“The struggle against international finance and loan capital has become the most important point in the National Socialist programme.” —Hitler
Since I became racially conscious, finding out the basic etiology of Western malaise has been a torture to my mind. “Paleologic” nationalists, those who believe what they want to believe independently of evidence, attribute every catastrophe to the Jews: even the French Revolution, the American Civil War and 9/11. Paleologicism is a regressive mode of mentation analogous to the cognitive processes of present-day schizoids, whose thinking is often identical to the magical thinking of primitive men (cf. my psychohistorical explanation of paleologic thought vs. Aristotelian thought here).
I believe that the Jewish Problem should be addressed and solved first, especially by reclaiming the American media and Hollywood that have been hijacked by the Jews. However, in my previous entry and elsewhere I have also said that the story of New Spain demonstrates that, while the Catholics were extremely tough on Jews and Judaizers, they were tolerant of the natives with Pope Paul III recognizing in 1537 that Amerindians had souls and declared them fit to receive the sacraments, including marriage to the Spaniards.
Behold eight minutes of a 1973 film about how, before my great-great grandfather moved to Mexico City from Catalonia, Jews were handled in the town where I was born. Keep in mind that the viceroyalty of New Spain lasted three whole centuries. Incidentally, the actor that plays the role of the Grand Inquisitor, now deceased, lived a few blocks from my home (in the clip some Amerindian faces appear: blasphemers to be punished for sure, but not killed). It is a pity that the Inquisitor’s discourse has no English subtitles because it gives the picture of the zeitgeist in New Spain: keeping this land free from “heretics” and those who follow “the dead law of Moses.” After the Inquisitor’s impassioned speech the other Dominican said:
“We welcome this Auto de fe for punishment of some and an example to all. It punishes offenses against religion and morality. These Judaizers [crypto-Jews] will be delivered to the justice of the secular arm, to which we ask forgiveness and compassion.”
Then the man richly dressed in a yellow suit, the representative of the secular arm noted the prisoners’ various offenses against morality and public order. In New Spain the Jews always got special treatment. The non-Jews would be punished with:
“flogging, banishment, galleys, imprisonment or confiscation of property. And the relapsed Judaizers present and absent are condemned to be burned in flames of fire, until they become ashes and nothing remains of them in the memory of this land.”
Alas, following their Pope’s bull, unlike the Anglo-Saxons the Spanish conquerors married the local Indians, with time producing the Untermensch stock that depresses me every day I have to leave my home. But the lesson for nationalists is that we cannot blame the Jews for the colossal miscegenation that occurred in this part of North America and even in Central and South America.
Amerindians washing gold for the Spanish conquerors
Whom or what should we blame instead? In the specific case of New Spain, I would blame both the lust for gold—or to put it poetically: the One Ring which in Richard Wagner’s Rheingold symbolizes capitalism—and universal Christian values: where the value of white ethnicity is considered irrelevant. The fact that the One Ring is presently wielded by the Jew doesn’t erase that in the recent past the white people wielded it. In Wagner’s opera there’s a curse: “Whosoever holds the Ring, by the Ring they shall be enslaved,” and even the hero of his monumental Tetralogy, Siegfried, dies as a result of holding it.
Did capitalism chew Norman Rockwell’s America and spit out Obama’s? Today Greg Johnson published “Brooks Adams on the Romans” of which I’ll quote only three excerpts:
In chapter 1, “The Romans,” Adams illustrates how capitalism ruined Rome.
Rome was never really a people, never a nation. It was merely a system, a machine. From the very beginning, Rome populated itself by opening its gates to refugees from other cities. The Roman machine liquidated this founding stock [the farmers] and replenished itself with foreign blood until it became too weak to assimilate new peoples.
In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.
As the case of the Spanish Empire we can hardly blame the Jews for what happened to the Roman Empire. Johnson also published today “The Romans,” the mentioned chapter of Adams’ book originally published in 1895 on how the “One Ring” (capitalism) ruined Rome. I’ve read it and it reminded me Harold Covington’s eloquent speeches of “Iron Man” versus “Economic Man,” but Adam’s chapter is hard to understand for those unfamiliar with political economy. I’ll only quote a couple of sentences. At the beginning of his chapter Adams claims that, “on the disparity between these two types of men [farmers and usurers], the fate of all subsequent civilization has hinged.” And at the end of his chapter Adams concludes:
By the year 400 [A.D. Roman] disintegration was far advanced; the Empire was crumbling, not because it was corrupt or degenerate, but because the most martial and energetic race the world had ever seen had been so thoroughly exterminated by men of the economic type of mind…
Johnson also published “Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization & Decay” by Anthony Ludovici who says that Adam’s picture is one-sided. Ludovici calls our attention to Otto Sieck’s thesis that negative character changes are brought about by miscegenation. As to a connection between miscegenation and mercantilism Ludovici writes: “I confess I can see no such connexion. But it may exist.” He concludes:
It is here, it seems to me, that Brooks Adams’ work is defective. Nowhere does he give sufficient attention in the influence of stock changes and stock deterioration or modification, through random breeding with peoples who may or may not influence an original type adversely. He refers to the exhaustion of the energy of a race, which occurs under the pressure of economic competition; but is this the only way in which a race may be devitalized?
I’d like to respond to Ludovici. At least in the case of New Spain, always ruled by pure whites and which at its peak was more prosperous than her neighbor, the United States, the crossbreeding of the races allowed to the lower classes was an epiphenomenon of the lust for Aztec gold (and lust for silver at the southern side of the Spanish empire in the Americas). Thus I venture to say that, since whosoever holds the One Ring—whether Roman, Spaniard, American or Jew—shall be enslaved by capitalism, defeating the present wielders of it won’t be enough.
When we create the ethno-state we will have a unique opportunity to destroy the Ring itself.
3 replies on “It is the Ring, stupid!”
Ezra Pound on the One Ring (excerpted from today’s article at Counter-Currents):From 1945 through 1958 America’s iconoclastic poet—the flamboyant Ezra Pound, one of the most influential individuals of his generation—was held in a Washington, D.C. mental institution, accused of treason. American students have been taught by scandalized educators that Pound delivered “treasonous” English-language radio broadcasts from Italy… yet but a handful has ever heard or read them. Despite all the furor over Pound’s broadcasts—which were heard between January of 1941 through July of 1943—it was not until 1978 that a full-length 465-page compendium of transcriptions of the broadcasts was assembled by Prof. Leonard Doob of Yale University. What follows is an attempt to synthesize Pound’s extensive verbal parries. Most of what appears here has never been printed anywhere except in the compendium of Pound’s wartime broadcasts. Thus, for the first time ever—for a popular audience—here is what Pound really had to say, not what his critics claim he said:
Pound’s immediate concern was the war in Europe. He hated the very idea that Americans were being primed for war. “Why did you take up with those gangs?” he rhetorically asked his listeners. “Two gangs. [The] Jews’ gang in London, and [the] Jew murderous gang over in Moscow?” There was no reason for U.S. intervention abroad, he said:
Wars, he said, were destructive to nation-states, but profitable for the special interests. “And no more flaming and flagrant case appears in history than our own American Civil War, only surpassed by the wars of 1914 and the present one.”
Although World War II itself was much on Pound’s mind, the poet’s primary concern, referenced repeatedly throughout his broadcasts, was the issue of usury.
According to Pound, it was the money issue (above all) that united the Allies during the second 20th-century war against Germany: “Gold. Nothing else uniting the three governments, England, Russia, United States of America. That is the interest–gold, usury, debt, monopoly, class interest, and possibly gross indifference and contempt for humanity.” Although “gold” was central to the world’s struggle, Pound still felt gold
Pound perceived Germany under Hitler as a nation that stood against the international money lenders. He told his listeners:
The real enemy, said Pound, was international capitalism. “A quicksand under the nations, destroying all nations, destroying all law and government, destroying the nations, one at a time, Russian empire and Austria, 20 years past, France yesterday, England today.” According to Pound, Americans had no idea why they were being expected to fight in Britain’s war with Germany:
Pound suggested, it would be the big money interests who would really win the war—not any particular nation-state—and the foundation for future wars would be set in place. “It will be represented as an American victory. It will not be an American victory.”
Pound believed one of the major problems of the day—which itself had contributed to war fever—was the manipulation of the press, particularly in the United States: “I naturally mistrust newspaper news from America,” he declared. “I grope in the mass of lies, knowing most of the sources are wholly untrustworthy.” According to Pound:
Interesting stuff about Pound. I recently discovered Lysander Spooner (I’d heard of him many times but never knew anything about him), who I found to be right up my alley.
I respond to the Rome issue at my blog here.
“When we create the ethno-state we will have a unique opportunity to destroy the Ring itself.”
Shouldn’t it be “When we will create”? AFAIK, future tenses aren’t used only in case it’s the if-clause.