Install the new Firefox
0 Roue
- What are the opinions on the work of J. de Mahieu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_Mahieu)? Especially with regard to the history of the Templars and oceanic travel.Van: jayce1921@... [evola_as_he_is]
Verzonden: dinsdag 27 mei 2014 22:41
Aan: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.comThe explanation of the bias in "the Papal drama" is quite clear from the dedication and the preface: the author is protestant and think of the papacy as an abomination; but the bias itself is not in the preface but in the text itself, in the obviously one-sided presentation of the facts, with constant insistance on the innocence and benevolence of the kings and lords, while the popes are constantly depicted as greedy and only interested in wordly matters. But you had every right in taking this well-written and sufficiently clear text as a frame; for that matter a soviet textbook would have also perfectly done the job. This being said impartially and without irony.
As for the rise of the bourgeoisie; the limitation of the "droit de bourgeoisie" is not by any means an anti-bourgeois measure -it was supported not only by the nobles who thought of it this way, but also by the rich bourgeois themselves, but a legalization of certain privileges of the rich people in the city -those who will indeed become the kernel of what will be then called "bourgeoisie" as opposed to the lower people of the city who never obtained the "lettres de bourgeoisie", expensive and only useful when you had to travel outside of the city; and a form of protection of those already recognized as "bourgeois" against the competitors.
"L'ordonnance de 1287, relative aux "bourgeois du roi", précise leur condition.[...] Le bourgeois avait été jusqu'alors l'homme d'une ville, comme le serf l'homme d'un domaine. L'institution des "bourgeois du roi" et d'autres similaires, vont rendre sa condition personnelle et non plus réelle, attachée à un lieu déterminé. Ces bourgeois obtiennent de se faire inscrire dans une ville royale et d'avoir des lettres de bourgeoisie, sans être astreints à y résider.
Ainsi, dans certaines villes qui ne sont pas du domaine royal, des bourgeois forains peuvent se réclamer de la justice du roi en démontrant leur qualité de bourgeois d'une ville royale dont ils restent sujets."
Régine Pernoud. Histoire de la Bourgeoisie en France. Paris: Seuil; 1981. Tome I p.122.
For the accusations of "couterfeiting the money", the debate is more complex and you can't sum it up in absolving Philippe le Bel of a "crime". Indeed, Philippe Le Bel had every right, from a modern point of view, to lead whatever monetary policy he wished, including every mutation of the metallic composition of the money, or every new emission of money. But he was in fact the first king of France to dare to do it on this scale, because there was a belief at the time in the immutability of money, save in situation of absolute necessity. And this is why is monetary policy is symbolic of a change of times. This is well explained here http://www.sacra-moneta.com/Numismatique-medievale/La-politique-monetaire-trouble-de-Philippe-le-Bel.html from which I draw the following:
"On peut dire immédiatement que Philippe le Bel n'a pas été un roi faux monnayeur, puisqu'il disposait incontestablement du droit de battre monnaie. Ses mutations monétaires ont été exécutées ouvertement et publiquement : les nombreuses ordonnances royales qui accompagnent les émissions en témoignent. Dans ces conditions, pourquoi Bernard Saisset accuse-t-il le roi, en 1301, d'être un faux-monnayeur ? Cela tient semble-t-il à l'idée que l'on se faisait à Rome du droit de muer les monnaies. Dans l'entourage du Pape, personne ne conteste que la monnaie appartient au Prince. C'est ainsi qu'est interprétée la fameuse réplique de Jésus dans la Bible à propos de la monnaie : "rendez à César ce qui est à César"[6]. Mais les idées exprimées par Aristote dans l'Ethique et la Politiqueont pénétré les esprits au XIII° siècle. Conformément à ce que dit l'antique philosophe grec, on pense que le roi ne peut muer sa monnaie qu'en cas de nécessité, en veillant à maintenir intact l'intérêt de la communauté. Ces idées aristotéliciennes existent aussi dans l'entourage de Philippe le Bel. Voici en substance ce que déclare l'un de ses conseillers en 1309 : Abaisser et amenuiser la monnaie est un privilège exclusivement royal... mais le roi ne peut utiliser ce droit qu'en cas de necessité[7]. Aussi, au début de son règne, le roi de France n'est pas certain d'avoir le droit de transformer les monnaies à sa guise. Dans l'ordonnance qui accompagne la mutation monétaire de1295, le roi explique la nécessité de ce remuement monétaire et s'engage à dédommager les victimes éventuelles[8]. Ces éléments sont assez significatifs de la façon dont on percevait la monnaie au Moyen Age. L'idée populaire et assez générale qui court est celle de l'immuabilité de la monnaie, érigée en principe. Le gens du Moyen-Age, en général, ne conçoivent pas les notions d'inflation, de dévaluation ou de système monétaire. S'il y a des problèmes monétaires, qu'il s'agisse d'inflation ou de pénurie de monnaie, ils ne peuvent être que le fait des actions de l'autorité responsable de la monnaie, ce qui, certes, n'est pas totalement faux. Mais on perçoit mal certaines contraintes inhérentes au système monétaire, comme la spéculation à laquelle se livrent changeurs et marchands. Dans la pratique, le roi ne contrôle pas tous les paramètres de la politique monétaire. Les assemblées de prélats et de barons convoquées périodiquement, au début du XIV° siècle pour donner leur avis sur la question monétaire réclament toutes le retour à la bonne monnaie de Saint-Louis[9], quelque peu idéalisée. Il est vrai que la politique monétaire de Philippe le Bel est tout sauf stable. Le système monétaire a été bouleversé de fond en comble. Cette situation, qui n'avait pas de précédent historique, contraste fortement avec les pratiques monétaires de ses prédécesseurs, Saint-Louis et Philippe le Hardi, dont les monnayages sont alors considérés comme des modèles de stabilité. Le résultat des mutations, dans l'opinion publique, est simple: bien que le roi agisse selon son bon droit, toute transformation de la monnaie est assimilée à un abus déloyal, voire à une falsification pure et simple."
With regards
---In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, <evola_as_he_is@...> wrote :We had not noticed the dedication, nor had we read the preface. What is it that you find “biased” about it ? He’s quite straightworward : “While striving after strict accuracy in the statement, of facts and perfect fairness in the estimate of character, I lay no claim to the impartiality of religious indifference.” His judgment is balanced : “While in no wise blind, I trust, to intellectual greatness or moral worth in a pope, I look upon the popedom as the supreme corruption of Christianity », a statement which, as far as its last part, you should approve of. Besides, there are tons of Catholic authors, starting with Dante, who were just as critical of Catholicism as Protestant authors were of it.
The Church is an entity which has always carried, right from the start, the most traditional values, that is, traditional Semitic values. What would be so ‘Aryan’ about primitive Christianity, or, for that matter, about the primitive Church ?
In France, Philip II (1165-1223) was the first king to surround himself with advisors of bourgeois, and even of low, extraction, and the transformation of the feudal realm into a modern state was really initiated by him ; he created a bureaucracy and a quite complex administrative system in the process. Louis IX (1220-1270) - for whom, in the words of a current French political schemer, “The East precedes the West because it is the East that spawned the West. The East is the cradle of Christianity, the sacred place of the Incarnation, the dwelling place of the Risen Christ, the first communities of apostles, of the first Pentecost. Eastern Christians are the first Christians. Quite naturally, Saint Louis turns his kingdom to Golgotha, where the Holy Grail is kept. He wants his kingdom to be ‘oriented’” (http://www.libertepolitique.com/Actualite/Decryptage/Philippe-de-Villiers-Saint-Louis-tire-sa-surhumanite-du-plus-profond-de-son-humanite) – continued his work, and so did Philip IV. Yet, R. Guénon and, following in his footsteps, J. Evola made him responsible for all the evils of the time. We simply wondered why ; and it appeared to us that the Templars’s affair must have been the main reason he attracted their wrath. – Ironically enough, Philip IV (admittedly, Gill is quite far from putting him on pedestal, as he writes that “Philip the Fair [was] ever in need of money, and jealous of the prerogatives of his crown”] was the only Capetian king who did something to mitigate the rise of the bourgeoisie (“in 1287 Philip IV issued an ordinance intended to curb abuses and regulate the ‘droit de bourgeoisie’… This ordinance… reduced the attractiveness of letters of bourgeoisie, and they seem not to have become as widespread as some 19th century historians believed” - William W. Kible, Medieval France: An Encyclopedia, p. 264). One does not need to be a Freemason or an occultist to be biased in favour of the Templars against Philip IV. Incidentally, in ‘Scritti sulla Massoneria’, J. Evola mentions – in passing - the fact that Templars were involved in banking.
“And, you say, even if Guénon mentioned the accusations of having counterfeited the money, he viewed it more as a symbol of overstepping of its role from the temporal power.” Well, it is a very poor ‘symbol’, since it has been showed that Philip IV was not a counterfeiter (once again, Col. L. Borelli de Serres, in ‘Les Variations monetaires sous Philippe le Bel et les sources de leur histoire’, Paris, Picard et fils, 1902, the first and the only work to date which examine exhaustively all the available sources on the monetary policy of Philip IV, demonstrates conclusively, with a Swiss precision and the metronomic rigour of a Scottish accountant, that “there is no indication, nor any material evidence, of counterfeiting as such in the documents, quite the opposite.”
http://members.multimania.nl/Numis10/PDF/Borrelli.pdf). To return to an issue which has just been touched on, of course, Philip IV was “ever in need of money”: on his ascension to the throne, he found the coffers empty. Could the cost of the crusades, to which the Templars, the then armed and ‘speculative’ wing of the Church, were closely tied, possibly have had something to do with this state of affairs ?While we are at it, it should be noted that the genesis of the modern state, if it meant the (gradual) end of feudalism, which, as has been showed in ‘The Jewels of the Papacy’, was not as pristine as J. Evola would have had it, did not mean a tabula rasa. As a matter of fact, it is through feudalism and religion that Capetian kings secured their supreme authority. The Capetian king is characteristically elected by the archbishop of Reims, with consent of the Church and of the feudal lords. The Capetian king is a sacred character. By the anointing, the king became a religious figure, above other men, king by the will of God, with a divine mission of peace and justice and a miraculous healing power. Let us bear in mind that the vanishing of the concept of ‘primus inter pares’ is contemporary with the emergence of the notion of “king by the will of God”.
Another interesting thing about the genesis of the modern state is that, quite often, ecclesiastics were at the head of the state, especially in England (Stafford, Laud, Wykeham, Wolsey, among many others), but also in France. There was a clear overlap between the Church and the state.
(indeed, we were mistaken about that excerpt)
(despite the few shortcomings and misunderstandings to which we have called attention with respect to the racial issue, ‘The Hour of Decision’ (at https://archive.org/details/TheHourOfDecision ; this English translation does not always do justice to the original text - there are even a few typos) turns out to be a tremendously potent work, when it comes to the destructive criticism of the various alien twin political, economical, social, cultural ideologies, systems, currents of thought, the exotic influences at work in the modern ‘Western’ world, and of the mindset of so-called ‘Westerners’ - it is simply vitriolic)
evola_as_he_is@{{emailDomain}}