web analytics
Categories
Charlemagne Table talks

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 104

the-real-hitler 
31st March 1942, at dinner

German eastern policy—Charlemagne “slayer of Saxons” and Hitler “slayer of Austrians”—The work of Charlemagne.
 
 
I’ve drawn Rosenberg’s attention to the fact that one mustn’t let the great German Emperors be relegated to the background, to the benefit of perjurers, and that it was improper to call a hero like Charlemagne by the name “killer of Saxons.” History must be interpreted in terms of the necessities of the time.

It’s possible that, in a thousand years—supposing that, for one reason or another, the Reich is again obliged to pursue a policy directed against the South—some pedagogue may be found who will claim that “Hitler’s Eastern policy was certainly well-intentioned,” but that it was nevertheless crack-brained, since “he should have aimed at the South.” Perhaps even some caviller of this type will go so far as to call me “the killer of Austrians” on the grounds that, on my return from Austria to Germany, I locked up all those who had tried to thwart the enterprise!

Without compulsion, we would never have united all the various German families with these thick-headed, parochially minded fellows—either in Charlemagne’s time or to-day.

If the German people is the child of ancient philosophy and Christianity, it is so less by reason of a free choice than by reason of a compulsion exercised upon it by these triumphant forces. In the same way, in Imperial times, it was under the empire of compulsion that the German people engineered its fusion beneath a Christianity represented by a universal church—in the image of ancient Rome, which also inclined to universality.

It is certain that a man like Charlemagne was not inspired merely by a desire for political power, but sought, in faithfulness to the ancient idea, for an expression of civilisation.

Now, the example of the ancient world proves that civilisation can flourish only in States that are solidly organised. What would happen to a factory given over to anarchy, in which the employees came to their work only when the fancy took them? Without organisation—that is to say, without compulsion—and, consequently, without sacrifice on the part of individuals, nothing can work properly. Organised life offers the spectacle of a perpetual renunciation by individuals of a part of their liberty.

Guided by these rules, which are quite simple and quite natural, Charlemagne gathered the Germans into a well-cemented community and created an empire that continued to deserve the name long after his death. The fact was that this empire was made of the best stuff of the ancient Roman Empire—so much so that for centuries the peoples of Europe have regarded it as the successor to the universal empire of the Caesars. The fact that this German empire was named “the Holy Roman Empire” has nothing whatsoever to do with the Church, and has no religious significance.

Categories
Friedrich Nietzsche Literature

Zarathustra’s prologue, 5

Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra

5

When Zarathustra had spoken these words he looked again at the people and fell silent. “There they stand,” he said to his heart, “they laugh, they do not understand me, I am not the mouth for these ears.[1]

Must one first smash their ears so that they learn to hear with their eyes? Must one rattle like kettle drums and penitence preachers? Or do they believe only a stutterer?

They have something of which they are proud. And what do they call that which makes them proud? Education[2] they call it, it distinguishes them from goatherds.

For that reason they hate to hear the word ‘contempt’ applied to them. So I shall address their pride instead.

Thus I shall speak to them of the most contemptible person: but he is the last human being.”[3]

And thus spoke Zarathustra to the people:

“It is time that mankind set themselves a goal. It is time that mankind plant the seed of their highest hope.

Their soil is still rich enough for this. But one day this soil will be poor and tame, and no tall tree will be able to grow from it anymore.

Beware! The time approaches when human beings no longer launch the arrow of their longing beyond the human, and the string of their bow will have forgotten how to whir!

I say to you: one must still have chaos in oneself in order to give birth to a dancing star. I say to you: you still have chaos in you.

Beware! The time approaches when human beings will no longer give birth to a dancing star. Beware! The time of the most contemptible human is coming, the one who can no longer have contempt for himself.

Behold! I show you the last human being.

‘What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?’ – thus asks the last human being, blinking.

Then the earth has become small, and on it hops the last human being, who makes everything small. His kind is ineradicable, like the flea beetle; the last human being lives longest.

‘We invented happiness’ – say the last human beings, blinking.

They abandoned the regions where it was hard to live: for one needs warmth. One still loves one’s neighbor and rubs up against him: for one needs warmth.

Becoming ill and being mistrustful are considered sinful by them: one proceeds with caution. A fool who still stumbles over stones or humans!

A bit of poison once in a while; that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end, for a pleasant death.

One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one sees to it that the entertainment is not a strain.

One no longer becomes poor and rich: both are too burdensome. Who wants to rule anymore? Who wants to obey anymore? Both are too burdensome.

No shepherd and one herd![4] Each wants the same, each is the same, and whoever feels differently goes voluntarily into the insane asylum.

‘Formerly the whole world was insane’ – the finest ones say, blinking.

One is clever and knows everything that has happened, and so there is no end to their mockery. People still quarrel but they reconcile quickly – otherwise it is bad for the stomach.

One has one’s little pleasure for the day and one’s little pleasure for the night: but one honors health.

‘We invented happiness’ say the last human beings, and they blink.” –
 
And here ended the first speech of Zarathustra, which is also called “The Prologue,”[5] for at this point he was interrupted by the yelling and merriment of the crowd. “Give us this last human being, oh Zarathustra” – thus they cried – “make us into these last human beings! Then we will make you a gift of the Overman!”[6] And all the people jubilated and clicked their tongues. But Zarathustra grew sad and said to his heart:

“They do not understand me. I am not the mouth for these ears.

Too long apparently I lived in the mountains, too much I listened to brooks and trees: now I speak to them as to goatherds.

My soul is calm and bright as the morning mountains. But they believe I am cold, that I jeer, that I deal in terrible jests.

And now they look at me and laugh, and in laughing they hate me too. There is ice in their laughter.”

 

______________________

The above German-English translation by Adrian del Caro is taken from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Cambridge University Press, 2006). This Cambridge edition lacks the more detailed notes by Andrés Sánchez-Pascual in Así Habló Zaratustra (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2014), translated below.

Notes:

[1] Reminiscence of the Gospel of Matthew 13:13: “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”

[2] On this concept see, in the second part, “On the Land of Education.”

[3] The “last” man means above all the “last” in the human scale. In Ecce homo Nietzsche says: “In this sense Zarathustra first calls the good ‘the last men,’ then later ‘the beginning of the end’; above all, he finds them the most harmful kind of man, because they secure their existence at the expense of truth just as they do at the expense of the future.”

[4] A paraphrase, changing its meaning, of the Gospel of John, 10, 16: “There shall be one flock and one shepherd.”

[5] By the pun in German between erste Rede (first address) and Vorrede (prologue or, also, preliminary speech) Nietzsche actually meant that this first talk to men (redden, to speechify) has not been but a preliminary talk, and that his real talk will now begin. So the true first part of this work is titled precisely “The speeches (Reden) of Zarathustra.”

[6] Echo of the Gospel scene (Gospel of Luke, 23, 18) when the crowd rejects Jesus and claims Barabbas “And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas!”

Categories
Ancient Rome Julius Caesar Sparta

Morte di Giulio Cesare

Cesar-sa_mort

Death of Caesar by Vincenzo Camuccini

For the first time in my reading of Adolf Hitler’s talks, I disagree with what Hitler said at dinner on 31st March 1942.

Like the Republican Romans, I believe that Caesarism is risky business. See my May 2013 post, “Two consuls.” (See also the form of government in Sparta, here.)

Categories
Catholic Church Table talks Third Reich

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 105

the-real-hitler

31st March 1942, at dinner

The best man should be Head of the State—Examples of the Vatican and the Venetian Republic—The Future German Constitution—Need of separation of powers.

 

Setting the best man at the head of the State—that’s the most difficult problem in the world to solve. A hereditary monarchy is a biological blunder, for a man of action regularly chooses a wife with essentially feminine qualities, and the son inherits his mother’s mildness and passive disposition.

In the course of history, two constitutions have proved themselves: (a) The papacy, despite numerous crises—the gravest of which, as it happens, were settled by German emperors—and although it is based on a literally crazy doctrine. But as an organisation on the material level, the Church is a magnificent edifice.

(b) The constitution of Venice, which, thanks to the organisation of its Government, enabled a little city-republic to rule the whole eastern Mediterranean. The constitution of Venice proved itself effective as long as the Venetian Republic endured—that is to say, for nine hundred and sixty years.

As regards the government of Germany, I’ve come to the following conclusions:

  1. The Reich must be a republic, having at its head an elected chief who shall be endowed with an absolute authority.
  1. An agency representing the people must, nevertheless, exist by way of corrective. Its rôle is to support the Chief of State, but it must be able to intervene in case of need.
  1. The task of choosing the Chief shall be entrusted, not to the people’s assembly, but to a Senate. It is, however, important that the powers of the Senate shall be limited. Its composition must not be permanent. Moreover, its members shall be appointed with reference to their occupation and not individuals. These Senators must, by their training, be steeped in the idea that power may in no case be delegated to a weakling, and that the elected Fuehrer must always be the best man.
  1. The election of the Chief must not take place in public, but in camera. On the occasion of the election of a pope, the people does not know what is happening behind the scenes. A case is reported in which the cardinals exchanged blows. Since then, the cardinals have been deprived of all contact with the outside world, for the duration of the conclave! This is a principle that is also to be observed for the election of the Fuehrer: all conversation with the electors will be forbidden throughout operations.
  1. The Party, the Army and the body of officials must take an oath of allegiance to the new Chief within the three hours following the election.
  1. The most rigorous separation between the legislative and executive organs of the State must be the supreme law for the new Chief. Just as, in the Party, the SA and the SS are merely the sword to which is entrusted the carrying-out of the decisions taken by the competent organs, in the same way the executive agents of the State are not to concern themselves with politics.

They must confine themselves exclusively to ensuring the application of laws issued by the legislative power, making appeal to the sword, in case of need. Although a State founded on such principles can lay no claim to eternity, it might last for eight to nine centuries. The thousand-year-old organisation of the Church is a proof of this—and yet this entire organisation is founded on nonsense.

What I have said should a fortiori be true of an organisation founded on reason.

Categories
Friedrich Nietzsche Literature New Testament

Zarathustra’s prologue, 4

Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra

4

Now Zarathustra looked at the people and he was amazed. Then he spoke thus:

“Mankind is a rope fastened between animal and Overman – a rope over an abyss.

A dangerous crossing, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking back, a dangerous shuddering and standing still.

What is great about human beings is that they are a bridge and not a purpose: what is lovable about human beings is that they are a crossing over and a going under.[1]

I love those who do not know how to live unless by going under, for they are the ones who cross over.

I love the great despisers, because they are the great venerators and arrows of longing for the other shore.

I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, who instead sacrifice themselves for the earth, so that the earth may one day become the Overman’s.

I love the one who lives in order to know, and who wants to know so that one day the Overman may live. And so he wants his going under.

I love the one who works and invents in order to build a house for the Overman and to prepare earth, animals and plants for him: for thus he wants his going under.

I love the one who loves his virtue: for virtue is the will to going under and an arrow of longing.

I love the one who does not hold back a single drop of spirit for himself, but wants instead to be entirely the spirit of his virtue: thus he strides as spirit over the bridge.

I love the one who makes of his virtue his desire and his doom: thus for the sake of his virtue he wants to live on and to live no more.

I love the one who does not want to have too many virtues. One virtue is more virtue than two, because it is more of a hook on which his doom may hang.

I love the one whose soul squanders itself, who wants no thanks and gives none back: for he always gives and does not want to preserve himself.[2]

I love the one who is ashamed when the dice fall to his fortune and who then asks: am I a cheater? – For he wants to perish.

I love the one who casts golden words before his deeds and always does even more than he promises: for he wants his going under.

I love the one who justifies people of the future and redeems those of the past: for he wants to perish of those in the present.

I love the one who chastises his god, because he loves his god: for he must perish of the wrath of his god.[3]

I love the one whose soul is deep even when wounded, and who can perish of a small experience: thus he goes gladly over the bridge.

I love the one whose soul is overfull, so that he forgets himself, and all things are in him: thus all things become his going under.

I love the one who is free of spirit and heart: thus his head is only the entrails of his heart, but his heart drives him to his going under.

I love all those who are like heavy drops falling individually from the dark cloud that hangs over humanity: they herald the coming of the lightning, and as heralds they perish.

Behold, I am a herald of the lightning and a heavy drop from the cloud: but this lightning is called Overman. –”

 

______________________

The above German-English translation by Adrian del Caro is taken from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Cambridge University Press, 2006). This Cambridge edition lacks the more detailed notes by Andrés Sánchez-Pascual in Así Habló Zaratustra (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2014), translated below.

Notes:

[1] See footnote 5. [Note of the Ed.: In this site’s translation: here]

[2] Paraphrase of Luke, 17, 33: “Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.”

[3] A direct quote inverting its sense of Hebrews 12: 6: “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth.” See also, in Part Four, “The Awakening.”

Categories
Quotable quotes Women

Japanese proverbs

“Never trust a woman
even if she has borne you seven children.”

“The tongue of woman is her sword, which never rusts.”

Categories
Friedrich Nietzsche Literature Neanderthalism

Zarathustra’s prologue, 3

Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra
 

3

When Zarathustra came into the nearest town lying on the edge of the forest, he found many people gathered in the market place[1] for it had been promised that a tightrope walker would perform. And Zarathustra spoke thus to the people:

I teach you the Overman.[2] Human being is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

All creatures so far created something beyond themselves; and you want to be the ebb of this great flood and would even rather go back to animals than overcome humans?

What is the ape to a human? A laughing stock or a painful embarrassment. And that is precisely what the human shall be to the Overman: a laughing stock or a painful embarrassment.[3]

You have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now a human is still more ape than any ape.

But whoever is wisest among you is also just a conflict and a cross between plant and ghost. But do I implore you to become ghosts or plants?

Behold, I teach you the Overman!

The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Overman shall be the meaning of the earth!

I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth and do not believe those who speak to you of extraterrestrial hopes! They are mixers of poisons whether they know it or not.

They are despisers of life, dying off and self-poisoned, of whom the earth is weary: so let them fade away!

Once the sacrilege against God was the greatest sacrilege, but God died, and then all these desecrators died. Now to desecrate the earth is the most terrible thing, and to esteem the bowels of the unfathomable higher than the meaning of the earth!

Once the soul gazed contemptuously at the body, and then such contempt was the highest thing: it wanted the body gaunt, ghastly, starved. Thus it intended to escape the body and the earth.

Oh this soul was gaunt, ghastly and starved, and cruelty was the lust of this soul!

But you, too, my brothers, tell me: what does your body proclaim about your soul? Is your soul not poverty and filth and a pitiful contentment?

Truly, mankind is a polluted stream. One has to be a sea to take in a polluted stream without becoming unclean.

Behold, I teach you the Overman: he is this sea, in him your great contempt can go under.

What is the greatest thing that you can experience? It is the hour of your great contempt. The hour in which even your happiness turns to nausea and likewise your reason and your virtue.

The hour in which you say: ‘What matters my happiness? It is poverty and filth, and a pitiful contentment. But my happiness ought to justify existence itself!’

The hour in which you say: ‘What matters my reason? Does it crave knowledge like the lion its food? It is poverty and filth and a pitiful contentment!’

The hour in which you say: ‘What matters my virtue? It has not yet made me rage. How weary I am of my good and my evil! That is all poverty and filth and a pitiful contentment!’

The hour in which you say: ‘What matters my justice? I do not see that I am ember and coal. But the just person is ember and coal!’

The hour in which you say: ‘What matters my pity? Is pity not the cross on which he is nailed who loves humans? But my pity is no crucifixion.’

Have you yet spoken thus? Have you yet cried out thus? Oh that I might have heard you cry out thus!

Not your sin – your modesty cries out to high heaven, your stinginess even in sinning cries out to high heaven![4]

Where is the lightning that would lick you with its tongue? Where is the madness with which you should be inoculated?

Behold, I teach you the Overman: he is this lightning, he is this madness! –”

When Zarathustra had spoken thus someone from the crowd cried out:

“We have heard enough already about the tightrope walker, now let us see him too!” And all the people laughed at Zarathustra. But the tightrope walker, believing that these words concerned him, got down to his work.

 

______________________

The above German-English translation by Adrian del Caro is taken from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Cambridge University Press, 2006). This Cambridge edition lacks the more detailed notes by Andrés Sánchez-Pascual in Así Habló Zaratustra (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2014), translated below.

Notes:

[1] Markt is the word used by Nietzsche, here translated literally, market. It does not refer only to the place of purchase and sale of goods but, in general, to a spacious place where people meet, the public square. Even today the central square of many German cities is called Marktplatz.

[2] On the “Overman,” a term that has led to many misunderstandings, says Nietzsche himself in Ecce homo: “The word ‘Overman’ as the designation for a type of the highest successfulness as opposed to ‘modern’ men, to ‘good’ men, to Christians and other nihilists—a word that in the mouth of a Zarathustra, the annihilation of morality, becomes a very thought-provoking word—has been understood almost everywhere with complete innocence in the sense of those values whose antithesis the figure of Zarathustra was meant to represent: that is to say, as the ‘idealistic’ type of a higher kind of man, half-‘saint,’ half-‘genius’.”

[3] An echo of fragments 82 and 83 of Heraclitus: “The most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man.” “The wisest man is an ape compared to god.”

[4] “Crying to Heaven” is a biblical expression. See Genesis, 4, 10: “And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground” (words of Yahweh to Cain). As he almost always does with these biblical “quotes,” Zarathustra gives it an antithetical sense from that in the original.

Categories
Axiology

On The Donald

by Jack Frost

donald-trumpThe federal gov’t has come up with an innovation called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), explicitly designed to break up what has been called “implicit whiteness” in housing patterns. Placing negroes and mestizos into white neighborhoods is now a “duty” of state and local gov’ts that want to keep receiving federal money.

I don’t think it’s possible to reform an anti-white system by degrees. So long as the most fundamental principle of America is anti-racism, which has been the case juridically since the Civil War, and culturally for an even longer time, it will remain an anti-white country.

In theory, a political revolution could overthrow this (that’s what happened in pre-WWII Germany), but the culture of anti-racism would have to reverse itself to achieve something permanent.

It would be interesting, for example, to learn Trump’s position on AFFH. He’s a guy who says he has no problem with Affirmative Action in the workplace, so how could he object to the same thing happening in regards to housing patterns?

Of course, carried out to its logical conclusion, Affirmative Action in everything—housing patterns, breeding patterns, and in the workplace—is the same thing as eliminating the white race entirely. It’s genocide. Yet where is the opposition? A large fraction of whites actually support it, and even the same whites who will tell you they oppose it will almost to a man deny that they are racists or oppose it because they want to preserve the white race.

The truth is, almost everyone nowadays claims to be against racism, and most of these people are sincere. Even Donald Trump.

“I don’t have a racist bone in my body,” Trump exclusively told ET, defending himself against accusations of racism. “The fact that I want a strong border and the fact that I don’t want illegal immigrants pouring into this country, that doesn’t make me a racist, it means I love this country and I want to save this country.”

Categories
Friedrich Nietzsche Literature

Zarathustra’s prologue, 2

Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra

 

2

Zarathustra climbed down alone from the mountains and encountered no one. But when he came to the woods suddenly an old man stood before him, who had left his saintly hut in search of roots in the woods.[1] And thus spoke the old man to Zarathustra:

“This wanderer is no stranger to me: many years ago he passed by here. Zarathustra he was called; but he is transformed.

Back then you carried your ashes to the mountain[2]: would you now carry your fire into the valley? Do you not fear the arsonist’s punishment?

Yes, I recognize Zarathustra. His eyes are pure, and no disgust is visible around his mouth.[3] Does he not stride like a dancer?

Zarathustra is transformed, Zarathustra has become a child, an awakened one[4] is Zarathustra. What do you want now among the sleepers?

You lived in your solitude as if in the sea, and the sea carried you. Alas, you want to climb ashore? Alas, you want to drag your own body again?”

Zarathustra answered: “I love mankind.”

“Why,” asked the saint, “did I go into the woods and the wilderness in the first place? Was it not because I loved mankind all too much?

Now I love God: human beings I do not love. Human beings are too imperfect a thing for me. Love for human beings would kill me.”

Zarathustra replied. “Why did I speak of love? I bring mankind a gift.”

“Give them nothing,” said the saint. “Rather take something off them and help them to carry it – that will do them the most good, if only it does you good!

And if you want to give to them, then give nothing more than alms, and make them beg for that too!”

“No,” answered Zarathustra. “I do not give alms. For that I am not poor enough.”

The saint laughed at Zarathustra and spoke thus: “Then see to it that they accept your treasures! They are mistrustful of hermits and do not believe that we come to give gifts.

To them our footsteps sound too lonely in the lanes. And if at night lying in their beds they hear a man walking outside, long before the sun rises, they probably ask themselves: where is the thief going?[5]

Do not go to mankind and stay in the woods! Go even to the animals instead! Why do you not want to be like me – a bear among bears, a bird among birds?”

“And what does the saint do in the woods?” asked Zarathustra.

The saint answered: “I make songs and sing them, and when I make songs I laugh, weep and growl: thus I praise God.

With singing, weeping, laughing and growling I praise the god who is my god. But tell me, what do you bring us as a gift?”

When Zarathustra had heard these words he took his leave of the saint and spoke: “What would I have to give you! But let me leave quickly before I take something from you!” – And so they parted, the oldster and the man, laughing like two boys laugh.

But when Zarathustra was alone he spoke thus to his heart: “Could it be possible! This old saint in his woods has not yet heard the news that God is dead!” [6]

 

______________________

The above German-English translation by Adrian del Caro is taken from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Cambridge University Press, 2006). This Cambridge edition lacks the more detailed notes by Andrés Sánchez-Pascual in Así Habló Zaratustra (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2014). I have translated Sánchez-Pascual’s notes to English.

Notes:

[1] By the end of the work the retired pope will come looking for him and find dead this old hermit; see in the fourth part, “Retired.”

[2] See, in this first part, “On the Hinterworldly,” and “On the Way of the Creator,” and in the second part, “The Soothsayer,” where reference to ashes reappears. The ash is symbol of cremation and rejection of false juvenile ideals.

[3] The purity of the eyes and the absence of disgust in the mouth are attributes of Zarathustra referred on numerous occasions; see, for example, in the second part, “On the Sublime Ones,” and the fourth, “The Voluntary Beggar.”

[4] The “awakened one” is a common epithet of Buddha, which applies here to Zarathustra.

[5] A reference to Thessalonians 5: 2, “For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”

[6] The idea of the death of God, which runs through the whole work, and the ignorance by the hermit saint, will be a topic of conversation between Zarathustra and the retired pope when both speak and the hermit has died. See, in the fourth part, “Retired.”

Categories
Conservatism Degenerate art Mainstream media Table talks

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 106

the-real-hitler

 

4th April 1942, midday

Jewish origin of religious terrorism
—Jewish influence in Britain.

 

This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds. It’s obvious that, in the realm of belief, terrorist teachings have no other object but to distract men from their natural optimism and to develop in them the instinct of cowardice.

As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life. It’s therefore in England and America that one can nowadays observe the effects of such an education upon a people’s conduct.

Our measures against decadent art have enabled us to get rid of the smears of the Jews. But these daubs, which we’ve banned, are at present fetching the highest prices in England and America. And nobody amongst the bourgeois over yonder dares to protest.

One may well exclaim: “Cowardice, thy name is bourgeoisie!” Although the Jew has seized the levers of control in the Anglo-Saxon world (the press, the cinema, the radio, economic life), and although in the United States he is the entire inspiration of the populace, especially of the negroes, the bourgeois of the two countries, with the rope already round their necks, tremble at the idea of rebelling against him, even timidly.

What is happening now in the Anglo-Saxon world is absolutely identical with what we experienced here in 1918. The Jew, in his imprudence, can’t even think where he is to interfere next; the priesthood restricts itself to the shameful exploitation of the people; and, to cap it all, a king who’s an utter nitwit! The King of England is worth no more than William II, who in 1918 was trembling with fear and incapable of taking the slightest decision, his only idea being to put his flag in his pocket. Under such a monarch, the Jew can propagate and spread himself in the way he understands, and instil his poison into the mind of the bourgeois world. The cream of it is that to-day it’s exactly the same in the Anglo-Saxon world as it used to be amongst us: these idiotic petit bourgeois believe that no economic life is possible without the Jew—for, as they put it, “without the Jew, money doesn’t circulate”. As if there hadn’t been flourishing periods in our economic life before the intrusion of the Jews—in the Middle Ages, for example!

I reckon that our future élite must be given a tough upbringing, so that it may be definitely immunised against such cowardice.