseriousdefeat

suffered by the forces of world subversion has been the Czechoslovakian crisis.Czechoslovakia constituted a real centre of interest for the democratic powers – andindirectlyRussiaitself–asitcontrolledalltheroutesacrosscentralEurope.Theterritorialdefinitionthecountrywasgiveninthepeacetreatieswasessentiallytheresultoftacticalreasons:thesetreaties,whichhadinvokedthenationalityprincipleinordertodestroytheHapsburg empire, completely ignored it when creating Czechoslovakia, a puzzle ofnations and races far more absurd than former Austria, since no higher principle orgenuine shared tradition was there to provide any unity in diversity. Only strategicreasoningcouldjustifythestructureofthestatewhichhadPragueasitscapitalandwhichwasplacedunderCzechmandate,sotospeak,byvirtueofthetraditionalanddeep-seatedanti-Germanandanti-HapsburgfeelingsharbouredbythisSlavpeople,andespeciallyitsMasonicleaders.Czechoslovakia’sfunctionwastopreventanyrestorationinAustriaandtocontroltheBohemianbasin,whichisakeystrategicareaincentral-DanubianEurope.Czechoslovakia enjoyed the support of the two other powers of the Little Entente:3Romania and Yugoslavia. According to the original plan drawn up by the ‘bigdemocracies’, the role of these countries was to act as a ‘block’ to prevent not onlydefeatedGermany,butalsovictoriousItaly,fromenteringcentralBalkanEurope.

Thissystemtoowasshattered.ThefirstblowwasthenewpoliticsofYugoslavia,whichwere favourable tobothGermanyand Italy.The second– anddecisive–blowwas theannexationofAustriatoGermany.Thisisatypicalexampleofa‘counter-blow’causedbyanti-traditional hatred. Czechoslovakia, with its Masonic dictatorship masked as ademocracy,stillfearedtheghostoftheHapsburgs.Onseveraloccasions,Benesformallydeclared,‘WedonotliketheprospectofanAnschluss,butifweweretochoosebetweenitandtherestorationoftheMonarchy,wewouldnothesitatetochoosetheAnschlussandimmediately react against the Hapsburgs.’ This is a typical case of blindness, sincethrough the country’s eastern frontier (theAustro-Czech), nowGerman and farweakerthan the western one (the German-Czech), the solution adopted here was destined toprofoundlydamagethestrategicpositionofCzechoslovakia.BecauseoftheimpactoftheAnschlussontheSudetenGermans,itwasalsodestinedtomakecoexistencebetweenthelatterandtheCzechsimpossible,therebybringingaboutthecrisisoftheCzechoslovakianstate.

While it isGermannational interestwhichhasbenefitedthemostfromtheseevents, itshouldnonethelessbeobservedthatrealsolidaritynowexistsamonganti-Masonic,anti-Jewish,anti-Communistandnationalist4politicalforces,whoseprestige,farfromwaning,is increasing by the day. The front ofworld subversionmust reckonwith these forces,sincetheyarenowcounterattackinginallsectors.

Themostseriousdanger,inthisrespect,isthattheattack–orrathercounterattack–ofthesecretforcesofcorruptionmighttakeplaceinanotherdomain:notexternally,intermsofinternationalpoliticalforcesrealisedthroughwarsandconflicts,butinternally,throughactionsanalogous to thatwhichhas sooften turnedacertainkindofnationalism intoatool for revolutionary, anti-traditional, and anti-hierarchical change. What will provedecisiveinfuturestruggles,andfortheprospectofageneralEuropeanreconstruction,is

theabilityofthenewnationalmovementstosteerclearofcertainformsofextremism:forwhilethesemayprovideapurelydefensiveandtacticaltemporarydefence,theyleavenoroomforanysuperioridea–foratranscendentpointofreferencecapableofleadingthemovements within the framework of a new, sacred unity. Bolshevism, externallyvanquished, must not resurface internally under the guise of new levelling myths or‘social’ formulasdetrimental to the traditionalvaluesof spiritualpersonality,difference,hierarchy, and authority from on high. The anti-democratic ideals of strength, power,virility,andempiremustnotdegenerate into thematerialistic formsofanewpaganism;instead, theymust find – as in our bestMiddleAges – a superior justification and realtransfiguration,sothatthefinalclashagainstworldsubversionwillnotbemerelyafightbetweenenemiessituatedonthesamelevel,butawarwagedbyanew‘HolyAlliance’,orgenuine‘holywar’,betweentheforcesof thespiritandthoseof theanti-spirit,betweenmatterandchaos.

The supreme form of the ‘occult war’ is that which is taking place on a subtle levelthroughacarefulandimperceptibledeformationanddeviationoftheideasandprinciplesupheldbythosewhoarestrikingbackagainstthemostoutwardformsofdecadenceandsubversion. Today, now that this counterstrike is in full swing, the various nationalmovementsof restorationmustwatchout for anyactionof this sort,manyexamplesofwhichhavebeennotedinthepresentbook.Strictadherencetothetraditionalspiritisthemosteffectiveweaponinthisrespect,foritisthespiritoftruthitself,andisstrongerthanallmythswhichhavebeendevelopedtomeettheneedsofanuncertaintwilightageladenwiththerubbleofsomanypastcatastrophes.Whenourfrontwillhavegrownsteadfastinthisinnerandspiritualfieldaswell,andfreeofanyattenuationorcompromise,inthefaceof all future contingencies it will be entitled to pronounce that ancient, magnificentformulainitsfullmeaning:Nonpraevalebunt.5

1ThisfinalchapterwasnotpartoftheoriginalFrenchedition.ByagreementwithdePoncins,itwaswrittenandaddedbyEvolahimself.—Ed.

2In the summer of 1938 the Japanese,whowere then occupyingChina, sent troops into theSovietUnion throughManchuria,believingthattheRussianshadmisalignedtheborderbetweenthetwonationswhichhadbeenestablishedby the Treaty of Peking. This led to fighting between the Red Army and the Japanese army which lasted into thefollowingyear,andwhichultimatelyledtoanarmisticeandaproclamationofneutralitybetweenthetwopowers.—Ed.

3 The Little Entente was a series of agreements for collective defence signed by Czechoslovakia, Rumania, andYugoslavia in1920 in theeventofanattackbyHungary, as itwas fearedat the time thatHungarymightattempt toreabsorb these territoriesaspartofa restorationof theHapsburgmonarchy.Although thisdangerquicklypassed, theLittleEntentewasmaintainedasacollectivesecurityarrangementagainsttheSovietUnionandotherthreats,supportedbyFrance, and later evenbegan to serve as ameans for economic integration. It graduallyweakenedandeventuallycollapsedin1938.—Ed.

4Evolatypicallyuses‘national’inplaceof‘nationalist’.—Ed.

5Latin:‘theyshallnotprevail’.—Ed.

APPENDIXI:ConsiderationsOnTheOccultWar1

JuliusEvolaThe occult war is that war waged by the forces of global subversion from behind thescenes, utilising means which are almost invariably invisible to ordinary methods ofinvestigation.Thenotionofoccultwarbelongs,sotospeak,toathree-dimensionalviewof history, whereby history is considered not superficially, according to the twodimensionsofapparentcauses,events,anddrivingforces,butratheraccordingtoitsthirddimension,thatofdepth:anundergroundcurrentofdecisiveforcesandinfluencesoftenirreducibletothesimplehumanelement,beitindividualorcollective.

Itisworthclarifyingthemeaningoftheterm‘underground’,asitisnottobeidentifiedwithanyobscureandirrationalsubstrateofobjectivehistory–somethingwhichstandsinrelation to the known face of history as the subconscious stands to the wakingconsciousnessoftheindividual.This,bycontrast,mightbeanaptanalogyforthosewhoareobjects rather than subjects of history, according to this three-dimensional view ofevents: people who show no awareness of the real influences affecting them in theirthoughtsandactionsnorof theaimsaccomplished through them,and thusappear tobecentredmoreontheirsubconsciousandunconsciousthanontheirwakingconsciousness.In this respect, it ison the levelof the subconscious that themostdecisive stepsof theoccultwar are taken.Yet from thepointofviewof the real subjects ofhistory,mattersstandratherdifferent:weshouldnotspeakhereof thesubconsciousorunconscious,butratherconsiderforcesthataremorethanintelligent–forcesthatknowperfectlywellwhattheywantandwhatthemostopportunemeansmightbeforthemtoreachtheirgoals.Itwould be an extremely dangerous mistake to suppose that this substrate of history iscomprisedof the‘irrational’, ‘life’, ‘becoming’,oranyotherof thoseill-definedentitieswhich modern historicism has come up with in its attempt to transcend positivisthistoriography.Indeed,Iregardthisasoneofthesuggestionsthathavebeenpromotedviaoccult means in certain milieus precisely as part of the strategy of the occult war inmoderntimes.ButIshallexplainthingsmoreclearlylateron.Forthetimebeing,sufficeittonotethefollowingpoint:weshouldnotshroudthethirddimensionofhistoryinthefog of abstract philosophical views; rather, we should regard it as being inhabited andoccupied by specific ‘intelligences’ that almost invariably have manifested themselvesthrough certain secret societies and organisations, without ever entirely coinciding orreachingabsolutefulfilmentthroughanyofthem.

AmongthevariousconceptionsofhistorytobefoundintheWest,theonemostlikelytoleadtosuchviewsisprobablytheCatholicone.Thisconceptiontypicallyregardshistorynotasamechanismregulatedbynatural,political,economic,orsocialcauses,butastheunfolding of a sort of plan (a ‘providential’ plan) opposed by enemy forces and theirhistoricalemissaries.Thesetakeoneitherthemoralisingdesignationof‘forcesofevil’,orthe religious, Christian one of anti-Christian forces, or the forces of the Antichrist. Aconceptionofthissortrepresentsagoodstartingpoint,provideditistransposedfromthe

theological level tothepracticalone,byturningit intoageneralprincipleforadetailedinterpretationofevents.Oncegeneralised,thisconceptionisalsotobetestedinrelationtonon-Christiancivilisations.Withreferencetothelatter,andtohumaninstitutions, itwillbemoreappropriatetosimplyspeakofforcesofTradition2andanti-Tradition,ofspiritualhierarchy and revolutionary subversion, of cosmos and chaos. Naturally, from oneparticular perspective, the anti-traditional forceswill be seen to coincidewith the anti-Catholic ones, as according to Catholic tradition the latter seek to fight the traditionalspiritingeneralbyunderminingthebasesofallhierarchyandthusoverthrowitshistoricalrepresentatives.

One cannot stress too strongly the need to embrace a view of this kind today, whichshould be regarded not as a philosophical speculation among many others, but as anessential aid to true action. I would here like to quote a passage from the famousProtocols,which I already drew attention to in the past: ‘The purely brutemind of theGOYIMisincapableofuseforanalysisandobservation,andstillmorefortheforeseeingwhitheracertainmannerofsettingaquestionmaytend.InthisdifferenceincapacityforthoughtbetweentheGOYIMandourselves[theEldersofZion]maybeclearlydiscernedthesealofourpositionastheChosenPeopleandofourhigherqualityofhumanness,incontradistinction to thebrutemindof theGOYIM.Theireyesareopen,butseenothingbeforethemanddonotinvent(unlessperhaps,materialthings)’(XV).Thetermgoyimisusedtodescribenon-Jewsinthisparticularpassage,whereIsraelispresentedasthemainagent of world subversion. Yet the term may also be more generally applied to thosepeopleIhavedescribedas‘objectsofhistory’.Itistrulyalarmingtonotehowoftenthisverdictconcerninggoyimstillholdstruetoday.Thepointofviewofmostso-called‘menof action’,when compared to that of their concealed enemies,maywell be regarded aschildish: these men focus all their forces on what is tangible, but are incapable ofdiscerningrelationsofcauseandeffectexceptinextremelylimitedfieldsofapplication,which are almost invariably of a gross,material nature.Besides, they show a completelackofprinciples,forinthevastmajorityofcasestheybelievethatthepointofviewofaction cannot be ‘dogmatically’ subordinated to any principles, as it must meet the‘compelling needs of the present’. Regrettably, this is still the level of many counter-revolutionary forces today. This situationmay be compared to that of someonewho isperfectlyequippedforhigh-altitudemountaineering–withhikingboots,asleepingbag,arope,andanicepick–andhaspassedmanydifficulttrials,butthenwhenfacedwithanexpanse ofwater, a lake or the sea, chooses to throwhimself in enthusiastically, in thebeliefthathisequipmentwillstillbeofusetohimandwillhelphimadvance.Actually,hewillsimplysinkfaster.

The occult war is waged in the field of what – to borrow an image drawn from theempiricalsciences–wemightcall‘imponderables’orimponderablequantities.Thiswaroften causes almost imperceptible changes, from which striking effects gradually, butfatally,proceed.Ithardlyeveroperatesbyopposinggivenforcesagainstothers;rather,itmanipulatesexistingonessoastoobtainthedesiredeffects.WhatWundt3oncecalledthe‘heterogeneity of ends’ plays a crucial role here: it is a matter of ensuring that whilecertainforcesormenthinktheyarestrivingforandreachingagivenaim–anddoingit

alone–theymayactuallybringaboutorfostersomethingverydifferent,somethingwhichreveals the presence of an influence and intelligence transcending them. It is for thisreasonthatonanotheroccasion,inthepagesofthisverysamemagazine,Iarguedthatanexamination of the ‘differential’ betweenwhat iswilled andwhat takes place, betweenprinciples or programmes and their actual historical consequences, provides the bestevidenceforthosewishingtofindoutwhattherealforcesatworkinhistorymaybe.

In this article, Iwish tomovebeyondgeneralmatters todiscuss someof themethodsmostfrequentlyusedinouragebythemaskedforcesofworldsubversionintheirattempttocoveruptheirownactions,preventthoseoftheirenemies,andmaintaintheirinfluence.ThereadershouldbeinformedthatinwhatIamabouttosay,IwilloftenbedrawinguponobservationsRenéGuénonhasmadeinvariousworksofhis.Ibelievethatwhenitcomestosuchmatters,Guénon’sexpertiseisunmatchedbyanycontemporaryWesternauthor.

1.Thepositivistsuggestion.Weshouldgrowaccustomedtothethoughtthattheso-called‘positive’ manner of writing history and considering events is not so much thespontaneous product or the prejudice of a narrow-minded worldview as much as asuggestionwhich the anti-traditional forceshavemethodically spread inmodern culturewiththeaimof‘coveringup’theirownactions.Thosewhobelievethathistoryissimplymadebymenandexclusivelydeterminedbyeconomic,political,andsocialfactorsfailtoseeanythingbeyondthis.Butaworldthat‘failstoseeanythingbeyondthis’ispreciselywhatisneededbythosewishingtoactinasubterraneanway.Acivilisationdominatedbythe ‘positivist’ prejudice offers an ideal condition for the pursuit of action in the ‘thirddimension’–andthisisexactlythecaseincontemporarycivilisation.

Above, I referred to interpretations that are no longer ‘positivist’, but rather based onabstractideassuchas‘becoming’,‘life’,oreventhe‘Spirit’.Thisleadsustoconsiderthewayinwhichasecondinstrumentoftheoccultwarisapplied,namely:

2.The technique of surrogates. This technique is adoptedwhenever there is a risk of‘awakening’andcertainenergiesthreatentotranscendthemerelevelofideas,wheretheforcesof subversioncanmoreeasilypursue theiroccult strategy. In theaforementionedcase,vagueideassuchasthoseof‘becoming’,‘life’,and‘absoluteSpirit’merelyserveasbaitthrowntothosenolongersatisfiedwiththepositivistapproach,topreventthemfromturningtheirgazesintherightdirection.Thefieldofactionbecomesasshroudedinthefogoftheseideasasitwasinthedarknightofpositivistagnosticism.

The ‘technique of surrogates’, however, is developed in a far more characteristic andeffectivewayas:

3.Thetacticofcounterfeits.Oncetheeffectsofthisdestructiveworkreachthematerialplane, theymaygiverise tovisiblephenomena, to thepointofelicitingareaction.Thisreactionwill thenseekvaguesymbolsandmythswhichmight serveas thebasis foranattempt at reconstruction. Indeed, somemay even be found that are well suited to thepurpose.Thesewillalmostinvariablybesymbolsandpointsofreferencethatdrawuponthe traditional past in their historical aspects,whichwill thenbe evoked fromancestraldepthsby the forcesofanorganism that feels threatenedwithutterdestruction. In such

cases,theoccultwarisnotwagedinadirectmanner:thesymbolschosenarenotopposed;theyareratherpreventedfromcirculating,orelsedistortionsofthemarepromoted.Asaconsequence, themovement of reaction is curbed, deviated, or even led in the oppositedirection,sothatitmightbecomesubjecttotheveryinfluencespresentintheevilitwasintendedtocounterandtheverydecadenceitwasmeanttoriseabove–andindeedwillstillbelieveitselftoberisingabove.

Thistacticmaybeadoptedinvariousdomains,fromthepoliticaltothespiritual,andisprovingparticularlyeffectivetoday.Afewexampleswillbeinorder.

Themosttypicalexampleisthatof‘traditionalism’.Avaguedesiretoreturntotradition– i.e., to a hierarchical and qualitative order centred on transcendent spirituality and anelite of its qualified and legitimate representatives – will be deviated into the form of‘traditionalism’.Whatthisconsistsofarevagueassumptionofanamateurishormilitantsort thatconfuseTraditionwithcustomsand routines, leading toanarrowparticularismwhichislimitedtotransmittedformswhosespiritisnevertrulygrasped.ThisisfairgamefortheenemiesofTraditionandthosewho,underthepretextofanti-traditionalism,seekto deliver a genuine blow against Tradition and to further encourage revolutionarysubversion.Insuchaway,theforcesofreactionareheldbackandthemanoeuvreeasilyattainsitsgoal.

Whathas justbeendescribedmaywelloccur incertainextremistmilieus inrelationtotheideaofrace,onaccountofspecificmaterialistandzoologicalassumptions.ThesameappliestotheNordic-Aryanideaaswellasthatofthepagan.Theseareallideasthatcouldunquestionablypromotecreativeactionandattemptsatrestorationamongcertainpeoplesof theNorth, provided they are grasped and presented anew according to their genuinenature and ancient spiritual and traditional significance. As they are found in theaforementionedmilieus, however, they suggest the influence of diverting action of thekindIhavejustdescribed:firstofall,becauseofalackofprinciples;secondly,becauseofthe serious misunderstandings and distortions surrounding the notion of ancient‘Aryanness’; and finally, because of the tyranny of contingent interests and irrationalimpulses. In the context of the new Italy, everything should be done to avoid thishappeningwhenRomannessissometimesevoked.TheideaofancientRomeisnodoubtamongthoseideaswhichmightcontributethemosttoreconstruction:wemustthusensurethatitseffectivenesswillnotbeparalysedbycounterfeits,mererhetoricalexhumations,oracademic, erudite, archaeological, or even simply juridical and political assumptions,whichnaturallytendtocompletelyignorethecentralforceandsoulofRomeasasymbol.

4.Thetacticofinversion.Thesecretforcesofworldsubversionknewperfectlywellthatthefundamentalpremisebehindtheorder tobedestroyedwas thesupernaturalelement:the spirit conceived not as a philosophical abstraction, but as a superior reality and thefinal goal in a process of transcendent integration of one’s personality. Once they hadlimited the influencewhich theCatholic tradition still exercised in this respect (andwewill not go into the details of what means were adopted to accomplish this goal), theforces of subversion strove to deviate and paralyse all new aspirations towards thesupernatural thatmighthavesurfacedoutside thedominant religion.Thewholeofwhat

may be termed neo-spiritualism – and which includes all the various Theosophical,Spiritualist,Orientalising,and‘occult’sects–maybesaidtoderivefromthismanoeuvre.Again, what we find here are almost exclusively distortions, counterfeits, and theperversion of spiritual doctrines on the part of unqualified peoplewho often appear tohavesuccumbedtoagenuinelydemonicinfluence.

The result achieved was twofold. First, it was easy to extend the discredit that innumerouscasesrightlyfellonthesecounterfeitstothedoctrinesthemselves,thusputtingthelatterinaconditiontonolongerposeathreat.Onemayalsomentionthefactthatinrecenttimesthismanoeuvrehasbeenaccomplishedbyplayingonpoliticalfactors:thereare certain circles which, in all good faith, see nothing but ‘Freemasonry’ (which theyconsider synonymous with revolution, opposition to Christianity, and internationalistsubversion)whereversecretassociationsandesotericsymbolsarediscussed,evenwhenone is referring to ancient traditions whose originally spiritual and aristocratic natureshouldbeknowntoall.

Secondly, through misunderstood theories and false practices, all those forces which,havingbeenstifledbymaterialism,wereyearningforsomethingextra-naturalhavebeenchannellednottowardsthesupernatural,buttowardsthesub-natural,whichistosaythesubconscious, Spiritualism, andmore generally aworld that, far from representing anyintegration of one’s personality, can only foster its collapse and disintegration – to thepointof turning the individual intoa tool in thehandsof themostobscure‘influences’.Throughneo-Spiritualism,thethreatposedbygenuinespiritualityhasbeencontainedandreducedtoaminimum.

5.Thetacticofthericochetattack.Thisconsistsincausingoneoftheforceswhicharetobestruckdownbecauseoftheirenduringtraditionalcharactertotakeaction.Suchactionwillfirsttargetaforcesimilartotheoriginalone,apparentlystrengtheningandincreasingthelatter.Eventually,however, itwillricochetagainst theinitialforceandbringit to itsruin, just as it has done with the second force. Thus by means of specific forms ofinfiltration,thesecretforcesofworldsubversionoftenleadtherepresentativesofagiventraditiontodefenditbydiscreditingothertraditions:thosewhoyieldtothismanoeuvredonotrealisethatbyattackingtraditionasembodiedbyanotherfolkorcivilisationforself-servingmotivesorcontingentandinferiorreasons,theyarecausingtheirowntraditiontobe attacked through a ricochet effect sooner or later, so to speak. The forces of worldsubversion heavily rely on this tactic and do their best to submit higher ideas to self-serving interests,pride, ambitions, andproselytising tendencies: for theyknowfullwellthatthisisthebestwaytoerodeallgenuineunityandsolidarity,andthusbringaboutastateofconflictthatwillmakethingsmucheasierforthem.

Under this categorywemight also list anyMachiavellian use of revolutionary forces.Short-sightedpoliticalleadershaveoftenbelievedthatfosteringorsupportingrevolutionsinhostilenationswasthebestwayforthemtodefendtheinterestsoftheirowncountries.Withoutrealisingit,indoingsotheywerebringingabouttheoppositeresult:whiletheythoughttheywereusingtherevolutionasatool,theywereactuallybecomingtoolsoftherevolutionthemselves.Eventually,therevolutionreachedthem,afterhavingsweptacross

their enemies. It may be said that modern history, particularly since the FrenchRevolution, has been the theatre of a subversion that has tragically occurred in thismanner. One cannot emphasise too much that only absolute, ascetic, and unflinchingloyaltytoanideacanprovideasafeguardagainsttheforcesoftheoccultwar:wheneverthis level isabandonedandobedienceismerelygiventocontingentfactors, thefrontofresistancewillbebroken–andwithit,anychanceofrealautonomy.

We shouldmention here themost recentmanifestation of this sort ofmanoeuvre: theideology based on the ‘nationality principle’, the ‘self-determination of peoples’, andimperialism–aspromotedbytheAlliesinordertomobiliseallforcesagainsttheCentralEmpiresandvanquishthem–represents thebestpossible ideologyforsparkingawide-scale revolt of the so-called ‘coloured’nations against thegreatEuropeanpowers in anattempttostripthelatteroftheirsupremacy.

6.Thetacticofthescapegoat.Whentheoccultforcesofworldsubversionfeartheymaybeexposedtosomedegree,theymakesurethattheirenemieswillfocustheirattentiononcertainelementswhichareonlypartiallyresponsible,oronlyinasubordinatefashion,fortheirmisdeeds.Reactionwill thus target theseelementsexclusively,whichwillserveasscapegoats.Theoccult forceswill thenbe free to resume theirwork,as theiropponentswill believe they have identified the enemy and dealt with it. We have often warnedcertain anti-Semitic extremists that they must be careful, lest by seeing the Jeweverywhere theyfallvictimto thissortof trap.Thesamewarningmayalsobegiven tothose who see Freemasonry or Protestantism everywhere – and these are but a fewexamples, forsimilarprocesses takeplace inmanyotherdomainsaswell.Onemustbewaryofone-sidednessandbearinmindthegeneralplaneonwhichtheoccultforceswemustfightareoperating.

7.Thetacticofdilutions.Thisrepresentsaparticularaspectofthe‘tacticofsurrogates’.Tounderstanditsnature,wemuststartfromtheideathattheprocesswhichhasledtothecurrent general crisis has remote origins and has developed through various phases(corresponding to specific forms of civilisation, state, ethics, and so on – see our bookRevoltagainsttheModernWorld).4Ineachofthesephasesthecrisiswasalreadypresent,albeit in a less acute andmore diluted form – potentially rather than in actuality. Thetheoryof‘progress’,orevolutionism,mayberegardedasoneofthesuggestionsspreadbythe occult forces of subversion with the aim of diverting people’s attention from itsorigins, so as to further the process of dissolution through false mirages, such as theillusionofthetriumphsofthetechno-mechanicalcivilisation.

The tragic events of recent times, however, have partly stripped this hypnosis of itsefficacy:formanyhavebeguntorealisethattheallegedmarchofprogressisnothingbutaracetowardtheabyssandthatitisnecessaryforustomakeaninversion.Theoccultfronthas thus employed all availablemeans to prevent any new radical reaction. One of itsfavouritemethodshasbeenthespreadofprejudicesagainst‘anachronism’and‘whatisnolonger suited to our times’. It has also driven those forces which looked toward theirorigins to turn instead towards one of its preceding stages, inwhich the crisis and evilwerepresent in less advanced, andhence lessvisible, forms.This traphas alsoworked

well.Theleadersofworldsubversionknow,ofcourse,thathavingreachedthisstagethethreathasbeenaverted,asitissimplyamatteroffollowingalongthesamerouteagain,andthenbringingaboutthedissolutionoftheforcesthathadawokenandsoughttoreactbyturningback.

Forthistactic,too,manyhistoricalexamplesmaybementioned,recentaswellasremoteones.Itisparticularlytheleadersofcontemporaryanti-subversivemovementswhoshouldwatchoutforthistactic.Inallfrankness–forlackoffranknessinsuchmatterswouldbeasin – there are certain aspects of contemporary nationalism which it would be worthexaminingindetailfromthispointofview.Itiscommonknowledgethat,inthepast,theideaofnationpossessedananti-traditional,anti-hierarchical,andrevolutionarycharacterwith respect to previousoecumenical, imperial, and feudal civilisations.Today, it is thenationwhichischieflyinvokedinthefightagainstthemostextremeformsofcrisisandsubversion, as embodied by the various red internationals. It is necessary, therefore, todevelopadifferentconceptofnationfromthatwhichrendersitastepalongtheitinerarywhichisleadingtowardwhatwemustnowfight.Alreadymanyyearsago,inthepagesofthisverymagazine,5Isoughttoprovidethenecessarypointsofreferencetoaddressandsolve this problembydrawing a distinction between twokinds of nationalism.Readersshouldrefertothisessayofmine.

8.Thetacticofthereplacementofprinciplesbypeople.Itisundeniablythecasethat,inmany respects, the decay of traditional institutions beganwith that of their leaders andrepresentatives. Yet the latter were not its sole cause: for genuine dissolution andinvolutiontotakeplace,thetacticofthereplacementofprinciplesbypeoplemustfirstbeadopted.This is anadditional toolof theoccultwar, andoperates as follows:when therepresentativeofagivenprincipleprovestobeunworthyofit,criticismisextendedfromthis person to the principle itself. One will not conclude from this that the singlerepresentative isnot at the levelof theprincipleandmustbe replacedby someoneelsecapableofembodyingit;rather,theconclusionreachedwillbethattheprincipleitselfisfalseorharmful,andmustbereplacedbyadifferentone.

Isitnotthecasethattheattackagainstdegenerate,vane,ordissolutearistocratshasalltoo often turned into an attack against the principle of aristocracy itself and into aninstrumentofdemagogy?Andis thisnotalsothecasewith thesubversiveandhereticalaction of Luther, which found its alibi in the corruption of the representatives of theChurch ofRome?History is rich in episodes of this sort, each coincidingwith a givenmoment in the process of world subversion. Let us bear in mind that the ancienthierarchicalorderconsistedofspiritualauthority,underwhichstoodawarrioraristocracy,followed by the bourgeois class, and finally the working masses. The collapse of thistraditional order was in many ways brought about by means of the tactic I have justmentioned. Thus the warrior aristocracy rose up against the fallen representatives ofpurely spiritual authority not in order to replace them with other, more worthyrepresentativesofthesameprinciple,butinordertoemancipatethemselvesbymakingaclaimtosupremeauthority.Atalaterstage–inotherwords, inalatercivilisation–theThird Estate6 rose up against the degenerate warrior aristocracy, not so that the latter

mightgivewaytogenuinearistocrats,butmerelytoseizepowerforitself.Toconsideryetanotherphase,theprocessworkingagainstcapitalismandthebourgeoisie(whichistosayagainst the Third Estate) in its destructive and negative aspects does not pursue anyreform,butismerelyapretextfortherevoltoftheproletariatanditsusurpationofpower–sunklowerandlower–onthepartofproletarians(viaBolshevismandCommunism).

***

Thefactthat,duetospacerestrictions,Ihaveonlyprovidedafewexamplesandchieflyfocusedon illustratingcertainprincipleswillnot, Ihope,prevent readers fromrealisinghowwidelytheseprinciplesmaybeappliedandwhatresultsmaybeattainedbyqualifiedindividualswishingtomethodicallyadopttheminanygivenfield.Itmaysafelybearguedthatthereishardlyanyareainwhichtheforcesofworldsubversionhavenotwagedtheiroccultwarfare. In fact, thoseareaswhichmight seem less likely tobeaffectedby suchthings are precisely the ones that, in principle, should be approachedwith the greatestcaution.

Itisworthstressingoncemorethatitisnotamatterhereof‘philosophicalpositions’,butofsomethingquite tangible.No leaderor fighteron the frontofcounter-subversionandtraditioncanclaimtobepreparedanduptohisrealtasksunlesshehasfirstdevelopedanabilitytoclearlydiscernthisundergroundnetworkofcauses.Hemustreadilyidentifytheactionofthoseinvisibletoolsourenemyemploysineveryagewhich,likethepresentone,heralds a time of ultimate decision-making and the final struggle for an entire cycle ofcivilisation.

1Originallypublishedas‘Considerazionisullaguerraocculta’inLaVitaItaliana,vol.XXVI,no.298(January1938),pp.27-37.—Ed.

2EvolaishereusingthetermTraditioninthesamesenseasRenéGuénon;namely,torefertoasetoftranscendentalmetaphysicalprincipleswhichliesattheheartofallauthenticreligions,andwhichremainsthesameevenwhentherearedifferencesintheexotericpracticesanddoctrines.—Ed.

3WilhelmWundt(1832-1920)wasoneofthefirstpsychologists.Wundtfirstdiscussedhisideaofthe‘heterogeneityofends’ in his 1882 book,Ethics, to denote the phenomenon of how an individual can pursue a particular goalwith acertainendinmind,onlytodiscoverandintroduceothergoalsintotheprocessalongthewaywhichalterone’soriginalintentions.—Ed.

4RevoltagainsttheModernWorld(Rochester,VT:InnerTraditions,1995).—Ed.

5 ‘Due facce del Nazionalismo’, Vita Italiana 216, March 1931. German translation: ‘Der Doppelantlitz desNationalismus’,EuropäischeRevue 8, October 1932. (English edition: ‘Two Faces of Nationalism’, in Julius Evola,FascismversusTradition[London:Arktos,2015].—Ed.)

6Inpre-RevolutionaryFrance,thegeneralassemblyoftheFrenchgovernmentwasdividedintothreeStates-General:theclergy(First),thenobles(Second),andthecommoners(Third).—Ed.

APPENDIXII:ReviewofEmmanuelMalynskiandLéonDePoncins’bookTheOccultWar

(July1936)RenéGuénon

EmmanualMalynskiandLéondePoncins.TheOccultWar.(GabrielBeauchesne,Paris).–LikethepreviousworksbyMrLéondePoncinswhichwehavehadthechancetodiscussin the past, this one contains many entirely correct considerations when it comes toformulatingacritiqueofthemodernworld.Theauthors,whorightlydenouncecommonerrorssuchas thebelief thatrevolutionsare‘spontaneousmovements’,areamongthosepeople who think that modern deviation – whose development over the course of thenineteenthcenturytheyexamineinparticular–mustnecessarilycorrespondtoacarefullyfixedplan,which isknownat thevery leastby thosewhoare leading this ‘occultwar’against everythingwhich presents an intellectually or socially traditional character. Yetwhen it comes to attributing ‘responsibilities’, we have certain reservations to make;matters, it must be admitted, are not quite as simple or straightforward, since – bydefinition–what isatworkhere isnotsomethingwhichshowsitselfexternally,and itsapparent pseudo-leaders are more or less little more than unwitting tools. In any case,thereisatendencyheretoconsiderablyexaggeratetheroleoftheJews,somuchsothattheyalonearesupposedtobetheonesultimatelyrunningtheworld,withoutmakingtheduedistinctions.Howcantheauthorsnotrealise,forinstance,thatthosewhoaretakinganactivepartincertainmilieusareJewsentirelycutofffromtheirowntraditionandwho,asisoftenthecase,havemerelypreservedthedefectsoftheirraceandthenegativesidesofitsparticularmentality?Severalpassages(especiallyinChapter9)closelytouchuponcertain truths concerning ‘counter-initiation’: it is indeed accurate to say that it is not amatter of common ‘interests’,whichmerely serve tomovevulgar tools, but rather of a‘faith’whichconstitutes‘ametapsychicalmysterythatisquiteunfathomableeventothedeveloped mind of ordinary man’; and it is no less accurate that ‘[a] Satanic currentparalleltotheChristianoneflowsthroughhistory’.ButthiscurrentisnotsimplydirectedagainstChristianity (indeed, thisexcessivelynarrowwayofviewing things is the likelycauseofmany‘errorsofperspective’);itisjustasmuchdirectedagainstalltraditions,betheyoftheEastorWest,includingJudaism.

AsforFreemasonry,theauthorsmaybeshockedtolearnthattheinfiltrationofmodernideas, to the detriment of the initiatory spirit, hasmade it not one of the agents of the‘conspiracy’,butonthecontrary,oneofitsfirstvictims.Besides,byconsideringsomeofthe contemporary attempts to ‘democritise’ Catholicism itself, which will certainly nothaveescapedthem,byanalogytheyoughttohavegraspedwhatwemean…Wedareaddthatacertainwilltodivertenquiriesbystirringandfeedingvarious‘hatreds’(whetherofFreemasonry, the Jews, the Jesuits, the ‘yellow peril’ or of anything else) is itself anintegralpartof the ‘plan’ theauthors seek todenounce,and that the ‘hiddenagenda’ofcertainanti-Masonicattackswouldbeparticularlyrevealinginthisrespect.Weknowall

too well that by insisting on this point, one runs the risk of proving disagreeable toeveryone,onallsides;butisthisagoodenoughreasonnottospeakthetruth?

PublishedbyLogikFörlagBacu,Dumitru,(2016).TheAnti-Humans.

Berlin,Saga;Jacobson,Mats,(2013).DjureniYggdrasil.

Björkqvist,Björn,red.,(2005).EnannanbildavHitler.

Björkqvist,Björn,(2014).Vägvalet.

Burnham,Stanley,(2015).Svartintelligensiettvittsamhälle.

Carlberg,Carl-Ernfrid,(2012).Texter,dikterochbilder.

Chamberlain,HoustonStewart,(2015).Demokratiochfrihet.

Codreanu,CorneliuZ.,(2007).Tillminalegionärer.

Codreanu,CorneliuZ.,(2015).ThePrisonNotes.

Dahlberg,Per,(2006).Dennordiskaledartanken.

Degrelle,Léon,(2006).Epos.

Degrelle,Léon,(2012).FälttågetiRyssland.

DixonJr.,Thomas,(2015).Vitaryttare.

Duke,David,(2015).Denjudiskarasismen.

Duke,David,(2013).Kämpaförnordiskfrihet.

Eckehart,Meister,(2007).HurSverigeblevenmångkultur.

Faurisson,Robert,(2007).Mittlivsomrevisionist.

Faurisson,Robert,(2008).Revisionismenssegrar.

Flodæus,Olof,(2012).Röddöd.

Garfvé,Henrik,(2006).RasochIQ.

Göring,Hermann,(2015).Tysklandåterfött.

Hansson,Per,(2012).Demokratinsomdödgrävare.

Harwood,Richard,(2008).Nürnbergprocessen.

Johnson,Greg,(2015)NyaHögernkontraGamlahögern.

Kjellén,Rudolf,(2009).Nationalitetsidén.

Kjellman,Östen,(2013).Tankariskogen.

Kjellman,Östen,(2015).Unghögern.

Kjellman,Östen,(2013).Vilkabörjadeandravärldskriget?

Lindholm,SvenOlov,(2012).Svenskfrihetskamp.

Macdonald,Andrew,(2012).Jägaren.

Macdonald,Andrew,(2009).Turnersdagböcker.

MacDonald,Kevin,(2012).Attförstådetjudiskainflytandet.

Nordengruppen,(2011).EttannatTyskland.

Rami,Ahmed,(2005).Tabubelagdatankar.

Rushton,J.Philippe(2014).Ras,evolutionochbeteende.

Söderman,Magnus,(2013).Dentrotsiga.

Söderman,Magnus,(2011).TillvärnförNorden.