Of course, it is. Haven't we repeatedly drawn the reader's attention
to the fact that, as much E. Mullins is always correct when it comes
to historical facts, as much the conclusions he draws from them tend
to be simplistic and exaggerated? We did it last week when we quoted
another excerpt from his 'New History of the Jews' with respect to
the question of Jews in ancient Rome.
You've pin-pointed one of the simplifications contained in his
paragraphs on the influence of the Rothschilds on Central-European
empires in the first half of the nineteen century ; they certainly
had a notable influence on their policy as early as then, but not to
the extent assumed by E. Mullins, which they reached, precisely,
after Metternich resigned his position in 1848 ; de Gobineau, who
knew very well the imperial court, including what was going on behind-
the-scenes, testifies to it in his novels. Mullins leaves aside the
fact that civil rights were still denied to Jews under the regimes of
the Metternich period, so that they could not participate in social
and economic life.
A scholar has rightly seen that "The Metternich conference had a
double theme. It focused on the progressive aspirations of German
liberalism which gradually eroded Metternich's autocratic regime,
culminating in the revolution of 1848 which forced him into exile. At
the same time it examined the efforts of the Jews of German-speaking
Europe to emerge from their enforced confinement and participate in
civil society. Historians have tended to treat these two themes
separately, but this conference explored the interconnections from a
variety of angles. A paper on the Congress of Vienna analysed
proposals for Jewish emancipation as well as constitutional reform,
suggesting that the failure of these proposals set ominous
precedents, since subsequent attempts to create a modern German state
while retaining discriminatory laws against Jews contained the seeds
of future disaster". Yet, by accepting to act as one of the principal
negotiators at that Congress, Metternich dug his own grave.
Here is another one, just as crude : "It was the first instance of
the Jewish technique of enlisting "Allied" nations to fight their
enemies for them".
It goes without saying that the one-sidedness of that kind of
exaggeration doesn't weaken in any way the relevance of the views
brought forward by Evola on the one who was called by de Poncins "le
dernier grand Européen" in the chapter of 'Revolt against the Modern
World' on 'Nationalism and Collectivism' and, later, in 'Metternich'
('Ricognizioni. Uomini e problemi', Mediterranee, 1974).
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "brightimperator"
<brightimperator@y...> wrote:
>
> Interestingly enough, Evola repeatedly refers to the figure of
> Metternich as the last genuine European statesmen and the political
> ideal to be emulated, the same Metternich who acted as the
President of
> the purportedly `pro-judaic' Congress of Vienna. Isn't it a crude
> simplification, to say the least, to assert Rothschild
> unilaterally "ordered the European rulers to meet in Vienna"?
Perhaps a
> multiplicity of temporarily converging interests was at work in the
> Holy Alliance? Or was Evola simply obtusely wrong in this general
> matter?
>