Russian sovereignty resides in a very small aristocracy, most of whom are Aryans whose ancestors migrated East, and now rule the Asiatics who came West. Theoretically, the Czar is the only sovereign, it being on paper a pure autocracy, but he is really a creature or servant of an Aryan aristocracy which rules the Empire. This aristocracy was too few in number, and of too recent arrival to have organized a representative body; indeed, they did not need it, for they could express their sovereign will without it. Hence it was much better for Aryans in Russia to carry on their government "in the name of the Czar," just as their blood relatives in England do it "in the name of the King." Each is a fiction. If the Czar failed to do the bidding of the sovereign Teutonic aristocracy, they killed or deposed him, just as the Teutons did in England. The present Douma represents only a small part of the citizenship and this is the only possible form of government in Russia, where the great mass of the people are so brainless that they cannot support the high civilization into which they are intruders. If they were not guided and controlled, there would be such anarchy that not ten per cent, of the present population could get food.

Prof. Edwin A. Grosvenor, of Amherst College,* has shown that a Russian autocracy is manifestly impossible, for the ruler depends upon the good will of his army. He states that the Slavs repeatedly refused constitutions and republics, and insisted upon a plan whereby the Czar should have that power-of-attorney we call autocratic power. He was invested with power by the people - at least the upper layers of the population - and these same upper layers are now demanding a restriction of the power of the Grand Dukes. They are exercising their democratic rights, though it may be difficult to get back what they once surrendered - but they are aristocrats all the same. The peasant cares as little about the matter as he does in France or England; in fact, he cannot comprehend what all the turmoil is about, for the taxes go on just the same. He must pay as highly as ever for the privilege of living in that overcrowded country.

* National Geographic Magazine, July, 1905.

The trouble in Finland is due to the fact that the ruling Aryan type in Russia is trying to destroy the democracy of the Finns, who are very largely Aryan themselves. They demand the same share of the sovereignty as is possessed by Aryans the world over. The system which will do in Eastern Russia among the Asiatics, called Slavs, cannot possibly succeed among these Aryan democrats who are blood relatives of the present Russian aristocracy. One of the greatest proofs of the democracy of the Finns and also possibly of their Aryan blood, is the utter failure of the attempt to Russianize the country. They demanded and got back their ancient Aryan liberties, and are now self-governing democrats - the Czar being like an elected chief executive with a local representative really of their own choice. Autocracy has no place in this Aryan population.

Japan, too, is a typical aristocracy, and has been for many centuries, probably 3,000 years, the Mikado being a mere figurehead to execute the will of this small minority. The rulers are no doubt descendants of the last conquering wave from the mainland. The franchise is possessed by only ten per cent, of the population; an elector must be twenty-five years old and pay seven and one-half dollars (fifteen yen) yearly in direct taxation. The physical differences between the voting aristocracy and the lower, more brainless peasant type, are very marked, as the latter are probably descendants of very early immigrants.

Lynch law, by the way, is merely an expression of democracy if the sovereign people says that it shall be the temporary method. Usually they place the execution of the law in the hands of servants, but occasionally the servants are too slow or venal, and their methods improper for the case in hand, and their employers supersede them. We have been very properly crying it down so much that it is a habit to denounce it as something undemocratic, whereas it is the highest prerogative of the sovereign democracy to make and execute their own laws. In a small democracy lynch law carried out by all the citizens is technically correct. In the South the lynchers often constitute all the sovereigns. But this biological truth does not deny the fact that in crowded communities, where even a majority has the impudence to lynch a man, they are stealing the sovereignty belonging to the whole corporation - society. They are murderers in that they have not been delegated by the sovereigns to execute any law. To permit this is anarchy, and our own personal safety demands that we put a stop to it, for no one knows when his turn is to come for a supposed offense. It is to be confessed that such actions will never cease while the majority approves.

Englishmen often regret the American Revolution and the severance of the highest Teutonic types into two branches. They claim that union is better for all, but they forget the incalculable benefit the revolution was to Englishmen. Our Declaration of Independence simply took the world by storm. It was all true, they said, and Aryans have always thought that way, but for the first time had Teuton man reduced to writing an account of the rights, his by inheritance from a long line of ancestors. Assertion of these rights became the policy. It bore immediate fruit in France's revolution, but it took a whole generation in England. New revolutionary ideas require a generation to take root in Anglo-Saxon countries. The Declaration of Independence of Englishmen had to wait, but it came, for the nineteenth century has seen revolution after revolution - by reforms - a method more sensible and less bloody.

The Dutch who settled in South Africa formed a typical Aryan democracy, but they could not associate with the Saxon who later intruded, so they "trekked north." Later, they invited the Saxon to Pretoria to open mines, railroads, to trade and do all other things the Boers could not do, for they were only a pastoral people. Now comes the amusing part, the Dutch Boer did to Englishmen exactly what George III did to Americans, forced taxation without representation upon them, and refused them citizenship. These Saxons did just what their elder brothers did in America in 1775 - fought for the democratic rights which belong to all Aryans. The Boer had the wit to call his oligarchy a republic, and it caught public approval in America where the word is sacred because we suffered so much from a monarchy. Hence, the tyrant Boer has all our sympathies while he has been acting like the tyrant George III. It was a magnificent "graft," and Kruger held on as long as he could and became rich on it, but this kind of tyranny had to stop in the twentieth century.