Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

rouesolaire · rouesolaire@yahoo.fr | Group Member  - Edit Membership Start a Group | My Groups
evola_as_he_is · EVOLA AS HE IS

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 121
  • Category: Spirituality
  • Founded: Nov 19, 2004
  • Language: English

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
"Twilight Over England"   Topic List   < Prev Topic  |  Next Topic >
Reply < Prev Message  |  Next Message > 
A clear awareness that the United Kingdom has been in the hands of the Jews and
of a Semiticised mob for quite a few centuries, that the Brittish Empire was a
Jewish creature, that the party system is intrinsically corrupt and boils down
to a "shameless bargaining for votes which, in one form or another, is the
inalienable characteristic of democracy", and an aristocratic, Catonian irony,
are some of the many common denominators between J. Evola's weltanschauung and
the master-piece, unique in many respects, in both form and content, for its
incisiveness, its terseness, its clear-headedness, and its breadth of vision,
you are about to read an excerpt from :

"Cromwell died in 1658. He had singularly failed to create any constructive
system of government. He bequeathed his powers to his humbly incompetent son,
Richard, who took the advice of the Army Leaders and retired rapidly into
private life. Within a year, England was in the grip of anarchy. Generals were
marching and countermarching, there was no security of property, and once again
the wail of the merchants arose: "Give us a Government that will restore law and
order and enable us to make money." In fact, the very class, even many of the
same people, who had born arms against their Sovereign Liege, King Charles I,
people who had declared monarchy to be an evil thing and an invention of the
devil, now began to clamour for a new King.
Sure enough, a King came. The debonair Charles Stuart, who had learnt every
secret of sponging and trickery at the French Court, gladly accepted the Throne,
firmly resolved never again to set out on his travels. This curious character,
by that consummate diplomacy of which he was a master, secured for himself a
stronger personal position than any monarch had held in England since the
Tudors: indeed, for the last four years of his life, he ruled without a
Parliament. Nevertheless, the principle of absolute monarchy had been dealt a
fatal blow: and Charles's power did not survive him. Everything in the character
of his successor, James II, was admirably calculated to destroy it.
Meanwhile, however, a revolutionary change had occurred in English politics. The
Party System had come into being. In 1679, the words "Whig" and "Tory" became
known in every English household. A great struggle was taking place: and the
issue was, nominally at least, whether the Catholic Duke of York should succeed
to the Throne. The Tories, or Court party, represented the remnants of the
Cavaliers. They stood by monarchy, the Divine Right of Kings, the [17] Church of
England, and, to a large extent, the agricultural interest. They were, in the
main, either aristocrats or men who believed in a landed aristocracy as the
basis of social organization. The Whigs maintained the supremacy of Parliament,
the necessity of Protestantism—the more extreme the better and the interests of
City finance as opposed to those of agricultural industry. They were the
successors of the Roundheads, but they had drawn into their ranks a number of
people who had no positive convictions but were disgusted with the conduct and
character of the Stuarts. From these indeterminate elements there later sprang
such men as Chatham and Burke, to whom no unworthy motives can rightly be
attributed. On the other hand, the general tenor of Whig policy was gross
materialism, just as that of Toryism was mystical incompetence and a purely
negative attitude to the progress which the dynamics of civilization demanded.
Thus for centuries, England was doomed to be divided, the financial descendants
of the Roundheads always making use of the heroic but impractical descendants of
the Cavaliers.
It is a very great mistake to believe that the Conservative Party of today
represents the old Tory philosophy. The fact is that after 1745, Whiggery
swallowed all that was left of real Toryism: and henceforth, apart from a few
forlorn exceptions—always fighting a hopeless rearguard action, the people of
England settled down to enjoy or suffer different forms of Whig politics. Thus
did the materialism of finance lay hold on England. It would be tedious to
enumerate the various attempts which were made at a resurrection of the Tory
Party. Let us agree that it died on the day when the bleak moor of Culloden was
strewn with the bodies of those who had thought it possible to restore the
Stuart dynasty.
In the meanwhile, the constitution of England had undergone a far-reaching
revolution. When, in 1689, William by the Grace of God Prince of Orange landed
in England and his father-in-law took to craven flight, a new volume of English
history was opened. William was the man whom the Whigs needed: and many of the
Tories accepted him because anything was better than James II. William was a
heroic, if sombre, figure. A great fighter, he had the habit of losing [18]
battles and winning wars. But his interests were far removed from England. The
single object of his life was to save Holland from the scorching splendour of Le
Roi Soleil. Solely in order to acquire greater resources for his struggle
against the French aggressors did he undertake the responsibility of pretending
to govern England. And a man who would pretend to govern was exactly what the
City of London wanted. The facade of ancient tradition had to be erected before
the crooked structure of international finance that the architects of usury were
building for themselves. William never to his dying day saw into the reality of
English politics. The Whigs who had brought him to England treated him as a sort
of guest on sufferance; and he was at a loss to understand the interminable
intrigues of John Churchill, better known as the Duke of Marlborough, one of
Winston Churchill's more presentable ancestors. In his reign, two important
developments occurred. First, Parliament, consisting of the remnants of the old
aristocracy and, in much greater numbers, the pioneers of the new plutocracy,
became supreme. There was nothing democratic in its nature. The vast majority of
the people had no votes: but the stage was set for the final struggle between
town and country, cash and breeding, corruption and authority.
The second event of importance in William's reign was the founding of the Bank
of England. This institution had as its function the provision of money for the
Government at a substantial rate of interest. It was prepared to lend from
generation unto generation and collect its interest accordingly. The cumulative
process has produced mathematically amazing results: for the Bank of England was
the main factor in the establishment of the National Debt. In 1705, Dean Swift
threw up his hands in horror and exclaimed: "What! A National Debt of five
million pounds. Why, the High Allies will be the ruin of us!" The Dean's
propensities for bad language would have had full scope, if he could have
visualized the National Debt of thousands of millions of pounds which stares
England in the face today. If only statesmen had been compelled to study the
laws of Compound Interest, the fate of the whole human race might have been very
different. Even [19] a knowledge of simple interest would have helped in this
case. But the gentlemen of the eighteenth century eschewed mathematics which had
no application to the card tables. Certain persons who were not gentlemen
profited by their simplicity. Of course, Robert Walpole, the founder of Cabinet
Government and first Prime Minister of England knew very well what he was doing.
His motto "Let sleeping dogs lie" testifies to the fact that he was concerned
with more immediate things and was making no attempt to legislate for those who
came after him.
George I, Elector of Hanover, King of England, spoke no English. After trying to
conduct business with his Ministers in Latin, he gave up in despair and settled
down to what amenities he could find in a land where he never felt at home. He
harmed nobody and served the purpose of tradition and the Protestant Succession.
Henceforth the King was destined to be a figure-head. Now he could do no wrong,
because he could do nothing. George III did try to become the autocrat of the
American Colonies. England lost all North America but Canada: and thereafter the
monarchs refrained from any considerable intervention in politics. Perhaps, by
way of exception, we ought to note the headstrong opposition of George III to
Pitt's design of giving the Irish Roman Catholics that religious liberty which,
if it had been granted in time, might have changed the course of Ireland's
history.
Now with the recession of the monarchy into the realms of the obscure, where it
pathetically lingers today, party politics began to play a predominant role in
English life. Whilst the Whigs ruled England throughout almost the whole of the
eighteenth century, they had to contend with opposition: and this opposition was
often based on the grounds of ambition rather than policy. I doubt if anybody
can really say what Bolingbroke wanted: but he certainly hated the Whigs. Long
after the old Tories had been buried, a new Tory party sprang up in 1770 under
Lord North, this time in support of the House of Hanover. It did not get very
far: but it served to provide the prerequisite of Party Politics, namely that
there should be more than one party. The more parties, the more opportunities
for individuals. Politics came to be regarded as [20] a lucrative profession,
thanks to the system of patronage, whereby gentlemen who knew somebody in
authority could secure command of a Regiment in the West Indies for colleagues
upon whose wives they had definite if not honourable designs.
As the eighteenth century gradually unfolded itself, two serious conditions
began to develop. The first was the decline not merely of the aristocracy but,
little by little, of all values that could not be correlated with pounds,
shillings, and pence.
Strange it is that a century so prolific in poetry, conversation,
belles-lettres, and every form of culture should serve but to herald the drab,
remorseless, materialistic industrialism that was already looming impatiently in
the offing. Yet, in the long tale of history, it has ever been so. The brilliant
Augustan period of Roman literature, in which men of creative intellect scaled
heights of achievement hitherto unprecedented in the history of Western Europe,
was but the blazing afternoon before the twilight of Constantine and the utter
darkness of the centuries that followed him.
The second sinister development was the beginning of that agricultural decline
which was destined to continue for nearly two centuries and ultimately leave
England in the position of declaring a food blockade on Germany without having
any resources of her own.
Charles II, between his bouts of extracting money from Louis XIV and lavishing
his undoubted charm on ladies who were only too willing to be overwhelmed by it,
devoted a certain amount of earnest attention to physics. None of his entourage
could discover why. Neither can the present writer.
Nevertheless, the impetus which he gave to the study of mathematics and natural
philosophy had its results. Men like Newton began to formulate laws of science
which were to transform the face of the earth. The full fruits of the
Renaissance were now ripe for gathering: and the mechanical age was ready to
begin.
Sadly enough, however, the new interest in machinery, the new desire to produce
goods mechanically, the general gravitation to the towns and away from the
country began to produce disastrous effects upon agriculture. Nobody has
expressed this change more poignantly than Goldsmith in the Deserted Village. He
writes: [21]

"Ill fares the land to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay.
Princes and lords may flourish or may fade,
A breath can make them, as a breath has made:
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied.
A time there was, ere England's griefs began,
When every rood of ground maintained its man;
For him light labour spread her wholesome store,
Just gave what life required, but gave no more,
His best companions, innocence and health,
And his best riches, ignorance of wealth.
But times are altered: trade's unfeeling train
Usurp the land and dispossess the swain."
Perhaps Goldsmith is a little inclined to over-emphasize the virtues of poverty:
but he wrote with feeling about facts which he knew. In a short work of this
kind, it would be impossible to trace all the ramifications and results of the
Industrial Revolution: and, in any case this is a subject which will receive
some attention in the next chapter. As a work of reference, I can only recommend
G. M. Trevelyan's able treatise on British History in the Nineteenth Century.
This work, though partial and written from a hopelessly Liberal point of view,
gives a very fair picture of the social changes at which I am trying to hint.

In brief, the great migration from the countryside to the towns began. The age
of mechanized man was approaching. The new plutocracy and those of the old Whigs
who were naturally perverse began their final and terrible offensive against the
old country gentlemen. It was all the more terrible because the old "county
families" were not just uprooted and annihilated. They were subjected to
numerous mercantile blood transfusions until they had to undergo the final
humiliation of accepting Jewish sons-in-law to save the ground to which they
pathetically clung.
This chapter is not especially concerned with economics: and we shall therefore
defer for a very short time our review of the results which the Industrial
Revolution brought to the [22] lives of the ordinary people in England. The
political fact of greatest importance is that the two parties locked in life and
death struggle were compelled to call in new allies. The party system had
rapidly degenerated into that shameless bargaining for votes which, in one form
or another, is the inalienable characteristic of democracy. In the later
eighteenth century, elections were greeted with great joy by the country. For
they meant the lavish distribution by the candidates of beer, bacon, and money.
* Election Agents calmly wrote down in their books: "To the vote of Mr. Ebenezer
Smith £ 30, (thirty pounds)." Constituencies were most artfully constructed in
such a manner as to allow vested interests full play.
At the time of the Great Reform Act of 1832, one M. P. confessed that his
borough was an uninhabited house, another said that his was an old mound, and a
third smilingly declared that his had been under a pond for the last twenty
years. All the same, this system was preferable to that about to be inaugurated.
For the Reform Act of 1832 was simply and solely designed to give the lesser
merchants the vote, with the result that the nexus between politics and cash
became closer than ever before. Some 35 years later, the Jew Disraeli decided to
bring in the hitherto voteless artisans to counterbalance the petty merchants.
His reward was to be hurled out of office by the
people whom he had enfranchised. Even in those days, Jews were not liked by the
working people of England.
To summarize, however, it may be said that from 1832 onwards, the whole art of
English politics consisted of making promises without any intention of keeping
them.
And after the enfranchisement of the working classes, this evil principle gained
added force.
The Liberal Party, formed out of the scum and dregs of all that was left in the
worst elements of the Whig menagerie, posed as the friend of the people, with
what justification we shall see in the next chapter. A new thing, called the
Conservative Party, rose in the nineteenth century, representing the pitifully
faint effort of the landlords and the more patriotic people to suggest that the
state had claims no less than those of the individual. This forlorn band of
idealists wandered along through the drab decades of the nineteenth century,
till [23] Benjamin Disraeli found it and quite cleverly led it into the outer
courts of the Palace of High Finance. There it waited until, at the turn of the
century, the recreant Liberal, Joe Chamberlain, bought it lock, stock and
barrel, leaders, members, and hangers-on. From that time onwards,
the Conservative Party was only a more respectable, a more delicate, in fact, a
nicer medium for the expression of acquisitive commercialism. Thus, Mr.
Churchill in the early days of his ill-starred career, was able, with a clear
conscience, to ask his experienced friends whether he should give, or sell, his
services to the Liberal or the Conservative Party. It mattered little which. If
a man were a Methodist and a foreign importer, he would naturally be a Liberal.
If a fellow were a soldier, and a member of the Church of England, he would
probably be a Conservative. Both would pay their respects to dividends from
foreign investments, and both would probably shudder at the thought of being
stopped by a self-contained Empire. On the whole, the Conservatives were a
little cleaner, a little less greedy, than the Liberals. But they existed only
as a sort of foil to the Liberal Policy. Whether in office or not, the poor
Conservatives were the perpetual opposition. The ruthless financiers of the City
of London did not wish it to appear that there was only one party in the state.
Their aims and activities had to be masked: but, in the end, the Conservatives
gained such a following amongst the people that their annexation became
necessary. Joe Chamberlain having performed this feat, the Liberal Party
atrophied and died out, until its only living representatives are a few old
gentlemen for whom there was no room in the Conservative fold. Its disappearance
was made all the easier because, at the turn of the century, there had emerged a
new and quite impertinent party called the Labour Party. These upstarts actually
demanded that the workers should have
direct representation in Parliament instead of being represented by their
employers.
Nobody could say what these unreasonable people would ask next: and therefore it
was just as well that the Liberal Party should be under sentence of death. Of
course, the leaders of this new movement were mostly common fellows, and a
little flattery mixed with bribery in the best [24] of taste would doubtless go
a long way. But they actually used such outlandish words as "Socialism", they
spoke about the rights of the proletariat, and some of them even used the awful
term "revolution". Clearly it would not do to have two parties as well as this
new menace: and accordingly, for some years, although the Liberal Party lingered
on, it gradually decayed: and those who would formerly have entered it in search
of a fortune, joined the wretched Socialists
instead. Not a few succeeded in realizing their personal ambitions."

By William Joyce.

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres8/twilight.pdf




Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:44 pm

evola_as_he_is
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
< Prev Message  |  Next Message > 
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

A clear awareness that the United Kingdom has been in the hands of the Jews and of a Semiticised mob for quite a few centuries, that the Brittish Empire was a...
Evola
evola_as_he_is Offline Send Email
Apr 16, 2011
4:45 pm

Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Guidelines NEW - Help