“Religion is the basis of culture”. (A. C. Cuza)
“Nationality is the creating power of human culture”. (A. C. Cuza)
“Eliminating the jews, from the domain of culture, is an existential
problem for us. The elimination from the domain of culture implies still the
elimination from the domain of national economy, where culture has its roots”.
(A. C. Cuza)
My previous article – in which
among others I affirmed that we cannot accept Mr. A. C. Cuza’s conception on
the matter of culture: the materialist
conception of culture as downstream from economy – it is objected that it
is not true that Mr. Cuza has a “materialist conception” about culture and more
so that it is absurd to say Mr. Cuza would sustain, implicitly, that
Christianity itself is a product of a nationality supported by a certain
national economy.
We assure anyone that it wasn’t
easy for us to decide to touch on the doctrinaire system of our former professor.
From what will follow however (since so far we will respond in summary) we
believe that anyone will be able to see if we sought with daring to find a
mistake at any cost to unjustly accuse, or rather we sought to clarify an
important issue wrongly solved. (And we repeat: we do not criticise here at all
the cuzist doctrine in its part referring to the issue of jewish economic parasitism, and only to its
part referring to culture and thus to
the problem of moral purification).
I said we will be short and we
are; we will put just this question supported on the three quotes from A. C.
Cuza, indicated above:
Weren’t we correct in saying that
Mr. Cuza has an inacceptable conception about culture (especially about its
source) when Mr. Cuza says precisely: “Religion
is the basis of culture” (a truth incontestable, we recognize it strongly
too); after Mr. Cuza also says: culture (with its base: religion) is a product of nationality; and, in the end,
Mr. Cuza also says: “culture has its
roots in national economy” (which without nationality cannot exist). So, we
conclude, logically: “religion, as a
basis of culture, is itself a product of nationality and of the national
economy” (according to the cuzist conception). And, as we have concluded thusly,
we understand clearly for what Mr. Cuza gives no importance to the moral element from our endeavours of
national salvation. Mr. Cuza tell himself that purifying the economy, he
purifies everything, as a purified economy will produce a purified culture, and
will restore the healthy basis of culture, religion master of souls, automatically,
as a consequence an accessory to eliminating the jews from economy. Why would
we preoccupy ourselves thus with the moral element, when through preparing the economic
elimination of the jews, we prepare the supreme and total happiness of our
nation? Here is a mode of thinking which we reject and which has destroyed
everything which the “national movement” has built until now.
I end: yes, I am puzzled how a
genius mind such as of Mr. Cuza could sink itself to such a wrong conception
about culture. It would give us, not pleasure, but a spiritual good if he would
clarify. And, with great happiness, we shall ask the appropriate apologies if
he convinces us that we are victims of an intellectual confusion.
(Originally published in the Legionary magazine “Pământul Strămoșesc” on the 15th of September 1928.)
