Monday, December 30, 2013

Francis Parker Yockey on HOLLYWOODISM

I was struck by an article in the Independent recently, about how sentimental films can influence political attitudes and make you more liberal.

Of course the Hollywood propagandists have known this for years.

The politically awake have known it all along too, but now it has been proved ‘scientifically’.

‘Viewers who are “not prepared” to be critical about what they are seeing on screen were more likely to experience a “leftward shift” in attitudes when watching Hollywood movies with an underlying liberal message.’ ...

Francis Parker Yockey understood the threat from Hollywoodism thoroughly.

“The message of Hollywood is the total significance of the isolated individual, stateless and rootless, outside of society and family, whose life is simply the pursuit of money and erotic pleasure. It is not the normal and healthy love of man and wife bound together by many children that Hollywood preaches, but a diseased erotic-for-its-own-sake, the sexual love of two grains of human sand, superficial and impermanent. Before this highest of all Hollywood's values, everything else must stand aside: marriage, honour, duty, patriotism, sternness, dedication of self to a higher aim. This ghastly distortion of the sexual life has created the erotomania which obsesses its millions of victims in America, and which has now been brought to the Mother-soil of Europe by the American invasion.

Not only the individuals are the victims of this technic of degeneration, but the family and the race are dissolved wherever it touches...”

of the European Liberation Front 1949

By Francis Parker Yockey

Monday, December 23, 2013

The Incarnation of that One who is Truth

The Nativity with St George and St Vincent Ferrer 1455

By Filippo Lippi (1406 – 1469)
Christ is flanked by St George, who symbolises the victory over evil, and St Vincent, whose words in the book remind us to “Fear God, because the hour of his judgement is coming”.

Christ was born to confront all that was contemptible in the fallen state of man, epitomised by the self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the Jews and the worldly Roman pragmatism and moral relativism of Pontius Pilate.

We needed to wait for the Incarnation of that One who is Truth, infinite Wisdom, Sun of Justice, Hypostatic Hierarchy, the Divine Word, for the injustice of sin to be fully and totally revealed.

Saturday, December 07, 2013

Emile Keller's counter-revolutionism

Emile Keller 1828 - 1909'Today, we have financial liberty, an absolutism of capital freed from all laws - human and divine - and dealing mortal wounds to the social liberty it claims to have founded.'    

Edmund Burke’s contrasting of the so-called Glorious Revolution with the French Revolution was but a superficial window-dressing of history.  He and the Whig historians who followed him, simply rendered events acceptable to the Whig collaborators who, on their newly updated and porticoed country estates, were welcoming the money-lenders into their social circles and families.  To say the Glorious Revolution was a peaceful handover of power neglected the extended and bloody struggle that led up to it - namely the English Civil War and Dutch Wars.  The outcome of the revolutions in Britain and France was certainly the same: financial freedom for the beneficiaries of uncontrolled usury and the fractional reserve lending of central banking.

In contrast to the lickspittle Whig histories, the French counter-revolutionists described the aftermath of financial freedom as anything but glorious.  Emile Keller’s account, written in 1865, remains just as relevant to this day.  ‘The poor and the state itself’, wrote Keller, ‘found themselves at the mercy of capital, which had complete license to sell, to buy, to speculate, to charge fees, to retain funds, or to lend at high rates’.  Keller elaborated the implications of financial freedom, which later became the credo of liberalism, the dominant ideology of Usura.
The newly emancipated wealth was quick to refuse those free services that hitherto had been regarded as an honour to render to the country.  In confiscating the goods of the clergy, great care was taken to leave to the state’s expense, and thus to the nation’s the provision of education, charity, and worship that the church had originally provided.
With the one hand they had pushed away the work of pure devotion, with the other they had grabbed the best ranks, offices, and functions that the nation dispensed.
The country now has the obligation to pay a triple army of soldiers, employees, and creditors, an army that grows each day and whose general staff is drawn from a small circle of favoured families.  Thus, in place of a great reservoir of natural riches on which each could draw, we have a public debt of ten billions...  Thanks to this predominance of material interests, the aristocracy of devotion, virtue, talent, military honour, judicial integrity, and municipal patriotism is everywhere eclipsed by the aristocracy - or better, by the feudal barons - of finance, the basest and most self-serving of all.
Today, we have financial liberty, an absolutism of capital freed from all laws - human and divine - and dealing mortal wounds to the social liberty it claims to have founded.
For the man with nothing, equality under the law, social liberty, political liberty, and religious liberty are mere decoys.
Thence comes - and think deeply on it - the inevitable menace of war and social revolution, the mere specter of which froze the bourgeoisie in terror in 1848.  At the end of these violent struggles came the no less lamentable necessity of a new centralisation, a new absolutism of the state on the economic terrain.
The country will resemble a giant railroad company, incapable of managing its own fortune, hardly knowing those who are chosen to represent her, and whose hearts, minds, arms, and fortunes will be at the mercy of several braided helmets, at once all-powerful and irresponsible.*
Now, instead of the country as one giant railroad company, we might think of the world approaching the globalised state of one giant enterprise.  Financial liberty - or liberalism - remains at its heart.

Liberalism, which started with money and was founded on the ‘mundane principles of pursuing one’s own advantage’, the universal outlook described as Judaic by Marx, became the dominant ideology of Usura.  The education of the masses ensured liberalism’s deep-rootedness, with science and the aptly named humanities - politics, economics, the arts and philosophy - all serving to reinforce its dominance, with a controlled mass-media ensuring the belief is nurtured throughout life, through entertainment as well as misinformation.  Even the remnants of religion in the West now have liberalism as their guiding ‘ethic’.

*Émile Keller in Critics of the Enlightenment: Readings in the French Counter-Revolutionary Tradition, Edited and translated by Christopher Olaf Blum, ISI Books, Wilmington, 2003, pp. 277-294.

Thursday, December 05, 2013

Edmund Burke and regime legitimisation

The most earth-shattering revolution the world has ever seen, ultimately with the most violent of consequences for countless millions of its victims to this very day, was described by its propagandists as a victory for moderation.

Whig historians of the so-called Glorious Revolution in Britain (1688) have always worked on the basis that if you are going to tell a lie, you might as well make it a big one. Edmund Burke, that hero of Anglo-Saxon conservatism, in reality liberalism, set the tone for the historical analysis that continues largely unchanged to this day. He proclaimed that ‘The Revolution was made to preserve our ancient indisputable laws and liberties, and that ancient constitution of government which is our only security for law and liberty’. The English, Burke argued, were not creating a new regime, merely restoring the old one that had been distorted by the Catholic James II. ‘The very idea of the fabrication of a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror,’ Burke concluded.

Burke wrote these words in his Reflections on the Revolution in France in 1790, just over one hundred years after the usurpation of the British throne by Dutch financiers and their Whig aristocratic collaborators. He was either oblivious to the significance of this coup d'état, or a propagandist in its service. His work was contrived to give an air of historical legitimacy and continuity to the new banker regime in Britain after 1688, even to the point of fooling avowed French counter-revolutionist and Burke-admirer, Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821).

Legitimacy was vital to the occupiers of the country estates that were springing up all over eighteenth century Britain. For these beneficiaries of the coup, the revolution must have seemed truly glorious. Burke’s work of regime legitimisation was continued after him by Thomas Babington Macaulay, who wrote of the 1688 coup that this ‘was a revolution strictly defensive, and had prescription and legitimacy on its side’. Macaulay's great nephew George Macaulay Trevelyan was equally propagandistic in his disinformation. Trevelyan opined that ‘the spirit of this strange Revolution was the opposite of revolutionary.’

Burke indeed was a supporter of the American revolutionists, but this was strictly from a Whig perspective and therefore wholly consistent with his enthusiasm for the so-called Glorious Revolution. His famous 1775 parliamentary speech was more about the commercial benefits of a reconciliation with the colonists than their ultimate liberty. Recognising this, the traditionalist Samuel Johnson penned a parody of Burke’s speech, in which the devil says of the Americans:

Be not dispirited then at the contemplation of their present happy state: I promise you that anarchy, poverty, and death shall, by my care, be earned even across the spacious Atlantic, and settle in America itself, the sure consequences of our beloved whiggism.(1)

The erection of the statue of Burke in Washington (pictured) in 1922 coincided not only with the shifting centre of Usura’s power, but also marked the ultimate rejection by the U.S. of its former history of resistance to usurious banking power - the sure consequence of ‘our beloved whiggism’.

1 Johnsoniana: Anecdotes of the Late Samuel Johnson LL.D, Mrs Piozzi, Richard Cumberland, Bishop Percy and others together with the diary of Dr Campbell and Extracts from that of Madame D’Aeblay newly collected and edited by Eobina Napier, London, George Bell and Sons, York Street, Covent Garden, and New York, 1892, pp.20-1 2

Saturday, November 30, 2013

"All the back-bone of Jefferson’s thought and of Van Buren’s forgotten!"

‘A nation that will not get itself into debt drives the usurers to fury’ - Ezra Pound   
Only 16 years after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, President James Garfield met the same bloody fate, even though he did not support the greenback and conceded that paper should be backed by silver and gold.  He was resolute in affirming however that Congress should be master of the money supply.  In his inaugural address he insisted that it was ‘the chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value’.(1)
 Tzar Alexander II was assassinated in the same year, following several attempts on his life since 1866, shortly after Lincoln’s death.  However, Russia remained beyond the clutches of Usura, and the murdered Tzar was succeeded by his son, Alexander III.

When the time came to formalise and monopolise an American economy based on government debt, the outcome was almost anti-climactic.  On 23rd December 1913 the house of representatives passed the Federal Reserve Act, but it was still having difficulty in its passage through the senate.  Most members of congress had gone home for the holidays, but the senate had not adjourned and was technically still in session. There were only three members still present.  On a unanimous consent voice vote, the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed. No objection was made, because there was no one there to object.

Anti-climactic this may have been, but the impact of America’s formal assumption into Usura’s empire of central banking was to be devastating and world-changing in the century of world wars ahead.  The First World War started almost immediately after the US was securely within the banking system.

Ezra Pound made the insightful observation that ‘A nation that will not get itself into debt drives the usurers to fury’.  And it would indeed appear that the allied powers of Usura (Britain, France and USA) have waged war against countries that have resisted the debt-based financing of central banks, more recently Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

World War One started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but quickly turned into a war between Usura and Germany.  Although pre-war Germany had a private central bank, it was heavily restricted and inflation kept to reasonable levels.  Under government control, investment was guaranteed to internal economic development, and, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Germany’s economic growth was outstripping those of Britain and France.  Put simply, Germany was a threat to Usura’s dominance. 

This was especially so once Germany had agreed the construction of a Baghdad to Berlin railway with the Ottoman Empire, a strategic supply line which threatened Usura’s monopoly access to oil in the Middle East.  The threat from this railway, which was in fact planned to extend to Basra, was all the more critical because of Britain’s decision to switch its vast navy from coal to oil as a source of fuel.  

The German railway would provide direct access to Middle East oil and bypass the British and French controlled Suez Canal.  Germany was moving ahead and clearly threatened Britain’s global hegemony.  It is perhaps not surprising after all that the first deployment of British troops once war was declared went to Basra, not the fields of Flanders.

Widening the sphere of central banking and the protection of monopoly oil investments are much more credible candidates for the causes of war with Germany than the incident at Sarajevo, the stuff of Whig history.  America’s late entry to the war was for no other reason than to kill off the external threat to Usura’s expansionist ambitions.  Committing aid to its two former colonial masters would otherwise have been perverse, as indeed it appeared to many Americans at the time.  The infamous Balfour Agreement may have had a role in persuading the Jewish banking interests behind the U.S. government to lobby for support for Britain, in return for a Zionist homeland on Palestinian land.  However, this conspiracy is surplus to the geopolitical reasons already stated.

Entering the War, there were many empires.  Leaving it, there was one, Usura, the combined forces of Britain, France and the U.S.

In the aftermath of war, Germany's private central bank, to which Germany had gone deeply into debt to pay the reparations exacted by the Treaty of Versailles, broke free of government control and massive inflation followed (mostly triggered by currency speculators), permanently trapping the German people in endless debt. When the Weimar Republic collapsed economically, it opened the door for economic renewal.

Obtaining dispassionate historical analyses of the German economy as it stood before the Second World War is impossible.  The control over the interpretation of the events of that era is central to the current political settlement and will not be relinquished in a hurry.  What everyone does agree upon is the fact that from 1933 Germany experienced an economic growth spurt.  It appears that this coincided with an abandonment of a gold-backed currency, with the result that barter - the direct exchange of goods - became possible in international trade.  An example of this is Germany’s exchanging locomotives for Argentinean beef, which did not require international trading credits or a reserve currency.

The underpinning principle of economic policy was one promulgated by Gottfried Feder, which was that labour creates value, not gold.  In an attempt to apply this principle, the German government introduced bills of credit called mefo-wechsel to the value of 5.5 billion Reichsmarks.  This was added to the 4.5 billion Reich marks allowed under the Treaty of Versailles until 1933.  German heavy industry including Siemens, Krupp, and AEG undertook to cover these bills of exchange in such a way that their fixed industrial assets provided security for the newly created money. This enabled the creation of up to 10 billion Reich marks, the minimum amount required to boost the economy in a work-for-work exchange system.  After this medium was established, contracts for residential construction, superhighways and modernisation of agriculture began immediately.

The ‘problem’ with this state-issued value-based currency was that it placed Germany outside of the global economic system.  Once again, Germany was re-emerging as a threat to the dominance of Usura.

It was in the context of similar economic developments that Ezra Pound drew a comparison between Italy and the America of the Jefferson years.  The United States in its post-revolutionary era had once stood against the expanding might of Usura. Pound in his wartime radio broadcasts reminded the American public of that lost history. He had already written of the ‘laziness of whole generations!, All the back-bone of Jefferson’s thought and of Van Buren’s forgotten! Benefits of the latter, lost in civil war and post civil war finance!’(2)

As early as 1933, a global boycott was organised against Germany,(3) a regime that was attempting to operate outside the purview of the central bankers.  In 1939, as Germany’s full-employment economy began to flex its muscles against the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty, Usura felt compelled to declare war.

‘The aim of finance is always to gain by other’s labour’, wrote Ezra Pound. Ultimately, this has to be imposed by force, and war in the modern context is the compulsion of one to work for another in the aggregate, writ large.  The renunciation of love for power and gold was no neutral choice.  The triumph of a credo once held by a minority forced by circumstances to live on the margins of society was neither progress nor rationality, as the supporting superstructure of ideas in philosophy, science and art might have us believe.  This was enslavement, enforced militarily. No wonder the vertically orientated societies of Russia and Japan were horizontalised by Usura - one by financial support from bankers for a small coterie intent on revolution, the other, literally, by atomic bombs.

The last great target for assimilation by Usura is Islam and the last vestige of theocratic rule in Iran.  It is the denouement to this confrontation that lies at the heart of the present global crisis, which had its origins in 1694 with the founding of the Bank of England.

1. James A. Garfield, Inaugural Address, Friday, March 4, 1881, quoted on  (Citation dated 29.11.13.)

2. Ezra Pound, ABC of Economics, Faber and Faber, London, 1933, p.63

3. Berel Lang, Philosophical Witnessing: The Holocaust as Presence, Brandeis University Press, 2009, p.132

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

History NOT according to Spielberg

That slavery was not the cause of the American Civil War was clearly recognised with hindsight by Otto von Bismark, the Chancellor of the rising German state, a country still beyond Usura’a borders when Bismark wrote this in 1876.
The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe, these bankers were afraid that the United States if they remained as one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence which would upset their financial domination over the world.

Of the usurocracy, Bismark wrote - they foresaw the tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, indebted to the financiers, to the vigorous Republic, confident and self-providing. Therefore they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery and thus dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic.
Lincoln stood no chance of obtaining war loans at realistic interest rates from the money lenders who wanted the Union to fail. The solution to the problem was the ‘greenback’, effectively the resurrection of colonial scrip. Upon taking action to print $450 million worth of greenbacks, Lincoln made this statement of defiance to the forces of Usura intent upon undermining the Union’s cause.
The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
Abraham Lincoln

It was a defiance for which he would pay dearly shortly after the war ended.

Responding to Lincoln’s action, the Usurocracy published its own manifesto of intent towards America in the London Times.
If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe. (Hazard Circular - London Times 1865)
Tzar Alexander II of Russia, who continued to fend off the forces of Usura, blocking their attempts to achieve a foothold in his own country, recognised a potential ally in America if only it could successfully resist the Usurocracy’s efforts to split the country. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. In making this declaration of support for Lincoln’s opposition to Usura, he declared himself an enemy of the bankers too.

In 1863, with victory in sight, Lincoln was desperate for more funds to complete his final push. Having ensured that Lincoln would get no further support from Congress for the issue of more greenbacks, the representatives of the usurocracy proposed the passing of the National Bank Act. The act went through. From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes.

Given Lincoln’s enthusiasm for the state issue of ‘all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers’, it is certain that he would have reversed the National Bank Act after gaining renewed public support in his re-election victory. That is, had he not been assassinated only 41 days after being re-elected. The National Bank Act was safe but, if Bismark was right, it had taken a highly mechanised and vicious war, with the resultant death of millions, to make it so.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Usura's endless wars

Napoleon  "When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation"
In 1790 Mayer Amschel Rothschild was alleged to have said, ‘let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws’. Certainly in keeping with this maxim, whoever said it, the Usurocracy decided that its interests would be best served by allowing America independence, whilst establishing a ‘national bank’ on US soil, which English bankers would control. Thereafter, repeated attempts to establish a US equivalent to the Bank of England succeeded temporarily, only to be defeated by dogged opposition from founding father notables.

The renewal of the charter for the First Bank of the United States was vetoed by Congress in 1811 on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Within five months, the young nation was plunged into another war with Usura. Britain attacked America and started the war of 1812. With conflict raging across land and sea for 32 months, the war achieved no territorial change between either side. However, Usura secured a victory of sorts as, by 1816, faced with economic hardship from the war, Congress approved a second national bank.

Whilst Usura waged war upon America, Napoleon’s struggle against the twin forces of money supply control and military might was drawing to a close. Napoleon made his reasons for restisting Usura clear.

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815.

Instead of resorting to the banks, Napoleon sold territory west of the Mississippi to the United States for 3 million dollars in gold; a deal known as the Louisiana Purchase. However, everywhere Napoleon went at the head of his conquering armies, he found that Usura had already been there before him. The Bank of England made huge profits as Prussia, Austria and finally Russia all went heavily into debt trying to stop him.

A Rothschild financed attack from Spain in the south and other defeats eventually defeated France, forcing Napoleon into exile on Elba. Even before the later battle of Waterloo, Usura’s victory was complete. Napoleon was forced to raise money from the banks to make his last bid for glory. Whatever the outcome of Waterloo, control over the money supply would remain in the Usurocracy’s hands, and it would ‘care not who writes the laws’.

With Usura’s empire seemingly secure on both sides of the Atlantic, the Americans rebelled again. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson personally vetoed another move to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the US, becoming the only president whose administration totally abolished the national debt. When asked what was the greatest achievement of his career, Jackson replied, ‘I killed the bank’. These famous words later served as the epitaph on his gravestone.

Only three years after the veto, there was a failed assassination attempt on Jackson’s life. Usura was held at bay, but would not let go. A growing world power with massive resources and scope for taxation would not be tolerated long outside of the central banking system. A divide and conquer opportunity to redress matters came in 1861 with the American Civil War, thus qualifying it as yet another of Usura’s endless wars.

John Dunn.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

The American revolution: a serious rival to Usura established

Ezra Pound's pioneering work in this field  
Continued from an earlier blog The Usurocracy and the mob

 Compared to Usura’s next war, the ‘45 was a localised skirmish. Winston Churchill would describe the Seven Years War 1756-1763 as the first real world war. It was the first conflict in human history to be fought around the globe, certainly. However, and Churchill was probably conscious of this point, it was also defined as global by being Usura’s first engagement in a war for the world - for the economic control of the world and the hearts, minds and souls of its inhabitants.

By the end of the war, Usura had secured the control over North America and India. The very next year, 1764, Usura set about expanding the tax base to include the North American colonies, as a means of securing the ever-mounting debt. Since the creation of the Bank of England, the total debt now stood at £140,000,000. The rest, as they say, is history, but certainly not Whig history.

There is enough material available on the internet with which to piece together the incredible story of Usura’s rise and rise, without me going into it in too much detail here. It is important to note, however, the importance of Ezra Pound’s pioneering work in this field, particularly on the subject of Usura’s extension of control over the United States. He said in one of his notorious radio speeches from Mussolini’s Italy during the Second World War that “The present war dates at least from the founding of the Bank of England at the end of the 17th century”. Such a statement was never likely to dissuade American GIs from landing on the Italian coast as he had hoped, but it did show an insight into the causes of Usura’s wars that have provided a foundation for revisionist study ever since.

When attention turned to taxing the Americans the British found the colonialists printing their own paper money, known as colonial scrip. The American colonies were a particularly attractive taxation prospect, because of their prosperity.

The debt free issue of currency on such a scale posed a threat the the interest charging power of the usurocracy, which hurriedly pressed parliament to pass the 1764 Currency Act. This immediately suppressed the printing of money by the colonists, and forced them to pay taxes to Britain in silver or gold. In this draconian measure lay the real cause of the next war of Usura, the American Revolutionary War of 1775–1783. It had nothing to do with the more picturesque matters, such as the Boston Tea Party of the Whig history books.

Such was the centrality of the money issue to the cause of the revolutionists, that upon victory, the power of Congress ‘to coin money and regulate the value thereof’ was included in the Constitution of the new nation. A serious rival to Usura had been established.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

The Usurocracy and the mob

Thomas Arne wrote the music to match the sentiment 
With the Dutch invasion of England and the founding of the Bank of England, the empire of Usura* entered history. Its hallmarks were power through the seizure of the money supply and the build-up of military might. These are what enticed the backers and collaborators of the invasion. These would be the twin pillars of Usura from this point on. Of the first £1.2 m raised as a loan with the Bank of England, half was spent on the building of warships. The omens were there right from the start.

It all began with money - the trafficking of money and illegal money-lending by a minority of outsiders who were forced to hide within the very pores of the social organism. Usura was born of a long and bitter struggle between the usurer and the rest of mankind. That which was once held to be profane, permitted to serve the people in only a limited way, had now usurped power.

Man had exchanged the God of heaven for the ‘god of the world’, Mammon. Under no account is historical development in this era to be seen as a progression to a new enlightened modernity. That would be falling into the trap of believing the victor’s history and philosophy. Man exchanged one belief for another: one based on the vision of attaining as close an alignment as possible to the cosmic order, the other based on money. There is no neutral choice. To view Whig history as though it represented an enlightened rationality is to choose the path of Pharisaic self-righteousness. It is a choice that has had catastrophic consequences for millions upon millions of people since Usura was founded, and continues to do so with increasing ferociousness to this very day.

The founders of Usura renounced love for power and gold in the manner of Wagner’s Albrecht the Nibelung. Sings Albrecht addressing the old gods...

You who aloft in the soft zephyrs' breeze
laugh and love,
all you gods I'll grip
in my golden grasp!
As I renounced love,
all living things
shall renounce it!
Allured by gold,
for gold alone shall you hunger.
On radiant peaks
you live,
lulled in bliss:
the black gnome
you despise, you eternal revellers!
With the seizure of power came the manipulation of the masses. By 1700, London was the largest city in the world with over 500,000 inhabitants. In the London mob, the Usurocracy had a ready-made means of securing its grip on power, and it ensured that it could steer the mob in any direction it wanted with the introduction of nationalistic patriotism. After the Act of Union in 1715, the Union Jack became the symbol of this new Whigism. Thomas Arne wrote the music to match the sentiment. In 1740, theatre audiences were singing along to his Rule Britannia and, by 1745, standing to God Save the King. The mob that had so recently been enslaved to the national debt was induced to to sing, with cruel irony, that ‘Britons never, never, never shall be slaves’. The timing of these instruments of psychological enslavement conditioned minds in readiness for the 45 rebellion, a lost cause from the start given its disorganisation, but buoyed along remarkably by popular sentiment for the restoration of the rightful king, particularly in the North, where the instruments of Usura’s propaganda had not yet penetrated. Less than a hundred years later, the Usurocracy felt it safe enough to unleash democracy as its means of securing power against those who could see through its facade of governance to the rottenness of legalised counterfeiting corruption at its core. To this day, the Usurocracy relies on mob rule to maintain and extend its power. It fights wars to extend its grip over the money supply in the name of democracy.

*I have employed Ezra Pound’s collective noun describing the distended western economy with its lopsided foundation upon banking and the principle of "interest". Held within the term is the perennial struggle between the usurer and the producer, and the foetid decline when the former holds sway. Pound's famous poem says it all, and more.


With usura hath no man a house of good stone
each block cut smooth and well fitting
that delight might cover their face,

with usura

hath no man a painted paradise on his church wall
harpes et luthes
or where virgin receiveth message
and halo projects from incision,

with usura

seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
no picture is made to endure nor to live with
but it is made to sell and sell quickly

with usura, sin against nature,
is thy bread ever more of stale rags
is thy bread dry as paper,
with no mountain wheat, no strong flour

with usura the line grows thick

with usura is no clear demarcation
and no man can find site for his dwelling
Stone cutter is kept from his stone
weaver is kept from his loom


wool comes not to market
sheep bringeth no gain with usura
Usura is a murrain, usura
blunteth the needle in the the maid's hand
and stoppeth the spinner's cunning. Pietro Lombardo
came not by usura
Duccio came not by usura
nor Pier della Francesca; Zuan Bellin' not by usura
nor was "La Callunia" painted.
Came not by usura Angelico; came not Ambrogio Praedis,
No church of cut stone signed: Adamo me fecit.
Not by usura St. Trophime

Not by usura St. Hilaire,

Usura rusteth the chisel
It rusteth the craft and the craftsman
It gnaweth the thread in the loom
None learneth to weave gold in her pattern;
Azure hath a canker by usura; cramoisi is unbroidered
Emerald findeth no Memling

Usura slayeth the child in the womb
It stayeth the young man's courting
It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
between the young bride and her bridegroom


They have brought whores for Eleusis
Corpses are set to banquet

at behest of usura.
John Dunn.

Friday, August 16, 2013

The twin pillars of Usura

The invasion force that carried William of Orange to England contained 463 ships and 40,000 men. It was almost twice the size of the Armada sent by Philip of Spain one hundred years before.

Within six years of deposing the rightful King of England, the Dutch financiers from Amsterdam who had backed the invasion of Britain, nominally under the leadership of William of Orange, together with the English Whig collaborators, sought to exact their return, with interest. They would fulfil their objective of taking control of the British economy, whilst installing themselves as its real governing force. This they did by establishing the Bank of England, the merits of which to its supporters were summed up in the oft-repeated sentence by its founder, William Patterson.

“The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”

The bank would be enforced as the only source from which government officials could borrow money, with the debt secured against public taxes. The country sold bonds to the bank in return for money it could not raise in taxes. The bonds were paid for by money produced from thin air. The government paid interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There was no way this debt could ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

Enough has been written about the scourge of fractional reserve banking, without going into detail here. Suffice it to say that, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is only transferred. And it is those interests that control the money supply who benefit the most when money is scarce. When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that these interests are continuing to get rich.

With the Dutch invasion of England and the founding of the Bank of England, the empire of Usura* entered history. Its hallmarks were power through the seizure of the money supply and the build-up of military might. These are what enticed the backers and collaborators of the invasion. These would be the twin pillars of Usura from this point on. Of the first £1.2 m raised as a loan with the Bank of England, half was spent on the building of warships. The omens were there right from the start.

*I have employed Ezra Pound’s collective noun describing the distended western economy with its lopsided foundation upon banking and the principle of "interest". Held within the term is the perennial struggle between the usurer and the producer, and the foetid decline when the former holds sway. Pound's famous poem says it all, and more.


With usura hath no man a house of good stone
each block cut smooth and well fitting
that delight might cover their face,

with usura

hath no man a painted paradise on his church wall
harpes et luthes
or where virgin receiveth message
and halo projects from incision,

with usura

seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
no picture is made to endure nor to live with
but it is made to sell and sell quickly

with usura, sin against nature,
is thy bread ever more of stale rags
is thy bread dry as paper,
with no mountain wheat, no strong flour

with usura the line grows thick

with usura is no clear demarcation
and no man can find site for his dwelling
Stone cutter is kept from his stone
weaver is kept from his loom


wool comes not to market
sheep bringeth no gain with usura
Usura is a murrain, usura
blunteth the needle in the the maid's hand
and stoppeth the spinner's cunning. Pietro Lombardo
came not by usura
Duccio came not by usura
nor Pier della Francesca; Zuan Bellin' not by usura
nor was "La Callunia" painted.
Came not by usura Angelico; came not Ambrogio Praedis,
No church of cut stone signed: Adamo me fecit.
Not by usura St. Trophime

Not by usura St. Hilaire,

Usura rusteth the chisel
It rusteth the craft and the craftsman
It gnaweth the thread in the loom
None learneth to weave gold in her pattern;
Azure hath a canker by usura; cramoisi is unbroidered
Emerald findeth no Memling

Usura slayeth the child in the womb
It stayeth the young man's courting
It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
between the young bride and her bridegroom


They have brought whores for Eleusis
Corpses are set to banquet

at behest of usura.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Whig plotters and the Dutch invasion

James II and VII of England and Scotland 
After the civil war, Cromwell permitted the Jews to enter England again, but did not reverse the Edict of Expulsion issued by King Edward I in 1290, which expelled all Jews forever from England and made the provision that any who remained after November 1st 1290, were to be executed.

No other action could have sent a stronger signal that with the king’s defeat all resistance to usury in Britain had come to an end. It confirmed the reign of disorder and its empire of Usura*, with the political creed of Whiggism at its heart.

Concommitant with the Calvinism of the victorious puritans was the opening up of the amoral economic sphere where, in the words of Marx, life could be led in the ‘spirit’ of Judaisim by all.

‘Practical necessity and the pursuit of one’s own advantage’ ** would rule the day and all political action would be directed towards supporting that end.

Hence the sequence of events, in quick succession, that would change the direction of world history and be the source of conflict, death and misery to the present day.

The monarchy was restored in 1660, though Charles II reigned very much in the shadow of the newly empowered parliament. He was harmless to Whiggish economic ambitions. He ruled as an Anglican, hiding his religious and political sympathies until his deathbed conversion to Roman Catholicism. However, the brother who succeeded Charles as James II of England and James VII of Scotland posed a problem to the Whigs.

He had landed in England with Charles as a seasoned and successful military campaigner, having served in the armies of the French King, Louis XIV. Thus it was as a military man he returned, which is why Charles appointed him Lord High Admiral. He held the position for 13 years with much success in the Dutch wars, building up the fleet and developing the use of gunpowder and artillery.

A strong and military-minded king was risk enough to Whiggish commercial ambitions, but when it was discovered that he too had converted to Roman Catholicism, then his fate was sealed.

The Dutch had no love of James for more reasons than religion. Whilst he was head of the navy during the Dutch wars in 1666, English warships had sailed into the city of West Terschelling in the Netherlands and, on the 19th and 20th August, sank a large merchant fleet of 140 ships. During the same action West Terschelling was burnt down and completely destroyed.

It is highly likely that the Dutch started the Great Fire of London only two weeks later in an effective act of retaliation. The colourful Pudding Lane accident found in subsequent Whig histories is an outrageous coincidence pedalled as truth by the heirs to the collaborators with the Dutch.

James II distinguished himself bravely as the leader of firefighting operations during the Great Fire. ‘The Duke of York hath won the hearts of the people with his continual and indefatigable pains day and night in helping to quench the Fire’, wrote a witness in a letter on 8 September. ***

Whig plotters would have no trouble persuading potential adventurers from the financial centre of Amsterdam of the prize at hand. Access to new markets and use of English military power for financial and commercial ends was in prospect. This induced the assemblage of a huge Dutch invasion force behind the bogus claim to the throne of William of Orange.

33 years after Cromwell signalled that England was open to usury, financial interests inside and outside the country had collaborated to depose the last living embodiment of divinely sanctioned power. William and Mary were figureheads. Money ruled. Only six years later, the Bank of England was established.

*I have employed Ezra Pound’s collective noun describing the distended western economy with its lopsided foundation upon banking and the principle of "interest". Held within the term is the perennial struggle between the usurer and the producer

**See Marx and the Judaic metaphor in Thought Pieces.

***Spelling modernized for clarity; quoted by Adrian Tinniswood, By Permission of Heaven: The Story of the Great Fire of London. London: Jonathan Cape
(2003) p.80.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Charles I’s defence to the end of the vertical hierarchy

Charles I
Charles I’s last words on the scaffold defined the historical antithesis between the sacred way and the profane.

Many could not hear what he said as he spoke quietly.  However, he was leaving his words for posterity.  Charles directed his last comments to Colonel Tomlinson and Bishop Juxon who reported his words after the execution.

All the world knows that I never did begin a war with the two Houses of Parliament. ….for I do believe that ill instruments between them and me has been the chief cause of all this bloodshed.
He was acutely aware that there were larger forces, ‘ill instruments’, driving the war, other than the obvious protagonists.  What did these ‘ill instruments’ have to gain from the defeat of the king?  The answer to that, quite clearly, is commercial gain.
I have forgiven all the world, and even those in particular that have been the chief causers of my death……For the people; And truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whomsoever, but I must tell you, that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government; those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government that is pertaining to them; A subject and a sovereign are clean different things, and therefore until you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves.
Charles I’s defence to the end of the vertical hierarchy, the outward and imperfect expression of a supreme spiritual reality, was inevitably always going to clash with the new creed of ‘practical necessity and the pursuit of one’s own advantage’, ‘the mundane principles of Judaism’, as later described by Marx.

Charles’s own position was best exemplified by the enthusiastic support he gave for William Laud’s enthronement as Archbishop of Canterbury.  A champion of the social organism as a reflection of the cosmic order, Laud set himself against factionalism and the pursuit of individual economic gain. Factionalism in the form of parties was a threat to the coherence of society and had to be suppressed, for Governments must ‘entertain no private business’, and ‘parties are ever private ends’.  In the spirit of the medieval Church Councils, Laud detested as sacrilegious the self-interest which led the individual to struggle for riches and advancement.  ‘There is no private end, but in something or other it will be led to run cross the public: and, if gain come in, though it be by “making shrines for Diana”, it is no matter with them though Ephesus be in an uproar for it.’*

Laud was executed in the midst of the Civil War for these beliefs, and Charles I was eventually overcome by opponents who sought in Calvinism the halo of ethical sanctification for their amoral economic ends.

Charles concluded his final speech.
Sir, it was for this that I am come here. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you….that I am the martyr of the people. I have a good cause and a gracious God on my side.
He could have given way to the forces of Mammon, disorder, the party with the greater economic backing and firepower, but he chose to make a stand for the sacred order on earth.  He offered himself to posterity as a martyr in the cause of the sacred way against the profane.

* R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, Penguin, 1961, p.175.

Sunday, April 07, 2013

In the Pilgrimage of Grace 1536, Christian charity would come face to face with Mammon

A banner bearing the Holy wounds of Jesus Christ, which was carried at the Pilgrimage of Grace
In the Pilgrimage of Grace 1536, Christian charity would come face to face with Mammon and ‘the mundane principles of Judaism’*. Here, in embryo, would be the principle antitheses of world history in the post-Reformation world. The proponents of the vertical order made a stand against the horizontalism of disorder. Religion confronted secularism. Order stood against disorder. Traditionalism met modernity and the future liberalism. The sacred and the profane collided.

The link between the sins of mankind and the wounds of Jesus was was familiar in England.**

‘It was for this reason that the cult of the Five Wounds in England repeatedly expressed itself in acts of charity as well as Masses and prayers, and especially by acts of charity in multiples of fives, bestowed on Fridays and above all on Good Friday. By such actual and symbolic charity one could turn the wounds of judgement into the Wounds of Mercy, forestalling the condemnation threatened in Matthew 25 by attending, while there was still time, to Christ’s wounded members, the poor.’***

Such charity towards the poor was linked intimately with the health of the body of Christ, the church and, therefore, the social organism as a whole.

‘Into what appears to be a simple effective devotion to the Passion, there was compressed the essence of the practical soteriology of late medieval religion. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the symbol of the Five Wounds should have been chosen by the Pilgrims of Grace as the emblem of their loyalty to the whole medieval Catholic system.’**

The religious houses that offered charitable care for the sick and poor were tending the wounds of Christ. The attack on the monasteries that prompted the `Pilgrimage of Grace was therefore an assault on the holistic belief system within which men led their lives. And to what end? Nothing less than mercantilism and commercial gain - the sin of avarice. The defences of Christendom had been well and truly breached. With Jericho-like vehemence, the objectors were swept out of the linear path of progress. Robert Aske the leader of the Pilgrimage was one of 216 who were brutally hung drawn and quartered or burned to death.

* See Marx and the Judaic metaphor in Thought Pieces.

**M. W. Bloomfield, The Seven Deadly Sins, 1952, pp. 167-8, 189, 203, 205, 224.

*** E. Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c.1400 - 1580, Yale University Press, 2005.

John Dunn.

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Richard Wagner on 'the degrading power of money over the image of God'

Richard Wagner
Many aspects of this website are about the decline of the rule of the sacred and the rise of the rule of money.

It was the fateful historical collapse that the Church Councils of the Middle Ages attempted and failed to arrest. It was the avarice that crept out of the pores of society to corrupt the Catholic Church and the monster Luther saw on the horizon, about to engulf society in the years of the profane ahead.

The hope of a return to the sacred lived on in hearts that burned intensely with a hatred of the corrupting power of money.

One such was Richard Wagner - and here he is writing about 'the degrading power of money over the image of God'.

John Dunn.
Here is what Wagner wrote in the Fatherland Union Paper
And when all who draw breath in our dear German land are united into one great free people, when class prejudices shall have ceased to exist, then do you suppose we have reached our goal? Oh, no; we are just equipped for the beginning. Then will it be our duty to investigate boldly . . . the cause of misery of our present social status, and determine whether man . . . can have been destined by God to be the servile slave of inert base metal. We must decide whether money shall exert such degrading power over the image of God — man — as to render him the despicable slave of the passions of usury and avarice. The war against this existing evil will cause neither tears nor blood.

In the coming contest we shall find that society will be maintained by the physical activity of individuals,and we shall destroy the nebulous notion that money possesses any inherent power. And heaven will help us . . . dispel the false halo with which the unthinking mind invests this demon money. Then shall we root out the miseries engendered and nourished by public and secret usury, deceptive paper money and fraudulent speculations. This will tend to promote the emancipation of the human race . . .

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Frithjof Schuon on Luther, Calvin and protestant liberalism

Frithjof Schuon
I read the following piece by Schuon earlier today. It corroborates my own thinking on Luther, set out in my essay entitled Martin Luther and the new paideuma. Luther’s critique of the Papacy was from a medieval perspective. His horror at the turn of events triggered by the Reformation was from the medieval standpoint too, in contrast to Calvin’s. Schuon’s footnote* too is a telling comment on Luther with which I wholly agree.

John Dunn.

In my essay I wrote

In his fear of the sacrilegious and socially corrupting power of money, Luther was socially conservative, whereas the second generation reformer, John Calvin, was a force for radicalism. Calvin assumed an economic organisation that was relatively advanced as far as the power of money was concerned, and expounded a social ethics on the basis of the seemingly inevitable future. Thus Calvin stood in marked contrast to Luther and the medieval theologians who proceeded him.

Luther did not live to see anything even approximating to the full fruition of the social change wrought by the Reformation his actions had triggered. He was aware, however, of the direction of travel and, as can be seen in his later writings, it left him in despair.
Here is the excerpt from Frithjof Schoun’s The Question of Evangelism, taken from the collection of essays entitled Ye Shall Know the Truth: Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy, World Wisdom Books, 2005.
Viewed in its totality, Protestantism has something ambiguous about it: on the one hand it is inspired sincerely and concretely by the Bible, but on the other hand it is bound up with humanism and the Renaissance. Luther incarnates the first aspect: his perspective is medieval and so to speak retrospective, and it gives rise to a conservative and at times esoterizing pietism. In Calvin, on the contrary, the tendencies of humanism, hence of the Renaissance, mingle with the movement rather strongly, if indeed they do not determine it; no doubt he is greatly inspired in his doctrine by Luther and the Swiss Reformers, but he is a republican in his own way—on a theocratic basis, of course—and not a monarchist like the German Reformer; and it can be said on the whole that in a certain manner he was more opposed to Catholicism than Luther was.*
*As for Protestant liberalism, Luther eventually foresaw its abuses, and he would in any case be horrified to see this liberalism as it appears in our time—he who could bear neither self-sufficient mediocrity nor iconoclastic fanaticism.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Garaudy and the religious dimension

Roger Garaudy
I followed a recommendation that Imran Hosein made in one of his speeches, which was to read R. H. Tawney’s Religion and the Rise of Capitalism,first published in 1922. As Hosein pointed out, this little book by Tawney does indeed cover the post-reformation retreat of religion from all things economic. Tawney describes how economics became a morality free zone, a place where usury ceased to be prohibited by religious leaders and common decency and where decision making was founded on economic expediency alone. I’m reminded by this of how Julius Evola described the modern world as the era in which the religious idea became dissociated form any transcendent interest, and thus used to sanctify any temporal achievements such as social work, ‘progress’ or even profits. Materialism appears to have killed off any possible return to a tradition which in a large, universal, unanimous way encompasses every form of life and of light. In short, there appears to be no way back to a guiding unitary spirit. So remote is the possibility that any movement for such a return would be truly revolutionary. It was with this thought in mind that I came across a short piece of writing by Roger Garaudy in Bernard Moitessier’s final book and autobiography, Tamata and the Alliance. I thought others might wish to read it. The Garaudy quote reads...

“The concrete, practical consequences of this unshakable affirmation of transcendence are essentially revolutionary.

Theonly possible revolutions are those which don’t exclude mankind’s transcendent dimension; which don’t exclude the divine; which are founded on this article of faith; that the basic foundation of reality is an act of the creative freedom which is called God.

To be a revolutionary is to be a creator of that reality, to participate in divine life.”

The full Garaudy quotation can be read by clicking here.

The point Garaudy makes is that whilst the current expansionist cycle of materialist liberal-democracy has yet to run its course, the only revolutionary alternatives to its continuance are those which have religious and transcendent dimensions.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

The Worst Form of Slavery

Julius Evola
What is taken for the political right today? There are two common misconceptions. Firstly, that the right stands for proponents of free enterprise and the free market – as opposed to leftists who advocate state intervention in economic and other aspects of life. Secondly, that extreme nationalists are on the right, advocating white supremacism as opposed to multiculturalism.

Criticisms of these two positions from the left might be that:

1. The market cannot be left to its own devices. Spending by the state is required to avoid the worst of recessions. Proponents of the free market are devoid of ethical principles. State intervention is required to protect essential services such as healthcare for everyone. Social security is required for the losers in the system. State intervention is needed to ensure fairness and equity, for example, in the education system.
2. Extreme nationalism is equated with fascism. Proponents are intolerant of people with differences of nationality, race, creed and sexual orientation. (Criticism of religious intolerance is problematic to the left, given its tendency to wards atheism.) Intolerance and discrimination are considered by the left to be unethical.

Both the free market and nationalism are believed to be historically spent ideals.

But where might another critique of the nationalist right wing perspective come from? The Elovian right. The traditionalist right. The perennialist right.

A traditional society consists of individuals who each affirm their individual identities through adherence to superior principles and interests. Personality is not abolished, but is integrated through participation in a society in which ‘every individual, function, and caste acquire their right place and reason for being through acknowledgement of what is superior to them and their organic connection with it’. (Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, p.338)

The acknowledgement of a common spirituality and a common active propensity towards it is such that each and every action by an individual becomes a rite and the fulfilment of a role. Through this fulfilment, the individual gives a law and form to his own nature. He is sure and certain of his purpose – which is sacred.

The roots of tradition lie in the distant past, but emanate most typically in religions and systems of caste. Such is the depth of these roots of tradition that adherents refer to them as perennial, in the sense that they have always existed in one form or another and always will.

In the Middle Ages there was widespread adherence to the perennial tradition. As a result, whilst nationalities existed, nationalisms did not.

Whilst individuals conformed to this or that nature, language or exoteric religious emanation of the tradition, the social principles of caste were articulated across all nationalities. ‘Hence, the possibility for members of the same caste who came from different nations to understand each other better than the members of different castes within the same nation.’ (Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, p.339) 

With the loss of tradition, the need for a new type of unity was increasingly felt. Modern nationalism offers an artificial and centralising unity for individuals stripped of religious certainties, living out lives as commodities in a state of pure quantity, as one of the masses.

Nationalism acts upon these masses through myths and suggestions that are likely to galvanise them, flatter them with the perspectives and fancies of supremacy, exclusivism and power. (Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, p.339)

Nationalism emerged as a collectivising force. The nation, the homeland became primary as an entity that required from the individual belonging to it an unconditional declaration, as if it were a moral and not merely a natural and political entity. It led to a mentality of ‘my country, right or wrong’.

Even when nationalism parades its traditions up and down, it is living out a myth of fictitious continuity based on a minimum common denominator that consists in the mere belonging to a given group. Celebration of the nation really means the upholding of anti-tradition. The leaders of world subversion see in nationalism a way of disposing of the tradition. Turning this contingency into a science, Marx felt able to affirm ‘all that is sacred melts into air’.

Now for the nightmare vision of the kali yuga.

Today there is a trend towards universal brotherhood, reflected in ‘multiculturalism’, which is really ‘uniculturalism’. Far from abolishing the nationalist spirit and its pseudo-traditions and pride, its supreme form as the nation will be called mankind. The tradition, on the other hand, manifested most typically as religion, especially in the Muslim world, will be regarded as the enemy.

The individual will barely attain the status of a cog in the all-consuming global enterprise and lose all self-differentiation from the masses. In losing all sense of law and form of his nature, the individual will lose all sense of personality. The individual will be crushed.

Since the modern view of life in its materialism has taken away from the single individual any possibility of bestowing on his destiny a transfiguring element and seeing in it a sign and a symbol, contemporary"slavery" should be reckoned as one of the gloomiest and most desperate kinds of all times. (Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, p.109)

Once the global enterprise has been established, there will be no escape; no Guenon-like refuge in a traditional culture beyond its borders.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Ezra Pound on those barbarous texts

Here is a telling observation by Ezra Pound on the ‘revival’ of the Old Testament at the time of the Reformation. Until this time, Christianity had been based largely on Jesus and the cross. The return to the Law in the beginnings of a covenantal Calvinism was a development that Luther would come to regret intensely. (Reproduced here with Pound's idiosyncratic note style and spelling.)

John Dunn.
Nothing cd. be less civil, or more hostile to any degree of polite civilization than the tribal records of the hebrews. There is not a trace of civilization from the first lies of Genesis up to the excised account of Holophernes. The revival of these barbarous texts in the time of Luther and Calvin has been an almost unmitigated curse to the occident. But Leo X. and the Hegxis of catholicism during the Renaissance left a void into which this beastliness poured.
(From Guide to Kulchur by Ezra Pound.) 

Ezra Pound by Gaudier-Brzeska

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Savitri Devi: A Warning to the Hindus

Savitri Devi

I just finished reading the Bhagavad-Gita today. Coming around slowly from the experience, I thought I’d check what Savitri Devi (pictured left) had to say specifically on the subject of Hinduism.
She wrote an important book on the survival of Hinduism called, A Warning to the Hindus, published in 1939. Power, nationalism and, surprisingly, liberalism in social matters were at the heart of her proposition. I include a brief excerpt below.

John Dunn.

Savitri Devi

A Warning to the Hindus

From chapter 6

‘A Change of Mentality Among the Hindus’

The Development of Nationalism

The three quarters of Spain were Mohammadan, at one time. Why are they not now?

Not because of the superiority, if any, of the Gospel over the Koran, but because of the greater military strength of the Catholic kings, makers of modern Spain, compared to that of the last Mohammadan rulers; because political power remained, finally, in the hands of the Catholics. When you possess political power, then you can make nations do what you like, think what you like, profess whatever sense or nonsense you like, nowadays and in the future, as well as you could in the past. It only requires a more powerful administration, backed by more powerful war-engines, as all techniques improve with time.

We would like the Hindus to remember this, and to strive to acquire political power at any cost. Social reforms are necessary, not because they will bring more “humanity” among the Hindus, as many think, but because they will bring unity, that is to say power. The Hindus have been living, up till now, with less “humanity.” Many unseen dramas, many crushed aspirations, many weary, wretched lives have been the consequence of Hindu orthodoxy, enforced in daily matters with all its rigidity. But we do not speak of them. We do not advocate in favour of the sufferers, in the name of “humanity.” If, with less “humanity” the Hindu nation was growing stronger as a nation, instead of growing weaker everyday; if, with less “humanity,” the Hindus could organise themselves, reconquer India for themselves, and make free India a ruling power in the world, then, we would never ask them to change the slightest of their habits, nor to get rid of the grossest of their superstitions, if any. If, without the collaboration of all Hindus, Hindudom was flourishing and able to flourish in the future, we would not even advocate the suppression of Untouchability. There is nothing so strong as deep-rooted customs. Humanitarian views have never uprooted them. But the pressure of a hard, undeniable necessity has, sometimes. The necessity that is pressing the Hindus, specially in the regions where they are a minority, is to live, first. To live, they must grow strong; they must get political power in their hands. We advocate social reforms, the abolition of Untouchability, liberalism in daily social matters, alliance with the sturdy Hillmen considered as Hindus (since necessary), and the recall of all Indians back to Hindudom, because we believe that these are the effective means, by which the Hindus will get political power, and, with it, the possibility of every kind of national glory, within India, and outside India, one day.

Excerpt taken from

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson

Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson   
I found this amazing interview with Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson on The interviewer is Gisela Graichen and it is taken from the book Die Neuen Hexen (The New Witches) by G. Graichen and translated by the Seiðman.

SveinbjörnBeinteinsson, the son of the farmer Beinteinn Einarsson from Litlabotni-on-Hvaljardsbeachand Helga Pétursdóttir from Drághals in Svindal, was born on Apr. 4, 1924. He died on the 24th of Dec., 1993, from heart failure. In 1972 he founded the Ásatrúarfélag, the Icelandic heathen organization, of which he was the chief góði until his death. Since 1991, Sveinbjörn lived on his land in Drághalsin Bergmassiv Skardheiði (approx. 60 mi. from Reykjavik), where the 6 ½ foot statue of Þor can be found.

S. B.: "Here in Iceland heathenry it's a completely normal thing. I'm more scared of the fact that I smoke than that I'm a heathen. My religion was officially recognized by the governmentin May of '93." G. G.: You were the founder?

S. B.: "Yeah, I was already interested in the old Gods when I was a child. I snatched up the wisdom out of the Sagas, the Edda and the old stories. By the time I could read I was already pouring over the Sagas and by the time I turned 16 I had published my first poems dealing with the Gods."

G. G.: What's your actual occupation?

S. B.: "Farmer, author, and poet.My forebears have always been farmers."

G. G.: You live here by yourself on your land. Isn't that kinda lonely?

S. B. : "Oh no, my nearest neighbor lives 3½ mi. from here, and, besides that, I'm completely surrounded by beings, Land spirits--the Hidden folk."

G. G.: What about when you're sick?

S. B.: "I go out into Nature and gather herbs to cure myself."

G. G.: What do you write?

S. B.: "Works about Iceland's history,songs, poems. I also have a scholarly book about the technical construction of Old Icelandic poetry. Historically, we have some pretty complicatedpoetry here."

G. G.: Are you baptized?

S. B.: "Baptized, confirmed, the works. I've always had pretty close ties to Christianity, at least, asit's practiced here in Iceland."

G. G.: Are you still in the Church?

S. B.: "No, before someone can join us, he first has to leave the Church."

G. G.: When did the idea first come to you to start a movement out of your belief in the old Gods?

S. B.: "In the winter of'71/ '72. At that time we were getting a lot of Jesus Children into Iceland, and I said to myself, 'Wait a minute, we have older beliefs in Iceland. Why should we not bring them back to life? How come we're bringing in all these other sects?' I gathered up a group of people (we were 12of us at the time) and soon we had a few more. The idea quickly began to sound real good to us."

G. G.: Was this a conscious movement against the sects coming in?

S. B.: "Yes, in direct opposition to it. We wanted to give people a chance to belong to the old religion.The religion that was here on Iceland before there was Christianity, that was forbidden us in the same year that Iceland adopted Christianity."

G. G.: Was the old folk religional ways kinds of wavering about under the surface of things?

S. B.: "Absolutely! It was alive and well all these years."

G. G.: Why were they practiced only behind closed doors for 970 years, and only now are they coming out in the open?

S. B.: "Because they were illegal.The old religion was practiced only in secret because the Church was feared as the strongest force in the country. Iceland was Catholic until 1550.Then came the Reformation and with it came the Evangelical Church of theState. Not until 1874 did we get religious freedom of choice and only then could one leave the Church. After that, all we needed was a little time to let the dust settle before starting our move."

G. G.: You said that the old religion lived on for a 1000 years; how was this expressed?

S. B.: "The country folk always believed in Nature, in natural experience, and in Beings that live in Nature like elves, gnomes, and good, positive-natured Beings which live near people and help them. It could also be that these the Dead as well. No one knows where these creatures live, but it is known that certain people are always surrounded by them."

G. G.: Not all people?

S. B.: "No, not all of them."

G. G.: For what reason do these Beings seek out the people that they follow?

S. B.: "Why this happens to only certain people no one knows. It's a special kind of luck, though, when one receives this kind of support. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "holy things" as we know them from the Church, though."

G. G.: Are there ghosts or spirits on your land?

S. B.: "I've never seen them, but I sense them."

G. G.: What do you call yourselves?Heathens?

S. B.: "We call our religion Ásatrú,the belief in the Æsir, in the old norse Gods. We don't want to just call ourselves heathens because there are so many different types of heathens."'Heathen' is the overall term for it."

G. G.: How did you gain official,legal recognition for the religion?

S. B.: "We didn't have to demonstrate or have a revolution. We just founded a collective of people who believed in the Æsir. In the law, it's forbidden to go out and do missionary work. No one should be able to force his beliefs on another. They come on their own when they are minded to do so."

G. G.: What was the official reaction to the emergence of your collective?

S. B.: "At first they were skeptical.I had to go to the Minister of Justice ­who happens to be pro religious freedom and explain our goals. Anybody can start his own religion, but to get the same recognition as the State Church, requires permission from the Minister of Justice."

G. G.: Was it difficult to get this special permission?

S. B.: "I knew the Minister of Justice.Earlier he had been a law professor at the university in Reykjavik. I reminded him about old, pertinent law cases where he had interpreted the law pertaining to religions in particular ways, because it was easy for me to read through them, that it was legal what we were doing. That's how we finally got our religion recognized. Then I had to apply for a License to Practice with the police, and since then we've had the same rights as the Church."

G. G.: Which rights are those?

S. B.: "I am able to legally marry couples , for example. In Iceland, you can't just go to the Justice of the Peace. The marriage between couples in our collective is legal."

G. G.: How many couples have you married? A lawyer explained to me that there might be similar problems in Germany as well.

S. B.: "Around 10 couples.

"I heard about a case where a couple got married sort of as a joke. The young lady was of legal age and found out the next day to her surprise that the marriage was legal. She held off for an annulment because was going to have to give up ½ all her possessions. The thing wasn't really a joke. The couple had to apply all the way up to the Parliament. They stated the they really weren't suited for one another and wanted them to declare the marriage invalid so they wouldn't have to go through with the legal proceedings of the separation,but the Parliament didn't come through with it. The marriage was valid and fully legal. They had to go through with a divorce just like any bodyelse."

G. G.: How did the State Church react to the legal recognition?

S. B.: "During the hearing the Minister of Justice called the Bishop to the witness stand. Naturally, he was against it. The Bishop also gave an official ruling against the legalization of the collective. But the Ministry struck it from the record. Then he wrote a lengthy article in the newspaper, but the publisher of the paper had reacted rather favorably to our bringing the old religion back.

"In Parliament there was also a bid by a member of the conservative party that our religion should not be legalized. There was a debate but the opposition wasn't able to pull it off. The Minister of Justice himself put in a good word for our religionand personally stood behind it and us."

G. G.: Does he belong to your movement?

S. B.: "No, but here in Iceland we're so tolerant towards the practice of different religions that we are pretty well understood. They also tried the same thing in Norway but they weren't successful."

G. G.: How many members did you have in May of '73?

S. B.: "40."

G. G.: How many members do you have today (1986)?

S. B.: "Eighty registered members. But a larger number than that goes to our meetings, to the blóts. They are 'Friends of the Félag' and they are in the majority, in other words, they are not officially registered. Blóts are out ceremonies; the old norse word for 'sacrifice.'"

G. G.: You still sacrifice in this day and age?

S. B.: "We don't know exactly how our ancestors conducted these feasts, but we don't sacrifice. First, when we gather, everything is blessed and made holy."

G. G.: Is the Function headed by a high priest?

S. B.: "There is an Allherjarsgóði,a chief-góði, of the highest order, or better: the highest Judge. In the past each district had its own góði. Once a year, they met together at the 'Judgment Place.' They held both priestlyand legal functions in the district. After the christianization of Iceland,the religious function was dropped. The chief-góði, opened the meeting called the Þing and blessed it. This is how we also begin our meetings. Then the Sagas are read and the Gods are toasted."

G. G.: A lot?

S. B.: "Symbolically, out of a drinking horn. We prepare the mead, and then we drink. After that, anyone can standup and say whatever he has to say. Here in Iceland, folks also like to recite poetry. Lastly, folks are gathered together, they feast together,and they drink together."

G. G.: Which Gods are prayed to?

S. B.: Mainly, Þórr (Thor). He gets the highest of praises. As a God, He is more common than Óðin (Odin), more people-friendly. He is the God of farms; He makes the earth fertile with His Hammer; The God of Strength and Help."

G. G.: Are there ritual items on the altar at the ceremony?

S. B.: We have a drinking horn and a small statue of Þórr.

G. G.: In Germany the religion is called Óðinism. What role does Óðinn play in your religion?

S. B.: "Anyone can pray to the Godsin whatever manner he likes. Óðinn stands for Wisdom, the Imagination,and great Knowledge."

G. G.: Isn't He also the God of magicians and sorcerers?

S. B.: "That is a part of His knowledge,yes, absolutely! The Gods are often talked about and discussed according to Their different functions."

G. G.: But the chief-God is Óðinn,i.e., masculine.

S. B.: "The Goddesses play a very large role. Freya, the Goddess of Fertility, is very important. She is the counterpart to Óðinn."

G. G.: Is She at the same level or is She subordinate to Him?

S. B.: "On the same level. There is no difference."

G. G.: What roles do women play in Ásatrú?

S. B.: "With the registered members now there is 80% men and 20% women. That might be because women are a little less likely to want to go up before the judge and other officials. One has to leave the Church first, and women often shy away from formalities.The visitors who come to the blóts are usually women. Society in Iceland was never very patriarchically structured. Women have always had more rights and were always looked upon more as equals than they were on the continent."

G. G.: What does the word "witchcraft"mean to you?

S. B.: "Not a living person; the concept stands for a type of power, a magical power."

G. G.: What kind of a power?

S. B.: "It plays a main role, whatever kind of power it is, especially when it mixes with our own strengths. It happens with that combination. My own energy is strengthened through that no matter what I do. The power which stems from close contact with Nature was readily available to people in the past. Over the years, we lost these abilities and attempted to replace it with pseudo things like more powerful cars and bigger houses. Now, we know that this power is inherent in us and we want to revive it. This is my own personal opinion. But, most of the members of this religion are going in this direction. All the ones who earnestly seek it out, find it to be true. Often we have to admit,that we can develop more spiritually. The ability must be cultivated, we can't afford to ignore it any more. If only science had recognized how much we can do much with our minds and our consciousness, they wouldn't have lead us off this path."

G. G.: Even though­ as you say ­it doesn't ever come up, I'd like to talk about this magical knowledge a little more.

S. B.: "It is the special task of our religion to rebuild our ties to Nature, to all the powers that are within Nature, in order to better understand them. There a tree grows or a brook flows, and man is only a part of the process. He must be aware that he is a part of the natural flow of things. The old people, the kind I knew as a kid, who were surely Christians, but they didn't overdo it with the Christian thing. Normally, they had a mix of beliefs in Christianity but also in nature. They had a sense that there were elves and other Beings around them. There were much better relationships between man and nature and people among themselves."

G. G.: You have here in Iceland partially due to the island's isolation and partially to the political move for independence­ a Republic since 1944 ­somewhat of a special situation.

S. B.: "Yes, technical advances in the world pushed us forward. Machines, cars, jet planes, modern ships ­all of it came at once ­in a single generation. We hadn't gone through any of the modern developments like the rest of the European countries. Take,for example, sailing. For a 1000 years man has been sailing. It took thousands of years for man to learn sailing. And, suddenly, in the space of one generation came steamships, then motor boats, all the way up to atomic powered submarines.That was all was too fast, and much too much at one time. That can hardly be done in one generation. Amazingly enough, man adapted quickly to all the new things but at the same time lost his normal, intuitive relationship to Nature. Instead, man created a dead environment. He surrounded himself with a man made wasteland."

G. G.: Is Nature taking revenge while she dies because man has lost his relationship with her?Is that what you're saying?

S. B.: "Yes, I can well remember what the old people used to say to me as a kid: 'Let the tree stand; leave the moss on the rock; don't kill the fly in the window!' Nature was a part of our lives back then. After the arrival of technology and science, we have to wait because the soul comes in second. Mankind seems to me to be like someone who is being forced to dance. A long time ago, I knew of people who were forced to dance and couldn't stop dancing until they either fell completely exhausted or dropped dead. That how it is in the world today with all the its wars. The world is dancing itself to death and can't stop itself."

G. G.: People of your generation can still remember those times. In that case you guys have it easier on your conscience than we do on the continent.

S. B.: "Yeah, we remember the time before technical advances which came to us kind of late. These closer contacts to the old time and the closer contact with Nature and also our cultural past helped pave the way for our religion."

G. G.: Do you want to turn back time?

S. B.: "No. I don't sit down with my group and say, 'Now that we have recaptured the belief system of our past, let's start living like we did in the past.' I don't want to turn back time. I have to live my life in the present. We couldn't nor would we want to do away with the new technologies."

G. G.: You don't avoid driving cars or watching TV?

S. B.: "No, we have to learn so that we can make do. These things shouldn't be the destruction of our sense of well-being that man has has fostered up to this point. Science has to have a balance in our lives. We no longer feel whole. In my youth, I experienced this same balance still when I was living with the Elders. They conducted their lives so as to hurt no one. There are hardly any people left who conduct themselves in this way. Fast paced paced technology has destroyed that."

G. G.: You are trying to lead people towards this 'sense of well-being'?

S. B.: "That is one of our main goals."

G. G.: What are some of the others?

S. B.: "To be able to live with this sense of well-being, and not to lose the balance"

G. G.: Do you believe that you can bring people through your religion to such an awareness that they willbe able to stop dancing?

S. B.: "In our religion I certainly see a hope. You've got an important point. You asked, at the beginning,why just now the old religion is being brought out of hiding and into the open. I answered that it was because of the fear of the Church's power.But, it was also because of something else ­the fear of the science which came up at the beginning of this century. The fear that one would make a fool out himself if he admitted to believing in elves and gnomes,that there are ghosts­ that's spooky."

G. G.: Can people admit to it today?

S. B.: "Today, I think, science has been brought more into the question. Now a person can admit to believing in something that can't be seen. We're finally getting over the strict attention we've been paying to technological advancement and are able to see exactly what it has gotten us. It hasn't brought us what we'd been hoping for for the past 50 years."

G. G.: Is it that you want to create a "new society?"

S. B.: "No revolution. Science has also provided us with good things as well such as medicines, knowledge about epidemics. Although with it we've also caused some of the hunger and starvation in the Third World. Now we are attempting to take care of our spiritual side, to learn, to drive away our lust for aggression, to long for less instead of desiring everything. People can learn to be less aggressive with each other and help one another instead of going after one another all the time."

G. G.: Why do you think that through your religion you will be more successful than Christianity with its "Love thy Neighbor?"

S. B.: "Our religion is more in line with Nature, more closely tied to natural harmony. Christianity has officially set itself up against this harmony. For example, the Inquisition.It does not permit any normal, uninhibited relationship with those things that are around us all the time; instead it draws a strict clear line in front of us. That is what I am against."

G. G.: How would I, through your religion, find this harmony? Will it change my everyday life if I put your religion into practice?

S. B.: "Everything will get easier.You feel better. People take themselves far too serious when something goes wrong. You learn to take things as they are, to be responsible and to put your own energy to better use. It's not possible to be this way all the time. To do that one also needs to be completely at peace with himself and the environment."

G. G.: After the ceremonies does a person feel a special energy?

S. B.: "It's not only the blóts, the official ceremonies, but also by being together with like-minded people.That's where the energy is felt. One senses the positive energy of the others and it strengthens him. It's like being in tune is for instruments,a single note or a chord, a harmony. For me the relationship between Nature,Iceland's ancient history and the language is also very important. We strive to speak a beautiful good Icelandic language. Often we say jokingly that we should speak the same beautiful language that Óðinn did."

G. G.: Can you direct this positive energy towards something in particular?

S. B.: "Careful! I can help other with the energy that I get, but I mean that in a general sense in that I emit kind of a positive radiance around me not in the sense that I could heal someone or the like. We're are not going in the direction of "the occult." People have to take care not to be tossing all these things together or it'll become like a watered down soup or a stew."

G. G.: To accept things as they are, that sounds so much like fatalism.

S. B.: "Yes, a type of fatalism,in a sense. I'm not in a constant battle with things, but, then, I also don't run away from problems either."

G. G.: But, if you hadn't fought your religion would never have been officially recognized.

S. B.: "It's difficult to say which method a person should use. People need to look to themselves to decide what is happening and where we stand. People must make this perfectly clear for the power holders."

G. G.: And do you do that?

S. B.: "I express my stance in newspapers and other publications. When everybody knows all the details, then we are at a point where we can put some pressure on those in power, but we need to be careful. Too much pressure can make it go badly as well."

G. G.: What do you think about the new heathen movement going on in Germany right now?

S. B.: "If they go in the right direction, I think it's good. It's on everyone's mind that we can't continue going the way we are, destroying the environment and Nature. Now, we have to say "Stop!" and try to regain a closer relationship with Nature and recognize ourselves as being a part of Nature. But, people have travel this new direction without extremism, without aggression."

G. G.: Do you believe that your new ­old­ religion will catch on and spread?

S. B.: "I think so. We'll wait quietly and patiently."