Homo Americanus, 5

homoamericanus 
“It must be recalled that the passionate American desire to make the world safer for democracy also led, after World War II, to the creation of the Nuremberg Tribunal whose legal structures make up the judicial framework of the postmodern European Union, including the European Criminal Code… They opened up, long ago, a Pandora Box.”

Homo Americanus, chapter 2

Degenerate “nationalists”

by Roger

Let it be declared that National Socialism, so uniquely responsive to harmony and beauty, health and strength, has absolutely no room for “rock”, that degenerate din of the African jungle to which the above hooligans [skinheads], and also others pretending to be National Socialists, are addicted, and which, we would have them know, Hitler would most certainly have prohibited. This is something that skinheads—if they are to elevate themselves from this category, have got to learn.

—Colin Jordan, “National Socialism:
Vanguard of the Future”, pp. 26-27,
Historical Review Press, 2011



I don’t know much about Génération Identitaire (their alleged British branch does not exist outside of Facebook, to my knowledge, and is inactive even there), but there is a popular current in continental Europe nowadays for “social-nationalism”, which is manifested through various different fronts: National-Anarchism, Autonomous Nationalism, and so forth. I find it repulsive aesthetically and politcially. The best example might be CasaPound in Italy, whose behaviour seems like an ostensibly right-wing mirror of the 1968 New Left. They live as squatters in unoccupied properties, they have their own rock band, and they organise meetings to promote extremely pretentious “beyond left and right” nonsense in which enemies like Che Guevara are revised as heroic national liberators.

Worst yet are the Autonomous Nationalists, who record “NS Hip-Hop” and idolise the likes of Otto Strasser, a renowned traitor who spent the large part of his life attacking Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich from outside (he was essentially the Trotsky of National Socialism). They self-consciously dress themselves like anarchists and they use anti-fascist symbols, like a bunch of inverted Situationists.

This must be heard to be believed: (YouTube link) .

H youth1How can a nation go from producing marches like Preußens Gloria and Volk ans Gewehr to this? I’ll tell you how: the imposition of foreign anti-values by the 1945 Allied occupiation (which Strasser, the hero of countless social-nationalists, fully supported; in fact, he testified against Germans at the Nuremberg show trials). Even the German federal constitution was written by the occupiers, so naturally their culture ended up getting debased by what Solzhenitsyn referred to in 1994 as “liquid manure from the West”, which was flooding into Russia after the fall of Soviet Socialism. We can and should hate all Bolsheviks, but it is impossible to deny that the Soviet Union’s protectionist attitude towards culture managed to prevent Beatlemania from taking off in most of Eastern Europe.

The above quotation by Colin Jordan is taken from an essay entitled “The Enemy Within”, which is largely a critique of Strasserism. The fact that attacked the skinhead rock fans in the same same essay shows how little things have changed since he wrote that. Here is another one from the same book of essays, again against rock music and its worshippers:

This is what we are up against! The bulk of our younger generation clad appropriately in the slovenly uniform of the creed of slovenliness, debauching their minds in an ecstasy of adoration of a chaos of cacophony and the vile creatures of the night purveying it. This represents democracy’s maturity, and that maturity is the prelude to communism. (pp. 108-109)

I also enjoy Revilo P. Oliver’s definition of rock music: “the cacophonous din that has replaced music in degenerate circles”.

H.C. Strache, the leader of the FPÖ, has released several videos of himself rapping. It is a disgrace. I want to like that party, seeing as it has the support of 42% of Austrians in the 18-30 age group, but it is hard to get enthused when its most senior figure is happy to make such a fool of himself in public. Perhaps it can only garner the support of that 42% by being degenerate.

The new Babylon

babylon


Michael O’Meara, the first white nationalist author I ever read, has said that the United States, as the architect of the prevailing world system, is the source of all evil. But a humble book by Tomislav Sunić is even more focused on the subject. In fact, to me it is the key to understand the West’s darkest hour.

Here there are a few quotes:

“America is the least homogeneous country in the Western hemisphere… But there is one common feature which is characteristic for all Americans, regardless of their social and racial background or status; namely their rejection of their previous roots.”

Homo Americanus, pages 1-2


“The American species, Homo americanus, exists all over Europe now…

Following the Second World War, hundreds of European and American authors were removed from library shelves on the basis of their allegedly extremist, racist and unscientific character.”

Homo Americanus, pages 5, 7


Lawrence R. Brown, in his magnum opus The Might of the West… acknowledges that the Declaration was a form of political theology, compatible with the spirit of the time of Enlightenment, and therefore replete with platitudes and “self-evident” truths. The Preamble of the Declaration could very well fit into the Middle Ages.

Homo Americanus, page 17


“Not a single politician will ever admit that America is a theocratic system with a peculiar political theology.”

Homo Americanus, page 3


“Ethnic or racial discrimination, let alone charges of anti-Semitism, are viewed in postmodern Americanism as the ultimate intellectual sin… Certain dogmatic views, particularly those regarding the sacred Jewish question and inherent goodness of non-European races, are imposed by force and must be accepted by all…”

Homo Americanus, page 14


“However, there seems to be a contradiction in their [white racialists] analyses regarding the waning of the Euro-American world. While they bewail the passing of the white race, they fail to critically examine the economic foundations of Americanism, i.e. an ideology that is fully propitious for low wage non-European immigrant workers… Why should one worry about the passage of the great white race if that race has only been involved in endless economic transactions? This seems to be a feature of many white American racialists who stubbornly refuse to criticize capitalism…”

Homo Americanus, page 23


“It must be recalled that the passionate American desire to make the world safer for democracy also led, after World War II, to the creation of the Nuremberg Tribunal whose legal structures make up the judicial framework of the postmodern European Union, including the European Criminal Code… They opened up, long ago, a Pandora Box.”

Homo Americanus, page 60


Both the American and the Soviet experiments were founded on the same principles of egalitarianism… At the beginning of the third millennium, the immense egalitarian meta-narrative, encapsulated in Americanism, is very much alive… Both Homo sovieticus and Homo americanus herald the slogan that all men are created equal… All academic discussions about genetic or racial differences are quickly neutralized by the all-encompassing words such as “racism” or “hate speech.”

Homo Americanus, pages 55-56


From Breivik’s desk

“The nation is divided, half patriots and half traitors, and no man can tell which from which.”

—Mark Twain

breivik-viking

Traitor – classification system – Category A, B and C traitors

This classification system is used to identify various individual cultural Marxist/multiculturalist traitors. The intention of the system is to easier identify priority targets and will also serve as the foundation for the future “Nuremberg trials” once the European cultural conservatives reassert political and military control of any given country.

Any category A, B or C traitor is an individual who has deliberately used his or her influence in a way which makes him or her indirectly or directly guilty of the charges specified in this document: 1-8. Many of these individuals will attempt to claim “ignorance” of the crimes they are accused of.


Category A traitor

– Political leaders (NGO leaders included)

– Media leaders (chief editors)

– Cultural leaders

– Industry leaders

Category A traitors are usually any current Heads of State, ministers/senators, directors and leaders of certain organisations/boards etc. who are guilty of charges 1-8. Category A traitors consist of the most influential and highest profile traitors.

10 per 1 million citizens.
Punishment: death penalty and expropriation of property/funds


Category B traitor

Category B traitors are cultural Marxist/multiculturalist politicians, primarily from the alliance of European political parties known as “the MA 100” (parties who support multiculturalism) and EU parliamentarians. They can be elected and non-elected parliamentarians, their advisors and any public and/or corporate servant who has been and still are indirectly or directly implicated in committing the following acts.

Category B traitors can also be individuals from various professional groups (but not limited to): journalists, editors, teachers, lecturers, university professors, various school and university board members, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists/celebrities etc. They can also be individuals from other professional groups such as: technicians, scientists, doctors and even Church leaders. In addition, individuals (investors etc.) who have directly or indirectly funded related activities. It’s important to note that the stereotypical “socialists”, collectivists, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc., are to be considered on an individual basis only. Not everyone who is associated with one of these groups or movements is to be considered as a cultural Marxist/multiculturalist.

Former category A traitors; Heads of State, Ministers/Senators etc., directors and leaders of certain organisations/boards etc. can be re-classified as category B traitors for practical targeting reasons (they have lost influence and will not yield the same target value/effect as current category A traitors).

Certain ANTIFA leaders or organisers related to ANTIFA movements (and other dedicated members) are considered category B traitors. Non-essential members are considered category C traitors. Many professionals such as for example journalists, influential sociologists or university professors etc. are considered and categorized as category B traitors as we consider them political activists and not merely professionals. They will of course claim ignorance and state that they are apolitical. This strategy might work for them until the day where they are visited by a Justiciar Knight—their judge, jury and executioner.

1000 per 1 million citizens.
Punishment: death penalty and expropriation of property/funds. Punishment can be reduced under certain circumstances.

Category C traitor

Category C traitors are less influential and lower priority targets (often individuals who have facilitated category A and B traitors) but who are still guilty of charges 1-8.

10 000 per 1 million citizens.
Punishment: fines, incarceration, expropriation (considered as acceptable indirect casualties in larger operations where WMDs are involved).

Category D individuals

Category D individuals have little or no political influence but are facilitating category Band C traitors and/or MA 100 political parties/media companies through various means. They are not guilty of charges 1-8 but work with or for individuals who are. The classification is of relevance when calculating/estimating indirect casualties concerning larger operations where WMDs are involved, as any category D individuals is not considered an innocent “civilian” but rather as a secondary servant/facilitator.

20 000-30 000 per 1 million citizens
Punishment: none (not considered civilian)

Number of Category A and B traitors on Western Europe

There are approximately 400 000 category A and B traitors in Western Europe using the current classification system (1010 per million).

France 65 650

Germany 82 820

United Kingdom 62 216

Netherlands 16 665

Belgium 10 807

Sweden 9393

Austria 7839

Norway 4848

Switzerland 498

Luxembourg 7777

Spain 47 167

Italy 60 600

Portugal 10 807

Denmark 5555

Ireland 6060

Greece 11 312

Finland 5353

Iceland 322

Cyprus 800

Malta 417

________________

Source: Breivik’s manifesto

Golden Dawn

I have been watching a few videos on the George Zimmerman verdict and the thought arrived to my mind that Alex Linder is absolutely right: as to organizing in the real world and preparing ourselves for fight, the Greeks are light-years ahead from their American counterparts—both the meta-politicians and the naïve Christian nationalists.

The following is a curiously harmonic collage of paragraphs on the Golden Dawn I stole from Metapedia and its nemesis Wikipedia, which I edited slightly:


Chrysi_Avyi

Chrysi Avyi (Greek: Χρυσή Αυγή, English: Golden Dawn) is the national liberation movement of the Greek people, strongly opposed to communism, plutocracy and the demographic genocide of the people through third-world invasion. Hrisi Avgi is also the name of a newspaper and a magazine published by that movement. The leader of the party is Nikolaos Michaloliakos.

The party is nationalist and socialistic, evoking Ancient Hellas, and in particular the militant society of Sparta. The movement’s symbol is a white meander in a black coat, also appeared in a red flag bearing pattern with white and golden trim. The party has a more revolutionary character than the likes of the Hellenic Front and the Popular Orthodox Rally.

Golden Dawn has made use of National Socialist (NS) symbolism, and its members have praised figures of NS Germany in the past. It has participated in Hellenic national elections and while they have received thousands of votes, clashes with anarcho-communists plot to destroy the movement.


Ideology

Golden Dawn described itself as a “Popular Nationalist Movement” and “uncompromising Nationalists.” Party leader Michaloliakos described Golden Dawn as opposing the “so-called Enlightenment” and the Industrial Revolution, while supporting National Socialism. According to the party’s charter, “only Aryans in blood and Greeks in descent can be candidate members of Golden Dawn.” The charter also puts the leader in dictatorial control of the party, and formalizes the use of the Roman salute for party members. At first, the party embraced neo-Pagan beliefs, believing them to be intermingled with National Socialism in accordance to NS esotericism, describing Marxism and liberalism as “the ideological carriers of Judeo-Christianity.” Later, however, the party underwent ideological changes, accepting Eastern Orthodox Christianity.


Unlike Americans, the Greeks are on the right track

The party is regularly described as Neo-Nazi by news media and academic sources, and members are allegedly responsible for so-called “anti-Semitic” graffiti.

Ilias Kasidiaris, a spokesman for Golden Dawn, wrote an article that was published in the movement’s magazine on 20 April 2011, in which he said:

What would the future of Europe and the whole modern world be like if World War II (which the democracies, or in fact the Jews—according to general Ioannis Metaxas—declared on Germany) hadn’t stopped the renewing route of National Socialism? Certainly, fundamental values which mainly derive from ancient Greek culture, would be dominant in every state and would define the fate of peoples. Romanticism as a spiritual movement and classicism would prevail against the decadent subculture that corroded the white man. Extreme materialism would have been discarded, giving its place to spiritual exaltation.

In the same article, Adolf Hitler is characterized as a great social reformer and military genius.

In an article published in 1987 in the Golden Dawn magazine titled “Hitler for 1000 years” its editor Michaloliakos showed his support for National Socialism and white interests. He wrote:

We are the faithful soldiers of the National Socialist idea and nothing else … We exist, and continue the battle, the battle for the final victory of our race.

He ends the article by writing:

1987, forty-two years later, with our thought and soul given to the last great battle, with our thought and soul given to the black and red banners, with our thought and soul given to the memory of our great Leader, we raise our right hand up, we salute the Sun and with the courage, that is compelled by our military honor and our National Socialist duty we shout full of passion, faith to the future and our visions: HEIL HITLER!

Furthermore he uses capital letters for pronouns referring to Hitler (“by Himself”, “His people”).

On 17 August 1987, Rudolf Hess, Adolf Hitler’s deputy in the NS Party, who was given a life sentence at the Nuremberg Trials, committed suicide. The following day, on 18 August 1987, Golden Dawn members distributed proclamations in the center of Athens with the phrase “RUDOLF HESS IMMORTAL.”

In pictures taken during the first congress of Golden Dawn in February 1990, the congress hall is decorated with the Swastika and the Wolfsangel.

There are many cases in which Golden Dawn members have appeared to give a NS salute. The founder of the party, Michaloliakos, appeared to give a NS salute in the Athens city council. He claims that it was merely “the salute of the national youth organization of Ioannis Metaxas.” The party states its logo is a traditional Greek meander, not a NS symbol.

In May 2012, Golden Dawn ran in Greek elections under the slogan “So we can rid this land of filth.” On his post-election statement, Michaloliakos had placed a marble eagle on an obvious position on his desk, which according to media reports bears similarity to the eagle of the Third Reich. After the elections, Eleni Zaroulia, a Golden Dawn MP, wore an iron cross ring during her inauguration, a symbol which has been associated with National Socialism. As depicted in a picture taken on 14 September 2012, Panagiotis Iliopoulos, another Golden Dawn MP, has a tattoo reading the greeting “Sieg Heil.”

Ilias Kasidiaris quoted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a speech to parliament on 23 October 2012. Defending himself in a discussion on whether to lift his parliamentary immunity over his assault of Kanelli, he quoted Protocol 19: “In order to destroy the prestige of heroism we shall send them for trial in the category of theft, murder and every kind of abominable and filthy crime.”

On 6 June 2013, the Golden Dawn MP Ilias Kasidiaris implied during a stormy debate in the Greek Parliament that he is a Holocaust denier.

Archbishop Ieronymos II of Athens has criticized Golden Dawn, stating that “The church loves all people, whether they are black, white or non-Christians.”


_____________________

My 2 cents:

Judeo-Christianity is the enemy. Both “white nationalists” and “Southern nationalists” who still cling to Christianity are deluded. No puritanical version of Judeo-Christianity in NorthAm, no Hellstorm. No Hellstorm, no anti-white genocide throughout the West in our century. Who do you think will make a difference: the GD fanatics or the American AltRighters who still subscribe the Judaic narrative of defaming Hitler and his movement?

Hellstorm • epilogue

In almost any war one side can be dishonestly demonized even by a truthful enumeration of its crimes, if the crimes of its adversaries are suppressed. —Irmin Vinson


Excerpted from Thomas Goodrich’s 2010 book

Hellstorm:
The Death of Nazi Germany
(1944-1947)



Epilogue

As Hans Woltersdorf observed, and as Allied occupation troops would later attest, the one element almost totally lacking in the German heart during the post-war years was, surprisingly, the spirit of hatred and revenge.

Paradoxically, while the defeated had neither the time nor the inclination to look back, the victors did. Continuing the process begun before the war, the Western propaganda offensive against Germany proceeded with renewed vigor following the war. In thousands of books, articles, and movies, the world was reminded over and over again that the Nazi Party in particular, and all Germans in general, were solely responsible for the war; that they and they alone had committed beastly atrocities; that only the German people and their leaders were war criminals; that German guilt was somehow something “unique.” Curiously, many who argued this thesis and were often its most violent proponents were also those who had been furthest removed from the actual fighting itself.

Among those closest to the fight, however, post-war propaganda had negligible results. Indeed, far from being filled with hatred as they were expected to be, many maturing Allied soldiers and airmen—those who actually fought on the ground or bombed from the air—were some of the least vindictive and some of the most forgiving. After boarding with Germans, dining with Germans, drinking with Germans, and sometimes, after courting and falling in love with Germans, many Allied troops ultimately began to understand and identify with Germans. Too late, most came to the shocking realization that in no appreciable way was their former enemy different from themselves. Ashamed by the sadistic, blood-thirsty propaganda they had swallowed so eagerly and obeyed so blindly, many young men—Americans, British, French, and even Russians—knew all too well from experience that neither Nazis or Germans had a corner on crime and that there was nothing “unique” about guilt or evil.

One of the most outspoken opponents of singular war guilt was the intrepid American journalist, Freda Utley. “An atrocity ceases to be one when committed in a ‘good cause,’ that is, our own,” wrote the hard-hitting author in her 1949 book, The High Cost of Vengeance.

I thought it was high time we stopped talking about German guilt, since there was no crime the Nazis had committed, which we or our allies had not also committed. I had referred to our obliteration bombing, the mass deportation and expulsion from their homes of twelve million Germans on account of their race; the starving of the Germans during the first years of the occupation; the use of prisoners as slave laborers; the Russian concentration camps, and the looting perpetrated by Americans as well as Russians… Compared with the rape and murder and looting engaged in by the Russian armies at the war’s end, the terror and slavery and hunger and robbery in the East zone today, and the genocide practiced by the Poles and Czechs, the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Germans condemned at Nuremberg to death or lifelong imprisonment appeared as minor in extent if not in degree.

J.F.C. Fuller agreed. “For fifty or a hundred years, and possibly more,” announced the British major general, “the ruined cities of Germany will stand as monuments to the barbarism of their conquerors.”

Another backward-looking Briton, an RAF crewman, expressed in simple, yet profound, terms a thought that thousands of other Allied soldiers and airmen no doubt pondered for the rest of their lives: “Had the Germans won the war, should we or ought we to have been tried as war criminals?… The thoughts live with me to this day.”

For the most part though, such reflections were kept strictly private.

We had turned the evil of our enemies back upon them a hundredfold, and, in so doing, something of our integrity had been shattered, had been irrevocably lost. All, all, were one, all were the ghastly horror of what we had known, of what we had helped to do… Face it when you close this book.


____________________________

Educate yourself about the Holocaust perpetrated on the German people by the Allied forces that the mainstream media has covered up for nearly seventy years.

Hellstorm is still available from the publisher.

Hellstorm • chapter 11

In almost any war one side can be dishonestly demonized even by a truthful enumeration of its crimes, if the crimes of its adversaries are suppressed. —Irmin Vinson


Excerpted from Thomas Goodrich’s 2010 book

Hellstorm:
The Death of Nazi Germany
(1944-1947)



Crime of the Age

Under agreements articulated at Yalta and codified at Potsdam, Russia would receive vast stretches of German and Polish territory in the east and, in recompense, Poland would absorb large tracts of the Former Reich in the west, including much of Prussia, Pomerania and the extremely rich, industrialized province of Silesia. What such an action implied was chillingly revealed by Winston Churchill. When a Polish official expressed doubt that such a massive uprooting of people could be carried out, the British prime minister wavered all concerns aside: “Don’t mind the five or more million Germans, Stalin will see to them. You will have no trouble with them: they will cease to exist.”

When horrifying accounts such as the above [the genocidal implementation of the Potsdam agreements described by Goodrich in seventeen pages] began circulating in the US and Britain, readers were shocked and sickened. Vengeful and bloody-minded as many in the West had been during the war, with peace most no longer had a stomach for the cold and calculated slaughter of a fallen foe.

“An apparently deliberate attempt is being made to exterminate many millions of Germans by depriving them of their homes and of food, leaving them to die by slow agonizing starvation,” influential British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, warned in the London Times. “This is not done as an act of war, but as part of a deliberate policy of ‘peace’.”

“The scale of this resettlement and the conditions in which it takes place are without precedents in history,” added Anne O’Hare McCormick in the New York Times. “No one seeing its horrors firsthand can doubt that it is a crime against humanity.”

Wrote an equally outraged American academic, Austin J. App:

Cannot each of us write a letter to President Truman and another to each of our senators begging them not to make the United States a partner to the greatest mass atrocity so far recorded in history? Calling it the greatest mass atrocity so far recorded in history is not rhetoric. It is not ignorance of history. It is sober truth.

To slice three or four ancient provinces from a country, then loot and plunder nine million people of their houses, farms, cattle, furniture, and even clothes, and then expel them from the land they have inhabited for 700 years with no distinction between the innocent and the guilty, to drive them like unwanted beasts on foot to far-off provinces, unprotected, shelterless, and starving is an atrocity so vast that history records none vaster.

Fortunately, these voices of protest and the pressure they exerted on Western leaders were welcome signs that the physical torment of Germany was nearing an end. Unfortunately, by the time the horror became common knowledge, the deed was all but done. Of the roughly eleven million expellees hurled from their homes in Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia, an estimated two million, mostly women and children, perished. Equally as horrifying, though less well known, were the nearly one million Germans who died during a similar expulsion in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. Additionally, an estimated four million more ethnic Germans were sent east to Russia and elsewhere where their odds of surviving as slaves were worse than as refugees.

While Western leaders such as Winston Churchill expressed astonishment at the tragedy they had wrought in eastern Germany, little was said about the deliberate starvation of the rest of the Reich, and utter silence prevailed concerning the Allied torture chambers in Germany and Poland, the on-the-spot massacre of Nazi Party members and SS troops, or the death camps run by Eisenhower. Indeed, taken as a whole, it is not improbable that far more Germans died during the first two years of “peace” than died during the previous six years of war. It was truly, as Time magazine had earlier termed it, “history’s most terrifying peace.”

None of the major, or minor, Allied war crimes ran any risk of being called to account for their acts. Far from it. At the lower levels, those who actually committed the atrocities at Dachau, Nemmersdorf and the thousands other points on the map, were quietly forgiven while at the upper end, US generals became American presidents and English prime ministers became British knights.

Meanwhile, as the voices of conscience were drowned in a flood of Allied adulation and celebration, much of the world’s attention was riveted on Nuremberg. There, the victors sat in judgment over the vanquished. There, the accused German leaders were tried, they were convicted, and they were dutifully hung, for planning aggressive war… for waging criminal war… for crimes against peace and humanity… for crimes planned… for crimes against… And all this, it may be presumed spoken slowly, solemnly, and with a straight face.

From afar, Austin J. App watched the ongoing charade in Nuremberg with mounting indignation. Like a good many others, the American academic had followed closely the course of the war and he, for one, was appalled and outraged by the utter hypocrisy displayed:

Germans still have much to feel guilty of before God. But they have nothing to feel guilty of before the Big Three. Any German who still feels guilty before the Allies is a fool.


____________________________

Educate yourself about the Holocaust perpetrated on the German people by the Allied forces that the mainstream media has covered up for nearly seventy years.

Hellstorm is still available from the publisher.

What is the best Hitler biography?

by Andrew Hamilton




I’m not a National
Socialist, but…
I have read a few
books on Hitler.

Regarding Hitler,
I agree with
Irmin Vinson:



I consider Hitler less a model to be followed than an avalanche of propaganda we must dig ourselves out from under. Never in human history has a single man received such sustained vilification, the basic effect and purpose of which has been to inhibit Whites from thinking racially and from acting in their own racial self-interest, as all other racial/ethnic groups do. Learning the truth about Hitler is a liberating experience. By the truth I mean not an idealized counter-myth to the pervasive myth of Hitler as evil incarnate, but the man himself, faults and virtues, strengths and weaknesses. (“Some Thoughts on Hitler”)

Since literally thousands of worthless books have been churned out about Der Boss, how does one sift through the massive pile of crap on the hopeful assumption that, “Hey, with all this manure, there must be a pony in here somewhere!”?

A “good” biography by my definition is an objective, truthful account, not a comic book fabrication about a lunatic, one-testicled rug chewer, or a thinly-disguised religious fable in which Hitler (= Satan/Nazis/Germans/white people) crucifies 6 million Jews (= God’s chosen people, elbowing the Lord Jesus Christ aside) by fantastic and diabolical means before efficiently employing the grisly remains to manufacture bars of soap and lampshades for the amusement of Hitler and his henchmen, or to lighten the burden of wartime rationing.

Hopefully, the book would be well-written and fun to read, as well.

If there’s a reliable bibliographical essay along these lines, I am unaware of it.


Ian Kershaw’s biography

What brought this perennial question—What is the best Hitler biography?—to mind recently was an article about English historian Sir Ian Kershaw in the Guardian (UK) newspaper asserting that the author’s two-volume, 2,000-page (prolixity is the norm in Hitler studies) biography of Hitler published to wide acclaim a decade ago, “is likely to remain the standard life for a generation.”

The biography is: Volume 1, Hitler, 1889–1936: Hubris (London: 1998), and Volume 2, Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis (London: 2000). A single-volume abridgement, Hitler: A Biography, appeared in 2008.

This pattern of two-volume books and abridgements, plus multiple translations, editions and printings of the same book at different times, often with different titles, continually bedevils the researcher.

Kershaw, who comes from a white, working-class background, does not inspire confidence. Among other things, he’s a knight (OBE), though he claims to be “embarrassed” by the “neo-feudal title.”

During the so-called Historikerstreit (Historians’ Dispute) in Germany from 1986 to 1989, Kershaw teamed with academic mentor Martin Broszat, an anti-German German, to publicly attack other German historians—Ernst Nolte, Andreas Hillgruber, Michael Stürmer, Joachim Fest and Klaus Hildebrand—as apologists for the German past.


“Comic Book” Titles as a Screen

One heuristic I use is to reject any book with a ridiculous or patently propagandistic title.

Using that guideline, the New York Times did Kershaw no favor when it titled its shallow reviews of his two Hitler volumes “The Devil’s Miracle Man” and “When Depravity Was Contagious,” respectively.

Examples of other self-destructive titles are The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler (1977; 1993), Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil (1998), Hitler: The Pathology of Evil (1998), Adolf Hitler: A Chilling Tale of Propaganda as Packaged by Joseph Goebbels. (1999), Adolf Hitler: A Study in Hate (2001), and Hitler and the Nazi Leaders: A Unique Insight into Evil (2001).


Books I own

I read Konrad Heiden’s critical Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power (1944) in high school. Its first chapter, “Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion,” was my introduction to Alfred Rosenberg. I remember being enthralled by the book. Heiden was at least half-Jewish (his mother). He eventually fled Germany and settled in the United States, where he died in 1966. In Hitler’s War David Irving warns against reliance upon Heiden’s and several other biographies “hitherto accepted as ‘standard’ sources on Hitler” without further elaboration.

Another book I read while young is journalist William Shirer’s 1,245-page The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (1960). It sold more than 2 million copies and won the National Book Award. I read the whole thing, but with nothing like the zest I read Der Fuehrer. Unfortunately, Shirer’s work is empirically and ideologically flawed.

Robert Payne, author of The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (1973), was a freelance writer, not an academic or journalist. He was enormously prolific. I looked him up in Contemporary Authors and learned that he authored over 110 novels, biographies, and histories. If he began at age 20, he wrote (and published) more than two books per year until he died at age 72. Evidently his pace exacted a price on accuracy. Besides purveying conventional ideological and racial animus, the biography contains glaring factual errors, some very big indeed.

Two spurious memoirs frequently cited by mainstream historians are Hermann Rauschning’s Conversations with Hitler (1940) (US title: The Voice of Destruction and Fritz Thyssen’s I Paid Hitler (1943) (neither of which I own), both published by a Hungarian Jew, Churchill confidant, and world federalist named Emery Reves.

Rauschning’s fabricated Conversations with Hitler has been relied upon by William L. Shirer, Robert Payne, Jewish historians Leon Poliakov, Gerhard Weinberg, and Nora Levin, Alan Bullock’s Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952) (the first comprehensive biography, Bullock’s Hitler dominated scholarship for years; it also possesses the kind of title that’s a red flag to me; I do not own it), and Joachim C. Fest’s Hitler (Germ. 1973, Eng. trans. 1974), among others. For background on this see Mark Weber, “Rauschning’s Phony Conversations With Hitler: An Update,” Journal of Historical Review (Winter 198586), pp. 499 ff.

Nevertheless, as David Irving points out, “Historians are quite incorrigible, and will quote any apparently primary source [memoirs, diaries, autobiographies, etc.] no matter how convincingly its false pedigree is exposed.” When “serious” biographers rely upon works like Rauschning’s, their books should be approached cautiously, if at all.

Fest’s Hitler, the first major biography since Alan Bullock’s in 1952, and the first ever by a German author, became the bestselling book in Germany upon its publication; the next year it was translated into 17 languages. A prominent German journalist, broadcaster, and anti-Nazi, Fest was one of a troika of Establishment editors who re-wrote, or co-wrote, German armaments minister Albert Speer’s famous memoir, Inside the Third Reich (Germ. 1969; Eng. trans. 1970). (Speer was imprisoned at Spandau from 1946 to 1966.) The book, a worldwide bestseller, made a fortune for Speer and earned widespread praise for its disavowal of Hitler. According to David Irving, Speer had a secret agreement with his German publisher, Ullstein Verlag, to pay 25% of all royalties and proceeds to the State of Israel.

About Fest’s Hitler Irving wrote, “Stylistically, Fest’s German was good; but the old legends were trotted out afresh, polished to an impressive gleam of authority.”

As noted above, Fest fought on the conservative side of Germany’s Historian’s Dispute in the 1980s, denying the “singularity” of the Holocaust (which, however, he believed in). His Wikipedia entry provides lengthy quotations that strike a contemporary reader as heretical.

Finally, a friend kindly gave me his copy of Timothy W. Ryback’s Hitler’s Private Library: The Books That Shaped His Life (2008), which is both interesting and informative.


Recommendations of a dissident: William Pierce’s National Vanguard Books Catalog (December 1988)

I’ve often used this valuable reference over the years. It is essentially an elaborate college syllabus. Subdivisions include “European Prehistory, Archaeology, & Folkways,” “European Legend, Myth, and Religion,” “History of Western Civilization,” “Western Art,” and so on. Its 125 carefully-selected titles provide in-depth knowledge and a comprehensive overview of the white race and Western civilization.

With the exception of Mein Kampf, only three Hitler biographies are included in Pierce’s catalog, none of them standard ones. Two are: Heinz A. Heinz, Germany’s Hitler (London: 1934), and Hans Baur (Hitler’s personal pilot), Hitler at My Side (1986).

The third, Otto Wagener’s Hitler–Memoirs of a Confidant (1985), was written in 1946 when Wagener was a British prisoner. It was not published until many years after his death by the late Yale historian Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. Pierce described the book as “By far the most informative and positive memoir by a confidant of Hitler since August Kubizek’s The Young Hitler I Knew” ([German 1953, English 1955], another memoir NV had previously sold).

A notable feature of Wagener’s memoir is that, according to historian Gordon Craig’s New York Times review, it strongly emphasizes Hitler’s pro-British views and depicts the Führer as “an ‘unwitting prisoner’ of Göring, Goebbels and Himmler, powerless to prevent his true intentions from being distorted by evil associates for their own criminal purposes”—claims by an eyewitness that parallel David Irving’s controversial views.


Mein Kampf (My Struggle) and Zweites Buch (Second Book)

Though not biographies, strictly speaking, I own 1950s-era drugstore paperback copies of Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941–1944 (1953) and Felix Gilbert, ed. and trans., Hitler Directs His War (1950).

According to David Irving, the transcripts published as Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941–1944 are genuine. (Though Irving doesn’t say it, the book he discusses, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941–1944, is the same as mine, but with a different title—I warned you it’s complicated!)

I recommend clicking on the preceding link to get a feel for how important it is to understand the provenance and reliability—the evidentiary basis—of even “mainstream” books and texts you might otherwise assume are problem-free. To his credit, Irving is keenly aware of the difficulties posed by mainstream books and official documents housed in archives. They cannot simply be accepted at face value.

I should nevertheless quote the following from Irving’s web page:

The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

Along with Sir Nevile Henderson’s gripping 1940 book Failure of a Mission: Berlin, 1937-1939, this was one of the first books that I read, as a twelve year old: Table Talk makes for excellent bedtime reading, as each “meal” occupies only two or three pages of print. My original copy, purloined from my twin brother Nicholas, was seized along with the rest of my research library in May 2002.

He adds: “Ignore the 1945 ‘transcripts’ published by Hugh Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler’s Last Testament [The Testament of Adolf Hitler—Ed.]—they are fake.” That book purports to be Martin Bormann’s notes on Hitler’s final bunker conversations.

Mein Kampf was originally published in German in two volumes, the first in 1925 and the second in 1927. English translations combine both volumes into one.

I read Mein Kampf thoroughly in 1988, as my well-marked copy indicates. (The fact that it was ’88 is coincidental!) However, the book did not have an impact on me intellectually or emotionally. I wasn’t a national socialist then (much less a National Socialist) and am not one now. Nor do I view Hitler as a quasi-sacred figure.

Part of the reason for the book’s lack of effect may be due to the particular translation I purchased. In the original German the book was a runaway bestseller and the source of much of Hitler’s private fortune. Even acknowledging the political factors involved, one cannot dismiss the possibility that it reads better in German than in its English translations. The quality of a translation determines how well a book “travels” from one language to another. Both fidelity to the original (accuracy) and transmission of the spirit or feel are necessary. I have experienced translations that capture the originals marvelously, and others where even classic works appear dead on the page.

I bought my copy of Mein Kampf without prior research and ended up purchasing the 1939 Hurst and Blackett translation by James Murphy.

Murphy, a former Irish Catholic priest, was hired by the German government to make the official English translation, but the project was scuttled after a dispute. Murphy continued the translation nevertheless, and it appeared independently in Britain in 1939.

I later learned that many English-speaking National Socialists prefer Ralph Manheim’s 1943 Houghton Mifflin translation (which I have not read). It is possible that Manheim better catches the spirit of Hitler’s original, because he was also the translator of Konrad Heiden’s Der Fuehrer which so enthralled me as a boy.

In his catalog, William Pierce categorized Mein Kampf as “semi-autobiographical,” calling it “a beacon and a guide to every healthy soul in this dark age, to everyone who seeks understanding and light.” He described the differences between the English translations this way:

Manheim translation: Accurate, but marred by anti-Hitler introductions and derogatory footnotes.

Murphy translation: No hostile comments, but the translation is not as faithful to the original text.

After Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote what has become known as the Zweites Buch (Second Book) (1928), an extension and elaboration of his foreign policy aims. It also sets forth his views of the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, and the United States. The book was written to clarify his foreign policy objectives for the German public after the 1928 elections. However, his publisher advised him that, from a sales point of view, the time was not propitious for bringing it out. By 1930 Hitler had decided that it revealed too much about his intentions, so it was never published.

In 1935 it was locked away at his order in a safe inside an air raid shelter. There it remained until the fall of Germany in 1945, when it was discovered by the American invaders. Its authenticity was reportedly vouched for by Josef Berg and Telford Taylor.

In 1958 the manuscript of the Zweites Buch, having again fallen into obscurity, was rediscovered in American archives by Jewish historian Gerhard Weinberg. Weinberg, whose family left Germany for the United States in 1938, is the author of numerous anti-German academic books and articles and a vigorous Holocaust promoter. He is Shapiro Senior Scholar in Residence at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Weinberg strongly supported the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII, which resulted in an enormous number of white deaths.

Unable to find a US publisher for the book, Weinberg turned to a fellow Jew in Germany, Hans Rothfels; a German edition of the Second Book was issued in 1961. (A pirated copy translated into English appeared in New York the following year.) An authoritative English edition did not appear until 40 years later: Gerhard L. Weinberg, ed., Hitler’s Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (New York: Enigma Books, 2003).

Because I had never heard of this book until 2003, I thought the whole story a bit strange. It is unclear how many scholars apart from Weinberg have examined the original manuscript, or what methods of authentication were used. However, David Irving sold the 2003 edition at one of his lectures, and has indicated at least implicitly on several occasions (some quoted here) that he accepts the book as genuine.


David Irving

David Irving’s Hitler’s War is interesting on several levels.

An independent, non-academic historian, Irving has been victimized to an unimaginable degree over many decades by the Jewish power structure, including a global panoply of government agencies, apparatchiks, courts, police, and academic and media shills eternally at its beck and call. His suffering is mind-numbing proof of the bizarre, Orwellian world we live in. Blacklisted and bankrupted, his personal prosperity and former high reputation are in ruins.

His book, as usual, is long: 985 pages (2002 ed.), and again there is the thorny problem of multiple volumes and editions of a single biography floating around. Hitler’s War was first published in 1977, and its prequel, The War Path, in 1978. In 1991 a revised 1-volume edition incorporating both books was issued as Hitler’s War. In 2002, a revised “Millennium Edition” was published under the title Hitler’s War and the War Path, incorporating the latest documents from American, British, and former Soviet archives. This is the one I own.

In an introductory Note Irving states that in the Millennium Edition he has not revised his earlier views, but merely refined the narrative and reinforced the documentary basis of his former assertions.

Famed for working almost exclusively from official archival documents, diaries, private letters, and other original source material, his method has the downside of somewhat impeding smooth narrative flow. However, this is compensated for by the rich source material. Almost incredibly, Irving admits:

I have dipped into Mein Kampf but never read it: it was written only partly by Hitler, and that is the problem. More important are Hitlers Zweites Buch, (1928) which he wrote in his own hand; and Hitler’s Table Talk, daily memoranda which first Heinrich Heim (Martin Bormann’s adjutant, whom I interviewed) and then Henry Picker wrote down at his table side, and the similar table talks recorded by Werner Koeppen (which I was the first to exploit, in Hitler’s War).

In his introduction, notes, and on his website, Irving reveals the care necessary in dealing with even supposedly reliable documentary materials, never mind historians’ work (which he typically ignores). German memoirs, for example, have been extensively tampered with by publishers, Allied authorities, and others. When using them Irving attempts to work from the original typescripts rather than published texts. Even documents contained in government archives have been altered, removed, or otherwise manipulated. His many discussions about such issues are highly instructive.

Irving is not a “Holocaust denier” as Jews claim, though he does not believe in every jot and tittle of their religious narrative as everyone else does.

One of Irving’s most controversial claims is that “antisemitism” in Germany was “a powerful vote catching force,” “an evil steed” that Hitler had no compunction in riding to the chancellorship in 1933. But once in power, “he dismounted and paid only lip service to that part of his Party’s creed.” The “evil gangsters” under him, however—Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels—continued to ride it even when Hitler dictated differently.

Although Irving maintains that a Jewish Holocaust of sorts did occur (unfortunately, he is exceedingly vague, evasive, and even contradictory about its details, and denies any interest in it), he says that Hitler’s evil henchmen dreamed it up and carried it out entirely without Hitler’s knowledge or approval. Thus, while Irving is a Hitlerphile, he is extremely harsh toward “bad guys” like Himmler (in particular), Heydrich, and Goebbels. The reader may perhaps see how Irving’s central thesis is hard to… accept.

Irving has published a critical biography of Goebbels and is currently working on one about Himmler. Himmler’s elderly daughter Gudrun has publicly expressed her fear that Irving will perform a hatchet job on her father in an attempt to salvage his (Irving’s) reputation.

In fairness to Irving, Jewish historian Felix Gilbert, editor of Hitler Directs His War (above), wrote that “during the war, Hitler cut himself off from all his former associates and interests and closed himself in at his headquarters with his military advisers. The center of Hitler’s activities became then the daily conferences on the military situation.” This suggests possible great autonomy on the part of Himmler and others, at least after the inception of the war. Irving, however, tends to emphasize disloyalty, deceit, and manipulation by Himmler and others rather than Hitler’s isolation or distraction. Still, as previously noted, Otto Wagener’s Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant also presents a picture of Hitler’s relationship to his top lieutenants even in the early days of the regime that is similar to Irving’s.

The most important thing to note is that Hitler’s War is not a biography per se, but a military history of WWII from Hitler’s perspective. My primary interest, however, apart from biography, is the racial, political, philosophical, and social aspects of Hitler’s Germany rather than the conduct of the war.


John Toland’s Hitler

La Crosse, Wisconsin-born John W. Toland is another independent scholar who wrote a major biography of Hitler: Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. Something of an intellectual renegade in his later years, he managed to stay beneath the radar screen of controversy. His books remain popular and highly regarded. His best-known book, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936–1945 (1970), won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction. Based upon extensive original interviews with high Japanese officials who survived the war, it was the first book in English to tell the history of the war in the Pacific from the Japanese rather than the American point of view. (Toland married a Japanese woman.)

Toland’s mildly controversial Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (1982) offered a quasi-revisionist view of the Roosevelt Administration’s scapegoating of the Pearl Harbor commanders and subsequent cover-up. The Pearl Harbor book led to Toland’s association with the Holocaust revisionist Institute for Historical Review (IHR), at whose meeting he spoke.

After Jewish terrorists firebombed the Institute on the Fourth of July, 1984, destroying its warehouse and inventory of books (American authorities “never found”—or punished—the perpetrators), Toland wrote to the IHR:

When I learned of the torching of the office-warehouse of the Institute for Historical Review I was shocked. And when I heard no condemnation of this act of terrorism on television and read no protests in the editorial pages of our leading newspapers or from the halls of academia, I was dismayed and incensed. Where are those defenders of democracy who over the years have so vigorously protested the burning of books by Hitler? Are they only summer soldiers of democracy, selective in their outrage? I call on all true believers in democracy to join me in public denunciation of the recent burning of books in Torrance, California.

Toland’s Adolf Hitler was based upon a great deal of original research, including previously unpublished documents, diaries, notes, photographs, and interviews with Hitler’s colleagues and associates. I have had difficulty identifying a good copy of the biography for sale on Amazon due to the headache of multiple editions and reprints I mentioned earlier.

As near as I can determine, the initial publication was Adolf Hitler, 2 vols. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1976). However, sellers often list it for sale on Amazon while really having only one volume (which one is usually undeterminable) in stock. On the other hand, one seller informed me that he checked his 1976 edition in the warehouse, and it appeared to be a complete book in one volume. My impression is that the reprint (I assume it is unrevised), Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (Doubleday, 1992), is the same book in a single volume.

Toland’s biography was well-received by both reviewers and the public. In his autobiography Toland wrote that he earned little money from his Pulitzer Prize-winning The Rising Sun, but was set for life thanks to the earnings from Adolf Hitler.

Patrick Buchanan penned a column about the book in 1977, after which he was widely condemned for “praising Hitler.” Daniel Weiss of the Virginia Quarterly Review wrote that “In some respects the Hitler who emerges is almost too human, too normal.”

Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review and a longtime WWII revisionist who reads German, writes:

I’m sometimes asked which biography of Hitler I think is best, or which I recommend. In my view, the best single biography of Hitler, and the one I most often recommend, is the one by John Toland, Adolf Hitler. It’s especially good in helping the reader to understand Hitler’s personality and outlook. Kershaw’s biography is detailed, but it’s also very slanted and leaves out a lot.

It would be a mistake to assume that Weber’s recommendation is the result of Toland’s brief connection with the IHR. Adolf Hitler was written several years before that relationship developed. Moreover, in 1977, when David Irving offered a thousand pound reward to anyone who could produce a single wartime document showing that Hitler knew anything about the Holocaust, Toland published an emotional appeal in Der Spiegel urging his fellow historians to refute Irving.

It is unlikely that Toland’s book is “pro-Hitler.” Certainly, reviewers have not attacked it as such.


Conclusion

I guess I’ll go with Toland’s biography, evidently the most objective, despite owning several others instead. Although I’ve only scratched the surface, it is apparent that enormous effort is required to merely survey the field before diving in to actually get a handle on The Most Evil Man Who Ever Lived.

And what is the likely outcome of such an effort? Well, David Irving, who has spent the better part of a lifetime studying the Führer, concluded:

What is the result of twenty years’ toiling in the archives? Hitler will remain an enigma, however hard we burrow. Even his intimates realised that they hardly knew him. General Alfred Jodl, his closest strategic adviser, wrote in his Nuremberg cell on March 10, 1946: “I ask myself, did you ever really know this man at whose side you led such a thorny and ascetic existence? To this very day I do not know what he thought or knew or really wanted.”

_____________________

Fifteen comments about this article can be read at Counter-Currents Publishing.

“America would be destroyed along with the Jews”

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.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 296 other followers