Kriminalgeschichte, 7

Below, translated excerpts from the first volume of Karlheinz
Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums

(“Criminal History of Christianity”)

 
Bar Kokhba and the “Last War of God” (131-136)

To this new uprising, in 115 C.E. different uprisings were added among the Jews of the diaspora, which were very numerous in the Mediterranean area according to Philo. Only in Alexandria there was more than a million. They were still not disillusioned with the Messianic dream. During the war of Trajan against the Parthians (114-117 C.E.), the rumour of a disastrous defeat of the empire ran, and there was also a great earthquake that destroyed Antioch and other cities of Asia Minor. In the face of these disasters, the Zealots believed their time had come.

In the province of Crete and Cyrene, where 200,000 non-Jews were reported to have died, the “king” and “Messiah” Lukuas destroyed the capital, Cyrenaica. In Cyprus, the insurgents devastated Salamis and, according to the chronicles, killed 240,000 non-Jews, an obviously exaggerated figure. From then on, however, the Jews were barred from access to the island and even the castaways, if they were Israelites, were executed. In Egypt, where the Romans liquidated all the Jews of Alexandria in reprisals, the fighting lasted for years. In all places, the Jewish diaspora was severely punished.

In the same Palestine, the successor of Trajan, Emperor Hadrian (reign 117-138 C.E.), a great devotee of the gods, built a new city on the ruins of Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the Temple built an altar to Jupiter And a temple of Venus.

And here it is that in the year 131, Simon ben Kosevah (Bar Kokhba) begins a war of guerrillas so generalized and so deadly, that forces the very emperor to take command of the Roman troops. Bar Kokhba (in Aramaic means “son of the star,” so named after the success of his uprising; in the Talmud, the loser received the name Ben Koseva, “son of lies”) takes power in Jerusalem. His principal counsellor is Rabbi Aqiba, who greets him with a classic messianic appointment calling him “star of Jacob,” the saviour of Israel. He is also supported by the high priest Eleazar, later killed by Bar Kokhba himself because he advised surrender.

There were two years of high morale in Jerusalem, resuming worship in the Temple and proclaiming a new era of freedom until the Emperor Hadrian sent four legions under the command of his best general, Julius Severus, with large numbers of auxiliary troops and a large fleet.

The Romans start regaining ground little by little.

According to Dion Casio, whose exaggerations are notorious, 580,000 Jewish fighters were killed and 50 fortresses destroyed, 985 villages destroyed, and tens of thousands of prisoners sent to captivity. Mommsen believes that these figures “are not unlikely,” since the fighting was fierce and surely led to the extermination of the entire male population.

Women and children flooded the slave markets, leading to lower slave prices. The last population to fall was Beth-Ter (the present Battir), west of Jerusalem, where Bar Kokhba himself died in circumstances not well explained.

The site of the Temple and its surroundings were ploughed with oxen. As for the Zealots, the Romans utterly exterminated them, for at last they understood that the religious fanaticism of the Jews was the true cause of the revolt. “For the next fifty years we did not see the flight of a bird in Palestine,” says the Talmud.

The Israelites were forbidden under penalty of death to enter Jerusalem, and the garrison doubled. Until the fourth century the Jews could not return there to weep once a year, on the 9th day of the Aw month, the loss of the “holy city.” And until the twentieth century, or more precisely until May 14, 1948, they failed to found a Jewish state, Eretz Yisrael.

Kriminalgeschichte, 6

Below, translated excerpts from the first volume of Karlheinz
Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums

(“Criminal History of Christianity”)

 
The Jewish War (66-70)

The Zealots, a Jewish nationalist group originally constituted, undoubtedly, by a section of the Jerusalem clergy by the year 6, instigated that war as a reaction to the power of the Roman occupier. Despite the existence of notable differences between Zealots and Christians, many points of contact have also been observed. It is no coincidence that one of the apostles of Jesus, a certain Simon, is called in the Gospel of Luke “the Zealot” and in that of Matthew “the Canaanite”: which represents a simple transcription of the Aramaic qannai, “the exalted.”

Among the zealots, to whom current research attributes an important influence in the trajectory of Jesus, abounded apocalyptic rumours, as the oracle which said that, at that time, “one of his own would be king of the world.” Four lustrums before the outbreak of the Jewish war proper, they were already fighting against the Romans, but even more against certain antipatriot Jews.

Their enemies called them “Sicarius,” that means “those of the knife,” because they were armed with the “sica,” with which they stabbed on the back those who they did not like, especially some rich Jews who for reasons of interest agreed with the Romans. It is said (by Eusebius, Church historian) that one of their first victims had been “the high priest Jonathas.”

They committed their murders in full day and in the middle of the city; they took advantage of the festive days to be confused in the agglomerations, and stabbed their enemies with small daggers that were hidden under the tunics. When the victim fell, the murderers added to the commotion and exclamations of consternation, and thanks to this cold blood they were almost never discovered.

Josephus, who in the middle of the war changed sides and favoured the Romans, calls the zealots assassins and bandits, but he does not forget to mention that “they had many supporters, especially among the youth.”

In extremist circles the insurrection against Rome was publicly incited. They read preferably the two books of the Maccabees (whose definitive inclusion in the Sacred Scriptures, let us recall in passing, dates from the Council of Trent; that is, from the sixteenth century), to exalt themselves with those “heroic actions.” They hoped to be able to re-edit before the Romans, with the Lord’s help, the triumphs won against the Greeks. In this way the Bellum ludaicum (66-70) was finally produced: a bloody adventure in which the Romans were forced to throw them out militarily.

The revolt, so pleasing to the eyes of the Lord, led first by Eleazar ben Simon, the son of a priest as well as by Zechariah ben Phalec, then continued by John of Giscala, began at a well chosen time on a Sabbath with the slaughter of the few Roman guards on the Antonia tower in Jerusalem and the powerful fortifications of the royal palace. Before surrendering to the garrison, they promised that they would not kill anyone; then they only pardoned an officer who agreed to be circumcised. (Later Christians would also forgive the Jews who accepted conversion.)

In the Greek cities of the region, Damascus, Caesarea, Ashkelon, Scythopolis, Hippos and Gadara the Hellenes organized in turn a slaughter of Jews: 10,500 or 18,000 only in Damascus, according to an account. At the same time the insurgent Jews, stimulated by the ardour of their faith and by the great memories of the exploits of the Maccabees, were cleansing up all minorities in Judea.

The Romans began to march, first under the orders of the governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus. Nero then sent one of his best generals, the former mule dealer Titus Flavius Vespasianus, whose first military operations were extremely cautious. He found himself in a politically sensitive situation due to the death of Nero and the fall of Galba.

But by the summer of the year 68 they controlled almost all of Palestine; among other things, he ordered the burning of the hermitage of Qumran, on the shores of the Dead Sea, whose important library, which the monks had hidden shortly before in the mountain caves, was not discovered until the middle of the 20th century.

He also decimated the Samaritans, who had taken part in the Jewish insurrection. Cerealis made with 11,600 of them a hecatomb in Mount Gerizim. Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, a city of “sad fame” according to Tacitus, to which Vespasian already had in siege, the children of God divided into two parties fought each other; they even came to form a third faction that fought against the other two in the Temple.

The Temple, with its surroundings, was a true fortress, turned into redoubt of the zealots… that continued celebrating the rites even under the siege! While the masses, deprived of provisions, starved to death, the Jews stabbed each other in street fights, or killed the prisoners in the dungeons, while continuing to make common cause against the Romans. These, for their part, also used to pass the prisoners by knife or crucified them. Vespasian had to leave for Rome, since his troops had proclaimed him emperor.

But two years later, in early September 70, his son Titus ended the insurrection with a bloodbath: previously, being in the Caesarean Palestine, in Berytus (Beirut) and elsewhere, he had ordered to throw thousands of imprisoned Jews to the circus beasts, or forced them to kill each other in duels, or burned them alive. The few survivors of Jerusalem, reduced to a single heap of ruins, were stabbed or sold as slaves.

The Temple burned to the foundations, with all its possessions treasured for six centuries, on the anniversary of the destruction of the first one. The struggle continued for several more years in several isolated fortresses, such as Herodion Hill, Machaerus and Masada, until the defenders committed suicide along with their wives and children.

In the year 71, the victor entered triumphantly in Rome, where still today can be seen the Arch of Titus in memory of the feat…

The massacre had cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Jerusalem was devastated as once were Carthage and Corinth, and the country incorporated into the dominions of the emperor. Overwhelming taxes were imposed on the vanquished, until the fifth of the first harvests, and to a greater calamity, the country suffered the plague of bandits. Religious life, on the other hand, and how could it be otherwise, flourished.

Neither in Palestine nor anywhere the Jew was forbidden to practice his religion: “For prudence they abstained from declaring war on the Jewish faith as such” (Mommsen). But there was still ahead a major defeat, a few decades later, as a result of the second attempt of a “last war of God.”

St Antiochus

Greek effigy coin of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes

A couple of days ago I resuscitated the idea of adding here further excerpts from the monumental Criminal History of Christianity. Four years ago I purposely left those excerpts with a short entry because Deschner’s last sentence provided much food for thought: “If the stringent measures against the Jews by Antiochus IV had taken effect, it would not only have meant the end of Judaism, but also ‘would have prevented the rise of Christianity and Islam.’ Our imagination almost fails to conceive a world so different…”

It is a pity that the sources for understanding the revolt of the Maccabees are the Old Testament and Josephus: both Jewish sources. Even so, what happened 2183 years ago can be deduced from those texts.

Early in 167 BC, the Greek Hellenistic king Antiochus sent an army to Jerusalem. He did it on Saturday so the Jews could not carry weapons. Thus, the Hellenistic forces entered the Jewish city without finding opposition. The soldiers of Apollonius, the general of Antiochus, destroyed much of Jerusalem and set up camp on a hill from which the Temple was dominated. That hill would turn into a citadel: the stronghold of the white man in Jerusalem in the next quarter-century.

Antiochus then proceeded to act directly against the Jews. He ordered them to accept the Greek customs; to desecrate the Sabbath and the feasts, to build altars for the white man’s gods, and to immolate therein animals which the Jews considered impure. The decree of Antiochus ended with these words: “Whoever does not obey the orders of the king shall be put to death.”

The very Jewish law became the target of the decrees of Antiochus. “You could not observe the Sabbath, keep the country feasts, or even declare yourself a Jew.” The possession of the Scriptures was a capital offense, and members of a congregation who were caught secretly celebrating the Sabbath were burned alive. “Two women were denounced for having circumcised their children. They tied the children to their breasts, so they walked about the city and threw them down the wall. ”

On the occasion of the festival of Dionysius, orthodox Jews were forced to parade in the procession. In the middle of the drums and voices in honour of the Greek god of wine, they marched with wreaths of ivy, symbol of the foreign god. Later, the whole procession, under pain of death, was exhorted to eat pork.

The way the Jews first reacted was by writing the Book of Daniel. The authors deceived the Jerusalemites into believing it to be a remote text they had just unearthed. As literary criticism has revealed the Book of Daniel was a trick: a vaticinium ex eventu or foretelling after the event written during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is from that book that the phrase of the abomination of desolation, desolating sacrilege, became famous.

Just compare how pre-Christian Aryans dealt with Jerusalem’s Jews with the standing ovations for Prime Minister Netanyahu in the American Congress last year! It is a pity that memes like “white sharia” are becoming popular among some white nationalists while the purely Aryan meme that should become popular is Nietzsche’s “transvaluation of all values” (see for example my post on Sweden I published today).

If nationalists transvalued Judaic values back to Aryan values, a new constellation of saints of the Ancient World would emerge. Not only the Judeo-Christian names would become gradually repudiated in the generations to come, they would even name their sons after Antiochus, Vercingetorix and Hermann.

Back in 2012 I asked in this blog, Why do we not celebrate the victory of Antiochus IV over the Jews, or Titus’ conquest of Jerusalem? The transvalued individual might well start calling the Hellenistic king as St Antiochus.

Gibbon on Julian – 13

Edward-Gibbon

The History of the Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire

Chapter XXIII
Reign of Julian
Part III


In the midst of a rocky and barren country, the walls of Jerusalem enclosed the two mountains of Sion and Acra, within an oval figure of about three English miles. Towards the south, the upper town, and the fortress of David, were erected on the lofty ascent of Mount Sion: on the north side, the buildings of the lower town covered the spacious summit of Mount Acra; and a part of the hill, distinguished by the name of Moriah, and levelled by human industry, was crowned with the stately temple of the Jewish nation.

After the final destruction of the temple by the arms of Titus and Hadrian, a ploughshare was drawn over the consecrated ground, as a sign of perpetual interdiction. Sion was deserted; and the vacant space of the lower city was filled with the public and private edifices of the Ælian colony, which spread themselves over the adjacent hill of Calvary. The holy places were polluted with mountains of idolatry; and, either from design or accident, a chapel was dedicated to Venus, on the spot which had been sanctified by the death and resurrection of Christ.

Almost three hundred years after those stupendous events, the profane chapel of Venus was demolished by the order of Constantine; and the removal of the earth and stones revealed the holy sepulchre to the eyes of mankind. A magnificent church was erected on that mystic ground, by the first Christian emperor; and the effects of his pious munificence were extended to every spot which had been consecrated by the footstep of patriarchs, of prophets, and of the Son of God.

The passionate desire of contemplating the original monuments of their redemption attracted to Jerusalem a successive crowd of pilgrims, from the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, and the most distant countries of the East; and their piety was authorized by the example of the empress Helena, who appears to have united the credulity of age with the warm feelings of a recent conversion. Sages and heroes, who have visited the memorable scenes of ancient wisdom or glory, have confessed the inspiration of the genius of the place; and the Christian who knelt before the holy sepulchre, ascribed his lively faith, and his fervent devotion, to the more immediate influence of the Divine Spirit.

The zeal, perhaps the avarice, of the clergy of Jerusalem, cherished and multiplied these beneficial visits. They fixed, by unquestionable tradition, the scene of each memorable event. They exhibited the instruments which had been used in the passion of Christ; the nails and the lance that had pierced his hands, his feet, and his side; the crown of thorns that was planted on his head; the pillar at which he was scourged; and, above all, they showed the cross on which he suffered, and which was dug out of the earth in the reign of those princes, who inserted the symbol of Christianity in the banners of the Roman legions.

Such miracles as seemed necessary to account for its extraordinary preservation, and seasonable discovery, were gradually propagated without opposition. The custody of the true cross, which on Easter Sunday was solemnly exposed to the people, was intrusted to the bishop of Jerusalem; and he alone might gratify the curious devotion of the pilgrims, by the gift of small pieces, which they encased in gold orgems, and carried away in triumph to their respective countries.

But as this gainful branch of commerce must soon have been annihilated, it was found convenient to suppose, that the marvelous wood possessed a secret power of vegetation; and that its substance, though continually diminished, still remained entire and unimpaired. It might perhaps have been expected, that the influence of the place and the belief of a perpetual miracle, should have produced some salutary effects on the morals, as well as on the faith, of the people.

Yet the most respectable of the ecclesiastical writers have been obliged to confess, not only that the streets of Jerusalem were filled with the incessant tumult of business and pleasure, but that every species of vice–adultery, theft, idolatry, poisoning, murder–was familiar to the inhabitants of the holy city. The wealth and preeminence of the church of Jerusalem excited the ambition of Arian, as well as orthodox, candidates; and the virtues of Cyril, who, since his death, has been honored with the title of Saint, were displayed in the exercise, rather than in the acquisition, of his Episcopal dignity. The vain and ambitious mind of Julian might aspire to restore the ancient glory of the temple of Jerusalem.

As the Christians were firmly persuaded that a sentence of everlasting destruction had been pronounced against the whole fabric of the Mosaic law, the Imperial sophist would have converted the success of his undertaking into a specious argument against the faith of prophecy, and the truth of revelation. He was displeased with the spiritual worship of the synagogue; but he approved the institutions of Moses, who had not disdained to adopt many of therites and ceremonies of Egypt.

The local and national deity of the Jews was sincerely adored by a polytheist, who desired only to multiply the number of the gods; and such was the appetite of Julian for bloody sacrifice, that his emulation might be excited by the piety of Solomon, who had offered, at the feast of the dedication, twenty-two thousand oxen, and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep. These considerations might influence his designs; but the prospect of an immediate and important advantage would not suffer the impatient monarch to expect the remote and uncertain event of the Persian war.

He resolved to erect, without delay, on the commanding eminence of Moriah, a stately temple, which might eclipse the splendor of the church of the resurrection on the adjacent hill of Calvary; to establish an order of priests, whose interested zeal would detect the arts, and resist the ambition, of their Christian rivals; and to invite a numerous colony of Jews, whose stern fanaticism would be always prepared to second, and even to anticipate, the hostile measures of the Pagan government. Among the friends of the emperor (if the names of emperor, and of friend, are not incompatible) the first place was assigned, by Julian himself, to the virtuous and learned Alypius.

The humanity of Alypius was tempered by severe justice and manly fortitude; and while he exercised his abilities in the civil administration of Britain, he imitated, in his poetical compositions, the harmony and softness of the odes of Sappho. This minister, to whom Julian communicated, without reserve, his most careless levities, and his most serious counsels, received an extraordinary commission to restore, in its pristine beauty, the temple of Jerusalem; and the diligence of Alypius required and obtained the strenuous support of the governor of Palestine.

At the call of their great deliverer, the Jews, from all the provinces of the empire, assembled on the holy mountain of their fathers; and their insolent triumph alarmed and exasperated the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem. The desire of rebuilding the temple has in every age been the ruling passion of the children of Isræl. In this propitious moment the men forgot their avarice, and the women their delicacy; spades and pickaxes of silver were provided by the vanity of the rich, and the rubbish was transported in mantles of silk and purple.

Every purse was opened in liberal contributions, every hand claimed a share in the pious labor, and the commands of a great monarch were executed by the enthusiasm of a whole people. Yet, on this occasion, the joint efforts of power and enthusiasm were unsuccessful; and the ground of the Jewish temple, which is now covered by a Mahomet a mosque, still continued to exhibit the same edifying spectacle of ruin and desolation. Perhaps the absence and death of the emperor, and the new maxims of a Christian reign, might explain the interruption of an arduous work, which was attempted only in the last six months of the life of Julian.

But the Christians entertained a natural and pious expectation, that, in this memorable contest, the honor of religion would be vindicated by some signal miracle. An earthquake, a whirlwind, and a fiery eruption, which overturned and scattered the new foundations of the temple, are attested, with some variations, by contemporary and respectable evidence. This public eventis described by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, in an epistle to the emperor Theodosius, which must provoke the severe animadversion of the Jews; by the eloquent Chrysostom, who might appeal to the memory of the elder part of his congregation at Antioch; and by Gregory Nazianzen, who published his account of the miracle before the expiration of the same year.

The last of these writers has boldly declared, that this preternatural event was not disputed by the infidels; and his assertion, strange as it may seem is confirmed by the unexceptionable testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus. The philosophic soldier, who loved the virtues, without adopting the prejudices, of his master, has recorded, in his judicious and candid history of his own times, the extraordinary obstacles which interrupted the restoration of the temple of Jerusalem.

“Whilst Alypius, assisted by the governor of the province, urged, with vigor and diligence, the execution of the work, horrible balls of fire breaking out near the foundations, with frequent and reiterated attacks, rendered the place, from time to time, inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen; and the victorious element continuing in this manner obstinately and resolutely bent, as it were, to drive them to a distance, the undertaking was abandoned.”

Such authority should satisfy a believing, and must astonish an incredulous, mind. Yet a philosopher may still require the original evidence of impartial and intelligent spectators. At this important crisis, any singular accident of nature would assume the appearance, and produce the effects of areal prodigy. This glorious deliverance would be speedily improved and magnified by the pious art of the clergy of Jerusalem, and the active credulity of the Christian world and, at the distance of twenty years, a Roman historian, care less of theological disputes, might adorn his work with the specious and splendid miracle.

Other darkest hours



Excerpted from
March of the Titans:
A History of the White Race

by Arthur Kemp:


The first great race war – Attila the Hun

The Goths and their racial cousins kept up a continuous localized war with the Romans for many years, and would have doubtless continued to do so for even longer had a new powerful racial foe not emerged which threatened to destroy the Goths, Germans, Romans and indeed all of Europe.


Alans – The first victims

Physically described by Romans as being “short, brown skinned and slant eyed” the Huns emerged from Central Asia and burst upon the easternmost Whites, a tribe called the Alans, in 372 AD. The Alans, a Nordic tribe still living in the ancestral homeland between the Black and Caspian Seas, were crushed by the Huns who had developed cavalry fighting to a fine skill. Remnants of the Alans fled south and west—to this day there are traces of this last Nordic tribe to be found amongst the present day inhabitants of the region.

The Alans who fled westwards sought refuge with the Ostrogoths, bringing with them the first news of the new Asiatic terror.


Ostrogoths fall before Hun invasion

If the Ostrogoths wondered what had befallen the Alans, they did not have to wait long to find out. Very soon the Huns swept even further west and invaded the Ostrogothic lands (in modern day western Russia) and defeated them as well.

The Ostrogothic king, Hermanric, committed suicide when the scale of the invasion became apparent, and his successor, Vitimer, was killed while trying to hold back the Huns. The Ostrogothic kingdom in western Russia disintegrated, and its survivors streamed further westwards, into the lands of the Visigoths and Slavs.


Above is a depiction of a scene which befell hundreds of thousands of Whites. A raiding non-White party attacks a Roman villa, killing the males and carrying off the White women for sexual slavery.



Athanaric, king of the Visigoths, engaged the Huns at the Dniester River in modern day Bulgaria, but the Huns defeated the Visigothic army as well. After this defeat, the Visigoths were forced to fall back and beg the Romans for permission to settle inside Roman territory.

This appeal was made all the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that the Romans and Visigoths had been at virtual constant war for near enough to two centuries. So when the Romans finally gave permission to the Visigoths to move into Roman territory, it was at a terrible price—the Visigoths had to surrender all their weapons and hand over large numbers of their women and children as hostages.

Crossing the Danube in 376 AD and settling in modern day Bulgaria, the Visigoths managed to gain a temporary reprieve from the ravages of the Huns. The conditions under which the Romans forced them to stay were such that it was not long before Visigothic resentment boiled over into open rebellion.

The Visigoths secretly re-armed themselves and launched a campaign against the Roman strongholds of Thrace and Macedonia in northern Greece. Finally, in the battle of Hadrianople (378 AD) in modern day Greece, a Visigothic army defeated a Roman army under the personal command of the Emperor Valens—who had been the one to impose the harsh conditions of refuge upon the Visigoths. Valens himself was killed in this battle.

The defeat was all the more ironic as a large number of the Roman army’s soldiers were in fact Gothic mercenaries. The Eastern Roman Empire then accepted the presence of the Visigoths in central Europe, and lifted many of the restrictions placed upon them by Valens.

While the Goths and the Romans were grappling with one another, the former Visigothic lands were being seized by the Huns.

By the time of the Battle of Hadrianople, the Huns had occupied most of Dacia, the land originally seized by the Visigoths from Romans (and which corresponds to the present day country of Rumania).

Europe almost entirely invaded

At this stage the racial balance of Europe could have swung decisively in favor of the Asiatic Mongolians—all the original White ancestral homelands had been either destroyed or occupied by the Huns.

In addition to this, the Huns also physically occupied large parts of western Russia and portions of central and eastern Europe, including entire portions of modern central Germany, Hungary and Rumania, turning them overnight into mini Asiatic states.

Not content with these conquests, the Asiatic Huns began pushing further westwards, causing entire nations to be moved and destroying virtually everything in their path.

In this way the remnants of the Alans, and many other minor Nordic tribes were forced westwards, in turn displacing other already settled tribes. It was this displacement which led to further migrations of assorted Germanic tribes into Spain and even as far as North Africa.

By 432 AD, during the reign of Roman Emperor Theodosius I, the Huns had increased their power base and stranglehold on eastern and parts of central Europe to the point where they actually collected a large annual tribute from Rome. (By this time Rome was totally dependent on “barbarian” or German and Gaulish mercenaries for its defense—the mostly mixed race population of Rome had long since lost any social cohesiveness and ability to provide recruits for the army).

Attila the Hun – brutal leader

In 433 AD, the Huns gained a new king, whose name would become a byword for the Asiatic terror—Attila.

The new Asiatic king established his headquarters at the village of Buda on the Danube River in 445 AD (Buda was later to combine with another village on the other side of the river, Pest, to become Budapest, the modern capital of Hungary).

By this time the Hunnish empire stretched from the Caspian Sea in the east right up to the North Sea. In all of the area the Huns carried out a vicious racial war of extermination against the Whites who militarily were too weak to resist. Countless White settlements were wiped out, with the women routinely being carried off into captivity.

In 452 AD, Attila began moving west again, with the intention of seizing France and finishing off all of Europe.

Hunnish blood enters eastern Europe

By this stage the Huns had started on a limited scale to physically integrate with sections of the peoples they had conquered. Traces of the Mongolian influence can still be seen amongst some peoples in eastern Europe (the so called “Slavic look” which in fact is not Slavic at all, but mixed Mongolian/Slavic.)

Possibly as a result of this limited integration process, the Huns managed to recruit some locals into their army, and units of various eastern European tribes found themselves in the Hunnish army which finally invaded France. They were dealt with extremely harshly by their distant racial cousins if captured. The vast majority of the Hunnish army were however Mongolian and under the ultimate leadership of the unquestionably militarily astute Attila.

The Huns stood poised to push through to the Atlantic Ocean—Europe stood on the very brink of extermination.

The Battle of Troyes – Whites unite to defeat the Asiatics

The threat of the Hunnish army finally forced the ever squabbling Romans and Visigoths into an united front. A Roman army, under the last of the Western Empire’s properly Roman generals, Aetius, joined up with a Visigoth army under their king, Theodoric I, and together they met the Hunnish army in central France near the present day city of Troyes in 451 AD.

In a day long battle, both sides inflicted heavy casualties on the other, with the Visigoth king, Theodoric, being killed in the fighting. By nightfall the combined White army had gained the upper hand over the Asians.

Attila was forced to retreat all the way across Europe as far as Hungary, exacting a terrible revenge in slaughter and looting from those White settlements unfortunate enough to be in his path of retreat.

Defeated in the west, Attila made one last attempt to destroy the Whites. In 452 the Asians invaded northern Italy and razed the city of Aqueila to the ground, massacring as many of the inhabitants as they could find (the survivors fled into the nearby marshes, there to later establish the city of Venice).

Suddenly in 453 AD, the sixty year-old Attila died—allegedly of a burst blood vessel incurred during his wedding night exertions following his marriage to a local German princess. (How much of that story is true is open to question: what is fact is that he took a blond German girl, named Hildico, as his wife, following an example set by many of his Mongolian warriors, whose genetic footprint can be seen on some faces in eastern Europe and Russia to this day.)

The Battle of Nedao – Germanics save the white race from extinction

Attila’s death was the signal for a revolt of the people subjugated by the Huns. In 454 AD, the Goths, Slavs and others in Europe who had managed to survive the nearly 70 years of cruel Asiatic rule, rose up and at the battle of Nedao in that year, defeated the Huns in a straight fight between a Mongolian and a Germanic army. The victory was total and the Huns were finally destroyed.

The battle of Nedao became one of the most significant battles in White history, for without it Europe would most likely have been completely overrun by Asiatics before 500 AD.

The Germans, as victors over the Huns, became famous amongst their Indo-European racial cousins, with the Icelandic word for German to this day translating literally as “peoples’ defender”.

Suffering total defeat at the hands of the Germans, the vast majority of the surviving Asiatic Huns then fled back into the Far East, to the Sea of Azov in Russia—fearing the retribution by the Whites that would follow (a fear which was fully justified, as the enraged and victorious Whites mercilessly put to death any bands of Hun stragglers they found).

The Hunnish legacy

However, the Huns left two significant things behind them—firstly they gave their name to the area which had functioned as their headquarters during their racial war, Hungary.

Secondly, some admixture of Mongolian genes occurred amongst the Slavic tribes which had been under the Asiatic Hunnish occupation for nearly 80 years. This was however by no means complete and only ultimately affected a small, but significant, number of the Indo-European Slavs.

The Slavs then expanded eastward into the regions of Russia which had been overrun by the Huns on their way west. There they also mixed with scattered remnants of the partly Hunnish, partly Slavic peoples the Huns had left behind.

All these mixes contributed towards creating the distinctive Russian “Slavic look” visible to this day in a small percentage of the eastern European population in Russia and elsewhere.

The greatest effect of the Hunnish invasion of Europe was however the extinction of the source of the Indo-European tribes from their ancestral homeland between the Black and Caspian Seas. Never again would this territory produce another Indo-European Nordic tribe—the fountain of new Nordic tribes was forever extinguished, one of the most significant acts of racial genocide ever seen.


The second great race war – the Crusades

• By 700 AD, Islamic armies had occupied North Africa and had destroyed what remained of the Gothic Vandal state.

• As the Crusaders approached Antioch [during the siege of that city], the Muslim defenders under Turcoman Yagji-Shah started killing all the remaining Whites in the city, along with any non-White Christians who had the misfortune to be present… By nightfall of 3 June 1099, the city was in White hands—and every non-White who had foolishly remained behind in the city was dead.

• By the time they [the Crusaders] got to Constantinople however, the wonder on the European faces must have been apparent—they appeared to have as little in common with the Byzantine Empire as with the Muslims, not only racially, but even in language. The Byzantine Christians did not recognize the Pope, spoke Greek instead of Latin and had distinctly Middle Eastern art and architectural forms.

Unlike the Hebrews’ ethnic cleansing policies recounted in the Old Testament, in the Crusades westerners committed the same mistake of all white conquests throughout history, even after capturing Jerusalem. Kemp writes:

However, the Crusader states did not try to change the population make-up of the region by enforced migration or expulsion—nor did they even try to convert the natives. So it was that the first European colonies were created: ironically in the areas where once their now very distant racial cousins had once walked… The Crusaders’ failure to majority populate the areas they conquered with their own racial kind led to their disappearance in a very short while—so that now only their vast empty buildings stand as monuments to the spirit and heroism of the times.

In the 2011, printed edition of his book Kemp adds this phrase about the Crusades:

Never a majority, the white Christian soldiers were overrun, and within three hundred years almost all trace was vanished.


The third great race war – the Moors invade Europe

The invasion of Western Europe by a non-White Muslim army after 711 AD, very nearly extinguished modern White Europe—certainly the threat was no less serious than the Hunnish invasion which had earlier created so much chaos. While the Huns were Asiatics, the Moors were a mixed race invasion—part Arabic, part Black and part mixed race, always easily distinguishable from the Visigothic Whites of Spain.

To give a flavor of the content of this chapter I will add some subtitles to the images that Kemp chose for this specific chapter—omitting the images:

• Above: A dramatic painting—based on actual events—showing Moors celebrating the fall of a White Spanish town, with White females captured alive. For several years the Moors demanded—and received—a yearly tribute of young White girls for use in their harems after the great Moorish victory of 711. This yearly tribute continued until 791 AD when the Whites had recovered their strength enough to break the terms of a treaty with the non-Whites.

• Above: Captured White prisoners about to be decapitated by Saracens: note how the Spaniards are depicted with blond hair.

• Above: The non-White Moorish advance into Europe seemed unstoppable when in 732 AD they launched a massive invasion of present day France. The king of the leading White tribe in that country, Charles Martel of the Franks (who had their headquarters in present day Paris) mobilized a counter attack. A great race battle took place between the towns of Tours and Poitiers in central France in October 732 AD. The battle was one of the most momentous in the history of the White race. Defeat would have meant that all of Western Europe might have fallen under the sway of Islam, and the mixed races from the East would have poured into continental Europe. Accounts have it that 375,000 Moors were killed—the White army was utterly victorious over the non-White army and the Moorish invasion of Europe was halted in its tracks. Charles Martel earned his name—Martel means “hammer”—at this battle—he personally bludgeoned to death a large number of non-Whites with his favorite weapon, a mighty hammer.



The fourth great race war – Bulgars, Avars, Magyars and Khazars

The lands making up western and southern Russia, Asia Minor (Turkey) and the southeastern Balkans were to be the scene of some of the most dramatic racial conflicts between various tribes of Europeans on the one hand, and various Asiatic, Mongol, and mixed race Muslim armies on the other.

These wars started around 550 AD, a century after the crushing of the Mongolian Hunnish invasion of Europe. They only finally stopped with the defeat of new Asian invaders some 400 years later, with the defeat of an Asiatic alliance known as the Magyars, in Bavaria in 954 AD.

This massive struggle against Asian and Mongolian hordes can rightly be grouped into one heading, even though different players acted in the drama.

If these combined Asian invaders had not been turned back, then it would most certainly have given the non-White Moorish invasion in Spain, which took place in the same time span, a far better chance of success. The White race might have been exterminated between the Asians and the Moors—but it was not.



The fifth great race war – Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan’s first raid was into Russia in 1221, when his army smashed their way through several southern Russian principalities who were taken completely unawares by the yellow-skinned Mongolians.

Soon a huge part of southern Russia was under the sway of Genghis Khan—and not even the efforts of the Russian tribes to the north could dislodge him.

The invasion of southern Russian was in fact the only invasion of White held lands in which Genghis himself took part. He died suddenly in 1227, and the Mongolian armies paused for several years in southern Russia while a successor to Genghis was chosen from amongst the leading Mongolian chieftains.

In the interim the Mongols instituted a grim reign of terror over the White tribes they had subjugated. Whole settlements were slaughtered en masse, with lucky survivors barely escaping to the north and west, bringing tales of terror from the new Asiatic invaders.

One tactic for which the Mongols became famous was to sack a town, leave and then a few days later send a rearguard party back to the sacked town to see if any survivors had made their way back—any such unfortunates were put to death on the spot. In this way entire regions were quite literally stripped of all living souls.

Finally in 1236, the Mongol armies moved again, striking westwards in such numbers and ferocity that they reached deep into the Balkans, Hungary, northern Russia, Poland and central Germany.

Under the leadership of one Batu, a grandson of Genghis Khan, the Asiatics resumed their westward invasions in 1237, sacking the Russian city of Kiev in 1240, continuing westward into Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, and the Danube River valley.


Whites defeated at battle of Leignitz

An alliance of Germans, Poles and Teutons under the command of Duke Henry II of Silesia formed a united White army and desperately tried to stem the Asiatic advance. They met the Mongols in battle at Leignitz in what was then Poland in April 1241, but were badly defeated. Henry was beheaded by the Mongolians and for several days afterwards his impaled head was carried around on a spear at the head of the Mongol army until it rotted away.

The southern Indo-European tribes, the Slavs, then put together a new White army and launched an attack on the main body of the Mongol army in southern Europe. The battle, fought just north of Budapest, at the Sajo River in April 1241, saw the White armies defeated once again. The combined defeats inflicted upon the Russians, Germans and Slavs meant that all of Europe lay open to the Mongols.

In 1242, the Mongol hordes penetrated into the suburbs of Vienna itself—at that critical moment the non-White invasion ceased of its own accord.

It was a quirk of destiny which saved Europe and its peoples from complete extermination at the hands of the Mongols. In December 1241, the Asiatic army had just started on their final drive westwards, marching across the frozen Danube River, when a messenger arrived from their homeland in Mongolia—the successor to Genghis Khan had died. Then and there, the Mongol army turned around and withdrew back to the east. Leaderless, they were never to penetrate into central Europe again.

Even though the Mongols withdrew from central Europe, all of eastern and southern Russia remained under Mongol occupation, where Batu created what became known as the Khanate of the Golden Horde—the name originating from an annual tribute of riches extracted from the northern Russians, who only escaped occupation by formally acknowledging themselves as vassals by paying a yearly tribute to the Mongol rulers in the south.

The only eastern European state which was not humiliated in this way was Baltic Lithuania. As Mongol strength slowly declined, the Lithuanians expanded, eventually occupying an area stretching from the Baltic right to the Black Sea in the south. Lithuania in fact became the most powerful state in eastern Europe.

By the early 1300s, the Mongol Empire in the south had been wracked by internal divisions, with rival claimants to the Mongol throne launching a series of fratricidal wars amongst themselves. Seizing advantage of the confusion in the Asiatic ranks, the Grand Duke Dimitry of Moscow led an army against a huge Mongol force at Kukikovo, on the banks of the Don River, in 1330. Although great casualties were suffered by both sides, the White Russians won: the first major reverse suffered by the Mongols since their occupation of southern Russia.


Ivan the Great

The Mongols were then further weakened by renewed internal dissension, with a new Mongol warlord, Tamerlane, conquering much of the original Mongol Empire in Russia in 1395. After Tamerlane’s death, his empire was broken into four independent khanates: Astrakhan, Kazan, Crimea, and Sibir.

So divided, the Mongols were at last weakened to the point where the Muscovite principality, under the leadership of Ivan III, took the opportunity in 1480, to refuse to pay the annual tribute to the Horde.

Ivan, called The Great, who ruled from 1440 to 1505, then followed up the refusal to pay the tribute with a series of localized wars which expanded the borders of his kingdom—some were against other White principalities while some were against local Mongol chieftains. In this way a succession of slow moves south, combined with a process of assimilation, saw the last of the Mongol states vanish another century later, although the names they gave to these regions still persist.

The first major White reconquest of the southern parts of Russia only began in the mid 1500s, when bands of Russian peasants, known as Cossacks, fleeing the autocratic fiefdoms of northern Russia, started settling along the banks of the Don River basin.

The Cossacks engaged in a large clearing operation lasting many decades against the Mongols. By the mid-1600s the majority of Mongols had been cleared from central southern Russia—the remaining minority were for the greatest part absorbed into the new population.


The Mongol legacy

In central Europe, the Mongols were not physically present long enough to have a lasting genetic impact upon the local population, although unquestionably a small amount of Mongolian genes did enter the bloodstream of a tiny part of the population. This took place mainly through the wholesale rape of White women for which the Mongols were also famous. The major impact of the Mongol invasion upon southern and central Europe was that they physically killed huge numbers of Whites in their path, numbers which were lost forever.

In southern Russia however, the after-effects of three hundred years of Mongol rule left a clear genetic imprint upon many of the peoples in that region. Many of the peoples of regions such as Kazakhstan are of clear mixed racial origin. It is these people who are today often mistakenly called Slavs. Even though they were originally the easternmost Indo-European peoples and as such part of the Slavic tribes, their racial identify was completely submerged by the Mongol invasion and it would be genetically incorrect to classify them as Slavic.


The sixth great race war – the Ottoman Holocaust

The Ottoman Empire was the longest lasting non-White invasion of European soil ever. Lasting from the beginning of the 13th Century right to the start of the 20th, this group of mixed race Middle Eastern Turks, driven by a fanaticism molded in their Muslim religion, occupied vast stretches of central and southern Europe, twice being turned back at the very gates of Vienna in their attempts to seize all of Europe.

The impact and legacy of the Ottomans upon central and southern Europe was therefore vast, and crucial to any understanding of the racial and cultural mix which has made south-eastern Europe the volatile place that it is.

After describing the rise of the Ottomans and their first landings and battles on European soil in the 14th and 15th centuries, including how white resistance failed in the battles of Nicopolis and Varna, Kemp writes about the Janissaries, or “stolen white children” who became the Ottoman elite:

One of the more remarkable ways in which the Ottomans kept their fighting strength up was through a unit of soldiers known as the Janissaries. The Janissaries were the Ottoman’s elite forces—and they were also White.

One of the Ottoman leaders, Emir Orkhan (1326-1359), who was the first to occupy European continental soil, issued an edict to the conquered Europeans in the Balkans that they must hand over to the Ottomans 1,000 White male babies “with faces white and shining” each and every year. The youths were brought before the Ottoman sultan, and the best of them—in terms of physique, intelligence, and other qualities—were selected for education in the palace school. There they converted to Islam, became versed in the Islamic religion and its culture, learned Ottoman Turkish, Persian, and Arabic, and were compelled to serve the Ottomans, with their origins being concealed from them. They became the best and most trusted armed unit within the Ottoman Empire—a supreme act of irony.

This yearly tribute—reminiscent of the demand by the Moors for White virgins from the unfortunate Goths in Spain—was continued for an astonishing 300 years until 1648, during which time not only were 300,000 Whites absorbed into the Ottoman hierarchy (and for the greatest part also into the Turkish elite’s bloodstream) but the Janissaries became known as one of the most efficient army of soldiers in the world.

It is no exaggeration to say that they sustained the Ottoman Empire in Europe for much of its existence, playing a not inconsiderable role in many of the great victories of that Empire.

In 1574, the Janissaries had 20,000 men in their ranks—by 1826 the unit numbered some 135,000. The overtly racial make-up of the Janissaries always created problems of its own. Every now and then, the White soldiers would rebel against their Turkish masters—numerous rebellions are recorded, each being suppressed, until a famous rebellion in 1826 saw the unit finally disbanded, with a large number being killed and the rest dispersed into the broader Turkish population.

Kemp proceeds to explain how Jews were privileged under Turkish Rule; the fall of Constantinople; the war at sea when the Portuguese confronted the Turks; how Belgrade was captured in 1521 AD; the two sieges of Vienna; the Ottoman war with Russia, and finally the brutal destruction of Armenia in 1915-1923:

The region of Armenia, situated on the southeastern banks of the Black Sea, contains one of the most tragic and violent anti-White acts ever committed by the Ottoman Empire. Originally one of the earliest Indo-European homelands, Armenia has some of the oldest iron and bronze smelting and cereal grains sites in the world. Shaken by the flooding of the Black Sea basin around 5600 BC, Armenia was then occupied in quick succession by the early Indo-European Assyrians and Persians.

A period of independence followed, and under their great King Tigranes I (140-55 BC), Armenia established an empire which reached from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean and parts of modern-day Syria. This empire ended with the invasion of that country by the Romans in 69 BC. Armenia then became the first Christian state in the world in AD 301.

Racially speaking, the inhabitants of the region had suffered slight genetic damage in terms of Semitic infusions, but the country was devastated by the 11th Century invasion by the Seljuk Turks, the forerunners of the Ottomans. The Seljuk Turks’ oppressive rule saw a huge number—possibly even a majority—of White Armenians fleeing the country.

The Ottoman Empire, which took over from the Seljuks, instituted an even greater reign of terror against the remaining Armenians, causing further waves of emigration right until the late 19th Century, with many Armenians settling in America.

Those who stayed in Armenia were subject to the most horrendous massacres and persecution, with hundreds of thousands of Armenians being massacred by Turkish forces, culminating in efforts by the Turkish government to move Armenians to Mesopotamia. Between 1915 and 1923 more than one million Armenians died due to the Turkish attempted forced migration.

armenians
The remains of Armenians massacred at Erzinjan

By this stage, the vast majority of White Armenians had either emigrated, or had been absorbed into the overwhelming numbers of non-Whites in the Armenia itself, so that today very few original White Armenians remain in the country.

Armenia was therefore a entire country and people who were physically wiped out by the Ottomans, one of the greatest hidden genocides of the Turkish Empire.


The Ottoman legacy

The Ottoman Turks were the last of the Asian invaders of Europe to use violence as their passport of entry, but they were also significant for another reason: the sheer length of the time of their occupation of the Balkans left a large number of the inhabitants of the Balkan peoples with Turkish blood in their veins, as can be seen to this day, as many inhabitants of the region are not only Muslim in faith, but are also distinctly darker than other Balkan residents.

All of these racial wars when whites faced extermination are a fascinating read.

Although the racial wars recounted by Kemp don’t end there, I won’t quote more to invite readers to purchase a hard copy of March of the Titans, an updated 2011 edition of the old online edition I’ve been quoting here (recently removed from the internet).

The fact is that unlike other races whites as a people have been an endangered species more than once, and this has paramount importance to understand our times. Personally, I find it outrageous that so few “white nationalists” are truly interested in the history of the white race; proof of it is that books like this are no bestsellers in the community.


Note:

For excerpts of all chapters of Kemp’s book see: here.

Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy

The second book of Kevin MacDonald’s study on Jewry, Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1994/2002), the first of his trilogy to be translated to German, is my favorite of MacDonald’s three academic works that I read in more than two years. Professor MacDonald is the foremost scholar on the Jewish question. In Separation and its Discontents (hereafter SAID) he wrote:

Western societies, unlike prototypical Jewish cultures, do not have a primitive concern with racial purity. Rather, concern about racial purity emerges only in the late stages of Jewish-gentile group conflict…

Despite a great deal of commonality among Western anti-Semitic movements, there was a great difference between the universalistic, assimilatory tendencies of traditional Western Christianity and the exclusivistic, racialist program of National Socialism. Indeed, we have seen that beginning in the 19th century an important aspect of German anti-Semitic ideology was a criticism of Western universalism and the development of peculiarly German conceptions of Christianity. A critical component of official National Socialist ideology, as represented in the thought of Alfred Rosenberg, was the idea that “the twin forces of disintegration, namely universalism and individualism, act in perpetual conflict with the Germanic concept of race.” In this regard, National Socialism was indeed profoundly anti-Western. In rejecting both universalism and individualism, National Socialism resembled, much more closely than did medieval Western collectivist Christianity, its mirror image rival, Judaism. [page 196]

In a previous chapter MacDonald had written:

We shall see that with the rise of the National Socialist movement in Germany, the universalist themes of Western Christianity were completely overthrown in favor of a full-blown racialist ideology of the ingroup. In Chapter Five I will argue that National Socialism is a true mirror-image of Judaism. Not surprisingly, it was also the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence. [page 133]

One of the hypothesis advanced in SAID provides food for thought. MacDonald wrote, “I propose that the Christian church in late antiquity was in its very essence the embodiment of a powerful anti-Semitic movement…” (page 112). This is something I had never heard of, and reminds me my first readings of psychohistory and Lloyd deMause’s insights on why the Christ archetype galvanized the population of the ancient world, although MacDonald’s hypothesis is totally distinct and is presented from an altogether distant point of view. But after digesting what both deMause and MacDonald say, for the first time I feel I am starting to comprehend facets of Christianity that would have never occurred to me from a conventional reading to history. If MacDonald is right, the Roman Catholic Church was the earliest attempt toward a type of society that we may call collectivism for European-derived peoples.

Although Christianity always held universalist ideals at its core, it nonetheless fulfilled its role of impeding, as did the Muslim nations, that Judaism became a destructive force for the indigenous culture of the Late Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages. One of the facts that I learnt in SAID is that most restrictions enacted against Jewry, initiated in the period from Eusebius to Justinian, were still active throughout Christendom until the French Revolution hit the continent with its egalitarian fury. It was precisely the so-called Enlightenment (that presently some Western dissidents are starting to call “the Dark Enlightenment”) what inspired the founding fathers of the United States of America. And contrary to those white nationalists who still insult the memory of Adolf Hitler and the movement he created, I would claim that the mortal sin of the French Revolution, the emancipation of Jewry, was not properly atoned in Europe until the arrival of a specifically racial ideology: National Socialism.

But not only Nazi Germany has been demonized in the public mind. The Inquisition is widely regarded as a black page in the history of the Church even by the most Catholic individuals that I know. In contrast to such view MacDonald presents us with a radical reevaluation of what was precisely the role of the Inquisition. On page 147 he states: “I here develop the view that the Spanish Inquisition was fundamentally an authoritarian, collectivist, and exclusionary movement that resulted from resource and reproductive competition with Jews, and particularly crypto-Jews posing as Christians.” One could even argue that, thanks to the Inquisition, for three-hundred years before the movement of independence that gave birth to Mexico, New Spain (1521-1821) was Judenfrei.

While reading SAID I could not escape the thought that whites are un-insightful because, unlike the Jews and with the exception of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp (see the long chapters in this book quoting them), very few have knowledge of the history of their race. If we take into account that, in one of their holydays, New York Hassidic Jews celebrate their victory over the ancient Greeks who tried to assimilate them millennia ago, a basic question comes to mind: Why don’t we celebrate the victory of Antiochus IV over the Jews, or Titus’ conquest of Jerusalem?

Bust of Antiochus IV

We do not celebrate these victories precisely for the reason that both Kemp and Pierce explain so well: neither the Greeks nor the Romans exist today. What we call contemporary Greeks or Romans are the product of centuries of blood mixing that devalued not only the genotype of the original Indo-European population, but their extended phenotype as well: the Greco-Roman hard ethos and their galvanizing mythos mostly reflected in the Homeric tales. The Greeks and Romans who embraced Christianity were a totally different breed of the pure Aryans of Sparta or the austere Latins of the Roman Republic (see e.g., the essays that I translated from Evropa Soberana in later chapters of this book).

MacDonald himself acknowledges on page 190 that “the Jews have continued as a creative race into the present, while the Greeks gradually merged with the barbarians and lost their distinctiveness—a point remarkably similar to Chamberlain’s ‘chaos of peoples’ in which the decline of the ancient world is attributed to loss of racial purity.” Conversely, I would say that since the Jews have conserved their genotype almost intact throughout the millennia they are able to celebrate their Maccabean revolt as if it was yesterday. In other words, had whites preserved their genes intact, some of us might still be celebrating Antiochus’ victories over the subversive tribe; or, if we knew our history with the same passion that Jews know theirs, we might still be celebrating the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or the more recent expulsion of the tribe from the Iberian peninsula.

What conventional historians ignore is that, once the Church lost its power to sell a worldview after the late 18th and early 19th centuries, our genetic individualism placed us at the mercy of a collectivist tribe.

Fortunately, the ethno-traitorous West has committed financial blunders in the 20th and 21st centuries. The dollar and all fiat currencies of the West will crash probably in this decade (I am reviewing this essay in 2014), which means that there is hope that some of us will start to understand the Jewish problem in a post-crashed world. On page 10 of SAID MacDonald says that “in congruence with the results of social identity research, anti-Semitism is expected to be most prominent among those most in competition with the Jews and during times of economic crisis.”

Although most readers of MacDonald treasure The Culture of Critique, the third and last of his trilogy on Jewry as their favorite book of this collection, I believe that MacDonald’s work should be read from the beginning. A People that Shall Dwell Alone, Separation and its Discontents and The Culture of Critique can help us, using William Pierce’s metaphor, to “see the forest” with crystal-clear vision.

Remember Pierce’s words? If we don’t try to understand the Jews we can never really understand what is happening to our race and our civilization. Professor MacDonald’s voluminous texts have done the hard work for us—both the trilogy and his webzine The Occidental Observer—in a scholarly and yet entertaining way.

America will be destroyed with the Jews

Editor’s note: Under another title this essay by Kerry Bolton appeared in three instalments at Counter-Currents Publishing:

 

“If your paper is to continue its excellent work of opposing the policy of the Jew, please do not fight Russia also, for we in Europe look upon it as the only hope to prevent Jewish world domination by means of its stupid, willing, technically clever American slaves, the destroyers of Europe’s cities, the hate-mongers of the vile occupation and the hangmen of Nuremberg.” —European correspondent to Common Sense, a newspaper published in the US between 1947 and 1972
 
Both Germans and Russians seemed to have a better grasp of the Jewish Question than the trusting, naive Americans with little experience in the plate tectonics of the clash of civilizations. At the left, a National Socialist pamphlet: “Roosevelt betrays America!”
 The Germans thus caricatured a Jew controlling the American president as his puppet.

Today I read “The Cold War Axis:
Soviet Anti-Zionism and the American Right” by Kerry Bolton, published in three parts at Counter-Currents Publishing last month:


Part 1

Introduction

The phenomenon of Marxism from its advent was perceived in some quarters, including the anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin, as a “Jewish” ideology. Ironically Marx himself considered capitalism to be “Jewish” in spirit, that the bourgeoisie were imbued with the “Jewish spirit,” and that “Jewish” and “bourgeois” had become synonymous. Marx believed that true Jewish emancipation would come with the destruction of capitalism. Marx wrote:

Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist…

The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.

The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.[1]

Marx’s condemnation of the “Jewish spirit” eventually provided an ideological rationalization for Soviet anti-Zionist policy, which was the heir of traditional Russian attitudes towards Jews as represented in Czarist days by the “Black Hundreds.” Soviet anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism were articulated under the guise of Marxist opposition to imperialism, chauvinism, colonialism, and ethnocentricism, all of which were equated by the Soviet propaganda apparatus with Zionism. One representative example is entitled Zionism: Instrument of Imperialist Reaction, published in 1970.[2] The book is a collection of letters of protest against Zionism and Israel written to the Soviet press, mainly by Soviet Jews, and a selection of articles by various writers that had been published in the Soviet press. For example, Prof. Braginsky’s article “The Class Essence of Zionism,” originally published in Pravda,[3] drew on Marxist and Leninist thinking in regard to Jewish autonomy, stating that Jewish assimilation is the “historically progressive process,” alluding to Marx’s position on the issue, and quoting Lenin.[4]

Anti-Semitism from the Right

Jews as an often unassimilated minority have frequently been viewed by societies since ancient times as a source of subversion of the status quo. As for Russia in recent times, where traditionalists were resisting the inroads of modernization and what were perceived as the negative characteristics of industrialism on traditional religious and institutional structures, Jews were widely held by all segments of society to be harbingers of this modernization, including that which was in the form of revolutionary agitation. During the closing years of the 19th Century many Jews in Eastern Europe were divided between adherence to socialism and to Zionism, although there was also a large element that synthesized both, such as Poale Zion. The Socialist-Zionist movement goes back to Moses Hess, the so-called “Red Rabbi.” However the split endures. Churchill referred to this family rivalry in 1920 in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, as a “struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.”[5] In writing of Chaim Weizmann, Laurence Krane writes of this:

Some Jews felt that the savior of the Jews would come through political reform such as communism or socialism. Others argued that assimilation would answer the problem of anti-Semitism and ease the economic hardships of the Jew. Still others maintained that immigration to Palestine, as Israel was called then, and by building up settlements in the Land would save the Jews from economic privation and exploitation.[6]

Russian anti-Semitism manifested organizationally in The Black Hundreds, who opposed capitalism as much as socialism, and perceived them as being equally Jewish.[7] The widespread distribution of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion by Russian émigrés fleeing the Bolshevik Revolution is a well-known expression of Russian anti-Semitism and how traditionalists perceived the background of the events that were convulsing Russia.[8] The Russian revolutionary upheaval in 1917 and the way the Czarists regarded it as of Jewish origin and implementation had a major influence on the way Russia was considered by German, American, and other Rightists. Czarist émigrés fleeing the Russian revolution brought The Protocols of Zion, for example, to Germany, along with their polemics on “Jewish Bolshevism.”[9]

In the USA Czarist émigrés played a significant role in the portrayal of the Russian Revolution as of Jewish design. Borris Brasol was amongst the most prominent. Brasol was a Russian jurist and author of eminence, who worked as an assistant for the Minister of Justice, Schleglovitoff. It was Brasol who prepared over the course of two years the prosecution case against Mendel Beylis who had been accused of the Medieval accusation of “Jewish ritual murder”[10] (sic) in Kiev in 1911 of a boy, Andrey Yuchinsky.[11] Brasol went to the USA in 1916 to work as a trade representative,[12] and stayed in the USA with the outbreak of the Russian Revolution the following year. Brasol was employed on the staff of industrialist Henry Ford’s newspaper The Dearborn Independent. When Natalie De Bogory, daughter of a Russian General, completed the first English translation of The Protocols of Zion in the USA, Brasol brought it to Ford’s newspaper, where it served as the basis of a series of articles that were published by the Ford Motor Company as a single volume, The International Jew.[13] Brasol also successfully promoted The Protocols around military intelligence personnel as an employee in the US Department of Justice.[14] One of Brasol’s documents is “Bolshevism and Judaism,” dated November 13, 1918. This is ascribed to American Military Intelligence, and purports to document an alliance between Jewish revolutionaries and Jewish bankers.[15] Some of the information is correct; some of it inaccurate. For example Brasol alludes to the banker Jivotovski (Zhivotovskii), as being Trotsky’s father-in-law, as an example of an alliance between Jewish proletarians and capitalists, whereas he was Trotsky’s uncle,[16] was indeed associated with sundry prominent players such as the “Bolshevik banker” Olof Aschberg of the Nye Banken, Stockholm.

These were the types of Russian influences that helped mould the attitude of the American Right in its attitude towards Russia from the time of the Russian Revolution. The “Jewishness of communism” is a theme that continues among American Rightists, but underwent a significant mutation as early as 1952, as a surprising number of American anti-communist conservatives reoriented themselves in regard to the USSR. It is this surprising shift in attitude that will be considered here.[17]

American Attitudes toward Russia

Many American Rightists and conservatives other than the self-declared fascists and national socialists, like the German Hitlerites from their beginnings, absorbed Czarist émigré attitudes towards Bolshevism and Jewry. Father Charles Coughlin was among the most influential of those who condemned Bolshevism as Jewish. At first his principal concern was the social doctrine of the Church.[18] Beginning as an adviser to Roosevelt, Coughlin broke with the president after what he considered Roosevelt’s betrayal to both bankers and socialists. Coughlin quickly recruited many followers to his National Union for Social Justice, and had a militant street arm, the Christian Front. Already Coughlin had attracted a wide audience as the popular “radio priest,” beginning on the air in 1926 from his small parish church at Royal Oak , Michigan. It wasn’t until 1930 that Coughlin, reaching 40,000,000 listeners via the CBS network, made his first attack on the “money changers,” who became increasingly synonymous with “Jews.” In 1936 Coughlin founded a weekly newspaper, Social Justice, which had a circulation of 900,000 subscribers in addition to being hawked on the streets.[19]

Another relatively successful fascistic movement in the USA was the Silver Shirt Legion founded by a Hollywood scriptwriter William Dudley Pelley. Like Coughlin and many others of lesser influence, Pelley’s themes included the Jewishness of communism.[20]

Francis Parker Yockey, the seminal philosopher of the American Right in regard to what became a pro-Russian orientation, emerged from this milieu. Yockey’s formative years politically were in Depression Era Chicago, where he moved in 1938 to further his education.[21] This was at a time when many Americans were looking to radical ideologies which had triumphed in the form of Communist Russia, Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany. An ideological war was being fought out between Marxism and Fascism, which manifested as a physical war in Spain. In Europe and further afield Catholics saw in the Social Doctrine of the Church an answer to the materialistic dogmas of Marxism and capitalism, and often this was translated into what could generically be termed “Fascism” but is more precisely defined as “Corporatism,” also called “clerical fascism.”[22]

Yockey was associated with Pelley’s Silver Shirt Legion, specifically it seems as a lecturer.[23] His first political literary effort would seem to have been written in 1939, “The Tragedy of Youth,” published in Coughlin’s Social Justice.[24] As the association with the Pelley and Coughlin movements shows, Yockey was from a young age drawn to the “Right” and into movements that were particularly antagonistic towards Jewish influence. What is known about this often mysterious figure is that he had himself discharged from the military during World War II, and as a highly successful Assistant DA obtained a job with the prosecution team of the War Crimes Tribunals in Germany, for the purpose of infiltration and of seeking out unrepentant National Socialist veterans in post-war Germany.[25] In 1947 Yockey secluded himself on the Irish coast and wrote his magnum opus Imperium, a Spengerlian tome calling for the Western Civilisation as a cultural organism[26] to fulfill its cyclic destiny in creating an empire of the West.[27]

At this time Yockey’s attitude towards Russia remained in the orthodox “anti-Semitic” mould in continuing to view Soviet Russia as under “Jewish control.” Under this conspiratorial scenario generally both the USA and the USSR were viewed as equally Jewish run and in cahoots to dominate the world at the behest of a small Jewish coterie pulling the strings in both states. This attitude persisted among many nationalists until the collapse of the USSR.[28] However Yockey quite early discerned an underlying dichotomy within Bolshevism, regarding the latter as an alien import by cosmopolitan Jews, beneath which continued to exist the substratum of the “real Russia” with its own soul and its own historical mission.[29] Yockey drew on the history of Russia to explain the dichotomy between Jewish Bolshevism and the Slavic soul, stating that such a divide goes back before Peter the Great to two ways of thinking; one that sought to “westernize” Russia, imposing imported thoughts and forms upon the Slavic masses, men of “strong instincts” rooted to the soil. Yockey referred to Moscow as “The Third Rome,” the new Byzantium, which despised the West in its cycle of decay,[30] a perspective that has struck a chord with many in Russia again. Yockey even in 1948–49 was stating that “Bolshevism” could be pressed into the service of Pan-Slavic imperialism, in contrast to international communist revolution.

In 1952 an event occurred in Czechoslovakia that was to result in a major tactical shift for Yockey, who up until then had continued to see Russia as an “outer enemy” of Europe. Yockey explains in his essay “The Prague Treason Trial”[31] the significance of the trial as signaling the reassertion of Russian over Jewish Bolshevism. In 1951 Rudolf Slansky, Secretary General of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia, was arrested for “anti-state activities.” A year later he and thirteen co-defendants went on trial as “Trotskyite-Titoist-Zionist traitors.” It is interesting that Trotskyite and Zionist were used in conjunction. They were accused of espionage and economic sabotage, working on behalf of Yugoslavia, Israel, and the West. Eleven of the fourteen were sentenced to death, the other three to life imprisonment. Slansky and the eleven others were hanged on December 3, 1952. Of the fourteen defendants, eleven were Jews, and were identified as such in the indictment. Many other Jews were mentioned as co-conspirators, implicated in a cabal that included the US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, described as a “Jewish nationalist,” and Mosha Pijade the “Titoist Jewish ideologist ” in Yugoslavia. The conspiracy against the Czechoslovak state had been hatched at a secret meeting in Washington in 1947, between President Truman, Secretary Acheson, former Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, and the Israelis Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett. In the indictment Slansky was described as “by his very nature a Zionist” who had in exchange for American support for Israel, agreed to place “Zionists in important sectors of Government, economy, and Party apparatus.” The plan included the assassination of President Gottwald by a “freemason” doctor.[32]

With such a background it is easy to see how Yockey could regard the Trials as of such significance in regard to the USSR and Zionism, and indeed Jews per se; just as it is difficult to see how the majority of the Right in the USA, from conservatives to George Lincoln Rockwell, “Nazis, and certain statesmen in the Arab world such as King Feisal of Saudi Arabia, continued to see the Soviet bloc as Jewish run and in cahoots with their Jewish brethren in the US Establishment. Yockey discerned that the symbolic gesture at Prague towards the post-war power structure changed the world situation not only for the USA but for those who believe in the “destiny of Europe.” Hence those who sought the unity and revival of “the West” must regard the USSR not as a threat to Europe but as an ally in the “liberation of Europe,” writing: “First, and most important of all to those of us who believe in the Liberation of Europe and the Imperium of Europe: this is the beginning of the end of the American hegemony of Europe.”[33] It is obvious that events which were strong enough to force Stalin to reorient his entire world-policy and to become openly anti-Jewish will have the same effect on the elite of Europe.”[34]

The writing was actually very prominently on the wall since at least 1936, with the first of the “Moscow Trials” against Trotsky et al.[35] The Stalinist campaign against “rootless cosmopolitanism” in Soviet culture, starting in 1949, should be seen as another significant event.[36]

From 1952 in particular Yockey’s strategy was now to aid the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe as a bulwark against the US military occupation of Europe. Similarly, a “neutralist” line in the Cold War was demanded for Germany by no less that Gen. Otto Remer, whose Socialist Reich Party was causing a lot of worry for the Occupation Authorities, with whom Yockey was in association. However, an FBI report on Yockey in 1953[37] states that already in 1949 at the inaugural meeting of the European Liberation Front Yockey was advocating collaboration with the Soviets against the US Occupation. The report continues that Yockey spoke of the orientation of Germany eastwards. He also spoke of his aim of creating a mass circulation newspaper that would specialize in anti-American agitation. Yockey’s final work in 1960, the year of his death, “The World in Flames”[38] reaffirms his position in regard to Russia and America vis-à-vis Europe.


Part 2

The Impact of Yockey’s Pro-Soviet Agenda on the American Right

The two primary media within the American extreme Right for a pro-Soviet orientation were Common Sense, a fortnightly paper which achieved a relatively high circulation, and the National Renaissance Party, a militant fascist grouping, particularly active in agitating on the streets of New York with uniformed stormtroopers. Both Common Sense and the National Renaissance Party endured for a surprisingly long time.

1. Common Sense

In 1954 the House Committee on Un-American Activities (Velde Committee) deemed both Common Sense and the National Renaissance Party to be of sufficient importance to be the focus of their investigation and “preliminary report.” The committee expressed concerned that neo-fascists were exploiting the menace of communism in pursuit of their own anti-democratic aims.[1]

Common Sense was founded in 1947 by Conde McGinley and published by the Christian Educational Association, Union, New Jersey. McGinley began publishing a paper in 1946 called Think. The following year McGinley’s paper became a tabloid and the name was changed to Common Sense.[2] Common Sense began as a comparatively mainstream anti-communist conservative newspaper for those times, and billed itself as “leader in the nation’s fight against communism.” The Velde Committee report even mentions that, “At the outset, its columns carried a certain amount of factual information on communism.”[3] The report states however that Common Sense changed direction in 1948 and became explicitly fascistic and anti-Semitic:Beginning in 1948, however, Common Sense became increasingly outspoken in its statements of a pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic nature. It was soon almost exclusively a vehicle for the exploitation of ignorance, prejudice, and fear.”[4]

It seems that Common Sense first published articles opposing the US Cold War policy against the USSR as early as 1952 (the year of the “Prague Treason Trial”) although there seems to have been an interregnum during which this pro-Soviet outlook was put into hiatus until 1966. The Velde report notes that 1952 was also the year that the National Renaissance Party adopted the Common Sense “line” on the USSR. Precisely as Yockey was writing[5] Common Sense also stated that the German army, which had been prevented from destroying Communism during World War II, is now expected to do so at the behest of the USA. However Common Sense states: “This is to be a war against the Russian people – not against communism.” The Velde report comments: “In this statement, McGinley’s ‘anti-Communist’ and ‘patriotic’ publication apparently is not averse to serving the Communist propaganda cause.”[6]

The Yockeyan perspective is repeated by a “European” correspondent to Common Sense, whose warnings were quoted by the Velde report as follows:

If your paper is to continue its excellent work of opposing the policy of the Jew, please do not fight Russia also, for we in Europe look upon it as the only hope to prevent Jewish world domination by means of its stupid, willing, technically clever American slaves, the destroyers of Europe’s cities, the hate-mongers of the vile occupation and the hangmen of Nuremberg.[7]

However this pro-Soviet orientation does not seem to have been pursued until being resumed in 1966. At least from 1954[8] until 1966 Common Sense expressed a quite standard American Right-wing line that “communism is Jewish” and that the USSR remained under Jewish control.

In 1966 Common Sense published an article that was to be of seminal influence on the direction of the paper from then until it closed in 1972. The article is entitled “New York – Capitol of Marxism.”[9] While it echoed the theme of the anonymous “European correspondent” in 1952, the anonymous writer of this article can confidently be stated to have been Fred Farrel.[10] Common Sense prefaced the article by stating that: “We have never published anything quite like this before nor has anything similar been published to the best of our knowledge… Time alone will reveal the truth.”[11] It seems likely that this was the first feature article presenting a pro-Soviet line to appear in Common Sense. However, it was not correct to say that nothing of the type had ever been carried elsewhere, as the National Renaissance Party Bulletin had been carrying pro-Soviet articles by Yockey and a German-American mentor, Fred Weiss, since 1952.

Common Sense writers were well aware of Yockey’s works. They had been carried in the book catalogue of the Christian Educational Association, the paper’s publisher. Yockey’s Imperium, Proclamation of London, and Yockey: Four Essays were featured on the front page of the catalogue with a picture of Yockey.[12] These works by Yockey were also advertised in issues of Common Sense.[13] The first essay Yockey is known to have had published, “The Tragedy of Youth,” was reprinted in a 1970 issue of Common Sense.[14] One apparent Yockeyan influence on Common Sense is the use of his phrase “culture distorter.” In the Patriotic Reading catalog for example, the introduction refers to book publishing as being “dominated by alien culture-distorters.”[15] The lead article on a 1970 issue of Common Sense is headlined “Christmas Culture Distortion.”[16]

Yockey’s primary American colleague, H. Keith Thompson stated, “The Common Sense folks I knew well.”[17]

Whatever the real identity of Fred Farrel, he was not alone in advocating the view that the USSR had divested itself of Jewish control, and other Common Sense columnists from 1966 to 1972 made that their focus. As stated, Farrel’s 1966 lead article set the tone for all the subsequent Common Sense analyses and commentaries on the USSR and American international politics. Farrel begins, “I am tired of Anti-communists who talk about ‘Moscow, Center of the World Communist conspiracy.’ Moscow is NOT and never has been the real center of Communism.”[18] Farrel explained that the real center of Marxism “is always located at the center of Jewish Power, and that center today is not Moscow but New York.”[19] Farrel explained that the Jewish element in Bolshevism was overthrown when Stalin ousted Trotsky. Farrel states that the rivalry between Trotsky and Stalin was not merely one of personal power, but was a fundamental power struggle between “Jewish Bolshevism” and Russian Nationalism. Farrel stated that once Trotsky and the “Jewish faction” had been removed from real power in the USSR Stalin proceeded to use Jews as functionaries. That has since become the theme of Jewish historians.[20] For Farrel anti-communism in the USA was a racket. That theme gained momentum in Common Sense. Farrel stated that anti-communists miss the target completely in opposing Communism as an economic system. He stated it is “racial, not economic.”

It should behoove our anti-Communists to stop yammering about Russia. The Marxist problem is HERE, not there. After the Trotskyites were thrown out of Russia, they came to the United Stated, for New York was the breeding ground for the so-called “Russian Revolution” in the first place… Let us stop yammering about “Red Russia.” Russia may get herself out of Marxist slavery sooner than we will.[21]

Farrel ended with a more unequivocal tone in praise of Stalin, by stating that he was “fighting a lonely battle against the Jews.” American anti-communists on the other had “could not make a patch on Stalin’s pants.”[22]

It is Farrel who seems to have referred to Yockey most extensively. In a 1970 issue of Common Sense, while castigating the American Right and rejecting the Left-Right political dichotomy, Farrel referred to Yockey as an example of the way by which the majority of the Right will deal with somebody of real ability:

The Right Wing is firmly in the grip of a DEATH WISH. Time and again, I have seen idealistic young Americans get into these phony Right Wing movements, hoping to accomplish something solid and real. They learn quickly that the Lord High Nabobs of the Right quickly extinguish any spark of any real intelligence or effectiveness which flares in their ranks. They see that the Right, far from actually fighting Communism, secretly collaborates with Communism.

Typical is the way in which the Right Wing gasbags dealt with Francis Parker Yockey. Yockey never had an American supporter during his lifetime. The great Conservative gasbags of the American Right Wing want nothing to do with any living writer. They weren’t there when Yockey was murdered in his jail cell. Can you imagine Norman Mailer dying in jail? There would be a thousand Jews rattling the bars to bail him out. The young Gentile writer dies alone in a cell.

We think that it is a wonderful thing for Yockey’s books to be circulated and read. He had something extremely important to say and the American people ought to hear it. What they really need is an American publishing industry which will give adequate recognition to the young Yockeys who are alive today![23]

In a 1971 article Farrel quoted Yockey from the Proclamation of London when comparing democratic politicians with Russia’s Marshal Zhukov, who, Farrel relates, staged a coup against “the notorious Chief of Police, Laventri Beria,” in 1953 by bringing into Moscow two divisions of troops. Farrel considered “military power” the only remaining means of dislodging Jewish power.[24v] He quoted from Yockey’s Proclamation to illustrate his repugnance of the parliamentary politicians:

These deputies are mere things, replaceable units desirable only mathematically, in aggregates. Among them there is not, and cannot be, a strong individuality, for a man, a whole and entire man, does not sell himself like these parliamentary whores.

Again in 1971 Farrel quoted Yockey from the collection Four Essays. Farrel’s theme here was that the USSR was outmaneuvering the USA in the Middle East and that the USA was cultivating the support of China, the USSR having always opposed the communization of China, while the USA had backed the ouster of Chiang by Mao. His assessment of Stalin’s opposition to the Maoization of China is certainly correct, and was a matter that outraged Trotsky. Farrel assured his readers:

Disaster will not be long in coming. Today the Soviet Union is implacably hostile towards American Zionism. No better description of this hostility exists than that found in Francis Parker Yockey’s Four Essays. Yockey observed the decline of American Jewish power and the rise of Russian power in the world: “The basic reason for the diminution of power is spiritual-organic. Power will never stay in the hands of him who does not want power and has no plan for its use.”[25]

A few months later Farrel cited Yockey’s final essay, “The World in Flames,” which Farrel described as “brilliant.” In this a third World War is forecast in which Third World dictatorships will line up with the USSR to defeat the USA and Israel. Farrel believed that the nuclear destruction of the USA was imminent. In Yockeyesque terms Farrel concluded by stating that Russia, having recovered from Jewish Marxism, “narrowly watches the follies of the funny little men who cavort in New York and Washington, not to mention Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Russia will exploit these follies to the hilt.”[26] He predicted that the future of the Jews would be nuclear annihilation in New York and Jerusalem and disappearance through assimilation in Russia. The West was finished, and anti-communist crusades were futile, as were political and economic arguments. The future would be based on military power.[27]

To Farrel, “the best anti-Communists I have ever known were the Stalinists. They fought communism with a cold deadly, remorseless, realistic efficiency. Stalin was already in the business of fighting Communism before the revolution.” It was Trotskyism that the American establishment sought to re-impose on Russia, and that was the cause of the Cold War. Conservatives by siding with the Washington regime against the USSR under the guise of a phony anti-communism, which was actually anti-Stalinism, were siding with the “Jew-Trotskyites.”[28]

What is known of the history of that period today shows that Farrel and others at Common Sense had great insights and valuable sources. The Cold War was ushered by Stalin’s refusal to accept the “Baruch Plan” for the “internationalization” of atomic energy which, as Gromyko was much later to relate in his memoirs would have meant US control; and secondly Stalin’s refusal to allow the UNO to become a world government, by rejecting the US proposal to give supreme authority to the General Assembly as a type of world parliament where, naturally, the USA would be able to buy the required number of votes on any issue. A salient fact of history is that it was Stalin who stymied these early efforts to impose a world state.[29] Farrel was also correct in stating that the US Establishment was aligned with the Trotskyites, another matter that has only in rent years become the subject of widespread attention.[30]

This was the consistent message of Farrel throughout the rest of the life of Common Sense, as the paper’s leading columnist. Other columnists propagated the same pro-Soviet line. William O’Brien’s analysis of the world situation in regard to the USA, Russia, and Israel echoed that of Farrel. O’Brien also quoted from Yockey’s Proclamation of London. [31] Paul Pulitzer regarded the USSR to be under “a Soviet brand of Nazism,” not communism, and he alluded to the speeches of Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin before and during the Berlin-Moscow Pact in stating that the differences between Stalinism, Nazism, and Fascism were minor. Pulitzer lambasted the “world communist conspiracy myth” that was the preoccupation of both the US Administration and the Right-wing. Pulitzer commented that he “had been behind the Iron Curtain several times,” seen the troops, and “talked at great length with their officers.” Pulitzer’s assessment was that the Soviet forces could easily overrun the West, which had been rotted by liberalism.[32]

The final issue of Common Sense was intensely pessimistic. The writers had done all they could to warn the USA of impending disaster, namely nuclear devastation at the hands of the USSR, and that the only option left was faith in Christ. The final word was left to Farrel, whose opening statement was that “the American civilization is beyond the point of no return.” America would be destroyed along with the Jews.[33]

Despite the heretical position relative to the American Right-wing that Common Sense took from the time of Farrel’s first article in 1966 until the demise of the paper in 1972, circulation and the fortnightly appearance were maintained, as indicated by the “statement of ownership, management and circulation” forms that were filed. The Velde committee reported that in October 1948, Common Sense began with an average of 7,072 paid circulation for the previous year. For a 6 months period from March 15 to September 15, 1954, the paid subscription stood at 15,796.[34] In 1970, despite what one might expect for such an unorthodox position within the anti-communist Right which existed throughout its life during the era of the Cold War, Common Sense filed its circulation numbers as totaling on average for that year 32,000; including 23,000 mail subscriptions.[35]

2. The National Renaissance Party

The first fascist group to appear in the USA after World War II was the National Renaissance Party. Its emergence in 1949[36] therefore coincides approximately with the appearance of Common Sense (1948). James H. Madole was to lead the New York based group from its establishment until Madole’s death. The significance of the NRP in relation to the pro-Soviet orientation of a faction of the American Right is that it served as a vehicle for the propaganda of Fred Weiss, and H. Keith Thompson, the latter Yockey’s primary American contact and a registered agent for Gen. Remer’s Socialist Reich Party[37], and for Yockey. The Velde report comments that Weiss was the “chief source of propaganda for the NRP.”[38] This is confirmed by H. Keith Thompson, who stated that “the chief financial backer of Madole was Frederick C. Weiss whom I knew very well. He was a native German who spent his later years in the U.S., a Spenglerian and a Yockey associate.” Thompson stated that Weiss’ essays were rendered from a mixture of German, Latin, and French into English by Thompson for publication, which appeared in the National Renaissance Bulletin under Madole’s name.[39]

The Velde report comments that the 1952 “Prague Treason Trial” was also of seminal influence upon the ideology of the NRP, which can be taken to mean that Yockey and Thompson via Weiss had succeeded in adjusting the anti-Communist policy of the NRP. The Velde report states: “At the time of the Prague trials in 1952 and other anti-Semitic purges behind the Iron Curtain, the NRP defended the action of the Soviet leadership and implied that the example should be followed in Europe and America.”[40]

Thompson has to be viewed as a conduit for the outlook of veteran German National Socialists, led by air ace Hans Rudel, Otto Skorzeny, Johannes von Leers (operating a newspaper from Argentina, called Der Weg, for which Thompson was the US agent), and Otto Remer[41] whose Socialist Reich Party was to be banned in Germany. The attitude of certain German veterans was that they had been prevented from defeating the USSR during the war and they saw no reason why Germany should be sacrificed for the benefit of the USA (or the Jews) during the Cold War era. That was the “neutralist” policy of Remer’s Socialist Reich Party[43], and reflected Yockey’s outlook, as has been noted.

Thompson and Weiss were in 1955 distributing a series of pro-Soviet pamphlets among the Right through Weiss’ Le Blanc publications. These were of the same nature as the views propagated by Yockey and later by Common Sense, and it would seem superfluous to quote further such material.

William Goring, who as a student infiltrated the National Renaissance Party, and wrote a paper on his research, began with a description of Yockey and the European Liberation Front, “because they play an important part in the formation of the ideology of the NRP.”[43] Goring states that when Yockey briefly returned to the USA from Europe in 1955 he joined the National Renaissance Party using the alias Frank Healy, but “stayed only long enough to publish his essay ‘The Destiny of America’ in the National Renaissance Bulletin under the name of James H. Madole, the NRP leader.”[44] Goring states that Madole had been unaware of Yockey’s identity and prior to leaving the USA Yockey told “the astonished Madole” that he was visiting East Germany. Goring states that Yockey traveled through the USSR in 1957 or 1958 then returned to the USA.[45]

 

Part 3

Soviet Anti-Zionism, a Jewish-Communist Ploy?

Neither Madole nor Common Sense seems to have left a discernible legacy on the extreme Right with the demise of both in the late 1970s. However, with the 1967 Arab-Israeli war there was a new impetus for Soviet anti-Zionism. By this time, in Paul Lendvai’s opinion, Moscow had become the “Center and Exporter of Anti-Semitism.”[1] While the “Prague Treason Trial” of 1952 had a seminal impact upon the ideological and strategic direction of Yockey and his followers, and on other Rightists such as the National Renaissance Party and Common Sense, the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia and Poland served as the impetus for an increase in anti-Zionist, and arguably “anti-Semitic,” propaganda from the USSR.

Lendvai writes of the perceived “Zionist plot” against Poland, where the State accused Zionists of “an open attack on the political system and its leaders” in the form of intellectual dissent and student demonstrations, which had been prompted by the State suppression of a student theatrical production. This State repression was undertaken in the name of anti-Zionism, and factory and political meetings organized by the Communist party functionaries were undertaken under the slogan “Purge the Party of Zionists.”[2] Landvai states that since 1966, there had been a “Jewish department” in the Ministry of the Interior, led by Col. Walichnowski, “author of the anti-Zionist best-seller, Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany.”[3]

In Czechoslovakia, the 1967 war instigated a new campaign of anti-Zionism. Dissident elements had begun to criticize the anti-Israel policy of the regime. The Czechoslovak Writers’ Congress of June 26–29, 1967, addressed itself to the Party leadership. The Congress’ apparently pro-Israel position was also aligned with demands for liberalization.[4] During the May Day demonstration of 1967 students carried the Israeli flag and placards demanding “Let Israel Live.” The philosophical faculty at Prague’s Charles University issued a petition demanding the resumption of diplomatic relations with Israel.[5]

To the Right in the USA the prospect of “Moscow as the center of anti-Semitism” was a theoretical impossibility. The Right, from Southern segregationists to self-declared “Nazis” like George Lincoln Rockwell and his American Nazi Party, saw Soviet anti-Zionism as nothing more than another Jewish plot to fool Gentiles in general and the Arab bloc in particular. The theory was that anti-Zionist posturing by the Jewish controlled USSR would beguile the Arabs into being aligned with the Soviet bloc, and that the Jewish cabal that controls both the Eastern and Western blocs would have driven the Arabs into the arms of Jewish communism.

This conspiratorial view was held by King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, then the senior statesman of the Arab world. In 1970 Newsweek quoted King Faisal as stating, in reply to a question on the Arab-Israeli conflict:

If the crisis is tackled as we suggest, Soviet influence and penetration will cease. But Zionism and Communism are working hand in glove to block any settlement to restore peace. It’s all part of a great plot, a grand conspiracy. Communism is a Zionist creation designed to fulfill the aims of Zionism. They are only pretending to work against each other in the Middle East. The Zionists are deceiving the U.S. into believing they are on their side. The Communists, on the other hand, are cheating the Arabs, making them believe that they are on their side. But actually they are in league with the Zionists.[6]

This quote was cited on the front page of The Thunderbolt, a newspaper of the segregationist National States Rights Party, edited by Dr. Edward R. Fields. Dr. Fields, echoing King Faisal’s theory, explained:

The most recent “showcase trials” of Jewish air hijackers in Russia is a clever joint Russian and Israeli maneuver to swing the American public opinion behind Israel. It also has the reverse effect of forcing the Arab nations into an even stronger dependency on Russia.[7]

Dr. Fields then cited examples of several Jews holding high positions in the USSR, including Politburo member Dimitri Dymschits,[8] and reprinted an article from the Canadian Jewish News stating that Brezhnev was married to a Jewess.[9] It was a line that continued to be held by other well-informed writers such as A. K. Chesterton and Ivor Benson.

William Pierce and the National Youth Alliance

After the demise of Common Sense and the NRP, there were, however, several significant factions within the Right that arose and maintained the pro-Soviet position. These factions centered around Dr. William Pierce and the National Youth Alliance and Wilmot Robertson, editor of Instauration. Pierce and the NYA drew, in the initial stages at least, from Yockey, while Robertson appears to have arrived independently at his pro-Soviet conclusions regarding Zionism.

The National Youth Alliance had emerged from the “Youth for Wallace”[10] campaign, instigated by Willis Carto. The NYA was led by Lou Byers. The significance of this of course is that it was Carto who first published Imperium as a single volume in 1962 and kept it in print.[11] Carto had visited Yockey in jail in 1960 just before his death and had written the introduction to the Noontide Press edition of Imperium. Louis T. Byers had been the founder of The Francis Parker Yockey Society, and had died in 1981, according to a dedication in the Liberty Bell edition of Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe.[12]

Pierce, who had been a physicist at Oregon State University, had briefly been associated with the conservative John Birch Society and with the American Nazi Party.[13] After seeing Byers on a TV interview he had a meeting and joined the NYA in 1970, and launched a tabloid newspaper, Attack! Pierce ran the NYA and changed the name to National Alliance in 1974 and the name of the periodical to National Vanguard in 1978.[14] The first and second issues of Attack! displayed prominent advertisements for Imperium.[15]

In 1976 Attack! carried its first major statement on the Jews and the contemporary USSR. Beginning with the familiar theme of the Jews having taking over Russia and overthrown the Czar via the Bolshevik Revolution, the article adopted the position that Stalin had overthrown Jewish control after World War II. The second half of the article states that Stalin became suspicious of Jewish loyalties during World War II when they are supposed to have fled before the German army to the Russian Far East and then undertaken black marketeering. Pierce states that Stalin concluded that if the Jews could not be trusted at a time of warfare with an anti-Semitic state (Nazi Germany) how could Jewish loyalty be trusted if another conflict involved a state with a pro-Jewish orientation? After the war Stalin began a cautious policy of eliminating Jews from positions of influence, a difficult task because of the large number of Jews in the bureaucracy. Pierce alluded to the rumor that Stalin was intending to deport the Jews to the Russian Far East, and that he was poisoned in 1953 to prevent the plan. Pierce stated that after Stalin anti-Jewish measures were relaxed, but now that “Russian communists” had achieved supremacy they would not relinquish power to Jews. It was this perceived loss of Jewish influence or control in the USSR that resulted in the Cold War and subsequent news media and diplomatic protests that that USSR was anti-Semitic.[16]

In 1979 a major article again addressed the subject of the USSR, focusing on a racial crisis that would force Russians to jettison whatever remained of Marxist dogma in favor of a Russian national consciousness that was already in evidence. Although Jews are not specified the author, Mark Weber, emphasizes that “there is no doubt that the Soviet Union is run by Russians” in government, bureaucracy, the military and the industrial-economic spheres. The situation the Russians faced was the expansion of the USSR’s Asiatic and Muslim minorities and a future threat from China.[17] One might suppose, based on the apparent good relations between Russia and China, that the analysis was flawed. But the author believed that “blood will out,” and that the ancient rivalry between Russia and China, which was intense when the two were supposedly fraternal partners in communism, will again arise.[18]

Wilmot Robertson and Instauration

Wilmot Robertson, the pen name of an erudite Rightist who established his reputation with a 500 page book, The Dispossessed Majority, in 1972, seems to have come to his conclusions about Russia and the Jews independently of Yockey or of Common Sense. However, he is likely to have been acquainted with Yockey’s works, having written for Willis Carto during the 1960s, according to Leonard Zeskind.[19] Robertson, in his chapter “The United States and Russia,” referred to the patriotic and nationalist sentiments, even Czarist-era iconography and the revival of religious sentiment, that Stalin used in rallying the Russians against the German invasion.[20] The reversal of Marxism started much earlier, however, as an outraged Trotsky had fumed.

“The rehabilitation of the Russian Majority was accompanied by the revival of anti-Semitism,” Robertson wrote. “The Russian people had never been happy about the disproportionate number of Jews in the revolution.”[21] “Anti-Semitism became an important tool” for Stalin in the control of the Communist party,[22] presumably a reference to Stalin’s purging of Trotsky and his followers and of Zinoviev, Kamenev, et al. Robertson also claims that anti-Semitism became overt after World War II, referring to the closing of synagogues and Jewish cultural associations, culminating in the so-called “Doctors’ Plot” in 1953.[23] He stated that since no Jew has been a member of the Central Committee since the ouster of Kaganovich in 1957, it could be assumed that Stalin’s anti-Semitic position had been maintained.[24]

Robertson’s position unsurprisingly drew criticism from other quarters of the Right. In 1974 Robertson followed up with a small volume answering the major criticisms The Disposessed Majority had received. Called Ventilations, the first chapter was entitled “The Kremlin and the Jews.” Robertson explained in a preamble to the chapter: “Of all the criticism heaped upon The Dispossessed Majority – and there has been considerable – the greater part has been with the book’s treatment of Christianity and what it says about the decline of Jewish power in Russia.”[25]

Robertson began by reiterating what he’d said in The Dispossessed Majority about the elimination of Trotskyists and the rehabilitation of the Russian Majority and its institutions. He stated that “it is hard for a veteran anti-communist, who is often a veteran anti-Semite, to admit suddenly that a drastic change has taken place in his ancient bugaboo.”[26] Robertson belittled the evidence that orthodox anti-Semites mustered to prove that the USSR remained under Jewish control. If there were Jews in more influential places in the USSR, Robertson believed, the Soviet leadership would highlight the fact to counter anti-Soviet propaganda regarding anti-Semitism, but the Russians could only come up with a few Jewish descended functionaries and artists.[27] Robertson, somewhat reminiscent of Farrel at Common Sense, castigated the old conservatives such as William Buckley for continually focusing on a Russian communist threat:

When the Jewish propaganda mills are cranking out anti-Russian hate articles day and night in order to involve us in a Middle East confrontation with Russia, it is somewhat confusing for the rock-ribbed anti-Semites to keep informing us that Jews and Russians are joined in a secret alliance.[28]

Robertson cited a particularly controversial book of the time published in 1969 by The Publishing House for Political Literature, entitled Caution, Zionism! By Yuri Ivanov,[29] the chief Soviet expert on Israel.[30] It is certainly a book that examines the history of the Jews in much detail, and would be a rather self-destructive ploy if it was a secret contrivance by Jews covertly running the USSR and juts out to fool the goyim. The reader is invited to read this now hard to obtain book online here.[2]  (This writer recalls as a youngster what a furor was caused when Caution, Zionism! was exhibited at the Soviet display at the annual “Trade Fair” that was held at Wellington, New Zealand.)

Robertson published his own periodical, Instauration, explicating the themes of The Dispossessed Majority. He published items in Instauration confirming his analysis of the USSR and the Jews. One particularly interesting reference is an item citing Pionerskaya Pravda, the paper of the 10,000,000 member Young Pioneers, the October 10, 1981 issue of which carried an article that stated, “the major portion of American newspapers and television and radio companies are in Zionist hands.” Robertson stated that the article claims “Jewish bankers and billionaires” were behind the Jewish Defense League, “which terrorizes Soviet diplomats and other Soviet officials in the United States.” Pionerskaya claimed that “most of the biggest monopolies for the production of weapons are controlled by Jewish bankers. Business and blood bring them enormous profits.”[31] The themes were very similar to those expressed by Ivanov in the widely distributed Caution, Zionism! A previous issue of Instauration had referred to “a prominent Russian political analyst,” Vallery Emelyanov, submitting a paper to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, accusing the Soviet Jews of “forming a fifth column” whose loyalties would be in doubt should there be a war, comparing the situation to that of the Volga Germans during the World Wars. The aim of Emelyanov’s paper was to call for a world anti-Zionist front.[32]

Conclusion

With demise of the USSR, anti-Zionist ideologues, academics, activists, and bureaucrats of the old Soviet regime entered the new dispensation. Today the Russians are surely the best-informed people in the world on Jewish matters, a legacy maintained since Soviet days. The Russian Ministry of International Affairs, for example, publishes articles on the “new world order” and the contrived “velvet revolutions” in North Africa that are only available in the Western world through dissident publications. The fight against the largely Jewish “oligarchs” who arose after the dismantling of the USSR under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, is a continuation of the struggle against Zionism and plutocracy begun under Stalin.

The destruction of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, which were the only hindrance to US hegemony (or Chinese, for that matter), was achieved through a combination of Western based globalist NGOs and the contrivance of Mikhail Gorbachev,[33] whose eightieth birthday was recently celebrated with Hollywood “stars” and his good friend, Israeli president Shimon Peres, who said Gorby was “a good friend to the Jewish people,” for allowing many Soviet Jews to make aliyah under his rule.[34]

The same elements that spent decades trying to undermine the USSR, and eventually succeeded, are now trying to destroy any chance of Russian renewal. The rhetoric of the Cold War has returned. The globalists fear that Putin is showing “neo-Stalinist” tendencies, and they may be right, for as under Stalin, Russia is again emerging as the primary stumbling block to the implementation of globalist designs.[35]

____________

See the endnotes in the original article (here, here and here).

Don’t miss also the commentariat section, where Michael O’Meara stated: “I thought this a marvelous piece of scholarship — with an argument that could change the prevailing ideological paradigms.”